The Development of Instructional Model Based on Design Thinking and Brainstorming to Enhance Undergraduate Students’ Creative Thinking Ability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study the factors that affect third-year undergraduate students’ creative thinking ability at Baise University, 2) develop an instructional model based on design thinking and brainstorming, 3) compare third-year undergraduate students’ creative thinking ability before and after using the instructional model based on design thinking and brainstorming. The sample group was 45 third-year undergraduate students at Baise University. The research Instruments were 1) an interview form about factors that affect the development of third-year undergraduate students’ creative thinking ability, 2) a questionnaire about factors that affect the development of third-year undergraduate students’ creative thinking ability, 3) lesson plans, 4) a creative thinking ability test 5) an interview form about opinions on teaching 6) an observation form about students’ behavior. This study analyzed quantitative data through descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, means, and standard deviation. For dependent samples, t-tests were used to analyze the different scores of undergraduate students before and after using the instructional model. Qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis. The research results were 1) the factors affecting undergraduate students’ creative thinking ability include environmental factors (family, school, and society) and personal factors (personality traits, motivation, attitude, and emotional state), 2) the four components of the instructional model are principle, objective, learning process, and result, 3) after implementing the instructional model, the post-test scores of undergraduate students' creative thinking ability significantly increased, with a statistical significance of 0.01.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it