MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028340781 · doi:10.5430/wje.v4n5p40

An Investigation into Physics Teaching in Senior High Schools

2014· article· en· W2028340781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac Buabeng, Theophilus Aquinas Ossei-Anto, Joseph Ghartey Ampiah

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusMathematics educationTeaching methodPhysics educationScience educationSpace (punctuation)Data collectionConceptual changePsychologyPedagogyPhysicsComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to examine the activities that go on in physics classrooms in Senior High Schools in Ghana.Specifically, the study sought to investigate the pattern of interaction and instructional methods used for teachingphysics and level of coverage of physics syllabus. The survey design was employed for the study in whichquestionnaire was used for data collection. Participants for the study were physics teachers and final year physicsstudents. Findings from the study suggest that classroom interaction seemed to be mostly teacher-centered andtended not to support inquiry-based teaching and learning which is noted for promoting conceptual change andenhance performance. It is recommended among other things that physics teachers should be exposed to efficientpedagogies of teaching and presenting information to learners. The traditional way of teaching where teacher decideson what goes on in the classroom has a limited space in the 21st century science classrooms, particularly 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207