Critiques on Thai Educational Research Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This critique aimed to; 1) synthesize a body of knowledge of educational research methodology, 2) analyze and compare educational research methodology in Thai and international research articles, and 3) critique problems, strengths and weaknesses and put forward suggestions for standardizing Thai educational research methodology. Data were obtained from eight international textbooks, 95 articles and four Thai educational research methodology experts. Results revealed that the principles and international standards of educational research methodology included eight methodological categories which covered 34 characteristics. Findings from a comparison of Thai and international research articles indicated that Thai and international research articles were similar in 15 characteristics and different in five characteristics. Thai research articles had six problems relating to educational research methodology: information searching and English skills, educational research instruction, lack of experts in educational research methodology, research finding distribution, educational researcher development, and research article format.
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 | 0.312 | 0.438 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".