MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534856007 · doi:10.51724/ijpce.v4i1.92

Impact of Audio-Visual Aids on Senior High School Students’ Achievement in Physics

2012· article· en· W1534856007 on OpenAlexaff
Richmond Quarcoo-Nelson, Isaac Buabeng, De-Graft Kwadwo Osafo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudio visualMathematics educationPsychologyPhysicsComputer scienceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was aimed at finding out the impact audio-visual-aided instruction on students’ achievement in physics at Cape Coast township of Cape Coast Metropolis, Ghana. The study was a non-randomized pre-test/post-test group design. A total of 65 students in Senior High School (SHS) formed the sample for the study. The students were fourth year science students from two purposefully selected co-educational SHS. The two selected schools were randomly designated experimental and control groups respectively. A validated physics achievement test instrument of a reliability coefficient of 0.76 was administered. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and t-test statistics were used to test the two hypotheses formulated to guide the study at a significance level 0.05. The results showed that SHS students taught with audio-visual aided instruction performed better than those taught with traditional method. The mean achievement scores of both male and female students improved significantly by the use of the audio-visual aided instruction. It was therefore recommended that SHS physics teachers should explore the use of audio-visual-aided instruction to teach the subject, physics.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Physics & Chemistry EducationSame topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207