Jurnal SEAQIM PDF

Dec
ember2019 Vol
ume9Number1 I
SSN2089-
4716
Southeas
tAsian
Mat
hemati
csEducat
ion
Jour
nal
SEAMEO
QI
TEP
i
nMat
hemat
ics
Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Jurnal
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
SOUTHEAST ASIAN
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
JOURNAL
VOLUME 9, NO. 1 2019 ISSN 2089-4716
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)

Centre for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel (QITEP) in Mathematics
situated in Yogyakarta Indonesia
i
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
ii
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal

(SEAMEJ)
SEAMEJ is an academic journal devoted to reflect a variety of research ideas and methods in
the field of mathematics education. This journal aims to stimulate discussions at all levels of
mathematics education through significant and innovative research studies. SEAMEJ
welcomes articles highlighting empirical as well as theoretical research studies, which have a
perspective wider than local or national interest. All contributions are peer reviewed.
SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics aims to publish SEAMEJ twice a year, in June and
December.
Contact Information
Dr. Sumardyono
Director of SEAMEO Regional Centre for QITEP in Mathematics
Jl. Kaliurang Km. 6, Sambisari, Condongcatur, Depok
Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Phone: +62(274) 889987
Fax: +62(274) 887222
E-mail: secretariat@qitepinmath.org
iii
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
iv
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
External Advisory Panel

Mohan Chinnappan, Ph.D Ret. University of South Australia
Catherine Attard, Ph.D Western Sydney University, Australia
S. Kanageswari a/p Suppiah Shanmugam, Ph.D Universitas Utara Malaysia
Ida Karnasih, Ph.D Universitas Muslim Nusantara Al
Washliyah, Indonesia
Chair
Dr. Sumardyono SEAQiM
Chief Editor
Allan L. White, Ph.D Ret. Western Sydney University, Australia
Editorial Board Members

Dr. Ganung Anggraeni SEAQiM
Dr. Wahyudi SEAMEO Secretariat, Thailand
Subanar Ph.D Ret. SEAQiM
Wahid Yunianto SEAQiM
Fadjar Shadiq Ret. SEAQiM
Manuscript Editors
Rachma Noviani SEAQiM
Rizki Nurmaya Oktarina SEAQiM
Ummy Salmah SEAQiM
Uki Rahmawati SEAQiM
I G.A. Russasmita Sripadmi SEAQiM
Administrative Assistants
Tika Setiawati SEAQiM
Rini Handayani SEAQiM
Cover Design & Typesetting

Suhananto SEAQiM
Denny Saputra SEAQiM
Febriarto Cahyo Nugroho SEAQIM
Agus Limbang Wardani SEAQIM
Eko Nugroho SEAQIM
v
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
vi
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
CONTENTS
Sumardyono and Allan L. White 1-2 Editorial
Haliza Abd Hamid, Noraini Idris and 3-16 Students’ Use of Graphs in
Ruzela Tapsir Understanding the Concepts of
Derivative
Dorian Stoilescu 17-24 Exploring the Introduction of

Computational Thinking in STEM
Education in Australian Schools
Kadek Adi Wibawa 25-36 Fragmentation of the Thinking

Structure of Translation in Solving
Mathematical Modelling Problems
Angga Kristiyajati & Ariyadi Wijaya 37-44 The Effectiveness of Visualization of

Proofs in Learning Mathematics by
Using Discovery Learning Viewed
from Conceptual Understanding
Fadjar Shadiq 45-56 Examples of the Use of the Scientific

Approach in Mathematics Teaching
and Learning to Help Indonesian
Students to be Independent Learners
Allan Leslie White 57-64 Editor’s Note: Is the Multiple

Intelligences Theory a Research-
Based Theory or a Story with a
Positive Message?
Aep Sunendar 65-76 Developing Learning Kit of Geometry

for Vocational School Grade X Based
on Multiple Intelligence Theory
Hazeeq Hazwan Azman 77-80 STEM Outreach via Science Forensic

Module:
The Impact of the Near-peer
Mentoring Approach
vii
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
viii
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
Editorial
The Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal (SEAMEJ) is supported by the

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Regional Centre for Quality
Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel (QITEP) in Mathematics situated in
Yogyakarta Indonesia, better known as SEAQiM. Launched on July 13, 2009, there are now
three SEAMEO QITEPs in Indonesia. One centre is in Mathematics (Yogyakarta), the other
two centres are in Science (Bandung) and Language (Jakarta).
SEAMEJ is an academic journal devoted to publishing a variety of research studies
and theoretical papers in the field of mathematics education. This Journal seeks to stimulate
discussion at all levels of the mathematics education community. SEAMEJ aims to publish an
edition twice a year, in June and December. In this issue there are papers that have undergone
our blind peer review process and we are indebted to those on the External Advisory Panel for
their support.
The papers offered in the first section include: a Malaysian perspective highlighting the
importance of visual imagery and thinking when teaching derivatives; an Australian
perspective on computational thinking and its place in the curriculum; and a variety of
Indonesian papers offering insights into the importance of translation in the modelling process
and thinking fragmentation, insights into the importance of visual proofs in the implementation
of discovery learning, as well as theoretical insights into the scientific approach embedded in
the latest Indonesian curriculum.
The second section consists of papers that have undergone a review process by an
editorial committee. The two papers involve insights into the theoretical and research literature
involving Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence and its contribution to education.
One paper came from the 5th International Symposium on Mathematics Education and
Innovation (ISMEI 2018) held from 13th to 14th November 2018. ISMEI is a SEAQiM’s
biennial event which aims to foster the exchange of innovative ideas and strategies for
mathematics teaching and learning in modern classrooms.
The final section has also undergone a review process by an editorial committee but is
reserved for brief papers or short communications. Readers will be interested in the work of a
newly formed body in Malaysia focused upon STEM.
This journal seeks articles highlighting empirical as well as theoretical research studies,
particularly those that have a perspective wider than local or national interests. All
contributions to SEAMEJ will be peer reviewed and we are indebted to those on the External
Advisory Panel for their support.
Finally, we say farewell and thanks to Dr. Wahyudi as former Director of SEAQiM and
editor of this journal and wish him well in his new position with SEAMEO Secretariat.
Sumardyono and Allan L. White
1
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
2
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
Students’ Use of Graphs in Understanding the Concepts of Derivative
Haliza Abd Hamid1, Noraini Idris2 and Ruzela Tapsir3

1,3
Fakulti Sains Komputer dan Matematik, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor,
Malaysia.
2
National STEM Association, Malaysia.
halizahamid@tmsk.uitm.edu.my
Abstract
Previous research showed that visual utilisation in mathematics classrooms help students in
understanding concepts. This study was conducted to assist educators in realising visual
reasoning skills in students which can be employed in classroom practices as the students
move to their higher levels of education. The study is part of a larger project. It studied 194
pre-university students’ perception of the use of graphs and examined their actual ability to
extract information embedded in the graphs in order to understand and solve derivative
problems. Findings showed that students were very encouraged to use graphs in the teaching
and learning of mathematics but the opposite was evident in their worked solutions.
Implications of teaching and learning are also discussed.
Keywords: Derivative, graphs, mathematics education, visual reasoning.
Introduction
Conceptually, the role of visual thinking is so fundamental to the understanding of calculus
that it is difficult to imagine a successful calculus course which does not emphasise the
visual elements of the subject (Zimmerman, 1991, p.136).
Zimmerman’s statement on the use of visual elements as a tool to understand calculus

and mathematics and solve mathematical problems has diverted the trend of researchers,
educators and mathematicians internationally towards the development of visual reasoning
skills. The development of students’ abilities in visual reasoning is important in mathematics
education. In fact, the mathematics education community seems to agree that learning
mathematics and calculus in particular, through symbolic manipulations based on given
formulae are meaningless. In mathematics, problems are solved through the process of
extracting the required information from the visual elements followed by various mental
processes before progressing to the operations. Schoenfeld (1992) advocated that students are
to build their mathematical and conceptual knowledge through problem solving: 1) as additions
to memorising steps and procedures, 2) by examining and investigating patterns as additions
to memorising and, 3) by constructing formulae as additions to doing and practising exercises
(Haapasalo & Kadijevich, 2000). However, the development of such abilities has been
empirically proven to be difficult for many students (Uesaka & Manalo, 2011). Thus, rather
than following a teacher’s or a mathematician’s ideas, educators, on the other hand, should
focus more on the students’ reasoning and try to venture deeper into and understand their minds
and thinking, so as to subsequently encourage further development of their ideas and thoughts.
The ideas of student centeredness and visual reasoning inspired this study as we aimed to
acquire information upon students’ perceptions and how they actually make use of graphs to
reason in the process of finding solutions to the problems assigned.
3
The calculus domain, specifically derivatives, is an essential and interesting

mathematical topic taught at the upper secondary level with vast applications at the higher
levels of education. Therefore, some educators in Malaysia, in an attempt to keep up with the
efforts of the United States and Europe, had called for some adjustments to be made in the
instructional methods for calculus (and mathematics). The Malaysian Higher Education
Ministry introduced some initiatives to ensure that the proposed changes would answer these
requests. These initiatives involved: the curriculum and methods of delivering materials; the
promoting of comprehension (Ball, Hoyles, Jahnke & Movshovitz-Hadar, 2002); and, the
ability to understand calculus and mathematics through visual tools and reasoning (Hanna &
Jahnke, 1996; Stylanides, 2007). Students’ ability to reason visually is crucial in the process of
developing and valuing convincing arguments (Baker, Cooley & Trigueros, 2000; Ubuz,
2007). Researchers and educators have also noted students’ reluctance when practising visual
reasoning in the classrooms (Ball et al., 2002). For example, although curriculum developers
at the secondary and pre-university levels emphasised the use of technology such as graphics
calculators which are graphical in nature, in the actual classroom environments, many teachers
still reverted to the teaching of algorithms and procedures for solving mathematical problems.
Consequently, students were hindered from adopting visuals as a reasoning and solution
tool. In addition, many students regard visual representations such as graphs, as one of the
procedural steps to carry out without associating them with logical reasoning or justification
for their solution steps (Kamii & Dominck, 1998). Consequently, they proceeded to the higher
levels of education not being fully-equipped with reasoning and critical thinking skills. Many
difficulties have also been reported when students need to understand the concepts of functions
and derivatives which are in fact central to the study of calculus. Further, little is known about
how students, specifically in Malaysia, acquire the ability to relate the connections between the
two concepts graphically.
This paper presents the results obtained from the investigation on pre-university
students' perceptions of the use of graphs to solve mathematical problems and their actual
ability to understand and reason with the connections between the properties of a function and
its derivatives. It is part of a longer study to investigate the development of visual reasoning
when solving derivative problems using the Cartesian graphs. Visual reasoning has been shown
to be a vital ability in perceiving the behaviour of functions and interpreting related derivative
properties. Therefore, the study aimed to focus on the following questions:
1. What are the students’ perceptions of the use of graphs in the teaching and learning of
mathematics?
2. To what extent are students able to employ graphs as visual information for reasoning in
solving derivative problems?
3. Is there any correlation between the students’ perception of the use of graphs and their
actual utilisation of graphs in solving derivative problems?
Theoretical Framework
Students’ understanding of derivative

Classroom teaching of differential calculus is mostly done based on textbook
approaches and through rote learning. Students are exposed to the sequences of procedures and
4
Haliza Abd Hamid, Noraini Idris and Ruzela Tapsir
steps to differentiate diverse types of functions. Most of the students are well-versed with the
procedural and algebraic relationships between functions and their derivatives. Subsequently,
sketching the graphs of either the functions or their derivatives is also done using similar
methods. In his thesis, Stahley (2011) identified and grouped students’ understanding of
derivatives into two categories; the ‘point-wise’ understanding and ‘across-time’
understanding. In the ‘point-wise’ understanding, students were able to identify the different
types of stationary and inflexion points such as the local maxima, local minima, stationary
inflexion or non-stationary inflexion, while in the ‘across-time’ understanding, the students
were able to comprehend the graphical connection between a function and its derivative (Monk,
1994). Many research studies has been carried out focussed upon the students’ abilities in
understanding functions and their derivatives both algebraically and graphically (Asiala,
Cottril, Dubinsky& Swingendorf, 1997; Aspinwall, Shaw, & Presmeg, 1997; Borgen & Manu,
2002; Tiwari, 2007; Ubuz, 2007; Zandieh, 2000).
Visual Argument Hypothesis

