The Difficulty of Students’ Reflective Thinking in Problems Solving of Linear Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification in this study with the aim is to describe how difficult it is for students to think reflectively when solving math problems, especially in linear programming material. Based on the purpose of this study, the type of research is qualitative with a descriptive exploratory approach. Data collection techniques used are: (1) test instruments; (2) interview instruments, and 3) documentation. Analysis of research data namely: (1) research data reduction, (2) data exposure, (3) data triangulation, and (4) drawing conclusions. The subjects in this study were 24 high school students. Then 2 students were selected as subjects for each category (high, medium, and low). The results of the study show that students with high mathematical abilities have difficulty in reflecting, namely, 1) difficulty connecting new information with previous understanding, so they are not careful when identifying stories in the form of mathematical models, 2) difficulties in aspects of finding relationships and formulating solutions, students mistake the sign of linear inequality two variables, 3) difficulty in evaluating aspects of the completion process, students find it difficult to recall the function graph material to solve problems using the graphical method. Students with moderate mathematical abilities, namely: 1) difficulties in the aspect of connecting new knowledge with previous understanding, students need to be careful in solving contextual problems, 2) difficulties in aspects of finding relationships and formulating solutions, students have difficulty recalling function graph material, difficult to shade the area of settlement, 3) difficulties when students evaluate the completion process. Students find it difficult to prove whether the answer is correct or not by using the graphical method. Students with low mathematical ability, 1) difficulties in the aspect of connecting new knowledge with previous understanding, students find it difficult to translate story problems into mathematical models, it is difficult to recall the material of a two-variable linear inequality system, 2) difficulties in the aspect of finding relationships and formulating solutions, students have difficulty finding coordinates, drawing graphs, finding intersection points, substituting corner points into the objective function. 3) difficulties in evaluating aspects of the completion process, students find it difficult to prove the correctness of the answers obtained by the graphical method. The difficulties experienced by students in reflective thinking were caused by students not remembering previous material related to linear programming, as well as students’ difficulties in the dimensions of fact, concept and procedural knowledge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".