ENGLISH TEACHERS’ DIFFICULTIES IN DESIGNING A LESSON PLAN (RPP) BASED ON KTSP (A STUDY ON ENGLISH TEACHERS AT VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS IN BENGKULU CITY
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 aimed to find out the difficulties faced by the English teachers in Vocational High Schools in designing a lesson plan (RPP) based on KTSP. It employed a descriptive quantitative method. The population of this research was 23 respondents, from all teachers which have followed KTSP training. The sample was taken by using total sampling techniques. To collect the data, the researcher used the questionnaire. It was consist of 37 questions that it was divided into 9 aspects in a lesson plan namely; standard of competence, basic competence, indicator, the aims of learning, teaching material, the methods/techniques, the steps of learning activity, the tools/sources of material, and evaluation. It used the percentage formula and weighted mean formula to analyze data. The result of the research showed that there were not any significant difficulties in designing a lesson plan (RPP) based on KTSP faced by the English teachers in Vocational High Schools because all aspects were in sometimes/moderate predicate. It indicated that in designing a lesson plan (RPP) based on KTSP was not significant difficult. Beside that, according to the result above, the most difficult aspects were none aspect because it also with sometimes predicate. It indicated that the English teachers in Vocational High School did not find any significant difficulties in writing all aspects of the lesson plan.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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