The Relative Effectiveness of Various Instructional Approaches in Developing Anticipation Skill.
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
The relative effectiveness of explicit instruction, guided discovery, and discovery learning techniques in enhancing anticipation skill in young, intermediate-level tennis players was examined. Performance was assessed pre- and postintervention, during acquisition, and under transfer conditions designed to elicit anxiety through the use of laboratory and on-court measures. The 3 intervention groups improved from pre- to posttest compared with a control group (n = 8), highlighting the benefits of perceptual-cognitive training. Participants in the explicit (n = 8) and guided discovery (n = 10) groups improved their performance during acquisition at a faster rate than did the discovery learning (n = 7) group. However, the explicit group showed a significant decrement in performance when tested under anxiety provoking conditions compared with the guided discovery and discovery learning groups. Although training facilitated anticipation skill, irrespective of the type of instruction used in this experiment, guided discovery methods are recommended for expediency in learning and resilience under pressure.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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