PENERAPAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK PAIR SHARE DALAM UPAYA PENINGKATAN HASIL BELAJAR DAN AKTIVITAS SISWA PADA MATERI PERSAMAAN LINIER SATU VARIABEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini merupakan Penelitian Tindakan Kelas. Dalam penelitian ini disusun perangkat pembelajaran : Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran, Buku Panduan Guru dan Lembar Kerja Siswa. Selanjutnya menyusun instrumen tes essay dan lembar observasi siswa, sebelum instrumen tes digunakan terlebih dahulu di uji coba dan hasilnya digunakan untuk instrumen penelitian. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan melalui 2 siklus sebelum diberikan tindakan terlebih dahulu diberikan diberikan tes diagnostik dengan kategori minimal cukup diperoleh 40,91%. Selanjutnya diberikan tes hasil belajar matematika siklus I adalah 77,27 meningkat menjadi 86,36 pada siklus II. Persentase akivitas aktif siswa meningkat,hal ini diperoleh dari rata-rata kadar aktivitas siswa pada siklus I sebesar 76% kemudian pada siklus II naik menjadi 85,28. Kemampuan guru mengelola pembelajaran siklus I dan siklus II termasuk dalam kategori ―Baik‖. Berdasarkan Hasil tersebut maka penelitian ini menyarankan penerapan model pembelajaran Think Pair Share untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar matematika siswa dikelas VII-3 SMP Negeri 2 Batahan.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.124 | 0.026 |
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".