Effect of Diagnostic Testing on Students’ Achievement in Secondary School Quantitative Economics
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 study aimed at investigating the effect of diagnostic testing on students’ academic achievement in secondary school quantitative economics. In conducting the study, 3 research questions and 3 stated hypotheses were answered. The study is quasi-experimental employing 2x4 factorial pretest-posttest design. The sample consisted of 210 Senior Secondary 3 (SS3) economics students in the four co-educational schools purposely selected from Nnewi Education Zone of Anambra State in Nigeria. They were allocated to 3 experimental groups and 1 control group. Students’ responses to two instruments titled Diagnostic Quantitative Economics Skill Test (DQEST) and Test of Achievement in Quantitative Economics (TAQE) constituted relevant data for the study. Instruments for data analysis were t-test and ANCOVA. Results of the analysis indicate a significant effect of treatment on students’ achievement in favor of DQEST with feedback and remediation group only (F (3, 209) = 22.3114, p > 0.05). Gender made no significant difference on students’ achievement in TAQE. Thus, diagnostic tests are effective when used with feedback and remediation. The use of DQEST with feedback and remediation in teaching and learning of quantitative economics is therefore recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it