MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804332075 · doi:10.5539/ells.v8n2p39

The Effect of Blended Learning on Private School Students’ Achievement in English and Their Attitudes Towards It

2018· article· en· W2804332075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeinab Fakhir, Majid Abdulatif Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningMathematics educationAnalysis of covarianceTest (biology)Sample (material)Control (management)Significant differenceAchievement testPsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceEducational technologyStatisticsStandardized test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at exploring the effect of using blended learning on the achievement of the sixth-grade students in English. The students are of two private primary schools in Amman/Jordan: Alrai School and Alsabelah School. It also scrutinizes their attitudes towards such a type of learning. The study attempts to answer the following questions: (i) What is the effect of using blended learning on the achievement of sixth-grade students in English? (ii) What is the effect fulfilled by blended learning on their attitudes towards such a type of a learning strategy? To reach the goals of the study, the researchers apply quasi-experimental method in which an achievement test is constructed and a questionnaire is prepared in order to measure both students’ ability concerning blended learning and their attitudes towards it as well. The study sample consists of 50 female students. It is distributed into two groups (each has 25 female students).The first group is the experimental group taught by using blended learning. The second one is the control group taught by the traditional method. Data is analyzed via adopting (SPSS) and the covariance analysis where (ANCOVA) is applied. The results show that there are statistically significant differences at the level of (a<0.05) between the means of the results of the two groups on the achievement test, and the difference is in favor of the experimental group.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207