MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021106457 · doi:10.5430/wje.v10n2p163

The Development of an Internal Supervision Model Using the Professional Learning Community for Educational Supervisor of Graduate Diploma in Teaching Profession Program

2020· article· en· W3021106457 on OpenAlex
Pairote Boriboon, Chalard Chantarasombut, Pha Agsonsua

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorProfessional developmentMedical educationPsychologyProcess (computing)Index (typography)Educational programMedicineComputer scienceManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this research were to: 1) study the current and desirable situations of supervision for graduate diploma in teaching profession program, 2 develop the internal supervision model using professional learning community for educational supervisor of graduate diploma in teaching profession program, and 3) evaluate the efficiency of the developed model.The samples were 49 educational supervisors and committees of graduate diploma in teaching profession program. The instrument was handbook of internal supervision model developed by using the professional learning community. Statistics used were percentage, mean, standard deviation, modified priority needs index, efficiency index, and t-test for dependent samples. The finding srevealed that: 1) The current situation of internal supervision of graduate diploma in teaching profession program was in “High” level. In addition, the desirable situation was found in the“Highest” level. When considering each aspect, it was found that the aspect with highest emergency need for development was the planning with the PNImodified of 0.40. The second one was the implementing with the PNImodified of 0.36. 2) The developed model was evaluated in the “Highest” level in terms of the propriety, feasibility, and utility.It was integrated in 6 steps including: (1) Preparing, (2) Planning, (3) Implementing, (4) Reflecting, Improvement, and Evaluation, (5) Reinforcing, and (6) Concluding and Reporting. 3) The results of the trials were: (3.1) The efficiency of process and product (E1 / E2) were84.67/ 83.00 which was higher than the specified criterion 80/80. (3.2) The posttest score was significantly higher than the pretest one at level of p-value <0.01. (3.3) The satisfaction on the developed model was in the “Highest” level. When considering each aspect, it was found that planning had the highest mean score, while implementing was found in the second order, and reflecting, improvement, and evaluation had the lowest mean scores.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.269 · 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