Thai Language Curriculum to Enhance Creativity Thinking Skills for Primary School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creativity in the present society is essential for growth and reform. It is also beneficial for having creative students organize thought, imagine and discover new ideas from an early age. This study aimed to 1) investigate primary information related to learning management results, current situations, and school curriculum development needs, 2) design a Thai language curriculum to enhance creative thinking for primary school students, and 3) study the effects of the curriculum. The study was divided into three phases: primary information research, curriculum design, and implementation. The participants consisted of 30 students in grade 5 during the 2019 academic year. Phase 1 revealed that the majority of schools still had fair fourth-standard results, which related to the ability of analysis, synthesis, critical, creative, and considered thinking. There were approaches to solving the problem that involved analyzing the policy and the practice outcomes. The results of phase 2 revealed that the curriculum’s principles and goals were to assist students in improving their creative thinking in two dimensions: 1) knowledge and intelligence and 2) feeling, mind, and attitude. The results of phase 3 yielded that 1) primary school students had higher scores after learning to enhance creative thinking significantly at .05, 2) creative thinking of students who learned by using the curriculum was higher than creative thinking of students who learned through traditional curriculum significantly at .05. It can be stated that promoting creative thinking should be encouraged in many subject areas as early as possible.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".