MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409214180 · doi:10.70382/sjestp.v7i8.033

ADOPTION AND CHALLENGES OF INNOVATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL DELIVERY METHODS IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN YENAGOA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF BAYELSA STATE

2025· article· en· W4409214180 on OpenAlexaff
MABEL BOKOLO, Rita Seimogha Mathew-Odou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Studies Trends and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)BusinessLocal government areaLocal governmentGovernment (linguistics)Medical educationMedicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined the adoption and challenges of innovative instructional delivery methods in primary schools in Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, Nigeria. A descriptive survey research design was employed, utilizing primary data sources to achieve the study’s objectives. The population consisted of all primary school teachers in Yenagoa LGA, with a sample of 399 teachers selected through a multistage sampling technique. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire (ITIDAAQ) developed by the researcher and validated by experts. The research questions were analyzed using Mean and Standard Deviation. Findings revealed that while the adoption of innovative instructional delivery methods in Yenagoa LGA is moderate, teachers face considerable challenges, including insufficient training, limited access to technology, inadequate resources, and a lack of administrative support. It was recommended that school administrators and policymakers prioritize teacher training, provision of digital resources, and policy support to enhance the effective implementation of innovative instructional methods, ultimately improving learning outcomes in primary schools.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Studies Trends and PracticeSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207