PENGARUH MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DAN FUNGSI KOGNISI TERHADAP KETERAMPILAN BERMAIN HOKI: Studi Eksperimen pada Atlet Hoki Berbasis Gelombang Otak Alpha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji pengaruh model pembelajaran Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) dan Direct Instruction (DI) serta kontribusi fungsi kognisi terhadap peningkatan keterampilan bermain hoki peserta didik. Penelitian menggunakan desain eksperimen faktorial 2x2 dengan melibatkan 30 siswa SMP yang dikelompokkan berdasarkan model pembelajaran dan tingkat fungsi kognisinya (tinggi dan rendah). Fungsi kognisi diukur menggunakan instrumen Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), sedangkan keterampilan bermain diukur melalui Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI). Aktivitas gelombang otak alpha turut dicatat menggunakan alat EEG Neuron-Spectrum-AM sebagai data eksploratif. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa: (1) terdapat perbedaan signifikan keterampilan bermain antara siswa yang dibelajarkan dengan model TGFU dan DI, di mana model TGFU lebih unggul secara umum; (2) terdapat interaksi yang signifikan antara model pembelajaran dan fungsi kognisi terhadap keterampilan bermain; (3) tidak terdapat perbedaan signifikan antara model TGFU dan DI pada siswa dengan fungsi kognisi tinggi; dan (4) terdapat perbedaan signifikan pada siswa dengan fungsi kognisi rendah, di mana model DI memberikan hasil keterampilan bermain yang lebih baik dibandingkan TGFU. Kebaruan penelitian ini terletak pada integrasi model TGFU dan DI dengan moderasi fungsi kognitif serta analisis gelombang otak alpha dalam konteks keterampilan bermain hoki. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan pemilihan strategi pembelajaran yang disesuaikan dengan tingkat fungsi kognisi siswa untuk meningkatkan efektivitas pendidikan jasmani. This study aims to examine the influence of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) and Direct Instruction (DI) learning models as well as the contribution of cognitive function to the improvement of students' hockey playing skills. The study used a 2x2 factorial experimental design involving 30 junior high school students who were grouped based on learning models and levels of cognitive function (high and low). Cognitive function was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) instrument, while playing skills were measured through the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI). Alpha brain wave activity was also recorded using the Neuron-Spectrum-AM EEG tool as exploratory data. The results of the analysis showed that: (1) there was a significant difference in playing skills between students learned with the TGFU and DI models, where the TGFU model was superior in general; (2) there is a significant interaction between the learning model and the cognitive function of play skills; (3) there was no significant difference between the TGFU and DI models in students with high cognitive function; and (4) there were significant differences in students with low cognitive function, where the DI model provided better play skill outcomes than TGFU. The novelty of this research lies in the integration of TGFU and DI models with cognitive function moderation and alpha brain wave analysis in the context of hockey playing skills. This study recommends the selection of learning strategies that are tailored to the level of students' cognitive function to increase the effectiveness of physical education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".