MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3114432985 · doi:10.5430/wje.v10n6p35

The Management Model for Effectiveness of Primary Schools Administrators Administrators

2020· article· en· W3114432985 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kuljira Raksanakorn, Supattarasak Khumsamart

Notice bibliographique

RevueWorld Journal of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSchool Leadership and Teacher Performance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyFocus groupMedical educationReliability (semiconductor)ValidityConceptual frameworkMedicineSociologyPsychometrics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The present research aimed to investigate current and desirable states of the effective management of primary schools and to develop the model of effective management of primary schools. The present research consisted of 6 phases. In Phase 1, rationale, and related theories and a review of literature were studied to formulate the conceptual framework and knowledge of elements of effective management of primary schools; in Phase 2, the pilot study on those components was conducted, and the concept on the predetermined components was revised. In Phase 3, a focus group discussion on the components of effective management was held, and the concept was further developed. Phase 4 involved investigating the current and the desirable states as well as the needs for effective management of primary schools; simultaneously, statistical results were taken into account to improve management. In Phase 5, the model of effective management was created. The final phase involved public hearing for evaluation, confirmation, and approval of the model. The samples of this study were 370 of school administrators and teachers. The target group for the pilot study was primary school administrators from three schools awarded with the Best Practice, while that for a focus group discussion included 10 qualified experts. In addition, the target group for public hearing was 39 stakeholders, namely 1 administrator and 10 teachers from each school. The research instruments were a content validity evaluation form, a questionnaire and an evaluation, confirmation and approval form. Assessment of content validity showed that the reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.98 with the 0.60 – 1.00 IOC range. Statistics used for data analysis included frequency, percentage, means, standard deviation and priority needs index using PNImodified. The research Results were as follows: Overall, the current state of management of primary schools was at a moderate level. When each element was considered individually, it was found that organizational cultures and strategic management had the highest level of opinions, whereas information technology had the lowest level. As regards the desirable state, effective management of primary schools was overall at the highest level. In this aspect, leadership had the highest level of opinions, while strategic management came second; school effectivenesshad the lowest level. What’s more, sorted by priority levels, the aspect with the highest priority was information technology, followed by a learning organization, leadership, strategic management, effectiveness of schools and organizational cultures. In relation to appropriateness of the model of effective management of primary schools, the results indicated that the elements had overall 96.07 percent approval and 3.93 percent disapproval. Among all elements, leadership had the highest percentage points, followed by organizational cultures, and a learning organization had the lowest percentage points. Moreover, all elementsin this aspect had more than 87.20 percent. As regards utility, the elements had overall 96.87 percent approval with 3.13 percent disapproval; strategic management had the highest percentage points, followed by school effectiveness, and information technology with the lowest percentage points. All elementsin this aspect had above 87.20 percent. As for feasibility, the results showed that the elements had overall 97.33 percent approval and 2.67 percent disapproval. Of all elements, strategic management had the highest percentage points, followed by organizational cultures, whereas information technology had the lowest percentage points. All items in this aspect had above 87.20 percent.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,362
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,255

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWorld Journal of EducationMême sujetSchool Leadership and Teacher PerformanceTravaux en français237 207