Critical Thinking Skills of Elementary School Students Through an Inductive Thinking Learning Model on Animal Breeding Lessons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is motivated by the tendency of low critical thinking skills of elementary school students. The habit of memorizing and remembering material in books is one of the factors that influence it. This study aims to determine the critical thinking skills of elementary school students at each stage of the inductive thinking learning model. The method used in this study is a qualitative descriptive method. The research participants involved 7 grade VI students in one of the public elementary schools in Cipongkor District, West Bandung Regency on animal breeding material. The instruments used in data collection were observation sheets and test questions. The research data were analyzed qualitatively through scoring and percentages based on the emergence of aspects of critical thinking indicators. The results showed that the average percentage of students' critical thinking skills indicators in the high category based on the results of the observation of the syntax of the inductive thinking learning model was 65,6%, and 67% based on the results of the description test. Thus, the researcher can conclude that the implementation of the inductive thinking learning model is effectively used to improve the critical thinking skills of elementary school students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".