Uso de la evaluación formativa como metodología creativa. Estudio de la motivación y rendimiento académico que generan en el alumnado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[SPA] En consonancia con numerosos profesionales de la educación, el uso único y exclusivo de metodologías tradicionales y/o directivas puede mermar la calidad del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje y menoscabar el devenir intrínseco del aprendizaje, obteniéndose un bajo rendimiento académico del alumnado. El objetivo del presente estudio fue determinar si una metodología activa basada en un sistema de evaluación formativa a través de dinámicas de grupo influye en la mejora del rendimiento académico, así como en la motivación en alumnos de 4º de Primaria. Los participantes fueron 44 alumnos en total; 23 niños (57,5%) y 21 niñas (52,5%) de la Región de Murcia. La valoración del efecto de la metodología mencionada se llevó a cabo utilizando un diseño quasi-experimental, dos grupos (Experimental y Control). Los resultados demostraron una tendencia al alza de las medias de rendimiento académico en el Grupo Experimental. A la luz de los resultados, podemos indicar que este programa pone de manifiesto los efectos positivos de la intervención para la mejora de la motivación y rendimiento académico. [ENG] According to several authors, the exclusive use of traditional and directive methodologies may reduce the quality of the teaching-learning process and hándicap the intrinsic learning process, resulting in pupils’ low academic performance. The objective of this study was to determine if an active methodology based on a system of educational evaluation through group dynamics has a positive influence on academic performance and creativity in pupils of Primary 4. The sample were 44 pupils in total: 23 boys (57.5%) and 21 girls from the Region of Murcia. The evaluation of the effect of the above mentioned methodology was undertaken using a quasi-experimental design, two groups (Experimental and Control). Additionally, the results showed an upward tendency in the average achievement in the Experimental Group. In light of these results, we can conclude that this programme reveals the positive effects of the intervention in improving, motivation and academic performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".