The Development of an Effectiveness Academic Management Model in the 21st Century of Phrapariyattidhamma School, General Education Division
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research has the following objectives: 1) Study the components. 2) Study the current situation, desirable conditions, and needs. 3) Create and develop. 4) Trial and study the result of the model experiment. This research was research and development that was conducted in 4 phases following the research objective. The tools used were questionnaires, interview forms, group conversation records, and assessment forms. Statistics used were percentage, mean and standard deviation, and Required Demand Index. The qualitative data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. The results showed that: I. The components are as follows: 1) Curriculum development, 2) Teaching media,3) Learning process, 4) Measurement and evaluation, 5) Supervision, 6) Learning resources, 7) Quality assurance system, 8) Research and development, 9) Development and use of innovative media, and 10) academic planning. II. A study of current conditions and desirable conditions, overall, at a moderate level and high level respectively, the 3 needs necessary order are 1) the development of the learning 2) the development of learning materials, and 3) measurement and evaluation respectively. III. The Creation and development of models and manuals with the following components: 1) Model name, 2) Model Principle, 3) Model objectives, 4) How to proceed, 5) Model conditions, 6) Assessment Guidelines, and 7) System and mechanism, overall, it is appropriate, possible, and useful at the highest level. IV. Trial and study resulting from the model experiment of the model and manual for the academic administration model found that: 1) Higher student achievement, 2) Administrators are satisfied, 3) Employees are proud, 4) Parents are satisfied, 5) Materials and equipment are supported by the community, 6) Received support for the education budget from the community and related people, and 7) quality management and standards.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".