Print and Non-Print Modular Distance Learning Modality and Students' Work Performance
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
This study aimed to determine the extent of implementation of print and non-print modular distance learning modality and its correlation on the work performance of Grade VII students at Bagong Silangan High School during the first quarter of school year 2021-2022. The descriptive research method was employed in the study. The three groups of respondents were the 45 Grade 7 teachers, 255 students using printed modules, 264 students using non-print modules, 255 parents or guardian of students using printed modules and 264 parent or guardian of students using non-print modules. The statistical tools used in the study were weighted mean, one-way ANOVA, Mann Whitney U test, Pearson’s r, t-test, and Tukey Pairwise comparison.It was found out that the teachers perceived the implementation of print modular distance learning modality to a Very High Extent , while the parents and student respondents perceived its implementation to a High Extent. For the implementation of non-print modular distance learning modality, students and parents perceived the implementation to a High Extent, while the teachers perceived its implementation to a Very High Extent.In addition, the work performance of Grade VII students using print modular distance learning modality during the first quarter of school year 2021-2022 was Satisfactory, and Fairly Satisfactory for non-print.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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