MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914412223 · doi:10.5539/ies.v12n2p109

Building Learning Trajectory Mathematical Problem Solving Ability in Circle Tangent Topic by Applying Metacognition Approach

2019· article· en· W2914412223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fikri Mukasyaf, Kms. Muhammad Amin Fauzi, Mukhtar Mukhtar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacognitionMathematics educationClass (philosophy)Construct (python library)TangentProcess (computing)Mathematical problemComputer scienceMathematicsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematical problem solving ability is one of the most important abilities students must have to process the information provided in solving problems. Before using mathematical problem solving skills, prior knowledge becomes the most crucial thing that makes students able to connect all available information so that they can construct new knowledge through the process of assimilation or accommodation.The purpose of this reseach is to:(1) Analyze prior knowledge what student has so the student can solve the problem of tangent circle given; (2) Know how learning trajectory in student’s mathematical problem solving ability by applying metacognition approach. This reaseacrch is a design research to improve the quality of learning. In this reseacrh researchers gave 3 test questions on students’ mathematical problem solving abilities. One trial was conducted in class VIII-B and trial II was conducted in class VIII-A, each consisting of 30 students junior high school. The result of students answer analysis shows the mast problematic topic that makes the studnts are difficult to solve the problem is about the tangent cicrcle that is the elements of the circle and the concept of circle circumtance there are three phased in learning path of students mathematical problem solving skill that are under standing the problem, making the problem solving plan by prrior knowledge and doing problem solving and evaluating it. From this explanation, it is better for teachers to ensure students have sufficient prior knowledge to make it easier to construct new knowledge, as well as make the learning process fun and meaningful so that students will remember knowledge in long-term memory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicMathematics Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207