Development of Ceramics Creative Process with Community-based Learning and Constructionism for Undergraduate Students
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
The purposes of this research were 1) to develop a ceramics creative process with community-based learning (CBL) and constructionism for undergraduate students; 2) to evaluate students’ ceramic work with CBL and constructionism, and 3) to examine the community’s and students’ satisfactions towards CBL and constructionism. The research sample was selected by purposive sampling method to obtain 40 undergraduate students of Uttaradit Rajabhat University who enrolled in the Course: Local Ceramics, semester 1/2016, and 6 community instructors. Data analysis was presented by mean and standard deviation. The findings suggested that the ceramics creative process with CBL and constructionism for undergraduate students involved 5 steps, namely: 1) community survey/selection and exploring community data; 2) preparation; 3) hands-on practice to create ceramic works; 4) presentation of ceramic works; and 5) evaluation. The experimental result of the ceramics creative process with CBL and constructionism being constructed by the author revealed that the students’ knowledge and understanding of ceramics creative process displayed overall mean at a very high level ( = 3.70, S.D. = 0.26; = 3.72, S.D. = 0.16, respectively). The satisfaction towards CBL and constructionism were at a highest level in overall for the community and a high level in overall for students (= 4.67, S.D. = 0.27; = 3.85, S.D. = 0.34, 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| 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 it