Sentence examples for the coherence rate from inspiring English sources

We subsequently focused on analyzing the coherence rate between the CK and PCK elements.

Teacher M11's RGT cluster demonstrated high coherence (>80%) between PCK ('connected to teaching mathematics') and general pedagogy and high coherence (>90%) between CK ('connected to mathematics') and teacher's personality ('connected to teacher's personality'), but the coherence rate between the PCK and CK constructs was low (67%, 8 in Figure 1).

In our study, the response rate was 71.3%, and the coherence rate of resurvey was above 80%.

The rate of similarity (in percentages) between the different elements appears at the top of the diagram, in the coherence-rate scale (left of 2, 6, and 9 in Figure 1).

The total coherence rate of all questions was 85.1%.

The spatial coherence rates of each region are 0.98, 0.96 and the temporal consistency rates are both 0.78.

The spatial coherence rates of each region are 0.94, 0.98, and 0.98, and the temporal consistency rates are 0.80, 0.90, and 0.80 respectively.

Among the 12 clusters that mentioned CK, 8 showed a low coherence rate (less than 80%) between CK and the other constructs.

Since we were looking for connections between CK and PCK, it is important to note that the two PCK elements: 'being able to exemplify' and 'being able to explain in various ways' (3 in Figure 1) constituted a 100% coherence rate (in addition to the 100% coherence rate between those elements and the general pedagogy element: demanding responsibility for learning).

The second group (B in Figure 1), with an 88% coherence rate (2 in Figure 1), also included five elements as follows: 'students' misconceptions'designinging assignments that may construct meaningful learning', and 'connecting different mathematical topics' (PCK category, 4 in Figure 1); 'likes mathematics' (Teacher's personality category) and 'knowledge in mathematics' (CK category, 5 in Figure 1).

The other trials were evenly divided (29% each) between 'baseline' trials, in which motion remained random (0% coherence) throughout the trial, and trials in which motion coherence rose quickly (2%/s coherence rate) at trial onset.