Enhancing Student Learning Outcomes Through Creative Power Point Media on Addictive Substances Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cause of poor student learning outcomes is known through the teacher's inaccuracy in choosing learning methods and media. This media is what determines student activities in learning to achieve the expected goals. This study aims to improve student learning outcomes in addictive substance material for second class at Algemene Middelbare School (AMS) using power point media. The subjects of this study were 33 students of Second Class AMS. Learning improvement actions were carried out in 2 cycles. The expected benefits of this study are: For teachers, it is expected to broaden their horizons and improve teacher professionalism, for students of course to improve their learning achievements, and for institutions or schools it is expected to be useful as an innovation in teaching and learning. The results of this study are that the use of power point media for addictive substance material in second class at AMS has proven to be very influential on learning outcomes. This can be seen from the percentage of learning outcomes in cycle 1 to cycle 2 increasing. From the results of the evaluation, students who obtained scores above the minimum completion criteria in cycle 1 were 8 students with a percentage of 24.2% and in cycle 2 there were 28 students with a percentage of 84.8%.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".