Developing Program to Promote Reading Skill of Thai Language for Primary Students with Learning Disabilities of Suksasongkhoa School in Northeast Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".