Effect of Instructional Designs on Learners’ Interest in Environmental Education Content of Junior Secondary School Basic Science and Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research investigates the impact of instructional designs on learners’ interest in environmental education content of junior secondary school (JSS) basic science and technology in Calabar Education zone of Cross River State. The research adopted a quasi-experimental approach. Specifically, the 2 x 2 factorial design was utilized. The sample included 143 respondents chosen from 5,971 students. The study utilizes a multi-stage sampling techniques involving simple random and purposive sampling approaches. Data collection tool was the "Environmental Education Contents Interest Inventory (EECII)." The instrument's internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha, which produced a reliability coefficient of 0.84. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was utilized to test the null hypotheses at the 0.05 level of significance, while mean and standard deviation were employed to evaluate the data in order to answer the research objectives. The findings revealed that instructional designs, effectively enhanced learners’ interest in environmental education (EE) contents the subject area. Also, learners’ interest in EE contents was significantly influenced by their gender. Among other things, it was suggested that in order to increase learners’ interest in EE contents, basic science and technology teachers be urged to use the ADDIE and Isman instructional designs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".