MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221066657 · doi:10.5539/jel.v11n3p27

Stop Motion Animation for Preschoolers by Master Teachers

2022· article· en· W4221066657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jira Jitsupa, Ravee Siriprichayakorn, Chontida Yakaew, Nualsri Songsom, Prachyanun Nilsook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council of ThailandSuan Dusit University
KeywordsPsychologyAnimationVisual arts educationEarly childhoodQuality (philosophy)Mathematics educationEarly childhood educationPedagogyVisual artsDevelopmental psychologyThe artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was conducted with the following aims: to enable master teachers to develop electronic tales for preschoolers using Stop Motion techniques according to the Early Childhood Imagineering Model (ECIM) process; to evaluate the quality of these electronic tales; to evaluate master teachers’ ability to develop these tales; to evaluate the effect of master teachers’ transfer of the development of electronic tales to early childhood education (ECE) student teachers; and to evaluate master teachers’ satisfaction with their development of these electronic tales. The sample comprised 24 ECE instructors in higher education, who were selected as the master teachers, and 480 ECE student teachers. The findings revealed that the master teachers were able to develop 24 electronic tales for preschoolers using the Stop Motion technique according to the Early Childhood Imagineering Model (ECIM) process. They also indicated that the quality of the electronic tales, master teachers’ ability to develop these tales and transfer their development to student teachers, and master teachers’ level of satisfaction with the development of these electronic tales, were all at a high 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207