Middle School Student Voices on the Function and Utility of a “Learning How to Learn” Course in a Rural Middle School: A Mixed-Methods Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the voices of high- and low-achieving middle school students around how a student-led assessment (SLA), “learning how to learn” intervention fosters achievement goal orientations and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (SRL). Participating students included 99 seventh- and eighth-grade students from a rural middle school enrolled in the SLA intervention. This intervention involves teaching students how to become independent learners. Self-report measures were administered and focus groups occurred during the fourth quarter of the academic year. Data analysis revealed no significant differences between high- and low-achieving students regarding their goal orientations, as well as self-efficacy for SRL. During the focus groups, students provided information about the function of the learning how to learn course and voiced the utility of the intervention for improving their study skills. It was also found that, in contrast to high-achieving students, low-achieving students expressed the need for increased support in setting and achieving their learning goals. Findings have implications regarding future refinement and guidelines for implementation of “learning how to learn” SLA courses in middle 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 it