The Development of Research-Based Learning Management in the Curriculum Design and Development Course for Teacher Students
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
The purposes of the current study are to develop research-based learning management in the Curriculum Design and Development course for student teachers and to study the effectiveness of the research-based learning management in the Curriculum Design and Development course for student teachers. The instruments were a structured interview form, a learning management quality assessment, learning management, a learning achievement test, and a questionnaire. The data were analyzed by mean score, standard deviation, t-test, and content analysis. The results of the study indicate that there were 6 components including ground theories, objectives, instruction processes, social system, principles in responses and supportive system, and learning management in the research-based learning management. In detail, there were 5 stages in learning management including ideas and information analysis, planning and creative design, action-taking, presentation and reflection, and evaluation and improvement. The result of the study shows that there was a significant difference between the students’ learning achievement before and after learning with the developed learning management. The students’ attitudes toward learning management were found at a high level in every aspect.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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