The Development of a Blended Instructional Model Using the Inquiry Process with Digital Games to Enhance Analytical Thinking Skills for Primary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical thinking skills were an essential learning process for primary students. The research objectives were to 1) study the current condition, problems, and good practices regarding teaching and learning. 2) develop a blended instructional model using the inquiry process with digital games to enhance analytical thinking skills for elementary school. 3) study the results of using the instructional model. The research and development process was divided into 3 phases. Phase 1; study the current conditions, problems, and good practices regarding teaching and learning, the sample group included 377 teachers and 11 teachers. Phase 2; develop a blended instructional model, the sample consisted of 7 and 7 experts. Phase 3; study the results of using the instructional model the sample consisted of 34 grade 6 students. The data were analyzed by basic statistics and hypothesis testing statistics. The research found that 1) The current condition and overall problems were moderate level. The good practices included blended learning methods, the inquiry process, and instructional media with digital games. 2) The blended instructional model using an inquiry process along with a digital game included 4 core components: principles, objectives, management of teaching-learning processes, and measurement and evaluation. Seven experts evaluated and certified this instructional model that was appropriate in all aspects at a high level. 3) The results of using the instructional model found that (1) the analytical thinking skills of students who studied using the instructional model overall post-test were significantly higher than pre-test at the .05. (2) Measuring students’ learning achievement overall score post-test was significantly higher than pre-test at the .05. (3) Students’ post-test scores of the experimental were significantly higher than the control group at the .05. (4) Students’ post-test scores of the experimental were significantly higher than the control group at the .05.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".