Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Naphong Wannapiroon

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
TABLE III: RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DIGITAL INNOVATOR'S COMPETENCY OF STUDENTS USING THE HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING The assessment results of the digital innovator's competency of students using the hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning are shown in Table III.

Table 3 III: RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DIGITAL INNOVATOR'S COMPETENCY OF STUDENTS USING THE HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING The assessment results of the digital innovator's competency of students using the hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning are shown in Table III.

Related Figures (5)

Active Imagineering Learning Process with Hybrid Learning
Active Imagineering Learning Process with Hybrid Learning
Active Imagineering Learning process is presented in Fig. 1 and the hybrid learning components is presented in Fig. 2. The hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning to enhance digital innovator competency is oresented in Fig. 3.
Active Imagineering Learning process is presented in Fig. 1 and the hybrid learning components is presented in Fig. 2. The hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning to enhance digital innovator competency is oresented in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. The hybrid learning model for active imagineering learning to enhance digital innovator competency.
Fig. 3. The hybrid learning model for active imagineering learning to enhance digital innovator competency.
From Table II, the hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning to enhance digital innovator competency was at the excellent level of overall suitability (Mean = 4.91, S.D. = 0.31). When considering each aspect, it was found that methods for assessing learning outcomes were the most appropriate (Mean = 4.95, S.D. = 0.22), followed by model principle, appropriateness of the learning model for enhancing the digital innovator competency, appropriateness of the learning model for enhancing the digital innovation development (Mean = 4.90, S.D. = 0.30), and hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning process (Mean = 4.90, S.D. = 0.35). TABLE II: RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT OF THE SUITABILITY OF HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING TO ENHANCE DIGITAL INNOVATOR COMPETENCY
From Table II, the hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning to enhance digital innovator competency was at the excellent level of overall suitability (Mean = 4.91, S.D. = 0.31). When considering each aspect, it was found that methods for assessing learning outcomes were the most appropriate (Mean = 4.95, S.D. = 0.22), followed by model principle, appropriateness of the learning model for enhancing the digital innovator competency, appropriateness of the learning model for enhancing the digital innovation development (Mean = 4.90, S.D. = 0.30), and hybrid learning model for active Imagineering Learning process (Mean = 4.90, S.D. = 0.35). TABLE II: RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT OF THE SUITABILITY OF HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING TO ENHANCE DIGITAL INNOVATOR COMPETENCY
TABLE IV: RESULTS OF THE DIGITAL INNOVATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS USING THE HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING From Table IV, students using the hybrid learning model were able to create digital innovations with the excellent quality (Mean = 36.24, S.D. = 2.43) consistent with the research hypothesis. When considering each aspect, it was found that the objective problem solving aspect had the excellent quality (Mean = 7.68 , S.D. = 0.47), followed by usability (Mean = 7.59 , S.D. = 0.49) and cost-effectiveness (Mean = 7.35 , S.D. = 0.48).
TABLE IV: RESULTS OF THE DIGITAL INNOVATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS USING THE HYBRID LEARNING MODEL FOR ACTIVE IMAGINEERING LEARNING From Table IV, students using the hybrid learning model were able to create digital innovations with the excellent quality (Mean = 36.24, S.D. = 2.43) consistent with the research hypothesis. When considering each aspect, it was found that the objective problem solving aspect had the excellent quality (Mean = 7.68 , S.D. = 0.47), followed by usability (Mean = 7.59 , S.D. = 0.49) and cost-effectiveness (Mean = 7.35 , S.D. = 0.48).
Related topics:
Computer ScienceINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EDUCATIONInformation Technology in Education
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved