Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38078210›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Research on student engagement in distance learning in sustainability science to design an online intelligent assessment system.

Kailun Fang, Li Li, Yifei Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kailun FangGuangzhou Urban Planning and Design Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, China.
Li LiShanghai Baiaoheng New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China.
Yifei WuSchool of Architectural Engineering, Shenzhen Polytechnic University, Shenzhen, China.
Guangzhou Urban Planning Survey & Design Institute · CNShenzhen Polytechnic University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distance learning programs in sustainability science provide a structured curriculum that covers various aspects of sustainability. Despite the growing recognition of distance learning in higher education, existing literature has primarily focused on specific and detailed factors, without a comprehensive summary of the global themes, especially neglecting in-depth exploration of poor engagement factors. This study bridged this gap by not only examining detailed factors but also synthesizing the overarching themes that influenced student engagement. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that impact student engagement in distance learning within higher education institutions across different countries. By developing a theoretical framework, three key aspects of student engagement in higher education were identified. A total of 42 students and 2 educators affiliated with universities participated in semi-structured interviews. The findings of this paper indicated that sociocultural, infrastructure, and digital equity factors were the main influencing factors of student engagement. Furthermore, a student engagement assessment system was developed using machine learning algorithms to identify students with low levels of engagement and conduct further analysis that considers the three aforementioned factors. The proposed automated approach holds the potential to enhance and revolutionize digital learning methodologies.

Indexed as

distance learningengagement assessment systemhigher educationmachine learning algorithmsstudent engagement

Identifiers

PMID38078210
PMCPMC10704017
OpenAlexW4388946710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.