Journal of Physics: Conference Series
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like
- The Development of Learning
Analysis of creative mathematical thinking ability Management To Enhance Mathematical
Thinking Ability For Secondary School
by using model eliciting activities (MEAs) Students
Suphawadi Srithammasart, Santi
Wijakkanalan and Channarong Heingraj
To cite this article: A Winda et al 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1013 012106 - Analysis of creative mathematic thinking
ability in problem based learning model
based on self-regulation learning
D N Munahefi, S B Waluya and Rochmad
- Gender perspective in mathematical
View the article online for updates and enhancements. thinking ability
N R Dewi, F Y Arini, S Suhito et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 140.0.38.49 on 08/03/2023 at 02:59
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
Analysis of creative mathematical thinking ability by using
model eliciting activities (MEAs)
A Winda1*, P Sufyani2 and N Elah2
1
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
2
Mathematics Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Abstract. Lack of creative mathematical thinking ability can lead to not accustomed with open
ended problem. Students’ creative mathematical thinking ability in the first grade at one of junior
high school in Tangerang City is not fully developed. The reason of students’ creative
mathematical thinking ability is not optimally developed is so related with learning process
which has done by the mathematics teacher, maybe the learning design that teacher use is
unsuitable for increasing students’ activity in the learning process. This research objective is to
see the differences in students’ ways of answering the problems in terms of students’ creative
mathematical thinking ability during the implementation of Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs).
This research use post-test experimental class design. The indicators for creative mathematical
thinking ability in this research arranged in three parts, as follow: (1) Fluency to answer the
problems; (2) Flexibility to solve the problems; (3) Originality of answers. The result of this
research found that by using the same learning model and same instrument from Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) there are some differences in the way students answer the problems and
Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can be one of approach used to increase students’ creative
mathematical thinking ability.
1. Introduction
The function and purpose of education is the "National education serves to develop skills and form the
character and civilization of dignity in the context of the intellectual life of the nation, aimed at
developing the potential of learners in order to become a human of faith and piety to god almighty,
noble, healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, and become citizens which democratic
and responsible”. Based on the function and purpose mean that education is very important to be
developed in every field of study mathematics in particular [1].
Particularly in the learning of mathematics, expected more teachers emphasize student involvement
in utilizing math through a process, rather than results-oriented. Learning math should give the
opportunity to the students to see and think about a given idea. In learning mathematics, students are
often faced with the problem that is not quickly obtained the result, meanwhile students are expected to
complete. For cases like these students need to think, suspect, looking for a simple formula, and then
prove his righteousness then students need to increase the ability of thinking in order to find the right
way to solve the problem.
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
The importance of developing students’ thinking ability is contained in Permendiknas No. 22 the
purpose of learning mathematics are: "(1) understand the concepts of mathematics, explain the linkages
between concepts and apply concepts or algorithms in a flexible, accurate, efficient and precise in
problem, (2) use the reasoning on patterns and properties, do the manipulation of the mathematics in
making generalizations, compile evidence, or explain ideas and statements in mathematics, (3) solve
the problem which includes the ability to understand the problem, design a mathematical model, solve
the model and interpret the solution, (4) communicate ideas with symbols, tables, diagrams or the other
media to clarify the circumstances and problems, (5) have the attitude to appreciate mathematics in life
such as have the curiosity, attention, and interest in studying mathematics as well as attitude of the
tenacious and confident in problem solving” [2].
Based on this, one of the goals of learning mathematics is carrying out mathematical thought
processes. In this study, researchers developed the ability to think creatively with consideration to
familiarize students with open ended questions and the paradigm of students that math questions have
only one solution.
Based on the experience of the pre study, when given a problem which allows many answers (open
ended problem) students tend to hesitate to answer and not confident with their own answers. The
creative thinking ability test results show that most students are still not able to answer the questions.
