Guidelines for the Application of Design Thinking Processes in School Administration of School Administrators Under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office, Phitsanulok, Uttaradit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is twofold: 1) to study the application of the design thinking process in school administration under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office, Phitsanulok, Uttaradit, and 2) to explore the implementation of design thinking process in school administration of school administrators under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office, Phitsanulok, Uttaradit. This is a qualitative research study conducted using a sample of 57 educational administrators and 7 qualified personnel as participants. The research tools utilized include document analysis, questionnaires, and interviews, with statistical analysis involving mean values and standard deviations. The research findings indicate that: 1) The application of the design thinking process in school administration of school administrators is at its highest level. When considering each aspect, it was found that the model prototypes had the highest average, while data synthesis had the lowest average. 2) In terms of guidelines for applying design thinking processes in school administration, it was observed that confidence, empathy in work, and awareness of problems with open-ended questioning encourage creativity. Motivating and encouraging the expression of different ideas by participating in the development of models for use in problem-solving and the collection of information of suggestions, for improvement and development were key factors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".