MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415096689 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n1p388

Development of a Creative Project-Based Learning Model Through the Metaverse that Promotes Creativity and Innovative Work for High School Students in Pilot Schools of Education Sandbox

2025· article· en· W4415096689 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Napaporn Wanthong, Thapanee Seechaliao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityProcess (computing)Sandbox (software development)Instructional designSample (material)Educational technologyQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Teaching methodDesign-based research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aimed to (1) investigate the current situation, needs, key components, and instructional steps of a creative project-based learning model; (2) develop the model; (3) implement it; and (4) evaluate and validate it. This research methodology involved a research and development process conducted in four phases: Phase 1 investigated the current situation, needs, key components, and instructional steps, using a sample of 1,142 students and 31 computational science teachers. Phase 2: developing the model and evaluating it by five experts. Phase 3 implemented the model with students from three school sizes: large, medium, and small. Phase 4: validating and endorsing the model by six experts. The research findings were as follows: 1) Teachers had never implemented learning activities through the metaverse in computer science courses. The most needed were adequate computer equipment, high-speed internet, and budget allocation for necessary technological tools. 2) The developed model consists of six components and five instructional steps: (1) concepts and principles, (2) objectives, (3) content, (4) Metaverse, (5) instructional procedures including preparation, creative planning, creative projects, creative presentations, and evaluation, and (6) model evaluation. Experts evaluated that the overall model was appropriate at the highest level. 3) The creativity of students, which included originality, flexibility, fluency, and elaboration, was at a high level. The innovative work quality of students, including novelty, knowledge integration, creativity, efficiency, and usefulness, was at a high level. Learners were satisfied that the learning management was also at a high level. 4) The validation and endorsement of the model demonstrate that the components of the model are suitable at the highest level. The instructional steps have been assessed as highly appropriate. This model is considered highly accurate, suitable, beneficial, and valuable. Experts certified that the learning management model is entirely consistent, with a 100% accuracy rate

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)0.002
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207