The result of the test of creative thinking ability also showed the same thing i.e. less than 10 students
who get the score above the value of the minimum mathematics score that assigned by school and the
average value of a class of less than 60. From the pre results of this research indicate that students trained
to answer questions that have many possible answers and this means the ability of mathematical creative
thinking of students in schools is still low. Based on the results of preliminary research also shows that
the process of learning mathematics in school the teacher is still a center of learning and teachers rarely
the teacher gives the students the opportunity to play an active role in learning and students are also
rarely given the open ended problems then needs analysis before answering. Learning methods used by
teacher are also still less varied. Teachers usually use the method of monotonous as just using the lecture
method. Using media or tools are also rarely used in mathematics learning in that school.
Educate not only give or transfer the science then the learning process becomes a learning system
that tend to focus on rote-memorization. As a result, learners are not very proficient in applying the
theories of science and also weak in conduction a scientific study that is contextual. In the present era
that demands active learners are very important in the learning process of the teacher not as the only
source of learning and the methods used by teachers in delivering the lessons do not use the approach
that is teacher-centered. The process of learning centered on the teacher just makes the process of
learning into something boring and less develop the ability of learners.
One approach to learning is student-centered learning approach Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs).
Lesh and Doerr said that Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) are derived from a model and modelling
perspective on problem solving in mathematics, science, and engineering education and provide students
with a future-oriented approach to learning [3]. Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) is an approach to
developing students ' ability in building a model, therefore any lesson that stage favor cooperation within
the Group of students build mathematical models to solve a problem. The syntax of the Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) approach in this research is modified from the syntax of Model Eliciting Activities
(MEAs) from Chamberlin and NG Kit Ee Dawn can be seen as follows: 1) Students are divided into
several groups, each group consists of 3-4 students; 2) Each group is given the Materials that have been
drawn up based on the principles of learning approach Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) and
demanding work using the approach to Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs); 3) Students solve the
problem given by way of a discussion within the Group (group discussion). While the teachers toured
the classroom leads students in correcting the mistakes he had made; 4) Representatives of students from
several groups (groups with different answers) presented the results of her work in front of the class.
During the presentation progresses, each group is given a sheet of reflection to assess the results
presentation of the other groups. Reflection sheet includes 3 assessments, namely: 4.1) Representation
- how good are the models created to solve the problem?; 4.2) Validity – could you guys give advice to
2
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
fix the model?; 4.3) Application of model – could that have been made are used in other math concepts?;
5) Students or other groups are given the opportunity to respond to the results of his friend's presentation
(class discussion). In this case the teacher becomes a facilitator in the course of the discussion and give
questions about the work of students [4,5].
Based on the syntax indicates that students are given the opportunity to discuss with their friends and
then need to express their opinion, ideas or the answer to the problem that teacher give. After that, with
the teacher discuss the material again to obtain a summary. The syntac that Model Eliciting Activities
(MEAs) has, give a lot of opportunities for students to develop their creative mathematical thinking
ability in groups or their self. By using the concept of Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) made to study
mathematics in a more meaningful way because the students are trying to understand the material by
their own way and then communicating back by giving the feedback.
Munandar formulating creative thinking ability as reflecting the fluency, flexibility, originality in
thought and the ability to develop and detail of an idea (elaboration). The behavior of the student are the
tarits of creativity that is associated with the ability to think someone with the ability to think creatively.
The more creative a person the traits are getting owned. In this study, students are not required to create
something completely new but judging from the way of thinking of the students to find something
different from the usual. The ability of creative thinking in this study, is limited by the fluency,
flexibility, and originality. The indicators are: 1) fluency: the students are able to provide many answers;
2) flexibility: the students are able to provide alternative answers from the information obtained; 3)
originality: students are able to provide unique ways based on what they think [6].
