Comparative Effects of Power Point and Video Instructional Packages on CRS Students’ Academic Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated the comparative effects of power-point and video instructional packages on Christians Religious Studies (CRS) students’ academic achievement in Edo State, Nigeria. One research question and one null hypothesis were used. Quasi-experimental design of pre-test, post-test non-equivalent control group design was employed. The population consisted of 1,363 SS2 students offering CRS in Uhunmwode Local Government Area of Edo State, Nigeria and the sample size was 126 SS2 students drawn from three intact classes of three co-educational schools out of the 53 secondary schools in the study area. The instrument Christian Religious Studies Achievement Test (CRSAT) was used for data collection. Data collected were analyzed using mean to answer the research question and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to test the hypothesis. The results revealed that students taught CRS using power-point instructional package (PIP) significantly achieved better than their counterparts taught using either video instructional package (VIP) or conventional instructional medium (CIM). This implies that PIP is an effective and an alternative medium to enhance students’ academic achievement in CRS. Therefore, recommendation was made that the stakeholders in education especially in Edo State should organize training workshops to improve CRS teachers’ skills in the use of PIP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".