After Orton’s (1983)
It is known that some students are introduced to differentiation as a rule to be applied

without much attempt to reveal the reasons for and justifications of the procedure. Many
regard this as bad educational practice, and, in fact, it should not be necessary (p.242),
There has been an increase in mathematics educational research highlighting the

graphing aspects to understanding the concepts of calculus in the last four decades. Ratwani,
Trafton, and Boehm-Davis (2008) stated that most theories on graphical comprehension
focussed on the conceptual and perceptual processes specifically on the extraction of
information embedded in graphs. Waller’s (1981) Visual Argument characterised how
graphics, specifically graphs, communicate their embedded information. According to the
visual argument hypothesis, the effectiveness of graphics is based on visual-spatial properties
and their advantage with fewer cognitive processing as compared to only text. More
specifically, graphs communicate information through their individual elements and how the
elements are arranged in space. Kosslyn (1994) outlined the structural components of graphs
as the framework, the specifiers, the label and the background. The framework of an L-shape
Cartesian graph such as axes and scales provide information on the types of data to measure
and the measurements being used (Lohse, 1993). The specifiers, like the line or curve, represent
the relationships among the data represented within the framework. Both legs are labelled with
data to be measured and the specific measurements to be made. The title of the line or curve is
considered as another type of label. The background of the graphs such as the grid or colours
and pictures, in other types of graphs, helps in emphasising and making reading and
interpretation of the data clearer. This perceptual enhancement (Larkin & Simon, 1987)
produced effective displays that make communication of information easier for students to
perceive or infer based on the existing relationships of data.
Larkin and Simon (1987) developed production system models in order to understand
the cognitive processes involved when students are working with graphs. Graphs provide
computational advantage as compared to text alone as they assist students in retrieving and
5
extracting information through the perceptual processes. In mathematical problem solving

dealing with text alone, students need to read or browse through the entire text for relevant and
important information before storing them in the working memory, while at the same time
exploring for other relevant parts. The processes continue until all information is gathered in
the working memory. Working memory is known for its limited capacity as it is unable to hold
data for a long time. Therefore, these processes are prone to errors. Graphs, on the other hand,
systematically organise information spatially making it easier to be read. Students may skip
the process of storing data in the working memory because they are already visually available
for them to retrieve and interpret.
This stance offers an explanation for the difficulties that students face and consequently
commit errors when relating the properties of function and their derivative using graphs.
Research that investigated students working with graphs on functions and their derivatives
revealed that students complicate themselves between the slope of the chord and the slope of
the tangent to the curve (Asiala et al., 1997; Tiwari, 2007; Ubuz, 2007). In total, they were
unable to coordinate and relate the two different attributes of the function. A visual exhibiting
of the connection of the two quantities is therefore designed in the form of graphs as tasks for
the students.
Methodology
Participants
The participants were 194 pre-university students taking the South Australian
Matriculation programme in Malaysia with the intention to pursue to various disciplines at the
tertiary level. At the time of the study, the students had finished the syllabus on calculus. They
were also exposed to the concepts and applications of derivatives for at least a year at the
secondary level prior to joining the pre-university curriculum.
Instrumentation
Two types of data collection instruments were employed. The Visual Representation
Usage Level (VRUL) was an adapted 17-Likert type questionnaire developed by Uesaka,
Manalo and Ichikawa (2007) in a study to compare the perception and daily learning
behaviours of Japanese’ and New Zealand’ students in solving mathematical problems. A pilot
study on 50 pre-university students of the same criteria and background was also carried-out.
Some amendments were made to suit the students’ understanding of the items. Students were
not familiar with the words image and figures, and therefore they were omitted and replaced
by the more specific words of graphs and diagrams. Two of the items used the words difficulty
and troublesome to describe the ease of students in handling images and figures to solve
mathematical problems. The latter was taken out after students had responded that in their
opinions, both carried the same meaning. The internal reliability factor was 0.72. The items
were divided into four different categories. The first category was aimed to determining the
students’ preference level of using graphs or diagrams in their daily learning behaviour while
the second category was aimed at determining their view on the usefulness of graphs or
diagrams in solving mathematical problems. The third category was aimed at determining the
students’ perception of the difficulty of using of graphs and diagrams in solving mathematical
6
problems and the final category was meant to determining their perception of the teacher’s
behaviour in using graphs or diagrams in solving mathematical problems. Students’
preferences were indicated using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Not at all, 2=Slightly,
3=Moderately, 4=Very much and 5=Definitely).
In order to investigate the extent to which students employ graphs as visual information
to reason in solving derivative problems, a Visual Reasoning Test consisting of five tasks was
constructed; only two of the tasks are discussed in this article. All the tasks were graph-
accompanied questions where students must refer to the graphs for solutions. All the tasks were
set in accordance with the curriculum outlined by the South Australian Certificate of Education,
to which the students were registered. The tasks were examined by two experts in the area for
their content validity. In order to examine the distribution of responses from the students, the
frequencies and percentages were computed for each part of all the tasks based on the general
rubrics shown in Table 1. The rubric was sent to an international expert for its content validity.
Students’ works were assessed based on 5 categories of 0 = Not Attempted or No Answer (NA)
when the students did not attempt or left the task unanswered; 1 = Incorrect Solution with
Invalid or No Reason (IINR) when the students produced incorrect solution and incorrect
reason or did not provide any reason at all for the task attempted; 2 = Correct Solution with No
Reason (CNR) when the students managed to arrive at the correct solution but did not provide
any reason for carrying out the steps taken; 3 = Correct Solution with Invalid Reason (CIR)
when the students managed to arrive at the correct solution but had provided invalid reason;
and 4 = Correct Reason with Valid Reason (CR) when the students managed to get or use the
correct solution together and provide a valid reason for the steps taken. The students were also
asked to provide qualitative information about the reasons or methods they employed to arrive
at the solutions so as to further investigate their thinking, understandings or misconceptions of
the graphs.
Table 1
General Rubric for the Visual Reasoning Test
Point Code Description
4 CR Correct solution with valid reason
3 CIR Correct solution with invalid reason
2 CNR Correct solution with no reason
1 IINR Incorrect solution with invalid reason / no reason
0 NA No answer / Not attempted
Due to space limitation, only two tasks are discussed in this article.
7
Task 1
Figure 1. The Cartesian graph for Task 1.
In Task 1, (see Figure 1) students were expected to know the basic properties of
functions and the derivation of slopes, starting with the slope of the chord through the slope of
tangent and the relationship between them. The students were also expected to compare the
numerical values of the slopes by inspecting the shape of the graph of functions. They were
also expected to know how to sketch the situations on the graph of functions provided.
Task 2
Figure 2. The Cartesian graph for Task 2.
In Task 2, (see Figure 2) students were expected to know the coordinates of the tangent
at the point of contact, B, and the slope of the tangent itself. The students were also expected
to know the basics of how to calculate the slope of a straight line using two points that lie on
the line.
Data collection from both the questionnaires and tasks were completed in separate
sessions with the first one lasting for 30 minutes and the second one lasting for 45 minutes.
This was to ensure that ample time was allocated for the students to solve the problems. The
participants worked individually but with the presence of the researcher.
8
Results
The first research question looks at the students’ perception of the use of graphs in the
teaching and learning of mathematics in general. Table 2 presents the analysis of the students’
preference levels of using graphs or diagrams in their daily learning behaviour. The analysis
shows that more than 50% of the students were in the Definitely and Very Much categories for
the first four items while 41.75% of the students were in the same category for item 5. For all
the items, less than 20% of the students responded as Slightly or Not at all to indicate their
preference levels of very little use of graphs or diagrams when solving mathematical problems.
The analysis indicates that the students are very positive in using graphs and diagrams in the
classroom, either those in the textbooks or by the teachers. This consequently affects the way
they understand or solve mathematical problems. Nevertheless, as shown in the analysis of
item 5, the students seemed to be quite reluctant to adopt graphs or diagrams for solving the
mathematical problems by themselves. This indicates their low confidence level in
drawing/sketching and using graphs or diagrams to solve mathematical problems.
Table 2
The Students’ Preference Levels on Using Graphs or Diagrams in Their Daily Learning
Behaviour
Not at Slightly Moderately Very Definitely
Item all much
f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%)
1. Do you pay attention to the use of graphs or
diagrams for solving mathematical word 2 4 25 93 70
problems that your teacher shows on the (1.03) (2.06) (12.89) (47.94) (36.08)
board during class?
2. Do you copy the way your teacher uses
4 17 68 66 39
graphs or diagrams to solve mathematical
(2.06) (8.76) (35.06) (34.02) (20.10)
words problems?
3. Do you use the kinds of graphs or diagrams
2 29 58 62 43
shown in your textbooks to solve other similar
(1.03) (14.95) (29.90) (31.96) (22.16)
mathematical problems?
4. Do you use the kinds of graphs or diagrams
6 17 60 80 31
shown by your teacher to solve other similar
(3.09) (8.76) (30.93) (41.24) (15.98)
mathematical problems?
5. Do you usually use graphs or diagrams in 2 19 92 62 19
solving mathematical problems? (1.03) (9.79) (47.43) (31.96) (9.79)
Table 3 displays the results of the analysis on the students’ views of the usefulness of
graphs or diagrams in solving mathematical problems. The finding revealed that more than
70% of the students responded that graphs or diagrams are at least Very much useful and helpful
for efficiently solving mathematical problems. Only a small portion of less than 7% of the
students either Slightly or Not at all agree with the same statement. The response rates from
the students in the analysis showed that the students agree that graphs and diagrams are actually
useful for them to efficiently solve mathematical problems.
9
Table 3
The Students’ View on the Usefulness of Graphs or Diagrams in Solving Mathematical
Problems
Item all much
f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%)
6. Do you think graphs or diagrams are helpful
0 4 39 81 70
for efficiently solving mathematical word
(0) (2.06) (20.10) (41.76) (36.08)
problems?
7. Do you think it is good to use graphs or
2 10 45 60 77
diagrams in solving mathematical word
(1.03) (5.15) (23.20) (30.93) (39.69)
problems?
8. Do you think graphs or diagrams help you to
0 4 52 85 53
figure out how to solve mathematical word
(0) (2.06) (26.80) (43.82) (27.32)
problems?
The analysis of the students’ perception of the difficulty of using graphs or diagrams
when solving mathematical problems is shown in Table 4. The overall finding shows that less
than half of the students responded to Definitely or Very much to all the items in this category,
indicating that the majority of the students did not know how to construct the graphs or
diagrams and that it was easy for them to use graphs or diagrams to help them solve
mathematical problems. Meanwhile, less than 50% of the students seemed to know how to
construct graphs or diagrams for solving mathematical word problems and said that it was easy
to use or draw graphs or diagram to solve mathematical word problems. A small minority of
the students also knew the types of graphs or diagrams that are helpful in solving mathematical
problems. The analysis indicates that students lacked the confidence when it came to the
situation where they had to make use of the diagrams or graphs provided in the tasks to solve
mathematical problems or when they needed to construct or draw graphs or diagrams to help
them find the solution.
Table 4
The Students’ Perception on the Difficulty of Using Graphs or Diagrams in Solving
Mathematical Problems
Item all much
f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%)
9. In general, do you know how to construct
4 16 90 72 12
graphs or diagrams for solving mathematical
(2.06) (8.25) (46.39) (37.11) (6.19)
word problems?
10. How easy is it for you to use graphs or
4 19 95 64 12
diagrams in solving mathematical word
(2.06) (9.79) (48.97) (33.99) (6.19)
problems?
11. Do you know the types of graphs or
8 19 107 50 10
diagrams that are helpful in solving different
(4.12) (9.79) (55.16) (25.78) (5.15)
kinds of mathematical word problems?
12. How easy is it for you to draw graphs or
2 45 106 35 6
diagrams by yourself for solving
(1.03) (23.20) (54.64) (18.04) (3.09)
mathematical word problems?
10
Table 5 displays the students’ perception of their teacher’s behaviours in using graphs
or diagrams to solve mathematical problems. It can be seen that the majority, or more than
70%, of the students were at least at Very much levels. In fact, they were very positive about
their teachers’ use the graphs or diagrams to efficiently solve mathematical problems and
explain to them how to solve mathematical word problems. About 73.71% of the students
stated that the graphs or diagrams that their teacher use to show them how to solve
mathematical problems Definitely or Very much help them understand how those problems are
solved. On the same note, the majority (67.01%), of the students stated that their teachers
actually encouraged and taught them how to use graphs or diagrams to solve mathematical
word problems. Less than 10% responded either Not at all or Slightly for this category of items.
According to the analysis, the types of graphs and diagrams and how the teachers make use of
them in their teaching play an important role in making the students understand mathematical
concepts and the method they employ to solve the mathematical problems.
Table 5
The Students’ Perception on their Teacher’s Behaviour in Using Graphs or Diagrams in
Solving Mathematical Problems
Item all much
f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%) f(%)
13. Do you think your mathematics teachers use
2 6 31 64 91
graphs or diagrams to efficiently solve
(1.03) (3.09) (15.98) (32.99) (46.91)
14. Do your mathematics teachers use graphs or
2 2 41 80 69
diagrams to explain how to solve
(1.03) (1.03) (21.13) (41.24) (35.57)
15. Do the graphs or diagrams that your teachers
use to show how to solve mathematical word 0 2 49 75 68
problems help you to understand how those (0) (1.03) (25.26) (38.66) (35.05)
problems can be solved?
16. Do your mathematics teachers teach your
2 10 45 64 73
class how to use graphs or diagrams in
(1.03) (5.15) (23.20) (32.99) (37.63)
solving mathematics word problems?
17. Are you told or encouraged by your
mathematic teachers to use graphs or 0 17 47 72 58
diagrams in solving mathematics word (0) (8.76) (24.23) (37.11) (29.90)
problems?
The second research question seeks to investigate the extent students employ graphs as
visual information to reason in solving derivative problems. The students worked solutions
were classified by the correct or incorrect solutions together with the reasons they provided if
any. Figure 3 displays the percentages of students’ types of solutions for item 1. The analysis
shows that a large majority of the students managed to get the correct answers for the tasks
although some supplied invalid reason or did not provide any reasons at all. Meanwhile, a small
portion of less than 40% of the students solved the problem incorrectly and came out with
invalid reasons. For most of the items, less than 25.26% of the students did not attempt to solve
11
the problems at all. The analysis indicates that the majority of the students were able to read
and understand the information about the function and its related characteristics of the
derivative from the given graph.
Figure 3. The distribution of responses for Task 1.
Figure 4 displays the percentages of the types of students’ solution for Task 2. A total
of approximately 85% of the students managed to solve the problem correctly regardless of
whether they provided correct reasons or not, while less than half of them were in the same
category for Task 2(a)(ii). About half of the students produced incorrect solution and together
with incorrect reasons or did not provide any reason at all. Less than 7% of the students did not
attempt to solve the tasks at all. Once again, the analysis shows that students were able to read
the information from the graph of functions although only a smaller portion of them managed
to provide valid reasons.
Figure 4. The distribution of responses for Task 2.

