Monitoring and Evaluation on Effective Delivery of Social Studies for Improved Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring and evaluation is very crucial in attaining targeted goals, especially in social studies. Social studies teacher mode of service delivery rub-off on the level of academic performance of students. It is very imperative that monitoring and evaluation mechanism be put in place to check how social studies lecturers in institutions of higher learning execute their lecture. In primary and secondary levels of education, the Ministry of education, from time to time send inspectors to schools to supervise the teaching and learning processes going on in schools. School heads are also mandated to supervise teaching and learning processes in their schools, this mechanism goes a long way to checkmate teachers’ excesses but this is lacking in institutions of higher learning, and appears to be responsible for the lackadaisical attitude to work by some lecturers. Such attitudes include absent from lecture, late coming to lecture among others. This paper therefore looked at the importance of monitoring and evaluation of teaching processes of social studies in higher institutions of learning, uses of monitoring and evaluation, among others and conclude that internal monitoring and evaluation team be established in higher institutions, to ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation of teaching and learning of social studies in institutions of higher learning for effective implementation of social studies contents among others.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".