Components and Indicators of Mathematics Teachers’ Learning Management Competency to Enhancing Analytical Thinking in Schools Under the Office of the Basic Education Commission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were: 1) to study the components and indicators of learning management competency for mathematics teachers to enhancing analytical thinking; and 2) to examine the consistency and fit of a proposed model describing the components and indicators for enhancing the learning management competency of mathematics teachers to foster analytical thinking. The sample group for this research was comprised of 260 secondary school teachers from the Northeast Region affiliated with the Office of the Basic Education Commission. The sample size was determined using a 20:1 ratio relative to the number of parameters, and a multi-stage random sampling technique was employed. The research instrument was a questionnaire designed to develop components and indicators of learning management competency to enhancing analytical thinking among mathematics teachers. The questionnaire demonstrated an acceptable Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC), ranging from 0.80 to 1.00, with a discriminatory power measured by Pearson Product Moment Correlation ranging from 0.252 to 0.857, and with a reliability of 0.977, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) for the entire instrument. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to analyze the data. The findings revealed two principal outcomes: 1) the components and indicators of the learning management competency of mathematics teachers to enhance analytical thinking, derived from a systematic synthesis of extant literature and empirical research, three fundamental components were identified: (1) curriculum, (2) learning management, and (3) measurement and evaluation. These components were further defined by a total of 13 indicators. 2) The examination of the consistency of the components model and indicators of learning management competency of mathematics teachers to enhance analytical thinking with empirical data found that (χ2) was equal to 55.319, degrees of freedom (df) was equal to 45, the chi-square value was the correlation (χ2/df) is equal to 1.229. The statistical significance (p-value) was 0.139, and the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.970. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was equal to 0.995, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) was equal to 0.974. The Root Mean Residual Index (RMR) was equal to 0.019. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was equal to 0.030, indicating that this tool can be used to evaluate the learning management competency of mathematics teachers in fostering analytical thinking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".