MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095257877

Strategic Intervention Material-Based Instruction, Learning Approach and Students‘ Performance in Chemistry

2015· article· en· W7095257877 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Test (biology)Achievement testChemistry educationQuarter (Canadian coin)Academic achievementCooperative learningSubject (documents)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study explored the learning approach adopted and attempted to investigate the effect of Strategic Intervention Material-Based Instruction (SIM-BI) on the performance of students in high school Chemistry. It utilized the pretest-posttest pre-experimental design. The SIM-BI used as a treatment of the study covered one of the least mastered skills in the subject area which is chemical bonding. Two classes of 80 students enrolled in Chemistry during the fourth quarter of the school year 2012-2013 were used as respondents. They were classified according to their learning approaches which were on their mean scores in the Chemistry Learning Approach Inventory (CLAI). The score in the Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) administered as pretest and posttest measured students ‘ performance in Chemistry. Dependent t-test was employed to determine the significant difference between the mean responses in the pretest and posttest. Results of the study showed that the use of SIM-BI is effective in terms of improving students‘ performance and learning approach. The surface learners performed equally well as the deep learners when SIM-BI was used. The positive result of the survey suggested that the SIM was appreciated and appealed to both types of learners.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207