MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408747050 · doi:10.5430/wje.v15n1p78

Investigation of the Relationship between the Scientific Process Skills, Self-Regulation Skills, and Academic Achievement, of Secondary School Students in Science

2025· article· en· W4408747050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeynep Yüce

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationAcademic achievementPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an ever-changing world, it is impossible for individuals to acquire all existing knowledge, just as it is challenging to predict which knowledge will be necessary for the future. The critical factor here is to concretize or make raw knowledge useful. Therefore, it has become imperative to develop students’ abilities to analyze and utilize knowledge that will benefit them in the future. This study looked at the association between achievement in sciences courses and the scientific process skills and self-regulation skills of secondary school students. The survey model was used in the study conducted for this purpose. The study earch was conducted with 6th, 7th and 8th grade students studying in the 2021-2022 academic year. The sample of the study consists of 428 female and 321 male students. According to the findings obtained because of the analysis; It was determined that students’ scientific process skills, self-regulation skills and science academic achievement showed a statistically significant difference according to their gender, their liking for science course and the school they attended. In addition, according to the correlation test results, moderate or weak positive correlation relationships were detected between scientific process skills, science academic achievement and self-regulation skills. At the same time, according to the findings, it was seen that all the variables were statistically significant in predicting each other. In other words, it can be said that there is a mutual causality between these variables. Because each variable plays a role in explaining the other variable.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207