Compositions and Indicators Towards Learning Management Competencies for Enhancing Critical Thinking of Math Teachers in Secondary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study compositions and indicators towards learning management competencies for enhancing critical thinking of math teachers in secondary schools, and 2) to check construct validity of learning management competencies for enhancing critical thinking of math teachers in secondary schools. The sample group was 260 individuals who were math teachers in secondary schools that are located in Secondary Educational Service Area, Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2567 B.E., Northeastern region. The author set the size of sample group according to ratio of 20:1 of parameters and used Multi-stage Sampling method. The research tool that was used was questionnaire. The research tool was questionnaire for development of compositions and indicators towards learning management competencies for enhancing critical thinking of math teachers in secondary schools. It was found that 1) the result of development in compositions and indicators towards learning management competencies for enhancing critical thinking of math teachers in secondary schools was from documents, synthesis, and other related research. And it was found that competency in learning management to enhance critical thinking of math teacher in secondary schools consisted of three compositions, which are, create and develop curriculum, designing and learning management, and measurement and assessment of learning outcome, with 13 indicators. 2) The result of checking the construct validity of learning management competencies for enhancing critical thinking of math teachers in secondary schools was found that the model has fit index and evidence-based. The Chi-Square was at 71.941. Degrees of Freedom was at(df) 55. Statistical significance (p-value) was at .062, which means the Chi-square did not have statistical significance and Root Mean squared Residual was at .006 Goodness-of-Fit Index was at .961. Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index was at .936. Incremental Fit Index was at .992. Tucker Lewis index was at .989. Comparative Fit Index was at .992 and Root mean square error of approximation was at .034.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".