The Effects of Contextual Learning and Teacher's Work Spirit on Learning Motivation and Its Impact on Affective Learning Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of achieving student learning outcomes is not entirely only values in numbers or cognitive learning outcomes. But it also attaches great importance to the affective learning outcomes shown in attitudes or behavior. This study aims to analyze the effect of contextual learning approaches and teacher morale on learning motivation and its impact on student affective learning outcomes. The population in this study were 728 grade 8 students of SMP Negeri 20 and SMP Negeri 23 in Tampan. With the cluster random sampling technique a sample of 155 students was obtained. Data collection used a questionnaire then the data were analyzed by path analysis. The results found that contextual learning approaches have an influence on student motivation, the experience of working with friends while learning has an effect on student motivation and learning behavior, a positive effect on behavior is shown in attitudes manifested in affective domain learning outcomes. The work spirit of the teacher contributes to student affective learning outcomes, high teacher enthusiasm and the teacher's ability have an effect on student motivation to positively impact student affective learning outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".