## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to provide foundational data for expanding and enhancing the ADDIE-model-based international training program for enhancing intelligent capabilities by applying the 2-week program to graduate students participating in the course of Smart Information Communication Technology (SMART ICT) Employees and examining the changes in their computational thinking, AI competency, and core competencies. The first hypothesis, \"the experimental group participating in the international training program for enhancing intelligent capabilities will score higher in computational thinking than the control group that did not participate\" was rejected. The computational thinking  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pre-Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Post-Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Follow-Up**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Differences**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Differences**} \\  & & & & **Test** & **Sources** & **F** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Post-Pre)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Follow-Up-Pre)**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & & & & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **t** & \(p\) & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **t** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Core competence} & Exp. & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 5.98 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 5.52 \(\pm\) 0.78 & G & 3.11 & 0.086 & 0.74 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 1.46 & 0.151 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 1.51 & 0.138 \\  & Cont. & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 5.46 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 4.89 \(\pm\) 1.24 & T & 7.04 & 0.040 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.60 & & & \(-0.18\pm\) 1.09 & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Critical thinking} & Exp. & 4.53 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 5.38 \(\pm\) 1.32 & 4.98 \(\pm\) 0.96 & G & 1.62 & 0.210 & 0.85 \(\pm\) 1.50 & 1.83 & 0.074 & 0.45 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 1.23 & 0.222 \\  & Cont. & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 4.72 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.12 & T & 3.13 & 0.049 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.91 & & & & \(0.00\pm\) 1.23 & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Creattivity} & Exp. & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 5.69 \(\pm\) 1.11 & 5.58 \(\pm\) 0.95 & G & 1.54 & 0.222 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 1.51 & 1.20 & 0.237 & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 1.54 & 0.130 \\  & Cont. & 5.33 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 5.31 \(\pm\) 1.07 & 5.03 \(\pm\) 1.31 & T & 0.61 of the experimental group participating in the international training program continuously improved, albeit to a minimal extent. In contrast, in the control group, all the scores for computing thinking were similar to the pre-scores, or decreased. Although the score for computing thinking increased continuously, the increase was quite less than that in the score for AI competency. The reason for the minimal change was that the program mainly focused on the AI field. It is interpreted that the participant group was made up of graduate students and employees working in companies, and was already equipped with fundamental abilities in terms of computational thinking. The sample size of this study was sufficient for a repeated measures analysis. Nevertheless, it is necessary to size up samples and test them through repeated research. The second hypothesis, \"the experimental group participating in the international training program for enhancing intelligent capabilities will score higher in artificial intelligence competency than the control group that did not participate\" was supported. After the international training program was applied, the changes in the scores for AI competency were significantly different. The experimental group, which participated in the international training program, showed a continuous increase in the score for AI competency. In contrast, in the control group, all the scores for AI competency were similar to the pre-scores, or decreased. This suggests that the international training program in this study had a particularly significant effect on AI competency. In the study by [PERSON] et al.