Several previous studies which are relevant to use of the Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) already
done, the application of learning Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can improve student mastery of
math concepts on the material of the triangle in grade 7. The other research, state that Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) are also great for increasing the learning outcomes of mathematics on grade 5 in SDN
1 Baturiti [7,8].
Based on the explanation, the issues to be discussed are the analysis indicators of students' creative
mathematical thinking ability that showed during the implementation of Model Eliciting Activities
(MEAs) and also to see if Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can be one of the learning approach that
can be used to increase students' creative mathematical thinking ability. The purpose of this study was
to analyze the indicators of creative mathematical thinking ability of students in topic square of grade 7
on one junior high school at Tangerang city that appeared during the implementation of Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) and to find that Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can increase students' creative
mathematical thinking ability.
2. Methods
This research uses quasi-experiment with the post-test experimental class design with descriptive
analysis of qualitative. In this research, the subject is one class in grade VII in one junior high school at
Tangerang City. The independent variable in this study is Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) and the
dependent variable is the students' creative mathematical thinking ability. Primary data in this research
is students' post-test results that made based on creative mathematical thinking ability indicators that
have been determined beforehand. The instrument in this research is post-test of creative mathematical
thinking ability that given at the end of the implementation of Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs). Posttest results were analyzed by determining the suitability of the students'
answers to the indicators of the ability of creative mathematical thinking that expected. From the data
will be seen the students' average post-test results to be compared with mathematics minimum score that
determined by the school to see the Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) in improving students' creative
mathematical thinking ability.
3. Results and Discussion
Based on the results of the research that conducted in grade 7 on one junior high school at Tangerang
City in the material square with creative mathematical thinking indicators used in the post-test are: (1)
3
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
fluency: students are able to provide many answers; (2) flexibility: students are able to provide
alternative answers from the information obtained; (3) originality: students are able to provide unique
answers based on what they think. Researcher found that there are differences in students ' ways of
answering the question even the treatment and the instrument used is the same.
In this research, creative thinking ability test instrument consists of 8 problems. The indicator of
fluency consists of 3 problems, the indicator of flexibility consists of 3 problems, and indicators of
originality consist of 2 problems. In this article, one problem contains 1 indicator. For problem number
one, the indicator is fluency, the problem is “Specify the area of the space below using at least 2 different
ways!”
Figure 1. Problem number 1
For the question about the indicator of fluency found that there are differences in students’ ways of
answering the question even the treatment and the instrument used is same. There are some differences
in students’ ways of answer this part, as shown below:
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) and (b) Student’s answer for problem number 1
Seen from two pictures above, how the student answered (a) or (b) is almost the same and can be
said both students were able to think well. It can be seen from the large number of quadrilaterals formed
4
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
from a given problem. The less quadrilateral described the smooth process of thinking students. Students
(a) responded by adding 3 forms a square on the outside of the square while the students (b) answer by
dividing the square into 5 forms a square. Of the 25 students answer with vary. The difference in the
way to the answer is caused by different levels of student creativity despite getting the same learning
process. Based on the answers to almost any answer correct posttest, there are some students who are
less than perfect answer because of the inappropriate calculation process.
For problem number 2 the indicator used is flexibility, the problem is “From the two-dimensional
figure below, draw the new shape of quadrilateral as many as you can than can fit the shape!”
Figure 3. Problem number 2
For the question about the indicator of flexibility found that there are differences in students’ ways
of answering the question even the treatment and the instrument used is same. There are some
differences in students’ ways of answer this part, as shown below.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. (a) and (b) Students’ answer for the problem 2
5
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
The picture is an example of an answer from the associated students’ indicator of flexibility. Most of
the students answered correctly and in accordance with the expectations of researcher, but the difference
in the way to the answer visible in each student. Student (a) answered with pictures that match the
properties owned 6 rectangles and without a lot of repetition of the quadrilateral. The students (b) able
to answer, but it is a lot of repetition of quadrilateral. In the answer of student (b) there is still a triangular
shape in the settlement while the question only asked a square form only. This is also clearly visible
differences how to determine an alternative answer to the question. The difference of how to answer is
caused by the level of creativity and a different understanding each student acquire the same learning
though.
For problem 3, the indicator of originality, the problem is “In a picture, there is a quadrilateral and
the other two-dimensional figure. The area of quadrilateral is 5:8 one of the other two-dimensional
figure. Draw the specified image!”
