MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116926258 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n2p373

Sustainability Mindset Development Model for Secondary School Administrators in Thailand

2025· article· W7116926258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sutthikorn Kromthong, Saowanee Sirisooksilp, Prakittiya Tuksino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education
KeywordsMindsetSustainabilityConfirmatory factor analysisStructural equation modelingExploratory factor analysisSample (material)Empirical researchEmotional intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this research were to create and evaluate a sustainability mindset development model for secondary school administrators in Thailand. The research methodology was mixed-methods research using a multi-phase design, divided into three phases. Phase I involved document analysis, expert interviews, and content analysis. Phase II checked the congruence of sustainability mindset indicators with empirical data. The sample included 400 secondary school administrators and teachers. A questionnaire with a reliability score of 0.915 was utilized. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on a sample of 400 participants, while confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on a sample of 800 participants. Phase III involved creating and evaluating the sustainability mindset development model. A draft model was validated using the connoisseurship technique by 9 experts and evaluated by 11 experts. The findings revealed that 1) the sustainability mindset of secondary school administrators in Thailand consist of 16 indicators, categorized into four factors: ecological worldview (4 indicators), systems perspective (6 indicators), spiritual intelligence (3 indicators), and emotional intelligence (3 indicators); 2) the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the developed model and its indicators were consistent with empirical data, with χ² = 83.52, df = 65, P-value = 0.0606, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.027, and SRMR = 0.007, when considering the component weight values, it was found that the component with the highest standardized score was ecological worldview, emotional intelligence, and systems perspective, respectively; and 3) a sustainability mindset development model consists of the model’s name, objectives, principles, concepts, key components, success goals, development methods, and driving mechanisms, and its evaluation in terms of propriety, feasibility, and utility was rated at the highest level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 Learning→Same topicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability→French-language works237,207→