PELAKSANAAN SUPERVISI AKADEMIK PENGAWAS SEKOLAH SEBAGAI UPAYA PENINGKATAN PROFESIONALISME GURU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui, memahami, mendiskripsikan secara rinci dan mendalam mengenai perencanaan program, pelaksanaan, dan tindak lanjut supervisi akademik di SMP. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif melalui studi kasus, sebagai subjek penelitian adalah kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dua orang guru senior, dan sepuluh orang guru negeri dan honorer serta satu orang pengawas pembina sekolah. Data dihimpun menggunakan teknik observasi, wawancara, dan dokumentasi. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa perencanaan program yang dilakukan oleh kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dan guru senior tidak melibatkan semua komponen yang terkait sehingga mempengaruhi terhadap keberhasilan program supervisi akademik. Pelaksanaan supervisi akademik yang melibatkan kepala sekolah dan guru senior menggunakan metode langsung. Tindak lanjut supervisi sebatas pembinaan dan penguatan terhadap guru. Berdasarkan hasil di atas bahwa kegiatan supervisi akademik oleh kepala sekolah belum tercapai secara efektif untuk meningkatkan hasil pengajaran yang lebih baik.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".