MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400493077 · doi:10.5539/hes.v6n2p162

The Impact of a Teaching-Learning Program Based on a Brain-Based Learning on the Achievement of the Female Students of 9th Grade in Chemistry

2016· article· en· W2400493077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kawthar Shabatat, Mohammed Fayez Al-Tarawneh

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyAchievement testAcademic achievementTeaching methodSample (material)Test (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)Student achievementChemistryStandardized test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at recognizing the impact of teaching-learning program based on a brain-based learning on the achievement of female students of 9th grade in chemistry, to accomplish the goal of this study the researchers designed instruments of: instructional plans, pre achievement and past achievement exams to use them for the study-validity and reliability of these instruments were tested and found appropriate for the study purpose. The instruments were applied on a sample of 64 female students in the 9th grade at the EIN ALBEDAH secondary school in TAFILAH. The researchers applied T-test for independent sample means, standard deviations and ANOVA. The results indicated statitistically significant differences at the level (α≤0.05) in contemporary and instructional achievement or the experimental group. The researchers recommended applying the approaches of instructional methods which are based on brain-based learning in chemistry and science.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207