MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402752999 · doi:10.5539/jel.v14n1p87

Learning Management Development Model for Early Childhood Teachers

2024· article· en· W4402752999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saksri Suebsing, Nithinath Udomsun, Supimon Boonphok

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEducation Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council of Thailand
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationFaculty developmentEarly childhood educationProfessional developmentPedagogyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to develop the learning management model of early childhood teachers in Roi Et Province. The sample group includes early childhood teachers is obtained by selecting a simple random sample of the sample 400 people. The tools used in the research include questionnaires assessment form and learning quizzes for Primary teachers. The statistics used in the data analysis include averages, standard deviations, and other factors and linear structural relationship analysis SEM. The results showed that: The development of learning management of early childhood teachers consists of: Teacher Professional Competency (CPT) Teacher Spirit (ST) Inspiration to have a public mind (PM) and learning management behavior (TBT). The element of inspiration to have a public spirit. (PM) It has a direct influence on learning management behavior (TBT) of early childhood teachers at the level of 0.01 with an influence value equal to 0.58. The elements of the model of inspiration for having a public spirit (PM) it has a direct influence on learning management behavior (TBT) of early childhood teachers can be 90.00% and can explain the variability of one other internal latent variable, namely: Inspiration to have a public spirit (PM) 88.00% of which can write structural equations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207