Programa motivacional basado en el método polya para mejorar la resolución de problemas matemáticos
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent international evaluations regarding educational level have revealed that Peru is in the rankings of countries with the lowest performance in various subjects, including mathematics. The Polya method is presented as a solution to this serious situation, which assures that if its four steps are considered, better results will be obtained than the traditional method of teaching mathematics. This study narrates the application of a motivational program, in which the Polya method was applied in order to improve the solving of mathematical problem solving in the third grade of secondary school in educational institutions in Peru. The researchers identified two groups of students, one composed of 39 students in which mathematics was taught applying the traditional method (control group), and another group of students composed of 41 students in which this program was applied (experimental group). The period of this quasi-experiment covered the third quarter of school year 2019. Pre-tests and post-tests were applied to both groups. Finally, the hypothesis was contrasted by means of the chi-square test, obtaining as a result 182.142 with a confidence level of 5%, which affirms the general hypothesis formulated, that is: if the motivational program based on Polya's method is applied, then the solving of mathematical problem solving in the third grade of secondary school in Peru will be improved.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it