5 maret 26 kamis

 

kampus

siang rapat jurnal

sore wrg

majt

pom

masjidpanut

allahuakbar

Model PTK (Penelitian Tindakan Kelas) spiral

 

Model PTK (Penelitian Tindakan Kelas) spiral dikembangkan oleh Stephen Kemmis dan Robin McTaggart sebagai bentuk pengembangan dari konsep action research.

Konsep Dasar Model Spiral

Model ini disebut model spiral karena prosesnya berbentuk siklus berulang (berputar) yang terus berkembang dan memperbaiki tindakan sebelumnya. Setiap siklus terdiri dari empat tahap utama:

1. Perencanaan (Planning)
   Guru mengidentifikasi masalah pembelajaran dan merancang tindakan perbaikan yang akan dilakukan.

2. Tindakan (Acting)
   Rencana yang telah dibuat kemudian diterapkan dalam proses pembelajaran di kelas.

3. Observasi (Observing)
   Peneliti atau guru mengamati dan mengumpulkan data mengenai pelaksanaan tindakan serta dampaknya terhadap siswa.

4. Refleksi (Reflecting)
   Guru menganalisis hasil observasi untuk menilai keberhasilan tindakan dan menentukan perbaikan pada siklus berikutnya.

Karakteristik Model Spiral Kemmis & McTaggart

• Bersifat siklik dan berulang (minimal dua siklus).

• Menekankan refleksi kritis sebagai inti perbaikan.

• Dilakukan secara kolaboratif (guru bisa bekerja sama dengan peneliti/observer).

• Berorientasi pada perbaikan praktik pembelajaran secara langsung.

Skema Alur Spiral

Perencanaan → Tindakan → Observasi → Refleksi →
(hasil refleksi menjadi dasar) → Perencanaan baru → Tindakan → Observasi → Refleksi → dan seterusnya.

Semakin banyak siklus dilakukan, semakin tajam perbaikan pembelajaran yang dihasilkan.

Qianqiaogu Cowland (千巧谷牛樂園牧場) xiluo taiwan

 

4 maret 26 rabu

 

kampus - sore penelitian

ngantar bu yuni

warteg

atm cimb

indomaret

cafe meet baskoro n his man

allahuakbar

pabrik jamur xiluo taiwan

 

Behind My Back

 

Behind My Back

Tak kusangka—
the smile was only borrowed light,
while in the shadows
my name was being broken
into cruel syllables.

I stood there,
thinking we were building trust,
while you were building stories—
sharp, glittering lies
thrown quietly at my back.

It hurts—
not because the words are heavy,
but because they came
from a mouth
that once called me friend.

If there is justice in the turning sky,
let karma walk its patient road.
Let every whisper return
to the lips that shaped it.
Let truth rise
like morning—
inevitable and bright.

As for me—
may I be guarded
by unseen hands of mercy.
May every evil intention
dissolve before it reaches my door.
May the traps set in darkness
collapse under their own weight.

O Protector of wounded hearts,
distance me from cruel souls,
from smiling daggers,
from honeyed poison.

If they choose shadows,
let me choose light.
If they throw stones,
let me grow wings.

And one day—
when the wind carries my name again,
may it carry it clean,
untouched,
and stronger than before.

TAM, TTF, and UTAUT

 

Here is a clear and academic comparison of TAM, TTF, and UTAUT, commonly used in technology adoption research (very relevant to your AI-in-education studies).

1️⃣ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Developed by Fred Davis (1989)

🔹 Core Idea

Users adopt technology if they believe it is:

• Perceived Usefulness (PU) → Improves performance
• Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) → Easy to use

🔹 Basic Model

PEOU → PU → Attitude → Behavioral Intention → Actual Use

🔹 Strengths

• Simple and easy to apply
• Strong predictive power
• Widely used in educational technology research

🔹 Weaknesses

• Focuses mainly on individual perception
• Ignores social and organizational factors

🔹 Suitable When:

You want to examine students’ or teachers’ acceptance of AI tools, such as AI-supported IBL applications in EFL writing.

2️⃣ Task-Technology Fit (TTF)

Developed by Dale Goodhue & Ronald Thompson (1995)

🔹 Core Idea

Technology will be used and improve performance only if it fits the task.

🔹 Key Components

• Task Characteristics
• Technology Characteristics
• Task-Technology Fit
• Performance Impact

🔹 Focus

👉 Not just acceptance, but whether the technology actually supports the task effectively.

🔹 Strengths

• Strong for performance-based studies
• Suitable for evaluating AI tools in writing, research, or problem-solving tasks

🔹 Weaknesses

• Less emphasis on psychological intention
• More complex measurement

🔹 Suitable When:

You want to analyze whether AI-supported IBL actually fits EFL writing tasks, not just whether students like it.

3️⃣ Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Developed by Viswanath Venkatesh et al. (2003)

🔹 Core Idea

Integrates 8 previous models (including TAM).

🔹 Four Main Constructs:

1. Performance Expectancy
2. Effort Expectancy
3. Social Influence
4. Facilitating Conditions

Moderated by:

• Age
• Gender
• Experience
• Voluntariness

🔹 Strengths

• More comprehensive than TAM
• Includes social and institutional factors
• Strong predictive power

🔹 Weaknesses

• More complex model
• Requires larger sample size

🔹 Suitable When:

You want to study AI adoption in institutional settings, including peer influence, infrastructure, and policy support.

🔎 Side-by-Side Comparison

Aspect	TAM	TTF	UTAUT
Focus	User perception	Task-technology match	Integrated acceptance model
Main Question	Do users accept it?	Does it fit the task?	What influences acceptance & use?
Complexity	Simple	Moderate	Complex
Best for	Attitude & intention	Performance & effectiveness	Institutional adoption

🎓 For AI-Supported IBL Research in EFL Writing

If your focus is:

• Students’ intention to use AI tools → TAM
• Whether AI improves writing performance through task alignment → TTF
• Institutional and social adoption factors → UTAUT
• Most comprehensive approach → Combine TAM + TTF or use UTAUT