Effect of Formative and Ability Test Results on Early Learning of Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the relationship of formative tests to early learning ability of students in the science learning style. This research used an experimental method with a 2 x 2 factorial design. The participants comprised all the students in class VII of the Islamic Junior High School State of Kolaka, a total of 343 students from 9 classes. Sampling was based on the use of a two-stage cluster sampling technique to randomly select four classes of students. The four classes were re-randomized, with two being given formative tests and two being given multiple choice tests. The t-test was used to measure the student learning outcomes. The results showed: (1) the use of formative tests in narrative form in the learning process can provide a measure of higher learning output compared with the use of formative multiple choice tests. (2) For those students who have a high initial ability, the use of formative tests can provide higher learning outcomes compared with the use of multiple choice tests. (3) For those students who have a lower initial ability, the use of formative tests in narrative form does not provide a different outcome to tests in multiple choice formats.
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 | 0.012 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".