Designing English Material for Second Semester Students of Peer-Assisted Learning Program (PALP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims at developing Peer-Asissted Learning Program (PALP) Modul for PBI UAD Students at Second Semester. Since the purpose of the research is developing an instructional module, this research belongs to research and development. There were some steps conducted in this research which were conducting needs analysis, formulating the instructional design, arranging the modul, validating the modul, revising the modul, applying the modul, and evaluating the use of the modul. Then, the instruments used in this research were interview guideline and questionnaires. The interview guidelines were used in conducting needs analysis while the questionnaires were used in validating and evaluating the modul. Next, there were two types of data gained from this research, qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data were analyzed descriptively while quantitative data were analyzed through Likert scale and the use criteria percentage. The subject of the study were 12 of board PALP, 30 PALP mentors, and 50 mentees. The module entitled PALP Module for Semester 2 students which focuses on speaking skill. It contains 7 chapters, each chapters consists of the teaching order and scoring rubric. Moreover, the module was developed and revised based on the data gained during the research. The result from the expert judgment related to the face aspect is 84% while the result related to the development aspect is 80%. Then, the result of the evaluation from the board is 84%, from the mentors is 86%, and from the mentee is 88%. So, it can be concluded that the modul is feasible to apply.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".