Measure Reasoning Skill of Mathematics 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
The purpose of this research was to measure the reasoning skills of mathematics students using a test instrument developed from mathematics routine and non-routine task. The study used research and development method. Development of the instrument and measurement of mathematical reasoning skills using procedure: items preparation (modification task), expert validation, field testing, and data analysis. The field testing involves students of senior high school (SMA Negeri 1) and students of University of Papua, Manokwari West Papua Indonesia. The data analyzed through studying the students’ task solving, the transcripts of their work, interview after the test, identifying the specific task solving situations, and the arguments were supporting the strategy choice and strategy implementation. Result of research shows that student mathematical reasoning can be measured using the instrument test developed from the routine task and non-routine task. This research classifies the reasoning skills of mathematics students into two categories, imitative reasoning, and creative reasoning. Reasoning skills of mathematics students grouping results can be used by various interested institutions to evaluate the test using in mathematics instruction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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