MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6894058422 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8216244

Grade 9 Students' Least Mastered Reading Skills: Basis for Developing and Evaluating E-Supplementary Learning Materials

2023· article· en· W6894058422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Learning and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentReading (process)Test (biology)Data collectionDescriptive statisticsQuarter (Canadian coin)Statistical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the least mastered reading skills of Grade 9 students which served as basis for developing and evaluating e-supplementary learning materials at Francisco P. Felix Memorial National High School, Cainta, Rizal during the school year 2021– 2022.The study used the descriptive method of research with two data gathering instruments. The first data gathering instrument used in this study was the Summative test for the First to Third Quarter administered during the school year 2019-2020. The test results were used as bases for identifying the least mastered reading skills in English. The other data gathering instrument was the Questionnaire used to evaluate the developed e-supplementary reading learning materials by the 30 students, 30 English teachers, and 30 English expert respondents using the criteria on appropriateness, authenticity, clarity, comprehensibility, usefulness, and technical quality. The statistical tools used to treat the data were the percentage, ranking, weighted mean, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA).The findings revealed that the identified least mastered reading skills of Grade 9 based on their summative test served as basis for the topics included in the developed e-supplementary reading learning materials. The students, teachers, and expert respondents evaluated the e-supplementary reading learning materials as Very Highly Acceptable (VHA) in terms of appropriateness, authenticity, clarity, comprehensibility, usefulness, and technical quality. Likewise, there were no significant differences in the evaluations of the three groups of respondents on the developed e-supplementary reading learning materials.The respondents offered comments and suggestions to further improve the developed e-reading material.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicE-Learning and COVID-19French-language works237,207