Enhancing of Student Collaboration in Thinking, Pairing, and Sharing on Energy Conversion Learning
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 study aims to improve collaboration in thinking, pairing, and sharing of students in energy conversion learning. This study experimented with the think pair and share (TPS) type of cooperative method to get improvements in terms of activity and cooperation. The procedure of the study adopted the classroom action research of the Kemmis & Taggart model covering the stages of planning, implementation, observation and reflection. Data collection techniques using observation and documentation. The results showed that the application of the cooperative learning model type TPS method was able to increase collaboration in thinking, pairing, and sharing as evidenced by the results of observations of each cycle which increased the first cycle of 12.5% for activeness and 25% for collaboration, the second cycle of 78,1% for activeness and 53.1% for cooperation, and third cycle of 96.9% for activeness and 100% for cooperation. It shows that the application of TPS is useful to be applied in energy conversion learning. Also, this research may need to be continued in other engineering courses which are dominated by theory and practicum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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