The Influence of Cooperatif Learning Model and Critical Thinking on Essay Writing Skills (Experiment Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to find out whether there is any influence on cooperative learning model and criticalthinking on English essay writing skills. The data was collected through (1) multiple choice reading test of criticalthinking instrument and (2) essay writing test. The research used treatment by level 2 x 2 design. The technique ofanalysis data used two ways ANOVA. The research finding shows that: 1) it is significant between English essaywriting skill between students that was learned by task-based learning and think talk write learning, it is Fh (bk) =9.93 and Ft (0,05(1,40) = 4.08. So, Fh(k) > Ft that is interaction. English essay writing skills have studied usingtask-based learning was better than think talk write learning in high critical thinking with Qaccount 12,91. English essaywriting skills have studied using think talk write learning was better than task-based learning in low critical thinkingwith Qaccount 14.1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".