12
The last research question looks for the correlation between the students’ perceptions
of the use of graphs and their actual utilisation of graphs in solving derivative problems. As
displayed in Figure 5, there is a positive correlation between the students’ mean values of the
use level of visual representation and their mean values for Visual Reasoning Test. In general,
the students were able to use graphs to understand the properties of functions and their related
derivative as how they perceived the use level of graphs in their daily learning of mathematics.
Specifically, it can be seen from the graph that there are three distinguished patterns describing
how the students’ usage level and their actual visual reasoning ability are related. The first
region with higher VRUL (> 4.3) tends to have higher VRT than the regions with lower VRUL.
Among the region with lower VRUL values, between 3 and 4.3, a small difference in VRUL
reflects a significant increase of difference in the VRT. On the other hand, the region with the
lowest VRUL values of less than 3 displays a relatively small increase in the VRT upon a small
difference in the VRUL.
Figure 5. Distribution of the students’ means for the usage level of visual representation and
the means for the Visual Reasoning Test.
The scatterplot was subjected to linear regression. The relationship between the mean
values of VRUL and the mean values of VRT can be described algebraically by the equation:
y = 0.55 x + 1.31 , with a positive coefficient of the correlation value of r = 0.879 . The value
0.55 indicates that for every additional value in VRUL as an independent variable, it is expected
that the dependent variable VRT values to increase by an average of 0.55. Moving to the left
or to the right along the x-axis by an amount that represents one unit change in the VRUL, the
fitted line will rise by 0.55 unit points. However, these VRUL and MVT values were obtained
13
from the pre-university students at one college. Therefore, the relationship is only valid within
these intervals of data range. Hence, no prediction is to be made outside the data range.
Discussion
Pre-university students have always portrayed calculus, specifically differential

calculus as one of the difficult topics in mathematics. They often misunderstand the notion of
function, its properties and related derivative graphically. Most of the students are able to easily
manipulate the algebraic rules on differentiation, be it the chain rule, product rule, quotient
rule, etc. The visual approach seems to be manageable when they need to just read information;
however, as the tasks get more complicated, the majority of the students tend to incorrectly
extract or make meaning of the information. Researchers have suggested that the more
complicated the tasks assigned to students, the more cognitive efforts are required in order to
understand the information embedded in the graphs and diagrams (Alacaci, Lewis, O’Brien &
Jiang, 2011; Sharma, 2013; Uesaka & Manalo, 2011).
The results also indicated that the students were positive towards the use of graphs and
diagrams in assisting them in their learning and solving mathematical problems (Uesaka &
Manalo, 2011). Therefore, teachers should modify their method of teaching by using more
visually represented materials in classrooms so as to gain their students’ attention and make
understanding of concepts much easier. At the same time, the curriculum developers can also
make use of the results by including more graph-based or diagram-based approaches starting
from the lower level at primary schools and throughout all levels of educations.
To summarise, it is clear from the results of the study that most of the students are
encouraged to use graphs and diagrams in their mathematical learning although the actual
action stated is otherwise. Therefore, they need to be exposed to alternative methods of
understanding concepts and classroom instructions. Much attention should be focussed on
cultivating student’s ability to use graphs as visual reasoning tools. If this is not implemented,
students will likely be progressively complacent with their procedural methods of solutions
especially those who manage to arrive at the correct solution and may not achieve their
mathematical problem solving experiences at a higher level of education. It is hoped that the
findings of this study will generate more interest in this research area and expand the literature
of students’ visual reasoning ability and conceptual understanding of functions and their
derivatives to enhance teachers’ awareness of their students’ thought processes and visual
reasoning skills. There is also a need to look into students’ ability to construct appropriate and
detailed graphs and diagrams to solve particular problems.
14
References
Alacaci, C., Lewis, S., O’Brien, G., & Jiang, Z. (2011). Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’
Understanding of Graphs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 7(1), 3-14.
Asiala, M., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., & Schwingendorf, K. (1997). The Development of
Students’ Graphical Understanding of the Derivative. Journal of Mathematical Behavior
16(4), 399-431.
Aspinwall, L., Shaw, K., & Presmeg, N. (1997). Uncontrollable mental imagery: Graphical
connections between a function and its derivative. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
33(3), 301-317.
Baker, B., Cooley, L., & Trigueros, M. (2000). A Calculus Graphing Schema. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 557-578.
Borgen, K. & Manu, S.S. (2002). What do students really understand? Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 21, 151-165.
Ball, D. L., Hoyles, C., Jahnke, H. N., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2002). The teaching of
proof. In L. I. Tatsien (Ed.), Proceedings of the international congress of
mathematicians (pp. 907–920). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Haapasalo, L. & Kadijevich, Dj. (2000). Two types of mathematical knowledge and their
relation. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 21(2), 139-157.
Hanna, G., & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel,
J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education
(pp. 877–908). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kamii, C., & Dominck, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1–4. In L. J.
Morrow, & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school
mathematics: 1998 yearbook (pp. 130–140). Reston, VA: The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of Graph Design. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd.
Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand
words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-
Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
Monk, G. S. (1994). Students’ Understanding of Functions in Calculus Courses. Humanistic
Mathematics Network Journal, 9, 21-27.
Orton, A. (1983). Students' Understanding of Differentiation. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 14(3), 235-250.
Ratwani, R.M., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). Thinking graphically:
connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 14(1), 36-49.
Sharma, S. (2013). Assessing Students’ Understanding of Tables and Graphs: Implications
for Teaching and Research. International Journal of Educational Research and
Technology, 4(4), 51-70.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition,
and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan
Stahley, J. R. (2011). Students’ qualitative understanding of the relationship between the
graph of a function and the graphs of its derivatives. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The
University of Maine, USA.
Stylanides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.
15
Tiwari, T. K. (2007). Computer Graphics as an Instructional Aid in an Introductory

Differential Calculus Course. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics
Education, 2(1), 32-48.
Ubuz, B. (2007). Interpreting a graph and constructing its derivative graph: stability and
change in students’ conceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology, 38(5), 609-637.
Uesaka, Y., & Manalo, E. (2011). Task-related factors that influence the spontaneous use of
diagrams in maths problems. Applied Cognitive Psycholog, 26, 251-260.
Uesaka, Y., Manalo, E., & Ichikawa, S. (2007). What kinds of perceptions and daily learning
behaviors promote students' use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving? Learning
and Instruction, 17, 322-335.
Waller, R. (1981). Understanding netwotk diagrams. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angelos, April 1981
Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Student Understanding of the
Concept of Derivative. CBMS, Issues in Mathematics Education. (103-127) Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society.
Zimmerman, W. (1991). Visual Thinking in Calculus. In Z. Cunningham (Ed.), Visualization
in Mathematics. (Notes # 19, 127-137), Washington, DC: Mathematics Associations of
America.
16
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
Exploring the Introduction of Computational Thinking in STEM Education in

Australian Schools
Dorian Stoilescu
Western Sydney University, Australia
D.Stoilescu@westernsydney.edu.au
Abstract
This paper discusses theoretical and curricular aspects of computational thinking in curriculum
and detects recent perspectives and challenges noticed in introducing computational thinking
in STEM in Australian Schools. It presents the way computational thinking is defined and
understood in curriculum documents and a set of relatively new implementations that were
designed nationally and in the state of New South Wales. This paper uses qualitative research
methods such as content analysis and text analysis. The research analyses some recent trends
in introducing computational thinking and explores these reforms that are described in the
official documents. It was noticed that although the importance of computational thinking was
highly emphasized, the documents cannot describe a consistent implementation of this set of
educational policies, as at this time implementing computational thinking is largely
underperforming. It is recommended a more systemic way of designing policies and curriculum
content for the integration of computational thinking in Australian schools is needed. Future
research needs to explore reasons for delaying these reforms of introducing computational
thinking.
Keywords: computational thinking, STEM education, Australian curriculum reforms.
Introduction
Computational thinking (CT) is a relatively new educational perspective for using computer
science in the curricula. This concept was introduced initially by Janette Wing in a brief
conference paper in 2006, as a basic educational goal to which all 21st century educators should
aspire. In that paper, computational thinking was defined as a core educational reference,
similar to literacy and numeracy. More exactly, she introduced this term as an educational
approach that “builds on the power and limits of computing processes, and on the opportunities
and the potential that is capable of offering, whether they are executed by a human or by
machine” (Wing, 2006, p.33). As such, it is a way to model various projects and problems from
a broad area based on facilities that computer support offers:
Computational methods and models give us the courage to solve problems and design systems that no
one of us would be capable of tackling alone. Computational thinking confronts the riddle of machine
intelligence: What can humans do better than computers? And, what can computers do better than
humans? Most fundamentally it addresses the question: What is computable? (p. 33)
As such, computational thinking has had an important impact on educational curriculum

and policies, as being a recent perspective introduced in the national curricula of numerous
countries and needs to be clearly understood and implemented (Aho, 2012; Hu, 2011). The
major question that underlines the expertise of computational thinking remains the previous
17
Exploring the Introduction of Computational Thinking
in STEM Education in Australian Schools
inquiry initially formulated by Wing: What can be done by computers and what still cannot
(Hu, 2011, Wing; 2006, 2008)? What happens in various areas of curricula, when we move
from the areas that use computers and abstract algorithms to various software packages
required in the school curricula? Do we need to change our school curriculum? If, yes, what
needs to be updated? Do we only need to change pedagogical approaches in all disciplines? If
yes, how can we remodel our school curriculum content in order to effectively interact with
computers? This is why computational thinking was introduced as a broader way of
understanding interactions between computer and learning activities.
Computational thinking involves understanding human interactions, patterns of problem-
solving, designing systems, and implementing decisions (Grover & Pea, 2013). Especially in
STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) education, the impact of computation
thinking is major as it includes and uses some parts of the content in these disciplines (Jona et
al., 2014).
As a developed country, Australia has been attempting to introduce new policies and
implement them across all areas of primary and secondary education. With this in mind, in this
paper, it is attempted to explore ways in which computational thinking is defined and
implemented in Australian Curriculum.
The main research questions discussed here are:

1. How is computational thinking described and implemented in the Australian curriculum?
2. What are the challenges in implementing computational thinking in Australia?
First, this research will study mostly the national curriculum and the way computational
thinking was understood. As Australia’s education system is designed and managed at state
level, the discussions will focus mostly on the New South Wales state curriculum, the most
populous state in Australia, and the other states although not discussed in this current paper,
have numerous similarities with the New South Wales implementations.
Literature Review
Similar to computational thinking, there are already components existing in ICT education
with research terms such as digital literacy, coding literacy, computational modelling, IT
literacy, IT fluency (García-Peñalvo et al., 2016). While an exhaustive discussion of terms used
in the research literature is not the purpose of this paper, we will briefly discuss some
differences between previous terms connected to computational thinking. Computational
thinking is often seen as becoming familiar with various digital technologies. However,
computational thinking is more than just learning how to access information through various
digital devices and software packages, which is the definition of digital literacy. As well, it is
different from digital fluency which explores the skilfulness of computational thinking related
to programming and people see it as a way to connect with learning programming. However,
it is not narrowly focused on creating software that is solving that problem.
Computational thinking attempts to change the way students learn. For instance, when
solving a problem, students using computational thinking paradigms might ask: “What is the
most practical way to solve this problem and how difficult is it?” or “Is any software available
18
Dorian Scoilescu
to solve this problem? If not, can the computer help to ease the solving of this problem? How?”
The learning paths are changed in other ways as well: “Can we approximate the main stages of
solving this problem with an algorithmic path?” In other words, computational thinking
attempts to rephrase the initial problem into something less difficult, through different
reductionist paths by reducing complexity, creating different scenarios, using random data, and
simulation.
Computational thinking uses various strategies to achieve its impact upon learning. For
instance, by using abstraction and decomposition, some characteristics are generalized or
emphasized. As such, the content becomes less complex and easier to get digitally processed.
By selecting specific criteria, the problems are reduced to some general types or classes of
problems and are then algorithmically approached.
Computational thinking was recently connected to teaching broader skills such as literacy
and numeracy. They are similar in the way that students need to master both in order to succeed
in today's society (Setle et al., 2012). Computational think as such needs to be delivered in a
broader path of understanding so that technological tools and algorithms are deployed in not
only STEM disciplines, but also social studies, languages, and the arts. As well, the concepts,
the tools, and the language used in manipulating these are required to be more flexible, so that
when learners decompose the problems, they will be easy to work with by various types of
learners when trying to solve complex types of problems.
Computational thinking was recently introduced in many countries such as USA, China,
Australia, Israel, and several European countries such as Netherland, Ireland, UK, and Finland.
While computational thinking implementations into national curricula are still in the early
stages, some trends have emerged. For instance, the researchers and educators attempt to
separate computational thinking as distinct from programming. For many researchers (García-
Peñalvoet al. 2016; Voogt, Fisser, Good, Mishra & Yadav, 2015) this is a major difficulty when
using computational thinking in other areas different from the traditional computer science
discipline. However, there are attempts to introduce computational thinking in other areas
different from STEM such as English, Latin, history, graphic arts, ethics (Barr and Stephenson,
2011; Seoane-Pardo, 2016; Setle et al., 2012).
Another major debate is which type of coding language should be chosen. More exactly, in
teaching computing, there are two different paths. The first of them is teaching traditional
languages such as Python, C/C++/C#, Java, Perl, Visual Basic, HTML, SQL. A major difficulty
encountered by people promoting this path is that these languages require a considerable level
of expertise for teachers willing to try them in their classrooms. As such, teachers would need
more formal classes and training in programming courses, things difficult to support in the
developing or developed countries. The second major path is the use of non-traditional
programming languages, and visual programming platforms such as Logo, Scratch, Alice,
AgentCubes, Flowgorithm, GameSalad, Kodu Games Lab, LARP, Raptor, Toon Talk, Visual
Logic, etc. Some non-traditional programming languages such as Logo and Scratch are
considered a way of playing, designing, and interacting with different objects and actors. These
programming languages put playing and user interactions in the centre of learning
programming. As such, these are not related to a rigid writing of a specific syntax.
Recently, new trends have been emerging in learning programming through emphasizing
interactions and simulations of robotics, actor-model programming languages, programming
19
microcontrollers, and programming Internet of Things technologies. Some products already

