Pre-Service Class Teacher’ Ability in Solving Mathematical Problems and Skills in Solving Daily Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the ability of pre-service class teacher at University of Petrain solving mathematical problems using Polya’s Techniques, their level of problem solving skills in daily-life issues. The study also investigates the correlation between their ability to solve mathematical problems and their level of problem solving skills in daily-life issues. The study sample consisted of 65 female students majoring in class teacher. Data were collected using two questionnaires: the mathematical problem solving test which was developed by the researchers and daily life problem solving scale which was developed by (Hamdi, 1998). The findings indicate that students had high level skills in solving daily problems; there are no statistically significant differences in daily problem solving in relation to their academic year or high-school stream. Conversely, the findings also indicate weaknesses in students’ skills in solving mathematical problems, with no statistically significant differences among students in solving mathematical problems according to Polya’s problem solving steps. However, there were statistically significant differences in students’ performance in solving mathematical problems in relation to the mathematical topic, and in favor of measurements and algebra; in addition to statistically significant differences in students’ ability to solve mathematical problems in relation to academic year and high-school stream, but no correlation between students’ abilities in solving mathematical problems and those in solving daily problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".