IMPROVING STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY BYUSINGPROCESS-ORIENTEDAPPROACH (An Action Research at Class VIII 1 of SMPN 1 Mawasangka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa melaluiPendekatan Orientasi Proses pada SMP Negeri 1 Mawasangka.Penelitian ini menggunakan desain Penelitian Tindakan Kelas dengan 2 (dua) saikel.Tahapan-tahapan dalam pelaksanaan penelitian ini yaitu perencanaan, tindakan, pengamatan danrefleksi. Alat yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data pada penelitian ini adalah lembaranobservasi dan tes. Subyek penelitian berjumlah 30 orang yang terdaftar pada Tahun Akademik2014/2015.Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa ada peningkatan terhadap kemampuan menulis siswa.Kemampuan menulis siswa dapat dilihat dari nilai saikel pertama sampai saikel kedua. yaitu padasaikel pertama, ada 55% siswa yang mencapai nilai target minimum. Sedangkan pada saikelkedua, ada 80% siswa yang mencapai nilai target minimum setelah mereka belajar menulis denganmenggunakan pendekatan Orientasi Proses.Dapat disimpulkan dari hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa ada peningkatan kemampuanmenulis siswa karena persentase capaian yang diperoleh pada saikel kedua yaitu 80% dari jumlahsiswa.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 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; 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".