The Effect of Using the Constructivist Learning Model in Teaching Science on the Achievement and Scientific Thinking of 8th Grade 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
<p class="apa">The study aims to investigate the effect of using constructivist learning model in teaching science, especially in the subject of light: its nature, mirrors, lens, and properties, on the achievement of eighth-grade students and their scientific thinking.</p><p class="apa">The study sample consisted of (136) male and female 8<sup>th</sup> graders were chosen from two basic schools in Tafila in the scholastic year 2015/2016. The four-class sample was divided into two groups (controlled &amp; experimental).</p><p class="apa">For achieving the study aims, the researcher prepared lesson plans using constructivist learning model, achievement test and scientific thinking test, which validity and reliability were checked.</p><p class="apa">To answer the questions of the study, means, SD, ANOVA and ANCOVA were used to determine the differences in means of the groups of the study.</p><p class="apa">The results show that there is statistically significant difference at (α= 0.05) for the effect of the constructivist Learning model on the achievement and scientific thinking in favor of experimental group, and there is no statistically significant difference at (α= 0.05) for the constructivist Learning model on the achievement and scientific thinking attributed to gender, and there is no statistically significant difference at (α= 0.05) for the dual interaction between teaching method and gender on the achievement and scientific thinking.</p><p class="apa">In the light of the study results, the researcher presented a number of recommendations including: extra attention should be given to employ constructivist learning model within science courses, and conducting further studies about the effect of the constructivist Learning model on various learning outcomes.</p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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