Implementasi Program Literasi Dalam Intepretasi Novel Gadis Pantai Karya Pramoedya Ananta Toer Bagi Siswa Kelas XI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstrak : Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Penelitian deskriptif adalah penelitian terhadap status, sikap, pendapat kelompok individu, perangkat kondisi dan prosedur, suatu sistem pemikiran atau peristiwa dalam rangka membuat deskripsi atau gambaran secara sistematik dan analitik yang dapat digunakan untuk memecahkan suatu masalah aktual saat ini. Data yang bersifat deskriptif dapat dikumpulkan melalui kuesioner, wawancara, dan observasi. Penelitian tentang sejauh mana siswa memahami buku yang dibaca dapat diketahui bahwa melalui program literasi. Melalui penelitian ini dapat diambil kesimpulan bahwa siswa kelas X IPA dan IPS memunyai beberapa perbedaan saat mereka membaca dan memahami isi buku yang dibaca selama kegiatan literasi. Secara keseluruhan, siswa kelas X IPA maupun IPS telah memunyai bekal kosakata secara umum dan mereka menuliskan kosakata baru yang dijumpai selama membaca novel sastra. Dalam hal ini dapat diartikan bahwa para siswa memunyai niat untuk terbuka terhadap pengetahuan baru, yaitu kosakata baru. Dalam hal durasi waktu membaca, terdapat perbedaan antara siswa kelas X IPA dan siswa kelas X IPS. Siswa kelas X IPS membutuhkan waktu lebih lama untuk membaca dibandingkan siswa kelas X IPA. Perbedaan durasi waktu yang dibutuhkan oleh para siswa berpengaruh pada saat siswa diminta mencerita ulang isi buku yang baca secara lisan. Kata kunci: literasi, pemahaman, bacaan, tingkat keberhasilan Abstract : This research is a qualitative descriptive study. Descriptive research is research on the status, attitudes, opinions of individuals or groups, sets of conditions and procedures, a system of thoughts or events in order to make descriptions or images systematically and analytically that can be used to solve an actual current problem. The researcher uses research questions that will be answered after the analysis has been carried out in order to draw a further conclusion. Descriptive data can be collected through questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The research on the extent to which students understand the books they read can be seen through literacy programs. Through this research, it can be concluded that X Science and Social students have several differences when they read and understand the contents of the books during literacy activities. Overall, X science and social students have a general vocabulary bank and they write down new vocabulary they encounter while reading literary novels. In this case, it can be interpreted that students have the intention to be opened to new knowledge, namely new vocabulary. In terms of the reading duration, there is a difference between X Science students and X Social students. X Social students take a longer time to read than X Science students. The difference in the duration required by students has an effect when the students are asked to retell the contents of a book they read orally. Keywords: literacy, comprehension, reading, level of success.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.013 |
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".