The Effect of Students' Reluctance of Studying History on Their Level of Historical Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the effect of the students' reluctance in studying history on their level of historical culture. To achieve the goal, two instruments were prepared. The first one was about the reasons of students' reluctance and consisted of (24) items. The second instrument was an achievement test to detect the students' level of historical culture consisted of (36) questions. The validity and reliability of the instruments were checked. The first instrument was applied on a sample of (94) second secondary students who did not study history. The second instrument was applied on a sample of (195) students who studied and did not study history. The results showed that: the students' reluctance mostly was because the history teachers did not give the students the opportunity to dialogue and participate; the teachers' questions focus on memorizing and remembering; the history subject is theoretical where there is no practical application; the lack of relation among the history subjects; and the terms in history have nothing to do with the students' real life situations. The results showed also that the students' level in their historical culture who studied history was (83.1) which was higher than what is accepted educationally. While the students' level in their historical culture for those who did not study history was (49, 61). As it is appeared, there is an inverse relationship between the students' reluctance in studying history and their level in historical culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".