The Effect of Integrated Instructional Activities of Environmental Education by Using Community - Based Learning and Active Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to study and compare environmental knowledge, environmental ethics and environmental volunteers before and after integrated instructional activities of environmental education by using community - based learning and active learning, to compare environmental knowledge, environmental ethics and environmental volunteers of students with different gender and Grade Point Average (GPA). The sample used in the study were 89 the first year undergraduate students in Environmental Education program, Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahasarakham University, which was derived by purposive sampling in environmental studies course. The research tools were the integrated instructional activities of environmental education by using community - based learning and active learning, environmental knowledge test, environmental ethics test and environmental volunteers test. The statistics used for data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation and hypothesis testing using t-test, F-test (One–Way MANOVA, One–Way MANCOVA and Univariate Test). The results of the research showed that: 1) The students had average score of the environment knowledge, environmental ethics and environmental volunteers in the posttest higher than pretest statistical significance (p < .05). 2) There was no significant difference between average score of the environmental knowledge, environmental ethics and environmental volunteers of undergraduate students with different gender (p > .05). 3) There was statistically significant difference between average score of the environmental knowledge, environmental ethics and environmental volunteers of undergraduate students with different Grade Point Average (GPA) (p < .05).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".