The way students answer shown in picture below.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. (a) dan (b) figure of Students answer for problem no. 3
Only a few students could answer the teacher's expectations accordingly. Example answer as shown
(a) and (b) which is the correct answer and unique. The only difference there is in the process of
answering. Students (a) respond by giving a description of how to obtain the answers while the student
(b) have the answers that are more unique and not taught by researchers but less on writing the process
of obtaining the answer. Researchers had confirmed to the students (b) about how to find pictures like
these images. Student (b) divide a square into a small shape parallelogram. Of the 25 students, a lot of
students who are less familiar with the problem number 3 and this is the subject of the correction for the
researchers.
If compared with the minimum mathematics score that assigned by school is 72, it means that still
lots of students who scored below standard because of the 25 students there were only 8 people who
score above 72 and earned an average of 62.5 class with the maximum score 90.63 and score a minimum
of 25. Based on this, to see the influence of Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can affect or increase
6
4th International Seminar of Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Education IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1013 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012106 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012106
the ability of mathematical creative thinking of students, researcher compared with the results of the
preliminary research conducted by researcher.
On preliminary before the applied Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs), almost all the students are not
familiar with the open ended problem that demands a lot of alternatives to answer and the average score
is still under 60. Once applied Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs), although on the posttest as many as
17 students get score below the standard of minimum completeness but which needs to be appreciated
is the attitude of the students who are getting trained and confident with their own answers. The low
score of the posttest is also influenced by the lack of precise answer to each of the students but overall
the process of teaching and learning with Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) which requires students to
dare to express their opinion in the form of a model is indicated with an attitude of confidence and
getting used to the open ended problem. This shows that the ability of mathematical creative thinking
of students is higher than their initial ability before they are taught with Model Eliciting Activities
(MEAs).
4. Conclusion
Based on the research results obtained, the researchers concludes that: (1) Analysis of students’ creative
mathematical thinking ability based on indicators that appear after the implementation of Model
Eliciting Activities (MEAs) approach can be sorted from most understandable indicator to the most
difficult indicator for of students is as follows : fluency, flexibility, and originality. (2) Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) approach can increase students’ creative mathematical thinking ability although it
needs a lot of improvement and perfection.
Advice that researcher can be given to the mathematics teachers is can use the Model Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) approach with more open ended problem as a variation in mathematics teaching-
learning process and enhance this approach to be optimally used in improving students' creative
mathematical thinking ability, to further researchers to continue with another research that use the Model
Eliciting Activities (MEAs) approach to other problems and issues with high subjects and also subject
that need high precision.
5. References
[1] Depdikas 2003 Undang-Undang RI No. 20 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional (Jakarta:
Depdiknas)
[2] Depdiknas 2006 Permendiknas Nomor 22 tahun 2006 tentang Standar Isi (Jakarta: Depdiknas)
[3] Doerr H M and Lesh R 2011 Models and modelling perspectives on teaching and learning
mathematics in the twenty-first century Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical
modelling 247-268
[4] Chamberlin S A and Moon S M 2005 Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify
creatively gifted mathematicians Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 17 1 37-47
[5] NG K E D 2010 Initial experiences of primary school teachers with mathematical modelling
Mathematical Applications And Modelling: Yearbook 2010, Association of Mathematics
Educators 129-147
[6] Munandar U 1992 Mengembangkan Bakat dan Kreativitas Anak Sekolah (Jakarta: Gramedia)
[7] Ririn W 2013 Pengembangan pembelajaran matematika model eliciting activities untuk
meningkatkan penguasaan konsep matematika siswa pada materi segitiga kelas VII
(Yogyakarta: Jurusan Pendidikan Matematika FMIPA UNY)
[8] Agung A G and Sudana D N 2013 Pengaruh model eliciting activities terhadap hasil belajar
matematika pada siswa kelas V di SDN 1 Baturiti MIMBAR PGSD Undiksha 1 1
