How Do Higher-Education Students Use Their Initial Understanding to Deal with Contextual Logic-Based Problems in Discrete Mathematics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mathematical reasoning in logical context has now received much attention in the mathematics curriculum documents of many countries, including Indonesia. In Indonesia, students start formally learning about logic when they pursue to senior-high school. Before, they previously have many experiences to deal with logic, but the earlier assignments do not label them as logic. Although the students have already experienced much about logic, it does not assure that they have a better understand about it even they purpose to university. Thus, this paper presents several findings of our small-scale study which was conducted to investigate the issues on how higher-education students overcome contextual logic-based problems. Data were collected through pretest, students’ written work, video recording and interview. A fifteen-minute test which consisted of four questions was given to 53 student participants in the third semester who proposed mathematics discrete course. The information towards the main issues was required through the analysis of students’ written work in the pretest and video recording during the students’ interview. The findings indicate that the students’ initial understanding, in general, do not help them much to solve logical problems based on context. In our findings, they apply several strategies, such as random proportions, word descriptions, permutation-combination calculations and deriving conclusion through logical premises.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".