Application of Project Based Learning Models to Improve Student Learning Outcomes in Science Material
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
<p><em>This study aims to determine the increase in learning outcomes in science learning through the application of the PjBL model. This research is a classroom action research with 21 students of grade VI SD Margadana 5 Tegal as the subject. This research was conducted in 3 cycles, each cycle of 2 meetings. Each meeting consists of 4 stages, namely planning, implementing, observing and reflecting. Based on the results of the research, in the first cycle, it was obtained an average of 68.09 classical student learning outcomes with 52% student completeness success, and in the second cycle the classical student learning outcomes were 70.47 with the completeness success increasing to 67% and still under the indicators of success. In cycle III, the classical average of student learning outcomes was 83.33 with the success of student completeness increasing to 86% in this case it was more than the 75% achievement indicator. So from cycle I, cycle II and cycle III there is an increase in student learning outcomes. So, in this study it can be concluded that using the PjBL model can improve student learning outcomes in science subjects magnetic and non-magnetic objects.</em></p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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