MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378233539 · doi:10.5430/jct.v12n3p135

Evaluation of Product-Based Education Training Class at Vocational High School using the CIPP Model

2023· article· en· W4378233539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Purwita Sari Rebia, Suharno Suharno, A.G. Tamrin, Muh. Akhyar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVocational and Entrepreneurial Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Nonprobability samplingVocational educationProduct (mathematics)Class (philosophy)DocumentationPsychologyMathematics educationProcess (computing)Medical educationMathematicsComputer sciencePedagogyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An employer is commonly dissatisfied with the skills of Vocational High School (VHS) graduates and suggest schools carry out learning innovations. This dissatisfaction led to the response of Warga VHS, through the implementation of a product-based education training class. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate industrial-class best practices regarding the implementation of Product-Based Education Training (PBET) in VHS, using the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model. This evaluative method was used and conducted at the Warga VHS Surakarta, which organizes PBET industrial class. Using a purposive sampling technique, the study samples were selected, containing 41 students, 8 teachers, 2 alums, 2 parents, and 1 industrial manager. Data collection was also obtained through questionnaires, interviews, and documentation. In this process, the validity of the questionnaire items used the moment product correlation. Based on the results, students' context, input, process, and product evaluation had average scores of 4.48, 4.25, 4.39, and 4.25, respectively. Meanwhile, the teachers' average values were 4.29, 4.36, 4.23, and 4.5 for the context, input, process, and product evaluation, respectively. In this case, the entirety of these values was included in the very high category. This indicated that the implementation of PBET improved graduate skills and sustainably strengthened cooperation with the industry.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicVocational and Entrepreneurial EducationFrench-language works237,207