A pilot study of Resilience Programme through Group Dynamics on Academic Problems among the Matthayom Suksa 1 Students of Chiang Mai University Demonstration School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a Resilience Programme through Group Dynamics on Academic Problems among Matthayom Suksa 1 Students at Chiang Mai University Demonstration School. For this, four junior high school students were selected as respondents. The effect of the resilience program was evaluated through a general questionnaire, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measures (COPM), and Resilience Inventory. Further, the resilience program was developed by using cognitive behavioral therapy combined with acceptance and commitment therapy, group dynamics, and resilience according to the concept of Grotberg. The total period of the program was 11 weeks, with 1 session per week lasting for 60 minutes. Results of the study revealed that all the selected respondents had higher academic performance and most of them (75%) had higher academic satisfaction and resilience score. After participating in this program, the samples had a higher average resilience score (114.5) as compared to those before participating in the program (107.5). The results of this study can be concluded that the newly developed resilience program can improve the resilience component in almost all the students. Hence, it can be practiced in junior high school students to manage their academic problems. This program can also be a prototype for developing future resilience programs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".