Improving High-Level Thinking Skills by Development of Learning PBL Approach on the Learning Mathematics for Senior High School Students
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
This study aims to improve the ability of high-level thinking by developing learning models based on problems in senior high school students. The type study is research development. The subject of dissemination consists in 3 distric/city in North Sumatera, namely: SMK Negeri 6 Medan, MAN Deli Serdang Distric and SMA Yapim Taruna Langkat Distric, SMA YPK Medan City. Instrument of Collecting data used are observation guidelines, questionnaires, interview guides, students mathematics text books for 11th grade in Senior high school, Teacher’s guide book, instrument of pre-test and post-test. Development of model is adopted from Thiagarajan’s model and Semmel & Semmel’s model. This study has compiled teaching materials in the form of textbooks for students’ and teacher’s guide book that includes the structured steps of solving mathematical problems based on problem solving which can construct high-level thinking. Results of dissemination showed a significant improvement of students’ problem solving ability in three districts/cities in North Sumatra at four schools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it