Comparing Practice Between Working Standard and Personal Working Standard of Teachers Who Are Certified by Attending Professional Teacher Knowledge Standard Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research are to compare the practice between working standard and personal working standard of teachers who are certified by attending professional teacher knowledge standard workshop held by the teachers’ council who are different in gender, age, ways of knowledge certified and teaching according to/not according to educational certificate background. The samples are 246 research participants certified by attending professional teacher knowledge standard workshop of the teacher’s council: Developmental division of the Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University. Sampling operated by using Multi-Stage Random Sampling. Teachers’ data collection are self-evaluation and with school directors also as informers. Research instrument are piloted quality inspected questionnaire indicated by Item Total Correlation and Reliability of Cronbach. Data are analyzed by using X, s.d., t-test: independent samples, One way ANOVA, and multiple comparison of Scheffe. The research found that: 1) Overall, the female teachers who have been certified by attending professional teacher knowledge standard workshop of the teacher’s council follow teaching standard in the academic activities facets on professional teacher’s development and self-practice standard and ethic is higher than male teachers with statistically significant at the .05 level. 2) Teachers who with age differences follow the standard of being a good role model for the students. They work cooperatively with others in the community creatively. Personal practice standard about ethic to society is different with statistically significant at the .05 level. 3) Teachers who have been certified by attending professional teacher knowledge standard workshop of the teacher’s council foster on teacher professional development and immensely develop the students to their full potential more than transferring method with statistically significant at the .05 level. 4) Teachers who teach according to educational certificate background practice according to the standard professional teacher on designing learning activities with the students in mind. They thrive so as to make every opportunity to be for learning. They also have higher ethic than teachers who are not teaching according to their educational certificate background with statistically significant at the .05 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".