Improving the Students’ Spiritual Intelligence in English Writing through Whole Brain Learning
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
<p>The objective of this research was to improve the students’ spiritual intelligence in English writing through Whole Brain Learning strategy. Therefore, this study was conducted as a classroom action research. The research pocedure followed the cyclonic process of planning, action, observation, and reflection. This process was preceeded by pre-liminary study in order to know the students’ spiritual intelligence in English writing before being taught by the whole brain learning. The data was collected from the results of spiritual intelligence questionnaire, observation, interview, and documentation. The subjects of the research were 30 students in English Education Department, Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatra Utara. The quantitative data were analysed by using t-test in Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) and the qualitative data were analysed by using Miles and Huberman technique: data reduction, data display, and verification. As a result, there was a significant improvement in students’ spritual inteligent in English writing when they were taught through Whole Brain Learning.</p>
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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