General Preference and Senior Secondary Schools Literature-in-English Achievement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which general preference of students would predict their achievement in literature in English in selected senior secondary schools in Ibadan. Five research questions were asked while descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. Simple random sample technique was used to select 500 students offering Literature in English in ten senior secondary schools in Ibadan Metropolis. Two research instruments were used in the study namely general preference questionnaire r = .70 and Literature in English Achievement test r = .81. The data collected were analyzed using frequency count, simple percentages, and regression analysis. The result shows that: the student preferred prose to any other genre (X = 2.57); the preference for prose has significant contribution to the achievement of the students in Literature in English. (b = 0.463; + = 8.472; p < 0.05) and prose literature is the only genre capable of predicting students’ achievement in Literature. Based on the findings, recommendations were made that students’ interests should be developed in other genres not preferred through good instructional strategies for optimal performance. Key words : General preference; Predictor; Achievement; Prose; Poetry; Drama
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it