PENGARUH MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING PROCEDURES (CUPs) TERHADAP HASIL BELAJAR KIMIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaruh pembelajaran kooperatif Conceptual Understanding Procedures terhadap hasil belajar kimia siswa pada materi kesetimbangan kimia. Penelitian ini dilakukan di SMAN 100 Jakarta pada semester 1 tahun ajaran 2012/2013. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah Quasi Eksperimen tipe Pos test-only Exp & Control Group Design. Sampel pada penelitian ini merupakan siswa-siswi kelas XI IPA 1 dan XI IPA 2 yang dipilih secara purposive sampling untuk mendapatkan kelas eksperimen dan kontrol. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah tes berupa soal pilihan ganda yang sudah valid dengan lima alternatif jawaban. Uji prasyarat analisis yang digunakan adalah uji normalitas dengan uji Kolmogorov–Smirnov dan uji homogenitas dengan uji Fisher. Berdasarkan hasil perhitungan, diperoleh data berdistribusi normal dan data kedua kelompok sampel mempunyai varian yang sama atau homogen. Pengujian hipotesis menggunakan uji t separated varians. Hasil analisis data untuk uji hipotesis hasil belajar kimia siswa diperoleh thitung 2,35 > ttabel 1,67 pada taraf signifikansi 0,05 artinya terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan pembelajaran kooperatif Conceptual Understanding Procedures terhadap hasil belajar kimia siswa. Kata kunci : Hasil Belajar Siswa, Pembelajaran kooperatif, Conceptual Understanding Procedures, Quasi Eksperimen.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.007 |
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".