MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415096610 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n1p402

Developing Program to Promote Reading Skill of Thai Language for Primary Students with Learning Disabilities of Suksasongkhoa School in Northeast Thailand

2025· article· en· W4415096610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Usuma Singklang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council of Thailand
KeywordsReading (process)SpellingPromotion (chess)CurriculumWilcoxon signed-rank testTest (biology)Learning disabilityLanguage acquisitionWord recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to synthesize research on instructional methods affecting the Thai language reading skills of elementary students with learning disabilities, analyze the current state, identify problems and guidelines for promoting Thai language reading skills, develop and evaluate a Thai language reading Skill Promotion Program, and assess its implementation and effectiveness for elementary students in Suksasongkhoa School in Northeast Thailand. The study employed a mixed-methods research design with a sample size of 40 elementary students with learning disabilities. The research instruments included a research characteristic record form and the Thai language reading Skill Promotion Program, which comprised a diagnostic Thai language reading test, lesson plans, instructional media, presentation software (PowerPoint), and reading skill promotion exercises. Data analysis involved content analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis Test to assess differences in effect sizes, and the Wilcoxon Match-Pair Sign Rank Test to compare pre- and post-intervention mean scores. The results indicated that the Thai language reading Skill Promotion Program significantly improved students’ reading skills (p < 0.05). Three primary areas of deficiency were identified: recognition of consonants, vowels, and tone mark forms and sounds, spelling patterns with and without final consonants, and word reading involving inherent vowels, consonant clusters, and silent letters. The program’s overall evaluation showed high effectiveness, ease of use, and suitability, with high levels of student satisfaction. The findings provide valuable insights for educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers in promoting reading skills for students with learning disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207