Symbolic and Verbal Representation Process of Student in Solving Mathematics Problem Based Polya’s Stages
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
The purpose of this research was to reveal how the construction process of symbolic representation and verbal representation made by students in problem solving. The construction process in this study referred to the problem-solving stage by Polya covering; 1) understanding the problem, 2) devising a plan, 3) carrying outthe plan, and 4) looking back. This research was qualitative research by getting involved 4 students of Junior High School class VIII. This study obtained results that the construction process of symbolic representation made by students since in the process of understanding the problem. In understanding the problem, students were able to identify the problem well. Then students could make the symbol used as a variable that the value was not known. By using the symbol students could perform a series of calculation to obtain the value of the symbol. Symbols created by students were very helpful and facilitated students in solving problems. While in the construction process, verbal representation was done by students since the process of understanding the problem. The form of verbal representation was manifested by writing down all information known from a slightly changed problem because they used a language that they understood more. Based on the known information, students could plan and performed a series of calculations using written sentences so that the problems could be solved properly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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