The Influence of Parents’ Involvement on Children with Special Needs’ Motivation and Learning Achievement
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
Some of the abnormal children face burden, distraction, interruption, tardiness, or risk factors so that they cannot get an optimum growth without special treatment or intervention. This study was aimed at discovering the influence of parents’ involvement to the learning motivation and achievement of children with different abilities. This research is a regressive model. The population was children with different abilities in SMP Negeri 4 Gresik, East Java Indonesia. The data collected through questionnaire and documentation, were then analyzed using linear regression test. The t-test results showed tcalculate value for variables of parents’ involvement (X) was 3,813. The results showed that tcalculate>ttable or 3,813> 2,093 or t value is higher than t table. It means that parents’ involvement sigifcantly influences children’s motivation. The result of the t-test also indicated that tcalculate value for parents’ involvement (X) was 3,601. If compared to ttable, then, tcalculate>ttable or 3,601> 2,093. It means that there is an influence of parents’ involvement on children’s achievement as well. Based on the finding, it can be recommended that parents should be more intensive in assisting, accompanying, and guiding their children, especially especially to the children who have special needs so that their motivation and academic achievement can be enhanced. It is also recommended that teachers and school should give more fruitful collaboration between schools to facilitate their needs and potentials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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