Effectiveness of an Open Educational Resources Module on Work, Energy, and Power in Enhancing Physics Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of an Open Educational Resources (OER) Module on Work, Energy, and Power in enhancing physics teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). A mixed-methods approach involving pre- and post-tests, lesson plans, and reflections was used. A total of 36 teachers from 32 schools participated. Data were analysed using Cohen’s d, paired-samples t-test, means, and standard deviations. The findings indicated that the OER module significantly improved teachers’ PCK. In the Learner category, the module was effective in helping teachers recognise students’ prior misconceptions but had limited impact on identifying students’ specific difficulties. In the Content category, the module helped teachers explain teaching goals, although it had a smaller effect on deepening their understanding of the nature of science and connecting ideas across grades. For Teaching and Learning, the module enhanced teachers’ ability to select instructional strategies that supported students in diverse ways, but had less effect on improving teachers’ assessment strategies. Analysis of lesson plans and reflections showed that the module helped teachers build on students’ prior knowledge, fostering higher-order thinking, and implement active learning strategies. However, it was less effective in addressing misconceptions and promoting inclusion and equity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".