Effect of Student Teams Achievement Division and Think-Pair-Share on Students' Achievement in Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe study investigated the effect of two cooperative learning strategies, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Think-Pair-Share (TPS) on senior secondary school students’ achievement in reading comprehension in Vandeikya Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria. A total of 78 students (43 males and 35 females), drawn from three secondary schools participated in the study. Experimental and control conditions were randomly assigned to the three intact classes: EG1 (STAD), EG2 (TPS) and CG (Control Group). The instrument used was Reading Comprehension Achievement Test (r=0.784). Data were analyzed using Mean, Standard Deviation and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). The results show higher achievement gains for students in the EG1 and EG2 over those of the CG, but not across gender. The findings support the existing evidence on the efficacy of cooperative learning over the traditional teaching method. English language teachers will therefore find the two techniques useful in teaching reading comprehension. Keywords: cooperative learning, Student Teams-Achievement Divisions, Think-Pair-Share, academic achievement, reading comprehension
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 | 0.004 | 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".