used in schools and universities are Arduino, Circuit Wizard, GENIE, PICAXE, Raspberry PI,
Micromite, Intellecta, Bee-Bots, Lego Mindstorms, WeDo (Lego-based) and Intel Edison.
These tools are receiving increasing attention as they are hands-on and require less computer
programming skills, if any.
Method
This research paper explores tendencies of introducing computational thinking revealed in

the curriculum documents. It uses qualitative research methods, mainly document analysis
(Bowen, 2009):
Documents that may be used for systematic evaluation as part of a study take a variety of forms...
Researchers typically review prior literature as part of their studies and incorporate that information in
their reports. However, where a list of analysed documents is provided, it often does not include previous
studies. Surely, previous studies are a source of data, requiring that the researcher rely on the description
and interpretation of data rather than having the raw data as a basis for analysis. The analytic procedure
entails finding, selecting, appraising (making sense of), and synthesising data contained in documents (p
27).
In the following section, the main tendencies will be summarised as they are displayed in
the official websites of the Australian Curriculum and The New South Wales Education
Standards Authority. Some attempt was made to include some previous documents on
computational thinking used in Australia and other countries such as the USA and the UK. By
using document analysis, the content is structured into major themes, categories, and case
examples specifically through content analysis (Labuschagne, 2003).
Findings
Attempts of Introducing Computational Thinking in Australian Schools

Computational thinking was introduced in all Australian states. In New South Wales, the
current state-level educational organization that establishes and monitors teaching preparation
and school standard is called the New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA).
They establish the criteria for designing and updating the state curriculum, for assessments and
examinations, teaching certifications and professional development, and assessments.
Australian curriculum documents clearly state that information processing is not the same as
computing (Piccinini & Scarantino, 2010). However, it is hard to segregate them and create
separate distinct curricular disciplines.
For instance, Australian curriculum attempts a clear demarcation between these two
curriculum areas as in the last two years. In New South Wales, for example, the state curriculum
has two different computing disciplines, one related to information processing (Information
Processes and Technology or IPT) and the other related to computation (Software Design and
Development or SDD). While Information Processes and Technology is taught in many schools
and remains widely spread in various areas of the curricula and in informal activities, Software
Design and Development is at the beginning stage and is not well integrated with other
20
Dorian Scoilescu
curriculum areas. The New South Wales primary education from kindergarten to year 6 and its
curriculum is structured in Learning stages from Early Stage 1 for kindergarten and three stages
for years 1 to 6. Technology is part of the Key Learning Area (KLA). Secondary education in
from year 7 to year 12 and has Stages 4, 5 and 6. From kindergarten to year 10, the national
curriculum has included Digital Technologies. In primary education, ICT technology is part of
the Science and Technology curriculum.
An important document appeared recently (NESA, 2017) about introducing computational
thinking into the New South Wales curriculum. Computational technologies are part of the
Digital Technologies curriculum for the years K to year 10 schooling. Computational thinking
is defined as the thought processes involved in formulating a problem and expressing its
solution(s) in such a way that a computer-human or machine, can effectively carry out (NESA,
2017). Digital technologies strands are structured along two main related strands:
1. knowledge and understanding, that describes information and digital systems
(hardware, network, and software); and
2. processes and production skills, that uses digital systems to create ideas and
information, and to define, design and implement digital solutions, and evaluate these
solutions and existing information systems against specified criteria.
Informally, computational thinking is not described as a programming activity. Rather, it
is described as a mental activity in modelling and formulating a problem that finally relates to
a computational solution. The solution can be carried out by a human or machine. This latter
point is important as it shows that humans can compute and learn computational thinking
without having a computer. Also, it emphasizes that computational thinking is not just about
problem-solving, but also about problem formulation and modelling. As well, the document
emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in modelling and establishing a hierarchy of
abstractions.
An important aspect of the document is that it encourages programming without pressuring
the students to learn a specific programming language. There are many voices encouraging and
promoting more coding in Australian curriculum. For instance, the Digital Careers consider
that computer programming is a requirement for successful future careers. The present guide
in computational thinking draws not only upon technology areas but also in almost every
learning area where computational thinking can be applied. In contrast, these multidisciplinary
areas of curriculum do not require the use of coding, but they do aim to develop algorithmic
and computational thinking skills to better enable students and teachers to reach a coding goal.
Challenges of Introducing Computational Thinking in Australia

We noticed that in the documents it is mentioned that nowadays, computational thinking is
still stirring important debates. One of them is whether the terms and actions of computational
thinking outcomes are often too prescriptive and too narrowly related to programming. In
addition, the terms in use are often very abstract and difficult to follow. Often, these terms and
ideas appeared to be taken from university textbooks. Alternatively, it is important to use these
terms in more non-sophisticated ways, as the curriculum is for a large number of teenagers.
Another aspect is whether computational thinking is producing new ideas? And if yes, how
do we evaluate the novelty and the importance of these new ideas? It was noticed that
computational thinking is often related to robots and sensors. Therefore, most of the
21
suggestions in computational thinking activities centres upon getting robots to move in

different directions. While this is producing an initial excitement for students, the content of
the curriculum needs to have more depth in order to have an educative value. Although it is
important to use the potential of robotics, computational thinking is offering much more for a
larger variety of fields, these robots are often expensive, thus there are schools that might not
be able to afford purchasing them.
Another concept in the process of being developed is CS + X which means computing
science plus whatever it is that you are passionate about or engaged with (National Curriculum
1, 2017). As IT systems are becoming more commonplace and all-pervasive, and with the
development of the Internet of Things and machine-to-machine, communication standards will
result in our greater reliance upon them. Thus, the areas of use for computational thinking are
extended. While computational thinking was traditionally linked with STEM disciplines, now
it touches almost all learning areas, not only the STEM disciplines. There are also important
aspects involving language, emotions, social issues, cultural sensitivities, and ethical
considerations that computational thinking needs to take into consideration when educators and
students attempt to use it in the broader disciplines.
Critical pedagogy is important in discussing the output of computational thinking. It was
noted that thoughtful teaching is important so that the problems of computational thinking do
not become irrelevant or unethical. How are computational thinking and critical thinking
related? Is computational thinking overlooking critical thinking aspects? As computational
thinking simplifies the discourse and the strategies used to solve the problem, critical thinking
aspects come as a very delicate topic where computational thinking might overlook some of
the social issues. This is why one of the major reasons for considering critical thinking
strategies when using computational thinking is the softer aspects of problems that always need
to be considered first before simplifying and modelling with digital tools. It involves issues
around the safe use of technology that need to be widely discussed. Other issues that are broadly
targeted includes ethics and social equity where the use of technology needs to be accessible
for people with various backgrounds as well having the teaching and learning of computational
thinking provided for various minorities such as aboriginals or people with disabilities. Several
researchers emphasize that the abstract tendency of processing knowledge in order to make it
“computable” has as an impact on the disembodiment and embodiment of the content involved
in computational thinking. Critical pedagogy also needs to place greater emphasis: on thinking
skills; on learning based project pedagogy; on developing problem-solving skills and
modelling. It involves encouraging and designing alternative ideas and solutions for digital
approaches.
While computational thinking is pervasive, we need to explain what computational thinking
is not. As mentioned already, computational thinking is not coding. It has some content from
algorithms, yet many people still automatically associate the two as one and demand
unreasonable levels of knowledge in coding. Another area is incorrectly identifying
technological design as computational design. Technological design often has the purpose of
obtaining a technological artefact.
The introduction of literacy around coding and ICT remains a difficult task as there are few
educators involved in computational thinking that connect them with the broad areas of
curricula. As a result, due to the shortage of educators involved in computational thinking the
22
Dorian Scoilescu
implementation is restricted to a few disciplines. As such, the amount of work involved in

computational thinking is very different and still in an early stage in Australian schools.
Conclusion and Discussions
Implementing computational thinking is an exciting opportunity for every country (Lu &
Fletcher, 2009). Although Australia is considered an advanced knowledge economy, there are
numerous barriers in encouraging enough students into STEM education and, in particular,
computational thinking remains a major challenge for educators as well as a major opportunity
(Swaid, 2015). Therefore, implementations of computation thinking are still at an emerging
stage and are considered a relatively challenging task. While it was noticed that the main
dimensions for computational thinking, such as a flexible way to encourage modelling and
interactions between human and computer devices, was clearly understood, and in order to be
well integrated into the national and state curriculum, more efforts are required to disseminate
the recent policies and interpretations on computational thinking as well as persistent efforts to
implement them across all curricula.
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7),
832-835.
Australian National Curriculum 1 (2017)
http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/learning-
areas/technologies/coding-across-the-curriculum
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is
involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM
Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Caspersen, M. E., & Nowack, P. (2013, January). Computational thinking and practice: A
generic approach to computing in Danish high schools. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth
Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 136 (pp. 137-143). Australian
Computer Society,
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Reimann, D., Tuul, M., Rees, A., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). An
overview of the most relevant literature on coding and computational thinking with
emphasis on the relevant issues for teachers. Belgium: TACCLE3 Consortium.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.165123.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the
field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E.
(2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math
(CT-STEM). Proceedings in Future directions in computer science education summit
meeting, Orlando, FL.
23
Hu, C. (2011, June). Computational thinking: what it might mean and what we might do
about it. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 223-227). ACM.
Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research: Airy fairy or fundamental? The Qualitative
Report, 8(1), Article 7. Retrieved 17 April 2019, from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss1/7/
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. In ACM SIGCSE
Bulletin, 41(1), 26.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational
thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior,
41, 51-61.
Piccinini, G., & Scarantino, A. (2010). Computation vs. information processing: why their
difference matters to cognitive science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,
41(3), 237-246. 0-264.
New South Wales Education Standards Authority [NESA] (2017). Digital Technologies and
ICT Resources Retrieved from: http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-
10/learning-areas/technologies/coding-across-the-curriculum
Seoane-Pardo, A. M. (2016, November). Computational thinking beyond STEM: an
introduction to moral machines and programming decision making in ethics classroom. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for
Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 37-44). ACM.
Setle, A., Franke, B., Hansen, R., Spaltro, F., Jurisson, C., Rennert-May, C., & Wildeman, B.
(2012, July). Infusing computational thinking into the middle-and high-school
curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and
technology in computer science education (pp. 22-27). ACM.
Swaid, S. I. (2015). Bringing computational thinking to STEM education. Procedia
Manufacturing, 3, 3657-3662.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in
compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and
Information Technologies, 20(4), 715-728.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. In Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering
sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.Roussev, B. (2003b). Teaching introduction to
programming as part of the IS component of the business curriculum.
Acknowledgement
Part of this article was presented the Informing Science Institute Conference in July 2019
- InSITE 2019: Informing Science + IT Education Conferences: Jerusalem.
24
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
Fragmentation of the Thinking Structure of Translation in Solving Mathematical

