Environmental Teaching Using Creativity–Based Learning (CBL) for Undergraduate Students, Rajabhat Mahasarakham University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to investigate the efficiency of environmental teaching using Creativity–Based Learning (CBL), to compare the environmental knowledge, the attitudes towards environmental conservation and the environmental problem-solving thinking ability of students before and after learning and to compare the environmental knowledge, attitude towards environmental conservation and the environmental problem-solving thinking ability of students of different genders and faculties after learning. The sample were 52 undergraduate students studying at Rajabhat Mahasarakham University and enrolling in the Natural Resources and Environmental Management in Thai Course. They were selected by a purposive sampling method. The research instruments were 7 lesson plans on the environmental teaching based on CBL, the environmental knowledge test, the environmental conservation attitude assessment and the environmental problem-solving thinking ability assessment. The statistics for data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation, t-test, F-test (One-Way MANOVA, One-Way MANCOVA and Univariate Test) were also employed for the hypothesis test.The study results were as the efficiency of the environmental teaching using CBL was 80.90 /82.28, which was higher than the set criteria of 80/80, the mean scores of the students on the environmental knowledge, the attitudes towards environmental conservation, and after the studying, the environmental problem-solving thinking ability were significantly higher than those of before studying at the .05 level, the environmental knowledge, the attitudes towards environmental conservation, and the environmental problem-solving thinking ability of the students of different genders were not different (p > .05) and the environmental knowledge of the students of different faculties was significantly different at the .05 level. However, their attitudes towards environmental conservation and environmental problem-solving thinking ability were not different (p > .05).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".