Development of Participative Management System in Learning Environment Management for Small Sized Primary Schools
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The research aimed to: 1) study the factors of a participative management system in learning environment management, 2) study the current situation, desirable outcomes, and further needs for developing a participative management system in learning management, 3) develop a working participative management system, and 4) assess the system’s viability by studying the findings from usage of the system in the context of a small sized primary school. Research and Development process was implemented by analyzing the documents, theoretical approaches and related research literature. Then, the chosen factors used in the system were investigated by seven experts. The current situation, desirable outcomes, and further needs for developing a participative management system in learning environment management for small sized primary schools were studied by using a questionnaire that asked participants for their opinions, measuring using a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed by calculating the Mean, Standard Deviation, and (PNImodified). The development of the system was implemented by conducting field trip studies in schools recommended for their effective learning management system and use of best practices. The system was outlined, and the handbook was provided to implement the system. In addition, the propriety of both the proposed system and its handbook was investigated by nine experts. The results show that 21 sub-factors were considered in the development of the participative management system in learning environment management for small sized primary schools. These included six input factors, six process factors, seven product factors, and two feedback factors, each of which were assessed at the highest level of propriety by the panel of experts. The overall current situation was judged to be at a “Moderate” level of propriety, and the sense of desirable outcomes was assessed at the highest level of propriety. The needs for further development were ranked in order from high to low as follows: feedback factor, input factor, product factor, and process factor respectively. The system evaluative finding by experts found that in the overall propriety was assessed at the highest level. The standards of feasibility, propriety, utility, and system design were all rated at the highest level. In addition, the handbook for system implementation was also found to be at the highest level of propriety.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle