PENGARUH MODEL PEMBELAJARAN \nFLIPPED CLASSROOM MENGGUNAKAN MEDIA VIDEO TERHADAP HASIL BELAJAR IPAS SISWA KELAS IV \nSDN KAJAR TENGGULI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning outcomes are an assessment of students' abilities as a measure to determine learning outcomes. In fact, based on observations made by researchers, students' science and science learning outcomes are still relatively low because students are still not actively involved in learning, so a learning model is needed that can make students actively involved (student centered) so that students' science and science learning outcomes are better. The aim of the research was to determine differences in students' science learning outcomes on energy changes material taught using the Flipped Classroom learning model in class IV of SDN Kajar Tengguli. \nThe research method used in this research is Pre Experimental Design with One Group Pretest-Posttest, namely using one class IV as the experimental class. Sampling was taken using a saturated sampling technique. Data collection is used by conducting tests. \nFrom the results of the Paired Samples t-Test research, a Sig value of 0.000 < 0.05 was obtained, which means that H0 was rejected and H1 was accepted. So, it is stated that there is a significant influence of the use of the Flipped Classroom learning model using video media on the science learning outcomes of class IV students. With an average pretest score (before being given treatment) of 67 and posttest (after being given treatment) of 84, there was an increase in the percentage of science learning results for class IV students by 26%.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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 teacher head, 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".