PENGARUH PENGGUNAAN MODEL CONCEPT ATTAINMENT TERHADAP PEMAHAMAN KONSEP MATEMATIKA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The purpose of this research is to know the understanding of mathematical concepts of students with the use of conceptual attainment model is better than the understanding of students' mathematical concepts with conventional learning. This research is quasi experimental research. The research design used was randomized subjects posttest only control group design. By selecting a Class VIII-2 sample as an experimental class and class VIII-1 as a control class of analytical techniques using the t-test as a hypothesis test, the prerequisite test is a normality test and homogeneity test. Based on the hypothesis test, t-test, obtained the price tarithmetic = 3.073 and price ttable = -1.997 at the real level of 0.05. Because tarithmetic > ttable, so Ha accepted and H0 rejected. So it can be concluded that the ability to understand the concept of mathematics students using conceptual learning model attainment better than the ability to understand the concept of mathematics students using conventional learning model.Keywords: Concept Attainment, Understanding of Concept
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".