A Designed Teaching Sequence as a Tool to Improve Students’ Conceptual Understanding of the Conductivity in the Electrolytic Cell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a study to determine the efficacy of a teaching sequence following the Leeds model framework designed for a specific content of learning in electrochemistry. The design of the teaching draws upon theoretical insights into perspectives on learning and empirical studies to improve the teaching of this topic, specifically ‘Electrolytic Cell’. A case study involving two classes, the Experimental and Baseline classes was carried out for 16-year-old Malaysian upper secondary school students. Also, eight classes of similar age in eight different schools who served as convenience samples (reference groups) were selected in order to compare the differences on their conceptual understanding in a wider sample. The evaluation of students’ responses in one of the items in the post diagnostic test shows that there were significant differences in the experimental class students’ performances in comparison to the baseline class students and the convenience samples. The experimental class students who followed the designed teaching sequence demonstrated better conceptual scientific understanding regarding the roles of ions and electrons in the conductivity of the electrolytic cell.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".