The Development of Curriculum Based on Happiness Theory to Improve the Hope of College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research objectives were 1) to study the factors affecting the development of hope of collage freshman students in Guangxi International Business Vocational College. 2) to develop curriculum based on the happiness theory. 3) to compare the hopes of college freshman students before and after learning by curriculum based on the happiness theory. With a carefully selected sample of 35 students from the first-year Thai class at Guangxi International Business Vocational College, researchers conducted a thorough analysis of various factors affecting students' hope. A range of research tools was utilized, including 1) a questionnaire about the factors affecting the development of hope level. 2) interview form about influencing factors of hope level. 3) lesson plans. 4) the Hope Scale. 5) observation form about student behavior. (6) interview form about opinions on teaching. This study was conducted in 3 steps: 1) study the factors affecting the development of hope. 2) develop curriculum based on the happiness theory. 3)experiment and improvement of curriculum model. The results of the study shown that: 1) factors that affect the development of college students' hopes include personal factors and environmental factors. Personal factors are related to goals thinking, pathways thinking and agency thinking, and environmental factors include family, school, and society.2) The curriculum based on happiness theory includes 6 elements: principle, goal, contents, and time, learning process, learning resource, and Evaluation. The learning process in the curriculum includes 4 processes: positive emotion, engagement, relationship, meaning, accomplishment, and present. 3) students' hope is improved after the implementation of the curriculum based on happiness theory. This change was statistically significant, especially at the level of 0.1.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".