Variation Theory Based GeoGebra Assisted Problemsolving Approaches and Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Learning of Geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to examine students’ problem-solving skills through mixed instruction (variation theory based GeoGebra assisted problem-solving instructional approaches). A total of 125 students divided into four intact groups participated in the study. The study employed a quasi-experimental research design. Three intact groups were randomly assigned as a treatment group, while one group was taken as a comparison group. Each of the groups took a specific instructional approach, while the comparison group proceeded as usual without any changes to the instructional process for all sessions. Both pre and post problem-solving tests were administered to all groups. To analyze the data and examine the differences (if any) in each group, ANCOVA and Paired samples ttests were employed. There was a significant mean difference between student’s pre-test and post-test in their conceptual understanding of each treatment group. Furthermore, the mixed treatment had a large mean difference. Teachers are recommended to give attention in using mixed teaching approaches of variation theory with geogebra assisted problem solving for students’ better understanding. Administrators should emphasize launching GeoGebra software through IT labs in schools, and government officials should appreciate the implementation of technology in schools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".