The Development of a Model for Creative Writing Instruction for Mattayomsuksa Three Students (Grade 9)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aimed to construct an instructional model for creative writing for Mattayomsueksa Three students (Grade 9), to develop the model according to a criterion of 80/80, and to examine the results of the model in use. The research methodology consisted of three phases: phase one studied the current states, problems and needs for teaching and learning Thai language; phase two constructed a model for creative-writing instruction; phase three explored the results of the model in use. The 83 samples were Mattayomsueksa Three students of Suranarai School, Mabkradvidaya School, Don Numsai School and Ban Koksawai School under the jurisdiction of the Office of Nakorn Ratchasima Primary Education Service Area 5 in the second semester of the academic year 2014. The subjects were derived by a multicluster random sampling. The research findings were as follows: 1. The instructional model for creative writing was composed of six components: principles and basic concepts and theories, objectives, teaching steps, social system, principles of response, and support system. Teaching consisted of five steps: P1 (Planning), 2) P2 (Perception), 3) P3 (Performing), 4) P4 (Processing), 5) P5 (Production). Quality was at the highest level (X = 4.94). 2. The model for creative-writing instruction for Mattayomsueksa Three students as developed by the researcher had an efficiency equivalent to 81.17/80.26, which was higher than the set criterion of 80/80. 3. The results of the use of the model were as follows: 3.1 Mattayomsueksa Three students who learned via the creative-writing model had a higher ability at a statistical significance of .05. 3.2 The students of Suranarai School, Mabkradvidaya School, Don Namsai School and Koksawai had a satisfaction with the model in the study at 4.78, 4.70, 4.72, and 4.69 respectively.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".