PENINGKATAN KEMAMPUAN ASESMEN MAHASISWA CALON GURU KIMIA MELALUI PENGEMBANGAN PROGRAM PERKULIAHAN EVALUASI PEMBELAJARAN KIMIA BERBASIS INKUIRI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research had been conducted to find study program which can increase ability of chemistry prospective teachers for doing assessment chemistry learning. Research process is held in LPTK in Bandung by 52 teacher candidates at validation test and 112 teacher candidates at implementation test. Design research and development is applied with four phases. Those were 1) preliminary study; 2) program planning; 3) program validation; and 4) program implementation. Data collected through test of the chemistry education evaluation theory, prospective teachers' activity, and exercises. Data was collected using test, observation sheet, portfolio, questionnaire and field note. Data analysis used descriptive statistics of normalized gain score by t test. The research produced an inquiry based chemistry education evaluation program (PEPKBI). The program was consist of design, implementation and evaluation of learning Chemistry components. Results of research indicated that PEPKBI program was effective to increase score of the evaluation of chemistry learning theory (<g> = 0,462),Keywords: assessment, chemistry learning, program development
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it