Students' mathematical reasoning ability with visual, auditorial and kinesthetic learning styles in solving HOTS problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penalaran matematis adalah kemampuan menemukan hubungan antar obyek matematika, memeriksa dan mengevaluasi asumsi matematis, dan mengembangkan argumen dan bukti matematis. Kemampuan penalaran matematis dapat dipengaruhi oleh gaya belajar siswa. Gaya belajar menunjukkan cara belajar yang disukai oleh siswa. Ada gaya belajar visual, auditorial, dan kinestetik. Penelitian dilakukan di kelas VII C SMPN 3 Rambipuji. Instrumen terdiri dari angket, tes penalaran matematis, dan pedoman wawancara. Sebanyak 37 siswa diberi angket untuk mengetahui gaya belajarnya. Kemudian, dua orang dari tiap gaya belajar dipilih untuk mengikuti tes penalaran matematis dan diwawancarai. Analisis data menunjukkan bahwa siswa dengan gaya belajar visual dan kinestetik memenuhi semua indicator, sedangkan subyek dengan gaya belajar auditorial hanya memenuhi tiga indicator. Hal ini karena siswa dengan gaya belajar visual dan kinestetik cenderung bekerja secara sistematis, berbeda dengan siswa dengan gaya belajar auditorial yang suka berpikir cepat. This study aims to describe students' mathematical reasoning with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles in solving HOTS-type math problems. The research was conducted in class VII C of SMPN 3 Rambipuji. The instrument consists of a questionnaire, a mathematical reasoning test, and an interview guide. In the early stages, the researcher gave a questionnaire to 37 students to find out their learning styles, then chose two people from each learning style to take a mathematical reasoning test and interviews. Data analysis showed that students with visual and kinesthetic learning styles fulfilled all indicators, while subjects with auditory learning styles only met three indicators. Students with visual and kinesthetic learning styles tend to work systematically, unlike those with auditory learning styles, who tend to think fast.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".