Assessment of Public Schools’ Out-of-School Time Academic Support Programs with Participant-Oriented Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the participants-oriented approach, this study evaluated public schools’ out-of-school time academic support programs, corresponding to the corrective/enrichment stage of Bloom’s Mastery Learning Model and offered outside formal education’s weekday hours and on weekends. Study participants included 50 principals, 110 teachers, 170 students attending programs, 110 students not attending programs, and 61 parents, all selected through random sampling in a survey-model study in Istanbul, Turkey. Partial findings were the following. According to principals and teachers, programs were sufficiently introduced to target groups. Satisfaction of attending students with the teaching—learning process was sufficient, and students believed program participation increased their success in regular classes. However, program functioning presented some problems. Administrators and teachers think the no-cost programs resulted in lack of interest among students. In addition, problems of materials and transportation have not been completely solved. Similarly, offered classes and lessons’ content organization fall short of expectations. In conclusion, out-of-school time academic support programs play important roles in reducing differences among learning levels based on individual characteristics in collective or formal learning. Still, student needs should be fulfilled, and programs should be maintained. Further studies should be conducted on these programs’ integration into formal education.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".