'Assessing Students' Problem-Solving Skills and Self-Efficacy Belief through Posing-Exploring-Doing-Evaluating (PEDE) Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined how the Posing-Exploring-Doing-Evaluating (PEDE) model affects students' problem-solving skills and self-confidence in math at Catumbalon National High School, Valencia City, Bukidnon, during the third quarter of the 2024-2025 school year. It used a quasi-experimental design with 31 students in the experimental group and 34 in the control group to address challenges in math proficiency identified by local and international assessments. Results showed that students who learned with the PEDE model scored higher on posttests and retention tests in problem-solving than those in the control group, with a significant difference in retention scores. However, self-efficacy (students' belief in their abilities) reached only a moderate level for the PEDE group, though there was a significant difference between groups before and after the study. The PEDE model effectively improves students' problem-solving skills and moderately boosts their self-confidence in math compared to traditional methods
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".