MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392132834 · doi:10.5430/jct.v13n1p298

Didactic Use of the Publisher Processor to Enhance Meaningful Learning in Peruvian Secondary School Students

2024· article· en· W4392132834 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sara Esther Liza Ordoñez, Silvia Georgina Aguinaga Doig, Osmer Campos-Ugaz, Ronald M. Hernández, Yen Marvin Bravo Larrea, Silvia Josefina Aguinaga Vásquez, Carlos Luy-Montejo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus pandemic has changed the course of education from face-to-face to remote. In response to this context, we investigated the positive effect of the didactic use of the Publisher processor to enhance meaningful learning in the competence "explain the physical world based on scientific knowledge about matter and energy, biodiversity, earth and universe" of the science and technology area in fifth grade students of secondary education of a Public Educational Institution of Chiclayo (Peru). For this purpose, a pre-experimental design with pre- and post-test was used with a sample of 102 students selected in a non-probabilistic way. A program based on activities incorporated in learning experiences proposed by the Ministry of Education (Peru) was applied. As a result, 72% of the students increased their academic performance after the application of the program, improving up to five (5) points compared to the initial test. Thus, the development of didactic material using the Publisher processor strengthens learning, which highlights the importance of information technologies in the achievement of active learning and the need to use them in the processes of mediation, reinforcement and teacher feedback in virtual and/or face-to-face scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducational Innovations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207