Improving Learning Achievement by Applying the Pakem Learning Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The success of the teaching and learning process in the classroom will be largely determined by the learning strategy, no matter how complete and clear the other components are, if they are not applied through the right strategy, then these components will have no meaning in the process of achieving goals. Purpose. Therefore, every teacher who will teach is required to apply certain methods or strategies in the implementation of his learning Method. While the objectives of this study are: (a) Want to know the increase in student learning achievement after the application of the learning strategy of improving thinking skills, (b) Want to know the effect of student learning achievement after applying the PAKEM learning model. Results. This research uses action research (action research) as much as 2 rounds, each round consists of four stages, namely: design, activities and observations, reflection, and revision. Conclusion. The targets of this study were fourth grade students at SDIT Al Manar Purwakarta. Data obtained in the form of formative test results, observation sheets of teaching and learning activities.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it