HASIL BELAJAR TARIKH MELALUI METODE JIGSAW DAN METODE MIND MAP DI SMP MUHAMMADIYAH 13 BOYOLALI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatan hasil belajar Tarikh dengan menggunakan metode jigsaw dan metode mind map kelas VIII di SMP Muhammadiyah 13 Wonosegoro, Boyolali tahun ajaran 2019/2020. Penelitian ini merupakan Penelitian Tindakan Kelas dengan tahapan perencanaan, pelaksanaan, observasi, dan refleksi. Adapun metode pengumpulan data yang digunakan meliputi observasi, tes, dan dokumentasi. Analisis yang digunakan peneliti adalah membandingkan pencapaian nilai dengan Kriteria Ketuntasan Minimum (KKM) dan ditandai dengan meningkatnya kriteria ketuntasan klasikal pada setiap siklusnya. Hal ini dapat dibuktikan dengan adanya peningkatan tiap siklus yang sudah dilaksanakan. Pada pra siklus persentase ketuntasan hanya 33,3% atau 5 peserta didik dan 10 peserta didik lainnya atau 66,7% belum tuntas. Pada Siklus I terdapat peningkatan hasil belajar menjadi 66,7% atau 10 peserta didik dan 33,3% atau 5 peserta didik yang belum tuntas. pada siklus II terjadi peningkatan menjadi 13 peserta didik yang tuntas atau 86,7% dan 2 peserta didik belum tuntas atau 13,3%.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.006 |
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".