Increasing Students Motivation to Learn Slope Analysis Using SLOPE/W Software in Geotechnical Engineering Subject with Visual Aid
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 aims to investigate students' perceptions about the use of visual aids (e.g., video animations, images, films, and projectors) as motivational tools in increasing interest in learning subjects in Geotechnical Engineering. One of the most significant and crucial issues in mining and geotechnical engineering projects is slope stability analysis. This experimental study uses visual aids for the topic of slope stability to investigate whether it has significance for student learning with visual assistance. The quantitative research method approach is used to gather the required data. The instrument used was the Motivation Questionnaire, which comprised of 5 items. The items had a 4-point Likert scale for students to indicate their response on a scale. Therefore, a total of 25 final year students from UTHM Civil Engineering assigned to experimental conditions, with or without assistance, were chosen. According to data analysis, the vast majority of pupils think that using visual aids is a good idea. While it can help students increase their level of knowledge in learning Geotechnical Engineering subjects with interest, using visual aids allows students to interact with their lecturers closely about issue content. This aspect is essential because it helps to produce students' creative and critical thinking skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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