Application of Multiple Intelligence Theory to Increase Student Motivation in Learning History
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 aimed at investigating the enhancement of motivation among low achievement students in the History lesson, after the multiple intelligence theory was integrated in teachers’ teaching practices. The teachers were expected to apply a new approach with various teaching activities to motivate students to learn. The sample consisted of 68 low achievement students, who were then divided into two groups: 34 students were treated in the treatment group, while another 34 students were put in the control group. This is a quasi-experiment of non equivalent control group design. The questionnaire was distributed to students of both groups, to test the effectiveness of the integration approach. Analysis of the mean and standard deviation was conducted for both groups, while the null hypothesis was tested by the t- test. Based on the pre-test, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The post-test recorded significant motivational differences between the two groups studied. It was determined that the integrated History lesson with multiple intelligences had increased the level of motivation among students in the treatment group. This shows that diversity of methods and activities undertaken were able to change students’ perception about the History subject and had increased their interests to learn History. Hence, it can be concluded that integrated multiple intelligence activities are able to increase students' motivation to learn History.
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 | 0.000 | 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