Modelling Problems
Kadek Adi Wibawa

Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika FKIP Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar, Bali,
Indonesia
adiwibawa@unmas.ac.id
Abstract
Fragmentation of the thinking structure is the process of construction of information in the

brain that is inefficient, incomplete, and not interconnected, and hinders the process of
mathematical problem solving. In solving mathematical modeling problems, students need
to do translation thinking which is useful for changing the initial representation (source
representation) into a new representation (target representation). This study aims to discover
how the occurrence of the fragmentation of the thinking structure of translation within
students in their solving of mathematical modeling problems. The method used is descriptive
qualitative with the instrument in the form of one question for the mathematical modeling
of necklace pendants and semi-structured interview sheets. The results showed that there
were three errors that occurred in solving mathematical modeling problems. First, the error
in changing a verbal representation to a graph. Secondly, errors in changing a graphical
representation to symbols (algebraic form). Thirdly, errors in changing graphical
representation and symbols into mathematical models. The three errors that occur are
described based on the four categories of Bosse frameworks (Bosse, et al., 2014), namely:
(1) unpacking the source (UtS), (2) preliminary coordination (PC), (3) constructing the
target (CtT), and (4) determining equivalence (DE). In this study, there were 3 subjects who
experienced fragmentation of the thinking structure in solving mathematical modeling
problems. One of the highlights is the fragmentation of the structure of translation thinking
often starts from the process of unpacking of the source due to the incompleteness of
considering all the available source details.
Keywords: Fragmentation of thinking structure, translation process, problem solving,

mathematical modelling.
Introduction
In solving mathematical modeling problems, students often experience difficulties and

produce wrong answers (Kiat, 2005; Yost, 2009; Dorko, 2011; and Serhan, 2015). Complex
problems require variations in ideas, strategies and the mathematical formulations used. This
results in students having to think hard in order to arrive at the right answers and in accordance
with the problems at hand. Difficulties are often the first thing experienced and felt by students,
because the solution to the problems encountered is not immediately known by using ordinary
procedures. This situation has been studied by several researchers such as Kiat (2005), Yost
(2009), Zakaria, et al. (2010), Dorko (2011), Wibawa (2013), Booth, et al. (2014), Subanji
(2015); Veloo, et al. (2015), and Serhan (2015). The research that has been done only identifies
errors that occur through the work of the students. The studies carried out have not yet arrived
at the discovery of the sources of errors through the disclosure of the students' thinking
processes in solving mathematical problems. Kiat (2005) reveals that there are three types of
25
Fragmentation of the Thinking Structure of
Translation in Solving Mathematical Modelling Problems
errors in solving mathematical problems, (1) conceptual errors, (2) procedural errors, and (3)
technical errors (technical errors). In this case Kiat (2005) has not traced the thinking processes
of students who experience errors therefore it is necessary to do further research related to how
students think when solving mathematical problems. In particular, Serhan (2015) stated that
there is a need for further research to investigate students' thinking processes when solving
mathematical problems.
In the process of solving the problems of mathematical modeling, the structure of
thinking that is formed through difficulties and errors that occur, often seems like it is not
organized and not well connected (Skemp, 1976, 2006). In this case, Skemp (1976, 2006)
describes it as an instrumental understanding, which is described as separate (unconnected)
ideas (procedural) without meaning. The term without meaning means that a person does not
understand well the concepts that have been learned, cannot relate them to other concepts so
as to give rise to an incomplete understanding. Conditions like this lead to separate or poorly
connected ideas. Ideas without meaning can also result in the idea is stored in the memory
(because it has been learned) but is forgotten accidentally over time (Sternberg, 2012). For
example: when a student encounters a problem to determine an integral form of a mathematical
model of a rotating object, the student is unable to reveal and associate all the components
related to it. In fact, students have studied it during high school and in the previous semester
which shows material that while it has been stored in memory it is forgotten accidentally over
time. Someone who learns new concepts without meaning, the concept is stored in a separate
structure.
Wahono (2009) stated that in the learning process, when students receive information
in the form of concepts, procedures, and others, actually the student manages to construct what
was taught. But there are those that are well constructed (concepts are understood in their
entirety [Editors note: Neuro researchers calls this the long-term memory]) and some that are
not well constructed (concepts are not fully understood). The information conditions that are
not fully understood, according to Wahono (2009) results in the information being not well
connected or "messy" (unorganized). Wahono (2009) called it a fragmentation in the student's
storage system.
The term fragmentation is very popular in the computer world which is defined as the
condition of a file that is placed in a storage system that does not occupy the sector (storage
space) efficiently. Subanji (2016) stated that fragmentation of computers is interpreted as a
phenomenon in storage space that is used inefficiently, reducing storage capacity.
Fragmentation occurs when the operating system cannot allocate enough space in adjacent
storage sectors to store files in a neat structure. This happens because someone often deletes
files and then adds them again with files of the same size and type. Fragmentation results in
system work delays in calling stored data or data that has been constructed.
The process of changing representations, from the initial representation (source
representation) to the new representation (target representation) is called translation (Bosse et
al. 2014). In this study, the making of a mistake with the new representation from a previously
correctly made representation is called a translation error. The process of cognition that occurs
can be observed through the results of the interviews (think aloud) and the results of student
work. The students’ cognition processes in translating can be recorded through self-reports by
students of their thinking. The wrong pattern of students' thinking structure is called the
26
Kadek Adi Wibawa
fragmentation and are not organized, are separate and are not interconnected. In this case,
structural fragmentation is fragmentation of the structure of translational thinking.
The process of the fragmentation of the structure of translation thinking in terms of the
framework created and used by Bosse, et al. (2014), includes: (1) unpacking the source (UtS),
(2) preliminary coordination (PC), (3) constructing the target (CtT), and (4) determining
equivalence (DE):
1. Unpacking the source or dismantling the source representation is defined as reading
and considering the concepts that exist in the re-presentation of the source (often
called the micro concept) used to build the plan for making a target representation.
2. Preliminary coordination is defined as identifying and typing the same mathematical
relationships between micro concepts in source representations and micro concepts
in target representations.
3. Constructing the target (representation) is defined as formulating and making target
representations based on the micro concepts that exist in the source representation
and planned coordination.
4. Determining equivalence or equality is defined as re-structuring the target
representation or re-checking the similarity of ideas that are in accordance with the
rules of the source representation.
The idea of building new representations or translating is mentioned because there are
gaps between existing facts or fact gaps (Bosse et al. 2014). In the construction process, which
is seen from the occurrence of structural fragmentation, thinking that the translation occurs, the
fact gaps can be seen as a scheme of gaps (SG) or gap between schemes. The gap or non-
conformity that occurs is one reason students make new representations or restructure the
representations that have been made.
In this study, the focus was on how the fragmentation structure of translation thinking
occurred in students in solving mathematical modeling problems. The translation process is
important in solving mathematical modeling problems. Students need to do translations
ranging from verbal to pictures, graphics to graphics, verbal to algebraic forms, algebraic forms
and pictures to mathematical models. There are still many students who experience difficulties
and make mistakes in doing translation thinking.
Methodology
The method used was descriptive qualitative and used an instrument in the form of one
question and semi-structured interview sheets for the mathematical modeling of necklace
pendants. The data collected in this study are words or sentences so that the results of this study
are descriptive data. Data analysis in this study is inductive because the data analysis activities
use facts from the field and the results of ‘think aloud’ reports to find the process of
translational structure fragmentation in solving mathematical modeling problems (involving
integral applications of the volume of rotating objects). According to Creswell (2007), Bogdan
and Taylor (in Moleong, 2007), and Yin (2011), this kind of research is classified as qualitative
research.
This research was carried out in the Mathematics Education Study Program, FMIPA,
State University of Malang for even semester students in 2014 and 2015 (Semesters 4 and 6).
27
Researchers chose mathematics education students: who had learned integral concepts since
high school and re-studied them in lectures (according to the syllabus of integral application
material on the volume of rotary objects taught in semester 2); were assumed to have a more
complete and in-depth thinking structure so that the exploration process carried out by the
researchers by tracing the fragmentation of the structure of thinking became more visible. This
also makes it easier for researchers to adapt various ways of structuring when students
experience difficulties or are wrong in solving the problems given.
In accordance with the preliminary study, in this study students' answers are grouped
into 3 categories: (1) Students with very essential errors are not aware of an "irregular" build
or curved residual space, (2) Students with essential errors are aware of an "irregular" building
or a curved space but do not use integrals to solve them, and (3) students with essential errors
where they are aware of irregular builds or curved spaces and use integrals in the course of
solving the problem but the answer given is wrong. Researchers conducted a study on 83
students who were divided into three further categories, three subjects in this study were
selected for each category.
Initially, 83 students were given problems in the form of mathematical modeling
problems to calculate the volume of a rotating object. Student answers are grouped as right and
wrong answers. Correct answers are not used in this study because the focus of the study is to
uncover and observe the fragmentation of thinking structures that begin with an error. Student
answers that are wrong are grouped according to three categories that have been made.
Percentage of each group namely: there were 63 students (75.90%) who answered as described
in category 1, the distribution of 32 students (38.55%) from semester 4, and 31 students
(37.35%) from the semester 6. For students who answered as described in category 2, there
were 17 students (37.35%) and all were semester 6 students. In category 3, there were 3
students (3.62%) who answered as description and these 3 students from semester 6. Students
in each category are further investigated through the interview stage. Through interviews
conducted with students (prospective subjects), researchers revealed the existence of
fragmented thinking structures. Interviews were conducted with the snowball sampling
method, by calling one student at a time according to the three categories. Students who
experienced fragmentation of translational thinking structures are students who make mistakes
in constructing target representations from known and understood source representations.
Result and Discussion
In this study, students experience errors in making new representations of previously

made representations, with the aim of solving problems they have encountered. The
representation in question is an external object in the forms of graphs, symbols (algebraic
forms), words (situations), and mathematical models that function as coding symbols. They
describe the mathematical relationships or ideas and communicate the mathematical
knowledge and operate on the mathematical constructions (Cobb, et al. 1992; Kaput, 1987).
The new representations made by the first student was in the form of graphs or drawings on
the Cartesian diagram. The image aimed to facilitate the student in determining the equation.
The second new representation was in the form of symbols or algebraic forms which aimed to
facilitate the student to determine the mathematical models or integral forms. The third new
28
Kadek Adi Wibawa
representation was in the form of a mathematical model or integral form which aimed to
facilitate the student to determine the remaining volume. Each of the representations made by
the students revealed errors which resulted in the students having difficulty continuing their
work and creating other errors in determining the final answer.
This study found three types of structural fragmentation of translation thinking, namely,
fragmentation of translation structure thinking from verbal to graphical, from graphical to
symbolical (algebraic form), and from graphical and symbolical to mathematical models
(integral forms). The mathematical modeling problem is given below:
A company wants to produce the latest gold necklace with two solid ball-shaped beads that
look like picture 1 below. To make these beads a hole must be punched through the beads
diametrically using a drill bit of 5 mm. For aesthetic purposes, the radius of a solid ball is
determined as twice the radius of the drill bit. This company wants to know how much gold
is remaining in the 2 beads in the necklace (before being carved). Can you help this company
to solve it?
Picture 1: The beads
Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Verbal to Graphics
Students are aware of the fragmentation of the structure of translational thinking after
researchers invite students to reflect by providing limited interventions. An illustration of the
process that occurs is as shown in figure 1 below.
29
Figure 1. Illustration of Fragmentation of Translation Thinking Structure from Verbal to

Graphical Representation.
Students initially understand that the problem faced is the problem of a ball being drilled
(G1). The results of this drilling are partitioned into three shapes, namely a sphere that has a
radius of 10 mm (G2), a tube that has a height and radius of 5 mm (G3), and a part that builds
a space with one of its curved surfaces related to the radius of the ball and the tube radius (G4).
In order to determine the building space where one of its surfaces is curved using an integral
concept, students think of making an image in two dimensions (G5). Students experience a
scheme gap (SG1) between images on two dimensions with the aim of determining the function
or equation contained in the integral form (G6).
Figure 2. S3 draws Sphere drilled into Cartesian diagram.
The gap between schemes that occurs stimulates students to create new representations
(target representations). In this case, the planned preliminary coordination is to sketch graphs
on the Cartesian plane. The student then constructs the target by making the Cartesian diagram
first (G7) then drawing a space with one of its curved surfaces in the Cartesian diagram (G2)
with centre (0.0) (G8) and the radius of the drill bit 5 mm (G9). Through the results of the
construction, the students produced a drawing of the remaining space with one curved surface
cantered at point (0,0) (G10).
The graphs made by students actually still leave a gap between the existing facts or the
gap between schemes (SG2) but the gap is not realized by students. Student awareness (low
awareness) results in students not correcting doing the process of determining equivalence or
restructuring of the representation made of the target. Another thing that is a cause is the low
sense of geometry of the students where they do not consider the facts that exist in the
representation of sources, such as the radius of the ball and tube that should be adjusted with
the graph. In this context, students have experienced structural fragmentation of translation
thinking from verbal (the problem of the ball being drilled) with a graph (drawing of a ball
being drilled in the Cartesian plane).
Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Graphical to Symbolic

Representation
researchers invite students to reflect by providing limited interventions. The process that occurs
is as follows:
30
Kadek Adi Wibawa
Figure 3. Illustration of Structure Fragmentation Thinking of Translations from Graph

Representation to Symbols (Algebraic Forms).
Students initially make ball graphs drilled in two dimensions (H5). The first time,
students think about the existence of a ball that is drilled (H1), then they mention that the build
formed from drilling the ball (H2), the tube (H3), and the space with one of its curved surfaces
(H4). Students draw a ball drilled in the Cartesian plane (H6) in which there are and axes.
Students focus on the curved structure for drawing on the Cartesian plane (H7). Students
understand that the result is like a bowl (H8) and students say they will make an equation from
the picture. In this case, there is a gap between schemes (SG1) which results in students having
a reason to make an equation or make a new representation of the created image. Before
students determine the equation, students experience co-founding schemes or ambiguity
schemes (CS) between the curves with a bowl shape. The ambiguity is an error of assumptions
built by students that affect the making of new equations or representations.
Figure 4. S2 creates a quadratic equation from the Cartesian diagram
Students focus on the curved shape in the created Cartesian diagram. Students assume
that the shape is like a bowl (H7) so that it can be seen as a quadratic function (H10). Students
then test the intersection, such at and (H11). Then do the substitution (H12) in the
formula of the quadratic equation that has been determined, namely
31
(H13). Based on these results, students determine the quadratic equation,

(H14). After finding these equations, students did not directly perform equivalent equivalence
or restructuring on the representation of the target. Whereas in the representation of the
constructed target there is still a gap between the schemes (SG2) which is between a curved
shape which is assumed to be a bowl with a quadratic function. In this case, students experience
structural fragmentation of translation thinking from graphical representation to symbolic
representation (algebraic form) caused by superficial student assumptions about the graphs
made and their low understanding of quadratic functions.
Fragmentation of Thinking Structure Translations from Graph and Symbol

