Video programmes as learning tools : teaching the gas laws and behaviour of gases in Finnish and Canadian senior high schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main object of this experimental study was to test how video programmes used in a Physics minicourse dealing with gases affect learning outcomes. The theoretical framework was based on cognitive psychology, particularly schema theories, science learning studies, and educational technology studies, especially studies concerning television and videos in instruction. The treatment groups were two task groups and four video groups, altogether 8 groups. One of the task groups had written learning tasks prior to viewing a video programme section or teaching and the other had no tasks. Three of the video groups each had a different version of the video programme dealing with gases and the fourth group was a control group using no videos. Sixteen physics groups (total n = 358) from the province of Central Finland, Keski-Suomi, were randomly selected and assigned to the treatment groups. All the physics groups used the same "Student Textbook" and "Student Workbook" specifically developed for the study. Data were collected with a number of quantitative and qualitative methods, of which a combined concept map + essay represented a new type of method. The validity and reliability of the data collection methods were considered to be quite good. Also the internal and external validity of the experimental design were reasonably good. The main results suggested that students using video programmes did not learn more than students not using video programmes when learning about the gas laws, whereas in learning about the kinetic theory of gases, students using a video programme learned more than students not using video programmes. Students using learning tasks prior to viewing a video programme section/ teaching of a sub-topic otten learned significantly more than students not using learning tasks. Senior high school students' knowledge of gases was not particularly good. Students' attitudes towards school and physics were quite positive. Most students had either positive or neutral attitudes towards studying gases. The results imply that with proper planning and pedagogical approaches, video programmes can considerably facilitate physics learning
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".