MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897701763 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n5p97

The Development of Service Learning Management Model of Undergraduate Program in Private University

2018· article· en· W2897701763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taneenart Na Soontorn

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicityBachelorComputer scienceMathematics educationProcess (computing)CurriculumPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of research are to develop, identify the main components of “Service Learning Management (SLM)”model, and to assess, evaluate the performance achievement of SLM implementation for undergraduate program inprivate university. The process of research is divided into two parts as: 1). developing the questionnaire samples thatwill be distributed to 377 lecturers in private university as the respondents for finding the appropriateness of maincomponents in SLM model by applying the Multi-Stage Sampling; and 2) testing and evaluating the SLM model’seffectiveness that will be executed to 11 students in Bachelor of Arts (Major: English for International Communication)of Saint John's University, who registered ENG. 3202 (Introduction to Speech Communication) as a subject insemester 2/2016. The research findings are described the SLM model that consists of 4 major variables and 9sub-variables as: 1) ‘Input’ has the 3 sub-variables (Integrated curriculum and instruction; learning outcomesdetermining; and resource management); 2) ‘Process’ includes 6 sub-variables that can be classified in to 5 steps(Investigation: lets the community set the requirement; Preparation: is the cooperation of three sides - university,student and community; Execution: is having positive relationship with community; Reflection: continuouslyevaluating; and Demonstration: is public relations and publicity; 3) ‘Output’ is the outcomes of learners and results ofthe evaluation; and 4) ‘Feedback’ is applying and integrating the outcomes of student’s accomplishment andevaluation. The results of demonstration and evaluation of SLM reflection to student performance achievementrevealed that 80 percent of students had higher GPA (Grade Point Average), and the learning outcome of studentsaccording to Thailand Qualifications Framework (TQF) is considered as high. The results of leadership competency,disciplinary and voluntariness of self-assessment test are counted as high in all aspects. Reflection record candevelopment critical thinking Finally, the overall satisfaction grading by university is considered as high in all aspects,and also the community responses have more advantage benefits and positive impacts in all aspects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207