MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417305731 · doi:10.69651/pijhss0404626

Support instructional materials in Science for Grade 5 learners

2025· article· W4417305731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Basilio

Bibliographic record

VenuePantao, international journal of the humanities and social sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInnovative Education Methods and Tools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)GRASPCluster groupingScience learningQuarter (Canadian coin)Academic achievementScience education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the level of academic performance in Science of Grade 5 learners in Dungan Elementary School, Cluster I, Division of Mabalacat City during the first quarter of School Year 2023–2024. Using a quantitative-descriptive research design, the study analyzed the learners’ first-quarter Science ratings to determine their overall achievement and identify specific areas of weakness. Frequency, percentage, and weighted mean were employed to describe the performance profile, while expert evaluation was used to determine the acceptability of the proposed support instructional materials. Results showed that the first-quarter achievement rate in Science was 81.75%, interpreted as an average level of performance, indicating that most learners have a basic yet adequate grasp of key scientific concepts and skills. However, notable learning gaps were found in understanding properties of materials, changes in materials, and designing useful products from recyclable solid and liquid materials. In response, contextualized support instructional materials were developed for Grade 5 Science and subsequently evaluated by experts in terms of content, quality of presentation, and physical make-up. The materials obtained weighted means ranging from 3.50 to 3.78 across all criteria, with an overall weighted mean of 3.59, qualitatively described as very acceptable. These findings suggest that the proposed instructional materials are pedagogically sound and potentially effective in addressing learners’ difficulties in Science, particularly in content areas requiring higher-order thinking and application. The study recommends the adoption and wider try-out of the materials, sustained administrative support for teachers’ material development initiatives, and the conduct of similar studies in other grade levels and contexts to validate and extend the results. Overall, the study underscores the crucial role of well-designed instructional materials in raising Science achievement and supporting competency-based instruction in the elementary classroom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venuePantao, international journal of the humanities and social sciencesSame topicInnovative Education Methods and ToolsFrench-language works237,207