Christian Education and the Examination of Apologetics Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this action research project was to evaluate the ability of Christian high school students to explain and defend their faith. The main focus of the project was to compare the current apologetics curriculum used by Cedar Park Christian School to a new curriculum designed for the sake of this study. The new curriculum sought to provide grade-level resources as source material for each student. Additionally, it approached the course with the expectation for students to articulate their learned knowledge conversationally. There were forty-nine total participants, all who were either a junior or senior at the start of the 2021 fall quarter. There were twenty-two students in the control group and twenty-seven in the test group with the new curriculum. Every student was given the same theological assessment on both the first day and the final day of the quarter so that growth could be measured. Students also ranked their level of confidence in discussing their faith at both the beginning and end of the quarter. The assessments were then coded and graded anonymously according to a pre-determined grading scale. This researcher did not know whether it was a control or test group assessment being graded. Once the assessments were graded and sorted, results yielded significant differences in the scores between the groups. Those who had received training from the new curriculum were much more successful in explaining and defending the Christian faith. They also recorded higher confidence levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".