Representations (Algebraic Forms) to Mathematical Models
researchers invite the students to reflect by providing limited interventions. The process that
occurs is as follows:
Figure 5. Illustration of Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Graphical

and Symbolic to Mathematical Models (Integral Forms).
Students initially construct their ideas which are referred to as a collection of micro
concepts in the source representation. In the source representation, there are graphs and
symbols or equations of circles. Through the scheme formed on the source representation, there
is a gap between schemes (SG1) which stimulates students to create new representations. The
process that occurs is as follows.
Students initially draw the ball drilled in the Cartesian diagram in the direction of the
Y axis (I1). From the results of the drilling, students pay attention to the circle image which is
seen as a graph (I2) and the drill bit that crosses the circle (I3). Students determine the equation
of the circle (I4) and the radius of the drill bit 5 mm (I5). From the similarities and radii of the
drill bit, students focus on the remaining part of the drilling results (I7). Students think about
32
Kadek Adi Wibawa
solving the problem using integrals. Then the student determines the integration area (I8) and
thinks of making an integral form (I9). In this case, there has been a gap between the schemes
(between I8 and I9) (SG1). The gap between these schemes stimulates students to make new
representations. Students do preliminary coordination by planning to create mathematical
models or of course integral forms.
Figure 6. S3 created mathematics model by integration from verbal situation, graph, and
algebraic forms.
Students begin to construct new representations by focusing on the integrated

integration area (I8). The integrated area is in the form of building up the remaining drilling
results (I10). Students use the equation of the circle that is (I4) and change it in
the form (I12). Students think of integration limits (I13), namely, the lower
limit = 0 (I14) and the upper limit = 5 (I15). Circle equations and predetermined boundaries
are then used as the basis for creating a mathematical model (integral form) (I16). The result
of the substitution is (I17) (I18). In determining the mathematical
model, students are not able to justify the existence of boundaries, or the functions , and .
Students only say that it is "usually like that" to create an integral form of the volume of a
rotating object. The new representation made by students is not in accordance with the
representation of the appropriate source. When viewed from the scheme that has been
constructed, there are still gaps between the schemes which results in errors. In this case,
students experience the fragmentation of the structure of translational thinking from graphs and
symbols to mathematical models (integral forms). Students do not do determination
equivalence or restructuring of the scheme on new representations or targets because students
are not aware of the mistakes they have made and their understanding of determining the
integral form has no strong basis.
33
Conclusion
Based on the results of the research and discussion, it can be concluded that the
characteristics of the translation structure's fragmentation of thinking appear when students
make mistakes in changing the old representations (source representation) to new
representations (target representation). Errors that occur can be seen in the construction of the
scheme of the new representations and the old representations. The construction error is named
as confounding schemas or schemes that are ambiguously constructed. There are three
fragmentations of the structure of translation thinking in solving mathematical problems,
namely: fragmentation of translation thinking structure from verbal representation to graphical,
fragmentation of translation thinking structure from graphical to symbolic, and fragmentation
of the structure of translation thinking from graphical and symbolic to mathematical model
representations. Each fragmentation that occurs basically has the same characteristics. It's just
that there are different processes, especially when doing coordination preliminary and
constructing the target.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my thanks for the guidance and support that I received from my main
supervisor Prof. Dr. Toto Nusantara, my second supervisor Dr. Subanji, and my third
supervisor Dr. I Nengah Parta. Also I want to express my deepest thanks of the sponsorship
from Mr. Tony Barry of Australia, LPDP, and the Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar.
References
Booth, J.L., Barbieri, C., Eyer, F., & Pare-Blagoev, E.J. (2014). Persistent and Pernicious
Errors in Algebraic Problem Solving. Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 10-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1161.
Bosse, M.J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Chandler, K. (2014). Students’ Differentiated Translation
Processes. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. 1-28.
Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
Bossé, M.J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Cheetham, M. (2011). Assessing the Difficulty of
Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings.
International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(3), 113-133.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A Constructivist Alternative to the
Representational View of Mind in Mathematics Education. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2-3.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing among Five
Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Osks, CA: Sage.
Dorko, A. (2011). Calculus Student’ Understanding of Area and Volume in Non-Calculus
Context. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Maine at Orono.
Kaput, J.J. (1987). Representation Systems and Mathematics. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of
Representation in Teaching and Learning Mathematics, (19–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kiat, S.E. (2005). Analysis of Student’ Difficulties in Solving Integration Problems. The
Mathematics Educator, 9(1), 39-59.
Moleong, L.J. (2007). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif [Qualitative Research Methodology].
Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya Offset.
34
Kadek Adi Wibawa
Musser, G.L., Burger, W.F., & Peterson, B.E. (2011). Mathematics for Elementary Teachers
a Contemporary Approach, Ninth Edition. United States of America: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Serhan, D. (2015). Students’ Understanding of the Definite Integral Concept. International
Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(1), 84-88.
Skemp, R.R. (1976). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding.
Mathematics Teaching, (online), 77, 20-26. Retrieved from
https://alearningplace.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Skemp-paper1.pdf.
Skemp, R.R. (1982). Psychology of Learning Mathematics, 2nd Edition. London: Penguin
Books.
Skemp, R.R. (2006). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 12(2), 88-95.
Sternberg, R.J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive Psychology, Sixth Edition. USA:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Subanji. (2015). Teori Kesalahan Konstruksi Konsep dan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika
[Error Theory Construction Concepts and Mathematical Problem Solving]. Malang:
Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press).
Subanji. (2016). Teori Defragmentasi Struktur Berpikir dalam Mengonstruksi Konsep dan
Pemecahan Masalah Matematika [Defragmentation Theory of Structure of Thinking in
Constructing Concepts and Solving Mathematical Problems]. Malang: Universitas
Negeri Malang (UM Press).
Veloo, A., Krishnasamy, H.N., & Abdullah, W.S.W. (2015). Types of Student Errors in
Mathematical Symbols, Graphs, and Problem-Solving. Asian Social Science, 11(15),
324-334.
Wahono, R.S. (2009). Defragmentasi Otak: Cara Cerdas menjadi Cerdas [Brain
Defragmentation: The Smart Way to Be Smart]. Universitas Bangka Belitung. Retrieved
from http://www.ubb.ac.id/ menulengkap.php?
judul=Defragmenting%20Otak%20:%20Cara%20Cerdas%20Menjadi%20Cerdas&&no
morurut_artikel=380.
Wibawa, K.A., Subanji, & Chandra, T.D. (2013). Defragmenting Berpikir Pseudo dalam
Memecahkan Masalah Limit Fungsi [Defragmenting Pseudo Thinking in Solving
Function Limit Problems]. Seminar Nasional Exchange of Experiences Teachers Quality
Improvement Program (TEQIP). Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.
Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guilford Press.
Yost, D. (2009). Integration: Reversing Traditional Pedagogy. Australian Senior
Mathematics Journal, 22, 37-40.
Zakaria, E., Ibrahim, & Maat, S.M. (2010). Analysis of Students’ Error in Learning of
Quadratic Equations. International Education Studies, 3(3), 105-110.
35
36
2019, Vol. 9 No. 1
The Effectiveness of Visualization of Proofs in Learning Mathematics by Using

Discovery Learning Viewed from Conceptual Understanding
1
Angga Kristiyajati & 2Ariyadi Wijaya
1PPPPTK Matematika, 2Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
1kristiyajati@p4tkmatematika.org, 2a.wijaya@uny.ac.id
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of the use of visualization of proofs
upon discovery learning models in mathematics learning in terms of understanding concepts.
This study is an experimental design which used quantitative methods to obtain data on student
conceptual understanding. The sampling technique used was stratified random sampling. The
population sample used in this study was 11th grade secondary students, chosen from 11 IPA 2
of SMAN 8 Yogyakarta, 11 IPA 3 of SMAN 8 Yogyakarta, 11 IPA 3 of SMAN 2 Yogyakarta,
11 IPA 4 of SMAN 2 Yogyakarta, 11 IPA 1 of SMAN 11 Yogyakarta, and 11 IPA 2 of SMAN
11 Yogyakarta. In each school, two classes were chosen with one class was given a discovery
learning treatment with visualization of proofs (PWW) and the other class was given a
discovery learning treatment without visualization of proofs. The measurement instrument used
in this study was an essay test instrument with five questions. Discovery learning is said to be
effective if the average value of conceptual understanding is at least 75. Based on the results of
this study, although the data obtained did not meet the assumptions of normality, the number
of members of the sample were more than 30 so that the data analysis could use parametric
statistics. Using a hypothesis testing with a significance level of 0.05, it was found that the use
of visualization of proofs was effective in mathematics discovery learning models if it was
viewed from conceptual understanding.
Keywords: conceptual understanding, visualization of proofs, discovery learning.
Introduction
Various studies reveal that Indonesian classroom learning process in general is not
conducted interactively so that it fails to foster students’ creativity, critical thinking, and
analytical skills (Kemdikbud, 2015). Thus, competence and ownership of learning by students
as a result of the process are not encouraged. Student learning outcomes are also not
encouraging, with the National Examination (UN) in 2016 and 2017 showed that the level of
mathematics mastery of high school students in Natural Sciences in Yogyakarta was still below
65% (PUSPENDIK, 2016, 2017).
The Minister of Education and Culture (MoEC) Regulation No. 22 of 2016 on basic and
secondary education process standards states that:
… the process of learning mathematics in educational units should be interactive, inspirational, fun,
challenging, motivate students to participate actively, and provide sufficient space for initiative,
creativity, and independence according to students talents, interests, and physical and psychological
development (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2016, p. 6).
Therefore, each education provider is required to make learning plans that employ the learning
process standards with the aim at increasing student competencies. The provision of
37
The Effectiveness of Visualization of Proofs in Learning Mathematics by Using Discovery Learning Viewed from Conceptual Understanding
understanding knowledge is expected to occur through the activities of knowing,

understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating, while the skills components are
trained through the activities of observing, asking, trying, reasoning, serving, and creating.
One learning model that fits the demands of the MoEC Regulation is discovery learning.
This learning model emphasizes students’ discovery of previously unknown concepts or
principles engineered by teacher. In discovery learning, the material to be presented is not
delivered in the final form but students are encouraged to identify what they want to know, find
their own information, organize, form or construct what they know and understand in a final
form under the guidance of the teacher (PUSPENDIK, 2014).
The use of discovery learning aims to: (1) change learning conditions from passive to active
and creative; (2) change teacher-oriented teaching to student-oriented learning; and (3) change
the expository style where students only receive overall information from the teacher to the
discovery style where students find their own information. Discovery learning has proven
advantages compared to traditional or expository learning styles. Students who learn by
exploration and discovery will benefit cognitively and learning becomes meaningful (Rieber,
Tzeng, & Tribble, 2004). Every concept they discover, struggle with, and apply will become a
part of their own deep understanding. Discovery learning has demonstrated an increase in
student successful learning compared to traditional learning methods (Balım, 2009; Prince &
Felder, 2006)
Discovery learning shares the same principles as inquiry learning and problem-solving, so
that it can also be called an inquiry-discovery learning model (Syah, 2014). At a philosophical
level there are differences, but at a teacher level they merge. To apply the discovery learning
method in classrooms, a teacher must facilitate activities that include the following steps:
stimulation (simulation), problem statement (statement/identification of problem, consider the
variables), data collection (what data needs to be collected), data processing, verification, and
generalization (drawing conclusions/generalizations) (Aziz, Tarmedi, & Kusmarni, 2018;
PUSPENDIK, 2014; Syah, 2014).
According to NCTM, analytics (reasoning and proof) are among the standard processes in
learning mathematics (NCTM, 2000). Thus, in the process of learning mathematics, students
should be trained to be able to prepare arguments and prove a mathematical statement. In
compiling mathematical arguments or evidence, students must be able to identify the
components contained in the mathematical statement and its properties. Teacher has an
important role to help students to be able to understand how mathematical arguments and
evidence are arranged (Hanna & Villiers, 2008; Knipping, 2004). Learning mathematics with
mathematical argumentation and proof is very important. Through mathematical
argumentation activities and proving mathematical statements students practise: (1) ensuring
the truth of a mathematical statement or formula; (2) gaining an in-depth understanding of a
mathematical concept; (3) conveying or communicating ideas; (4) thinking critically and
deeply; (5) building a mathematical and systematic framework (Hanna, 2014). Besides proving
activities, mathematical proof itself can be a very useful media in learning mathematics. When
students are given a mathematical proof and asked to analyse and explain it, the process trains
them to think analytically and to communicate their ideas or understanding of the evidence.
Mathematics is an abstract object that only exists in mind, and this makes mathematical
proofs difficult for students to understand. Learning using mathematical proofs can be carried
38
Angga Kristiyajati & Ariyadi Wijaya
out interactively, inspirationally, challenging, with fun and motivation to encourage students
to participate actively. This can be achieved by using concrete forms of objects or abstract
mathematical proofs. Visualization of an object by a student helps in the learning and
understanding processes (Philips, Norris, & Macnab, 2010). The object of visualization can be
in the form of pictures, schematic diagrams, computer simulations, or videos. In mathematics
learning activities, an image or visual object often helps students in understanding
mathematical concepts by providing important clues to solving problems. An image can also
function as a concrete picture of an abstract mathematical concept (Aso, 2001).
Understanding concepts in mathematics also involves understanding operations and
mathematical relations. Understanding concepts is an integrated and functional understanding
of mathematical ideas. Students with conceptual understanding understand more about implied
facts and methods. They understand why mathematical ideas are important and which types of
context are useful. Students have organized their knowledge into a comprehensive whole,
which gives them the opportunity to learn new ideas by connecting them with what they already
know (National Research Council, 2010). Understanding the concepts in mathematics involves
a thorough understanding of the basic and fundamental concepts behind the algorithm being
performed. Thus, this includes a situation where students can rewrite a formula and proof
without memorizing the process (Hasnida, Ghazali, & Zakaria, 2011).
Students' understanding of concepts forms the basis for learning at a higher level. Concepts
can be divided into two types, namely concrete concepts and defined concepts (Nitko &
Brookhart, 2011). The concrete concept refers to a classification in which each member of the
class is concrete, that is, it can be physically captured by some of the five senses (can be seen,
heard, touched, tasted, and smelled). Whereas defined concepts refer to classifications, whose
members can be defined in the same way by traits that are not real and often involve
relationships with other concepts. Defined concepts are often called abstract concepts or
relational concepts. Someone understands a concept if s/he can (1) mention the definition or
understanding of the concept; (2) give an example of the concept; (3) distinguish between
examples and non-examples based on the concept; and (4) identify components and non-
components and mention the relationship of the components contained in the concept.
However, by being able to do all four things, one cannot be said to comprehend the concept in
depth. A student understands concepts in depth if s/he: (1) is able to use concepts to solve
problems; (2) associates a concept with other concepts or principles and generalize what has
been learned; and (3) uses concepts to learn new material (Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
To summarise, learning mathematics through discovery learning can facilitate students to
find the relationship of patterns and the nature of observations until they can conclude and
construct their own understanding of a concept. Learning mathematics with visualization of
proofs can stimulate students visually to think mathematically. This will assist students in
linking previously known mathematical concepts to find the truth of a concept being studied.
The similarity of these principles is that both facilitate students to find and link concepts that
have been studied before to learn new concepts. This study will use the visualization of proofs
combined with the discovery learning model to stimulate students to learn. It will investigate
the effectiveness of both in mathematics learning in terms of conceptual understanding.
39
Methods
This research is an experimental research (Berger, Maurer, & Celli, 2018, p. 18) which has
the following characteristics: (1) manipulation by researchers of one or more independent
variables; (2) the use of controls such as random sampling of research subjects to minimize the
effects of disturbance variables; and (3) careful observation or measurement of one or more
dependent variables.
The population of this study was 11th grade students in Yogyakarta and stratified random
sampling (Walpole, Myers, & Ye, 2007) was used. There are eleven public high schools
(SMAN) in Yogyakarta. Based on the results of the 2017 National Examination, four high
schools ranked at the bottom were SMAN 4, SMAN 6, SMAN 10, and SMAN 11. Four high
schools in the middle rank were SMAN 2, SMAN 5, SMAN 7 and SMAN 9. Three high schools
located at the top were SMAN 1, SMAN 3, and SMAN 8. The samples in this study were from
a school that was chosen randomly, and from each school two classes of 11th grade were chosen
randomly. The selected sample in this study were 11 IPA 2 and 11 IPA 3 of SMAN 8
Yogyakarta, 11 IPA 3 and 11 IPA 4 of SMAN 2 Yogyakarta, and 11 IPA 1 and 11 IPA 2 of
SMAN 11 Yogyakarta.
Reliability estimates used are internal-consistency estimates of reliability using the
reliability coefficient α as the estimated value of reliability (Allen & Yen, 1979). The test
instrument used in this study was an essay test, the test instrument was said to be reliable if the
estimated value of the reliability was more than 0.65 (Nitko & Brookhart, 2011). A trial to find
the reliability estimation of the instrument was conducted for 30 students of 11 IPA 1 of SMAN
8 Yogyakarta. Based on the results of this trial it appeared that the Cronbach α coefficient value
was 0.888 so it can be said that the test instruments used in this study are reliable.
Results and Discussion
The variable measured in this study is conceptual understanding. The variable was
measured using an essay test of five questions. Measurement of this variable is carried out
twice, namely a pre-test and a post-test. The results of measurement are presented in the
following table.
Table 1
Summary of Test Results on Conceptual Understanding
Conceptual Understanding
No School Group Stats
Pre-test Post-test Differences
Means 23.02 92.28 69.27
Experiment
Std Dev 20.49 11.28 22.99
1 All
Means 27.17 69.39 42.23
Control
Std Dev 18.36 24.37 30.20
Means 14.71 87.15 72.45
Experiment
Std Dev 17.21 16.32 22.37
2 SMAN 8
Means 23.06 88.39 65.33
Control
Std Dev 19.64 17.46 27.02
3 SMAN 2 Experiment Means 29.68 93.42 63.74
40
Conceptual Understanding
No School Group Stats
Pre-test Post-test Differences
Std Dev 17.78 8.19 17.52
Means 26.49 52.97 26.48
Control
Std Dev 17.68 21.53 27.92
Means 23.90 95.07 71.16
Experiment
Std Dev 23.08 7.58 26.89
4 SMAN 11
Means 32.51 80.34 47.83
Control
Std Dev 18.11 13 19.52
Based on Table 1, there is a significant increase in the assessment of conceptual

understanding from the pre-test to the post-test. In the experimental class the value of
conceptual understanding increased by 69.27 points from 23.02 to 92.28, while in the control
class the value of conceptual understanding increased by 42.23 points from 27.17 to 69.39
points.
To find out whether the data obtained meets the assumptions that the sample data comes
from normally distributed populations, the data was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
with the help of SPSS software.
Table 2
Recapitulation of Test Results for the Normality of Experiment Group Data
Asym .Sig Normality
No School Variable
α Assumption
Pre-conceptual Understanding 0,067 fulfilled
1 All Post-conceptual Understanding 0,000 unfulfilled
Difference 0,253 fulfilled
2 SMAN 8 Post-conceptual Understanding 0,176 fulfilled
3 SMAN 2 Post-conceptual Understanding 0,085 fulfilled
4 SMAN 11 Post-conceptual Understanding 0,003 unfulfilled
Based on the normality assumption test where an average value of at least 75 for conceptual
understanding is used, what met the normality assumption was the experimental groups in
SMAN 8 and SMAN 2. The parametric statistics used were the t test. The t test is done by
taking the initial hypothesis that the average value obtained reaches the specified minimum
value, and the alternative hypothesis is the average value obtained is less than the specified
minimum value. The decision criteria in this test is that if t greater than -1,672 then the initial
hypothesis can be accepted. The following table is the result of SPSS data processing.
41
Table 4
Recapitulation of One Sample T-test of Post-test of Overall Experimental Class, SMAN 8 and
SMAN 2
No School H0 t t0,05;58 Decision
1 All   75 11,769 -1,672 H0 Accepted
2 SMAN 8   75 3,069 -1,672 H0 Accepted
3 SMAN 2   75 9,547 -1,672 H0 Accepted
Based on the normality assumption test, it was found that the experimental class data in
SMAN 11 did not meet the normality assumption, so to test whether the average value of at
least 75 for conceptual understanding, nonparametric statistics was used. The nonparametric
statistics used was the sign tests. The sign test was done by taking the initial hypothesis where
the average value obtained reaches the specified minimum value ( H 0 :   75 ), and the
alternative hypothesis is where the average value obtained is less than the specified minimum
H1 :   75
value ( ). Based on the data samples in this class of 24 (n = 24), if
 1
2 b  x, n,   0.05
 2 H :   75 H :   75
then 0 is accepted, otherwise 0 is rejected. Values of
 1
2 b  x, n, 
 2  are obtained using the help of Microsoft Excel software by using the function
 1
2 b  x, n,  = 0.999  0.05
"= BINOM.DIST (x; n; 0.5; TRUE)". The result is  2 so
H 0 :   75
is accepted.
Based on this hypothesis test, it can be concluded that the average value of conceptual
understanding in both the high school overall and the high school in the top rank ranges, in the
middle rank ranges, and the bottom rank ranges of at least 75. The results indicate that the use
of visualization of proofs on discovery learning models in mathematics learning is effective in
terms of conceptual understanding.
Learning mathematics by using visualization of proofs, students are required to investigate
the truth of the images of visualization of proofs. Students are required to identify the concepts
contained in the visualization of proofs to be able to know if they are true. Students are then
required to look for and find connections between these concepts so that they find the truth of
the theorems or formulas listed in the visualizations. This requires the ability to comprehend
the concepts deeply. Deep understanding of concepts includes using concepts to solve
problems, finding relationships between concepts, and using concepts to learn new material
(Nitko & Brookhart, 2011).
These results indicate that a mathematical proof plays an important role in learning
mathematics and understanding mathematics (Hanna, 2000; Knuth, 2002). Mathematical
proofs presented in the form of images or visualizations can also play an important role in
learning mathematics (Alsina & Nelsen, 2010). When students observe mathematical proofs
presented in the form of visualizations, students are trained to analyse, arrange arguments,
42
ultimately find and understand the mathematical concepts contained within, and re-
communicate the mathematical concepts that have been learned.
Conclusions
Based on the results and discussion of study, it can be concluded that the use of
visualization of proofs in discovery learning models in the process of learning mathematics is
effective to help students to understand mathematical concepts. This is because visualization
of proofs presents related concepts and the relationship between these concepts in the form of
images or visuals. These images and visuals help students to find concepts and the relationship
between them. Due to the sample size, further research is needed before these findings can be
generalised to a larger population.
References
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. California:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Alsina, C., & Nelsen, R. B. (2010). An invitation to proofs without words. European Journal
of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 3(1), 118–127. Retrieved from
http://www.ejpam.com/index.php/ejpam/article/view/546
Aso, K. (2001). Visual images as educational materials in mathematics. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 25(5–6), 355–360. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/106689201750192184
Aziz, R. A., Tarmedi, E., & Kusmarni, Y. (2018). Developing students’ information literature
skill through the application of learning discovery learning model in social studies
learning. International Journal Pedagogy of Social Studies, 3(1), 9–20.
Balım, A. G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students’ success and inquiry
learning skills. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 200(35),
1–20.
Berger, P. D., Maurer, R. E., & Celli, G. B. (2018). Experimental Design with Applications in
Management, Engineering, and the Sciences. Boston: Springer.
Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, Explanation and exploration: an overview. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 44(1–3), 5–23.
Hanna, G. (2014). Mathematical proof, argumentation, and reasoning. In S. Lerman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 404–408). London: Springer.
Hanna, G., & Villiers, M. de. (2008). ICMI Study 19: Proof and proving in mathematics
education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(2), 329–336.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0073-4
Hasnida, N., Ghazali, C., & Zakaria, E. (2011). Students’ procedural and conceptual
understanding of mathematics. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(7),
684–691.
Kemdikbud. (2015). Rencana Strategis Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 2015-2019
[Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2015-2019]. Jakarta:
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
43
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan

Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 22.Tahun 2016 Tentang Standar Proses
Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah [Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture
of the Republic of Indonesia Number 22. 2016 concerning Basic and Secondary Education
Process Standards]. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Knipping, C. (2004). Challenges in teaching mathematical reasoning and proof – Introduction.
ZDM Mathematics Education, 36(5), 127–128.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Proof as a tool for learning mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 95, 486–
490.
National Research Council. (2010). Adding + it UP ! Helping Children Learn Mathematics. In
J. Klipatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), October. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standard for Schools Mathematics. Reston: The National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students (6th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Philips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Macnab, J. S. (2010). Visualization in Mathematics, Reading
and Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8816-1
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions,
Comparisons, and Research Bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
PUSPENDIK. (2014). Materi Pelatihan Guru Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Tahun 2014
[Teacher Training Materials Implementation of 2013 Curriculum 2014]. Jakarta:
BPSDMPKPMP KEMDIKBUD.
PUSPENDIK. (2016). Aplikasi Pamer 2016 [2016 Exhibition application]. Jakarta:
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
PUSPENDIK. (2017). Aplikasi Pamer 2017. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan.
Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S.-C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and
explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix. Learning and
Instruction, 14(3), 307–323.
Syah, M. (2014). Psikologi Pendidikan [Educational Psychology]. Bandung: Remaja
Rosdakarya.
Walpole, R. E., Myers, R. H., & Ye, K. (2007). Probability & Statistics for Enginers &
Scientist. London: Pearson Education International.
44
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
Examples of the Use of the Scientific Approach in Mathematics Teaching and Learning
to Help Indonesian Students to be Independent Learners
Fadjar Shadiq
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
fadjar_p3g@yahoo.com
Abstract
This is a theoretical paper focusses on Indonesian school system. The challenge for education
in Indonesia according to the former Minister of Education and Culture of Indonesia, Anies
Baswedan, was how to help Indonesian students to be independent learners and to have good
characters (Kemdikbud, 2014). The 2013 Curriculum proposed Scientific Approach to be
implemented in Indonesian mathematics classes. Scientific Approach consists of five steps: (1)
observing, (2) questioning, (3) collecting data, (4) reasoning, and (5) communicating. This
paper discusses how two approaches, namely Scientific Approach and the Japanese Problem-
solving Approach (PSA), can help Indonesian students to improve their thinking, creativity,
and innovation during mathematics teaching and learning in classroom. The paper will provide
some practical examples of problem-solving using these two approaches.
Keywords: Japanese Problem-solving Approach, Scientific Approach, problem posing,

