Effect of Student’s Team Achievement Division (STAD) on Academic Achievement of Students
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
Due to the increasing diverse nature of the world’s education system, it is important that learning strategies are beneficial in educating a wide variety of students. For the retention and comprehension of the subject matter taught in the classrooms, teachers must engage students and provide them with the proper social skills needed to succeed beyond the classroom environment. The focus of the present study investigated the effect of a form of cooperative learning instruction that is students’ team achievement division (STAD) with that of traditional lectures method. The population of the study was all the students studying chemistry at higher secondary level in Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (Pakistan). 30 students of chemistry grade 12 in government higher secondary school Jamrud were selected as a convenient sample of the study. The students were divided into two groups one was called control group and the other was experimental group based on stratified random sampling techniques. The true experimental design of the posttest only control group design was applied in this study. The control group was taught with the traditional lecture method while the experimental group with the cooperative learning instruction STAD. Students academic achievements were find out by teacher made test composed of multiple choice questions, short questions and long questions. The credit of the test was of 50 marks, the posttest consist of multiple choice questions of 16 marks, short questions of 24 marks and one long question of two subsections having 10 marks. Student ttest of non-dependent sample was used to analyze the data. The result showed that the students’ achievements of both the groups were not significant. The implications were discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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