Thinking Process of Naive Problem Solvers to Solve Mathematical Problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solving problem is not only a goal of mathematical learning. Students acquire ways of thinking, habits of persistence and curiosity, and confidence in unfamiliar situations by learning to solve problems. In fact, there were students who had difficulty in solving problems. The students were naive problem solvers. This research aimed to describe the thinking process of naive problem solvers based on heuristic of Polya. The researcher gave two problems to students at grade XI from one of high schools in Palangka Raya, Indonesia. The research subjects were two students with problem solving scores of 0 or 1 for both problems (naive problem solvers). The score was determined by using a holistic rubric with maximum score of 4. Each subject was interviewed by the researcher separately based on the subject’s solution. The results showed that the naive problem solvers read the problems for several times in order to understand them. The naive problem solvers could determine the known and the unknown if they were written in the problems. However, they faced difficulties when the information in the problems should be processed in their mindsto construct a mental image. The naive problem solvers were also failed to make an appropriate plan because they did not have a problem solving schema. The schema was constructed by the understanding of the problems, conceptual and procedural knowledge of the relevant concepts, knowledge of problem solving strategies, and previous experiences in solving isomorphic 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it