MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118909817 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n1p18

Comparative Effects of Multisensory and Metacognitive Instructional Approaches on English Vocabulary Achievement of Underachieving Nigerian Secondary School Students

2012· article· en· W2118909817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Folakemi Oyeyemi Adeniyi, Raheem A. Lawal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyVocabularyMetacognitionCurriculumAnalysis of covarianceAchievement testTest (biology)PedagogyCognitionStandardized testMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to find out the relative effects of three instructional Approaches i.e. Multisensory, Metacognitive, and a combination of Multisensory and Metacognitive Instructional Approaches on the Vocabulary achievement of underachieving Secondary School Students. The study adopted the quasi-experimental design in which a pre-test, post-test, non - randomized, non-equivalent control group design was employed. One hundred and twenty [120 students-60 males and 60 females] were selected from four secondary schools within the Ilorin metropolis through stratified random sampling technique. The four schools were categorized into three experimental groups and one control group according to the design of the study. The instructional programmes for the teachers and the achievement test for the students were prepared by the researcher from the students’ English text books according to the curriculum specifications and the past questions from the JSS NECO past questions .Six major hypotheses were generated for the study. All of them were based on the general effects of the three instructional approaches on the underachieving students’ vocabulary achievement. The results were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance [ANCOVA]. The Duncan Multiple Range Test was used to confirm which pairs of the variables were significantly different. The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the overall achievement of the students taught using the three approaches. In other words, each of the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group. However, the findings indicated that the Multisensory Instructional Approach [MSIA] was the most potent of the three modes. It was recommended that English Language teachers should consider the interest of the underachievers by employing the Multisensory approach to teach them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207