Learning and Motivation in Thailand: A Comparative Regional Study on Basic Education Ninth Graders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research studied regional motivation and learning of the basic education 9th graders in Thailand. Second topic was the school size and its possible effect on motivation. Furthermore, the data gave an opportunity to discuss, whether international research on motivation and learning was valid in Thai classrooms. The informants were randomly selected from northern, north eastern, central, and southern regions of the country. Altogether 12 schools, ranging from smaller than 500 students to larger with more than 1 500 students, participated. Three teachers and their students from each school assessed their learning and motivation into a questionnaire after lessons. Researchers selected randomly two male and female students to represent each class. Research questions were: What is the motivation and learning of the students in the four main regions of the Thailand? Does the school size affect the motivation and learning? If it does, what is the impact? Research findings revealed that the most motivated Thai students study in south. The internal motivation wasn’t low anywhere, however, but it could easily drop to a situation-based interest or even less. Second, the motivation was higher in classes, in which teachers analyzed students’ motivation and learning in the same way as students did. Third, the more the students liked the teacher, the better their motivation was. Regarding school size effects, the trend favored smaller units. To foster the future development, this study urges to study motivation in all teachers training. Second, teachers’ personal motivation needs surveys in a broad context.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".