Developing the Mathematics Learning Management Model for Improving Creative Thinking In Thailand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The study purposes were : 1) To study current states and problems of relevant secondary students in developing mathematics learning management model for improving creative thinking, 2) To evaluate the effectiveness of model about : a) efficiency of learning process, b) comparisons of pretest and posttest on creative thinking and achievement of students, and c) comparison of creative thinking and achievement between experimental group and control group. The model was created and implemented with grade eight students of secondary schools, in Thailand, and compared with control group, provided in traditional approach.</p> <p>The research results were :</p> <ul><li>Most of relevant teachers didn’t concentrate in mathematics learning for improving creative thinking, and lacked of using strategies to engage divergent thinking. The model was designed through methodology of R&amp;D, which composed of : 1) principles and theoretical concepts, 2) learning objectives, 3) learning process, 4) social system, 5) principles of response, 6) the support system. Whereas, the activities in learning process consisted of 1) engagement and understanding prior knowledge, 2) encounter problem with thoughtful thinking, 3) analyzing alternative and investigating solutions, 4) modifying of thinking pattern, 5) concluding and evaluating for creative thinking. </li></ul> The findings indicated that effectiveness of model based on achievement score was 76.25%, and based on creative thinking was 61.67%. The average posttest in learning achievement and creative thinking abilities of the experimental group were higher than pretest, and experimental group showed higher of creative thinking than control group at the .01 level of significance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it