MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308566775 · doi:10.5430/jct.v11n8p196

Self Regulated Development Learning Model Based on Local Culture to Improve Elementary School Students’ Explanatory Writing Skills

2022· article· en· W4308566775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annisa Kharisma, Tatat Hartati, Vismaia S. Damaianti, M. Solehuddin, Chandra Chandra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplanatory modelMathematics educationDocumentationPsychologyData collectionPedagogyComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to develop a learning model to improve elementary school students' explanatory writing skills. This development research used the Plomp model (preliminary research, prototyping phase, and assessment). Data collection techniques were carried out by interview, observation, and documentation study. The data collection tool employed was a written test sheet for students’ explanatory writing skills. After conducting a needs analysis, it was found that the explanatory writing material is new in elementary school. Thus, the students' explanatory writing skills in this study were very low. The teacher then needed a model focusing on the students' development in explanatory writing skills. This research, therefore, produced a learning model of self-regulated strategy development based on local culture to improve the explanatory writing skills of elementary school students. This model can motivate and increase students’ confidence in writing by choosing several strategies provided and measuring, analyzing, and activating early abilities, thereby increasing students’ content knowledge. The results also revealed an increase in students’ explanatory writing skills. Moreover, this special model pays attention to how to write explanatory in elementary school. Further, this model cannot only be used in elementary schools but can also be used at higher school levels. Therefore, future researchers are advised to conduct research by testing the effectiveness of learning models with similar themes at higher school levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207