Pupils Attitude and Performance In English
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
Pupil’s attitude towards learning English is evident in everyday teaching –learning process that may affect its academic performance specifically in English. This study sought to determine the level of pupil’s attitude in terms of affective, behavioral and cognitive dimensions, the level of pupil’s performance in English and the significant relationship between the pupil’s attitude and performance in English among the three (3) schools of Talisayan District, Division of Misamis Oriental during the Second Quarter of the School Year 2023-2024. There was a total of one hundred thirteen (113) Grade 4 and 5 pupils’ respondents through total enumeration sampling method. This study utilized a researcher-made survey questionnaire. Descriptive statistics such as Mean, Standard Deviation, and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) were used. Results showed that the Cognitive Attitudes received the highest average rating, while affective attitudes got the lowest. There was no substantial correlation between pupils' attitudes about the English language and their performance in language. As a result, pupils should focus on studying difficult English subjects.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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