Improving Student Asking Activity by Using Learning Start with a Question (LSQ) Learning Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><em>This study aims to meet whether the Learning Start With A Question (LSQ) learning method can be used to improve the results of questioning activeness in grade IV SD Negeri Pereng. This research method is Classroom Action Research (PTK), using the model of Kesmis and Mc. Taggart. The subjects in this study were the fourth grade students of SD Negeri Pereng, Tasikmalaya Regency, totaling 17 students. Data collection techniques in the form of student observation sheets, tests to determine the ability to ask questions and administrative learning documents. The results showed that the use of the Learning Start With A Question (LSQ) learning method in social studies learning could increase the activeness of the fourth grade students of SD Negeri Pereng, Tasikmalaya Regency. Based on the test results obtained by students at the end of each cycle, it showed an increase in student questioning activity. The average completeness in the first cycle was 47.35, and the average completeness in the second cycle was 67.64, while the average of the third cycle was 78.82. The results show that the quality of the learning process, especially in questioning activeness, has increased.</em><em></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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".