MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899901112 · doi:10.5539/jel.v7n6p212

The Effectiveness of Designing and Using a Practical Interactive Lesson based on ADDIE Model to Enhance Students’ Learning Performances in University of Tabuk

2018· article· en· W2899901112 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sameer M. AlNajdi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tabuk
KeywordsADDIE ModelInstructional designMathematics educationEducational technologyComputer scienceBlended learningProcess (computing)PsychologyMultimediaPedagogyCurriculum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional teaching is one of the most common types of education, but with the explosive technologies, Traditional teaching could not be effective. Therefore, adopting and utilizing computer and communication technology in education became most important to make the learning more active, but before utilizing technology in education, instructors need to ensure of suiting the technology with the students’ abilities and characteristics based on Instructional design models, With the tremendous development of technology and the enhancement of student performance. In this paper, an interactive lesson designed based on ADDIE Model. Students divided into two groups; a control group and experimental group each group had 36 students to evaluate the effectiveness of using the interactive lesson and its role in enhancing students’ Learning Performance. The lesson had several stages; starting from having a useful design based on ADDIE Model, then provided a demo to the students to understand the knowledge. After that, the lesson presented in an interactive way, assistance’s hints provided to students during their learning process and reviewing the initial demo was available for the whole lesson. The effectiveness of this design has been measured, and results in both groups in this study compared, the experimental group showed statistically significant on students’ performances with a mean score of 5.45 versus 4.24 for the control 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207