MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387362347 · doi:10.1080/02188791.2023.2261648

Using student ratings and external observations to detect the effects of quality of teaching on student learning outcomes: a longitudinal study in the Maldives

2023· article· en· W4387362347 on OpenAlexaff
Hawwa Shiuna Musthafa, Leōnidas Kyriakidēs

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStudent achievementPsychologyMultilevel modelCurriculumAcademic achievementMathematics educationConstruct (python library)Empirical researchTeacher qualityQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the impact of the teacher factors included in the dynamic model of educational effectiveness on student achievement in English as a second language. It also examines the extent to which student ratings and/or external observations can be used to measure the teacher factors and detect their effects on student achievement gains. The participants were 31 teachers and all their grade 4 students (n = 350) from 8 schools in the urban capital city of Male’ in the Maldives. Achievement of students in English was measured at the beginning and end of school year and quality of teaching was measured through external observations and student questionnaire. Empirical support to the construct validity of student questionnaires and observation instruments was generated. Multilevel regression analysis revealed that through the student questionnaire, the effects of three factors (i.e., orientation, application and dealing with student misbehaviour) on student achievement were identified. However, observation data helped us to detect effects from all eight teacher factors of the dynamic model on student achievement but management of time. Implications for research, policy and practice are drawn.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of EducationSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207