The Importance of Various Indicators of Active Learning on the Enhancement of Saudi Students’ Motivation and English Achievement: An Experimental Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study sought to examine the impact of four indicators of active learning (i.e., elaborated feedback, group work, situated learning, and videos and pictures in classroom instruction) on the enhancement of Saudi students’ various motivational constructs (i.e., self-efficacy, task value, and effort expenditure) and English achievement. Participants were 289 university students, and the data were collected at three time points: Time 1 (before the intervention), Time 2 (in the middle of the intervention), and Time 3 (after the intervention). The findings of repeated measures ANOVA and follow-up t-tests revealed that the intervention had small impacts on all the variables at Time 2 (in the middle of the intervention). However, at Time 3 (after the intervention), the intervention had small impacts on effort expenditure and task value, a moderate impact on academic achievement, and a large impact on self-efficacy. In general, the evidence obtained provides important implications for educational practices and further research development.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it