The Design of an Instructional Model Based on Connectivism and Constructivism to Create Innovation in Real World Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the research were to (1) design an instructional model based on Connectivism and Constructivism to create innovation in real world experience, (2) assess the model designed–the designed instructional model. The research involved 2 stages: (1) the instructional model design and (2) the instructional model rating. The sample consisted of 7 experts, and the Purposive Sampling Technique was used. The research instruments were the instructional model and the instructional model evaluation form. The statistics used in the research were means and standard division. The research results were (1) the Instructional Model based on Connectivism and Constructivism to Create innovation in Real World Experience consisted of 3 components. These were Connectivism, Constructivism and Innovation in Real World Experience and (2) the instructional model rating was at a high level (=4.37, S.D.=0.41). The research results revealed that the Instructional Model Based on Connectivism and Constructivism to Create Innovation in Real World Experience was a model that can be used in learning, in that it promoted the creation of real world experience innovation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".