Developing Students' Creative Constructs in Mathematics with Problem-Based (PB) and Problem Posing (PP) Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this experimental study was to examine the creative constructs of students enrolled in Differential Calculus at the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. This study was composed of 132 engineering and mathematics education students enrolled in two different semesters. The experimental group was chosen randomly, exposed to the problem-based HALP model teaching approach and problem posing while the control group was taught using Polya’s problem-solving heuristics. Multiple Solution Tasks (MST) test in Calculus was administered to determine their creative constructs which can be measured in terms of their level of mathematical fluency, flexibility and novelty of solutions before and after the experiment. Results indicated that the experimental group exhibited a remarkable improvement of their mathematical fluency and flexibility but still in the developing level when they are required to posit novel solutions to problems as influenced by the problem-based HALP and problem posing activities. Hence, it is recommended that mathematics teachers may utilize these methods to successfully develop students’ mathematical creativity and future research may also be explored on integrating technology and how it can influence developing student’s mathematical creativeness as well as the mediating role of their affective domains and IQ (intelligent quotient).
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".