Enhancing University Students’ Achievement in Physics using Computer-Assisted Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-first century classrooms have come with a lot of changes in instructional delivery at various levels of education. However, most lecturers in Nigerian universities still adopt the traditional method of instruction not minding the demands of the twenty-first century classrooms. As a result of this, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the impact of computer-assisted instruction on the students’ achievement in physics. This study, therefore, sought the efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on students’ achievement in physics. A randomized controlled trial experimental design was adopted for the study using a sample of 120 participants. Physics Achievement Test (PAT) was used to collect data for the study. Analysis of covariance was used to analyze the data. It was found that Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) had a significant effect on students’ achievement in physics at posttest and follow-up assessments. Thus, Physics education lecturers should be trained on how to design and use CAI package for effective twenty-first century classroom instructional delivery in Nigerian university.
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 | 0.000 | 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".