The Development of Innovative Learning Management Model for Early Childhood Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study is to use creative learning to establish a learning management model for primary teachers in the Roi Et Province. Early childhood educators and students from Roi Et Province's Department of Early Childhood Education comprise the sample group. This was acquired using a basic random sampling technique (simple random sampling) with 300 participants. The Learning Innovation Development Guide is one of the instruments utilized in the study. The learning management assessments, standard deviations, and averages are among the statistics that were employed in the data analysis. linear structural relationship analysis and the t test. The findings indicated that the evolution of learning innovation (IML) and learning management practices are directly impacted by it. (BeT) It was statistically significant for early childhood educators at the 0.01 level, with an effect value of 1.04. The model's components can account for the variations in the learning innovation development components. It directly affects learning management behavior (IML). (BeT) of early childhood educators, 90.00% of them are able to account for the variation in another latent internal variable, the development of learning innovation (IML). 82.00%
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".