MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404643980 · doi:10.5539/ies.v17n6p49

The Development Instructional Model Based on Steam Education by TP-SMART MODEL to Enhance Technological Innovation and Creativity Skills of Secondary Student Mathayom 6

2024· article· en· W4404643980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Warachit Promket

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Curriculum and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityMathematics educationPsychologyCluster samplingTest (biology)Creative thinkingCritical thinkingIndex (typography)Standard deviationStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Development Instructional Model Based on Steam Education by TP-SMART MODEL To Enhance Technological Innovation and Creativity Skills of Secondary student Mathayom 6, divided into 4 steps. Step 1: Study the current and expected conditions of student learning and innovation skills development. 2) Develop the model 3) Study the results of use 4) Evaluate the results. Sample group used in the study Mathayom 6/4 students at That Phanom School, Semester 1, academic year 2023, 1 classroom, 26 people. By means of Cluster Random Sampling, statistics used include mean (X), standard deviation (S.D.), essential needs index (PNI Modified), and t-test (Match paired t-test) The results of the study found that 1) The results from the synthesis of learning skills and innovation components consisted of 3 components: Including (1) communication and cooperation (2) critical thinking and problem-solving and (3) Creative thinking and innovation Elements with the highest demand index values are creativity and innovation PNIModified=.294. 2) The model development is consistent with values between 0.80-1.00 and the overall average is 0.933. The confirmation results found that the overall components were appropriate at the highest level (X=4.258, S.D.=0.668). 3) Results of the comparative analysis of scores before and after using the format. The difference is statistically significant at .05. 4) Overall evaluation of the use of the model The average is at a high level (X=4.29, S.D.=0.65).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Curriculum and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207