MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997954115 · doi:10.5539/ies.v13n1p69

The Propose of an Instructional Model Based on STEM Education Approach for Enhancing the Information and Communication Technology Skills for Elementary Students in Thailand

2019· article· en· W2997954115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sukruetai Changpetch, Thapanee Seechaliao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for STEM EducationCarnegie Mellon University
KeywordsInterviewMathematics educationProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Presentation (obstetrics)PsychologyInformation and Communications TechnologyComputer scienceInstructional designMedical educationSociologyWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to propose an instructional model based on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education approach for enhancing the information and communication technology skills for elementary students in Thailand. The study was conducted by research and development design and divided into two phases: Phase I is to create a tentative model that was synthesized using the relevant documents and researches concerning the elements and steps of the model. The data was collected through interviewing eight teachers who are experts in STEM education and twenty-four students who were instructed by STEM approach. Phase II consists of proposing a tentative model to eleven experts, evaluating the model, and acquiring an approval of the model by five professionals. The findings of the research are as follows: 1) This model consists of five main elements—principles, purpose, content, teaching and learning process and measurement and evaluation of ICT skills. There are six steps from the engineering design process consisting of problem identification, related information search, solution design, planning and development, testing evaluation, and design improvement and presentation. 2) The eleven experts evaluated the tentative model as appropriate at a high level. The five professionals approved this model as appropriate at a high level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207