Perceptions of teachers regarding the perceived implementation of creative pedagogy in “making” activities
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
“Making” has its origin in the maker movement, emphasizes novel, innovative creations by adopting applicable technologies, and fosters students’ creativity or encourages them to engage in creative thinking in school-based making activities, in which teachers act as a facilitator for the implementation of creative pedagogy. This study constructed a hypothesized model based on the theory of planned behavior and incorporated pedagogical beliefs, personal innovativeness, peer influence, and facilitating conditions to predict teachers’ perceptions regarding the perceived implementation of creative pedagogy in making activities. Questionnaires were obtained from 68 Chinese teachers with maker instruction experience and were tested against the proposed model by partial least squares structural equation modeling. The findings reveal that teachers’ attitudes and subjective norms had positive impacts on their intentions to implement creative pedagogy. Pedagogical beliefs and personal innovativeness showed a significant impact on their attitudes, while peer influence exerted a significant influence on subjective norms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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