MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413912312 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.10.003

Easy to use and competency development on websites as determining factors of digital learning effectivenes

2025· article· en· W4413912312 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sudi Dul Aji, Benyamin Jemat, Hena Dian Ayu, Muhammad Nur Hudha

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevelopment (topology)Computer scienceBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to identify the factors influencing the effectiveness of digital learning among university students. The main focus of the research is to examine the impact of easy-to-use, competency development on websites, and motivation to learn on learning effectiveness. The study employs a quantitative approach with a survey method, where data was collected through online questionnaires distributed to final-year students at Universitas PGRI Malang. Out of 300 distributed questionnaires, 204 were returned and deemed complete, thus used as the final sample for analysis. The data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques with the help of SmartPLS software to examine the relationships between variables. The results show that ease of use has a significant impact on motivation to learn, but does not have a direct impact on learning effectiveness. Competency development on websites does not have a significant impact on motivation to learn, but it does have a significant impact on learning effectiveness. Additionally, motivation to learn was found to have a significant impact on learning effectiveness and mediates the relationship between ease of use and learning effectiveness, but does not mediate the relationship between competency development on websites and learning effectiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicEducational Innovations and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207