independent solving, observing, questioning, reasoning.
Introduction
The University of Tsukuba in Japan has successfully produced three Nobel laureates. They
are Dr. Tomonaga Sin-Itiro in Physics (1965), Dr. Esaki Leo in Physics (1973), and Dr.
Shirakawa Hideki in chemistry (2000) for his invention and development of conductive
polymers (University of Tsukuba, 2012). This could also happen in Australia, USA, UK, and
China. Those Nobel laureates have made an impact on the development of industry, economy,
and technology in the country. Thus, some people are the leaders in our world and not just the
followers. Now, can you imagine if that university with three Nobel laureates is from Indonesia
or from other SEAMEO Member Countries? This should be a goal not only for mathematics
teachers and educators but also for all Indonesian. Therefore, the following questions might
arise: How can they achieve such a high level? Can we do it? What do we need to change?
What should we learn? Can mathematics education support our dream?
Discussing these questions with mathematics teachers and educators from SEAMEO
Member Countries who attended the courses in SEAMEO Regional Centre for QITEP in
Mathematics (SEAQiM) is always challenging. From the discussion, at least three things were
identified. First of all, success was related to the characters, attitudes, and spirit of life of the
Japanese. In general, the participants of the courses concluded that the Japanese want to be the
best and tough. Japanese culture includes traditions such as bushido and samurai that contribute
to their success. Second, the Japanese have the capabilities to explore, investigate, experiment,
discover, and inquire. These capabilities are related to thinking, reasoning, and process skills.
Lastly, the Japanese exhibit competence in content knowledge of each school subject.
45
The challenge for education in Indonesia is how to help Indonesian students to be

independent learners and to have good characters (Kemdikbud, 2014). Thus, there are two
problems needed to address, namely (1) students’ thinking, creativity and innovation and (2)
students’ character (Shadiq, 2014).
Shadiq (2016) stated that Indonesian students should learn mathematics meaningfully and
joyfully by emphasising thinking and reasoning. This requires teachers to change and improve
the quality of the teaching and learning process from a “typical” or “traditional” mathematics
classroom to a more innovative one (Shadiq, 2010). Activities in classroom mostly stress
memorizing and do not encourage students to think, to reason, and to innovate. Teachers still
use the paradigm of transferring knowledge from their brain to students’ brain. Another
alternative of mathematics activities leans more toward exploration, inventing, discovering or
experimenting of mathematical concepts through conceptual investigation or exploration.
Students might use concrete materials, such as manipulative both concrete and virtual, and
participate in experiments and kinaesthetic demonstrations that exhibit mathematical concepts.
This type of mathematics activities matches constructivism, one of the current trends in
education. Haylock and Thangata (2007) stated that constructivism focuses attention on the
students’ learning rather than the teacher’s teaching.
Another focus in mathematics education is the use of discovery, Bruner (Cooney, Davis, &
Henderson, 1975) stated that learning by discovery is learning to discover. Problem-solving is
learning to solve problem, similarly exploration, investigation, and experimentation is learning
to explore, to investigate, and to experiment. Thus, it is clear that during mathematics teaching
and learning process, students should be facilitated to develop their thinking ability, creativity,
and innovation so that they can apply their knowledge, skills, and attitudes in real life situations
beyond school. Isoda (2015a, 2015b) summarised this by asserting that teachers should develop
children to make use what they have learned before without teachers support. If they have
developed then they can reply to the question: What do you want to do next?
Why it is so hard to change the way teachers teach, Goos, Stillman, and Vale (2007, p. 4)
stated "Whether we are aware of it or not, all of us have our own beliefs about what
mathematics is and why it is important." Furthermore, they cited Barkatsas and Malone (2005)
who stated:
Mathematics teachers’ beliefs have an impact on their classroom practice, on the ways they perceive
teaching, learning, and assessment, and on the ways they perceive students’ potential, abilities,
dispositions, and capabilities (Goos, Stillman & Vale, 2007, p. 71).
There is a need to address not only the content knowledge and pedagogical practices of
teachers but also their beliefs and attitudes to change real teaching practice. Does the SA
contribute to the changing process (Shadiq, 2016a, 2016b & 2018)? Can the SA be applied to
help and facilitate Indonesian students to improve their thinking ability, creativity, and,
innovation during mathematics teaching and learning?
In Japan, Isoda and Katagiri (2012) proposed a different model called Problem-solving
Approach (PSA) which consists of four steps: (1) problem posing, (2) independent solving, (3)
comparison and discussion, and (4) summary and integration. These two will be investigated
further in the paper.
46
Fadjar Shadiq
The process of learning mathematics in the classroom will be largely influenced by the
beliefs of the mathematics teacher towards mathematics itself. Therefore, imperfections in
understanding of mathematics will in some ways lead to imperfections in teaching and learning
process. In other words, the correct beliefs and understandings of mathematics are expected to
help the process of mathematics teaching and learning be more effective and efficient to meet
students’ needs.
What is Mathematics?
Formulating the definition of mathematics is not as easy as imagined. This is because the
definition is influenced by the purpose of mathematics teaching and learning in the classroom
and the adjustments made for the changing of students’ needs. Mathematics should be used to
help and facilitate students so that they can compete with other citizens. In the past, for
example, mathematics was defined as a study of numbers or shapes. Therefore, many
mathematics teachers and educators focused on skills and mostly used procedural practice. This
instruction focused on memorization and skill-and-drill practice where teachers offered lecture
type instruction and students completed the pages in the texts during class time.
Now, there is a growing demand where mathematics learning should be more inductive and
not always deductive. Therefore, students will learn to digest new ideas, adjust to change,
handle uncertainty, find regularity, and solve unusual problems. The definition that fits is
mathematics is science that discusses patterns or regularities. Mathematics learning goals that
have been established by the MoEC and are in accordance with the latest trends need to get
supported by all parties. Thus, mathematics examination should support the achievement of
learning objectives in the classroom.
To answer the question ‘What is Mathematics?’ it is important to learn from a young Gauss
(1777-1855) in solving the problem of: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 98 + 99 + 100. Gauss was known
widely as one of the five best mathematicians around the world. When he was 10 years old, his
teacher asked him and his friends to find the result of: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 98 + 99 + 100. His
teacher intended that the class used a “typical” or “traditional” method. In this case, students
should find the sum of 1 and 2, that is, 1 + 2 = 3, then calculate 3 + 3 = 6, continue with 6 + 4
= 10, and so on until finally find the sum of the last sum with 100. How long does it take to
find 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 98 + 99 + 100 by using this method?
A young Gauss applied different method. He observed patterns as shown in Figure 1. Gauss
found that by pairing numbers from each end of the sequence gave the same sum: 1 + 100 =
101, 2 + 99 = 101, 3 + 98 = 101, and so on. The young Gauss concluded, as part of his reasoning
activity, that: (1) every number has a pair such that the sum of each pair was 101; (2) there
were 100 numbers to be added, implying that there were 50 pairs altogether of two numbers
that each sum was 101; and (3) the result of addition 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 98 + 99 + 100 was
50 × 101 = 5050.
47
Figure 1. Addition of whole numbers from 1 to 100.
What can we learn from the young Gauss? The ability to see the structure or ‘pattern’ has
implications of mathematics teaching and learning. Students could see the beauty of the pattern
resulting from the reasoning, innovation, and thinking and know the importance of looking for
the pattern. On the other words, teaching mathematics means helping students to find patterns
and to apply them to solve problems. At the end, students are able to transfer their
understanding of patterns to other areas and problems. For example, imagine that the problem
was 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + 998 + 999 + 1000. By using young Gauss’ method, the sum was: ½
× (1000) × (1001) = 500.500. It is clear that the knowledge of pattern allows the transfer of
knowledge.
De Lange (2005) stated that mathematics could be seen as the language that describes
patterns – both patterns in nature and patterns invented by the human mind. The Marquis de
Condorcet (in Fitzgerald and James, 2007, p. ix) stated: “Mathematics … is the best training
for our abilities, as it develops both the power and the precision of our thinking.”
Based on this brief discussion, some conclusions can be drawn as follows: (1) teacher
should start the lesson with a task or problem; (2) teacher should give an opportunity to his/her
students to solve the given task or problem; (3) there are a range of solutions to any task or
problem; (4) the power of patterns often gives better, easier, and reasonable results; (5) the
process of solving problem shows the importance of thinking, reasoning, and creativity; (6)
students should be given opportunities to learn to think, to reason, and to be creative; (7) Gauss
applied SA steps in solving the problem namely observing, questioning, collecting data,
reasoning, as well as communicating; and (8) the power of patterns in mathematics can be
achieved by using SA.
An Example of PSA and Its Interpretation Using SA
In Japan, Isoda and Katagiri (2012, p.31) stated that the general aims of education in Japan
are:
… to develop qualifications and competencies in each individual school child, including the ability to
find issues by oneself, to learn by oneself, to think by oneself, to make decisions independently and to
act. So that each child or student can solve problems more skilfully, regardless of how society might
change in the future.
To ensure that mathematics teaching and learning in Japan focuses on problem-solving as

mentioned above, Isoda and Katagiri (2012) proposed the PSA. The lesson is started by
‘Problem Posing’ as shown in Figure 2.
48
Fadjar Shadiq
Figure 2. Example of problem in ‘Posing Problem’.
In the second step, each student solves problem individually. Students might find several
solutions as follow.
Figure 3. Some solutions from students.
Next, ‘Comparison and Discussion’ is conducted. If students work shows that the minuends
are 100, 101, and 102 (see Figure 3), the following patterns that can be drawn.
1. If the minuend is added/subtracted by 1, the subtrahend should be added/subtracted by 1.
The patterns will be correct also if the minuend was added/subtracted by 2, and so on.
2. If the difference is 3, then students can only find 3 equations also.
Observing pattern shows the beauty of mathematics and encourages students’ curiosity such
as: Did the two patterns happen by coincidence? Can they be proved or verified? If the
difference is 3, then why we can only find 3 equations also? What is the reason? What will
happen if the difference is 5, instead of 3, can we find 5 equations also? Can we make a proof?
Those question should be answered by reasoning in the form of argument and proof. As
presented in Figure 4, if the difference is 3, then three equations can be found, in which the
minuends are 100, 101, and 101 while the subtrahends are 97, 98, and 99. If we apply the first
pattern then the subtrahend of the previous equation is 96 and its minuend is 99, while the
minuend of the next equation is 103 and its subtrahend is 100. In both cases, it contradicts the
conditions that the minuend is a 3-digit number while its subtrahend is a 2-digit number. Thus,
if the difference is 3, there will only 3 equations.
Figure 4. The extended pattern.
49
Students can also collect more data by experimenting if the difference is 5 and they find 5
equations as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The extended problem.
The above example from Japan can be used to show the relationship between PSA and SA.
The PSA in the first step can support the SA from Indonesia by introducing problem posing
and in the last step by extending the investigation to establish a proof or general pattern. The
PSA and SA can be compared in this following modified table (Shadiq, 2017).
Table 1
Comparison of Steps of Japanese PSA and Indonesian SA
No The PSA (Japanese) No The SA (Indonesian)
1. Problem posing
1. Observing
2. Questioning
2. Independent solving
3. Experimenting, collecting data
4. Reasoning
3. Comparison and discussion 5. Communicating
4. Summary and integration
Based on the table, it can be concluded that teaching and learning process should be started
with a contextual problem which is in line with the first step of PSA to ensure that the SA can
be observed during mathematics teaching and learning.
Example of SA by Using the Preferred Method
Isoda and Katagiri (2012) used equilateral triangle problem in explaining ‘the preferred
method’. Before posing it to students, teacher is supposed to try to solve the problem first.
6a
6b
6c
Figure 6. The equilateral triangle problem.
50
Fadjar Shadiq
The steps of ‘the preferred method’ proposed by Isoda and Katagiri (2012, p.31) are as
follows:
1. Clarification of the task part 1, students should find out all triangles from all dimensions of
the triangles.
It is clear that Figure 6a is made from 1 equilateral triangle only, while in Figure 6b there
are 5 equilateral triangle.
a. 3 equilateral triangle with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension facing up, such as ‘ ’.
b. 1 equilateral triangle with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension facing down, such as ‘ ’.
c. 1 equilateral triangle with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension facing up.
7a 7b 7c
Figure 7. The number of triangles from Figure 6b.
2. Clarification of the task part 2, teacher should remind students to think of the best ways of
counting (better and easier). Facilitate students to learn to be systematic.
These are some alternatives to find the best way of counting.
a. In Figure 7a, there are 3 equilateral triangles with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension facing up, such
as ‘ ’. Students can also use 3 closed curves or 3 dots representing those 3 equilateral
triangle.
b. In Figure 7b, there is 1 equilateral triangle with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension facing down, such
as ‘ ’. Students can use 1 circle or 1 dot representing that 1 equilateral triangle.
c. In Figure 7c, there is 1 equilateral triangle with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension facing up. Students
can use 1 circle or 1 rectangle representing that 1 equilateral triangle.
3. Facilitate students to realize the benefit of sorting. In this case, the benefit of sorting can be
experienced through sorting the dimension of the equilateral triangles, such as the
dimension of 1 × 1 × 1, 2 × 2 × 2, 3 × 3 × 3, … , or based on the direction of the equilateral
triangles, up or down, such as or .
4. Facilitate students to learn the benefit of coding (naming), such as the dimension of 1× 1 ×
1, 2 × 2 × 2, 3 × 3 × 3, … representing the side length of the equilateral triangles found by
students or how the equilateral triangle facing up, such as ‘ ’ or the equilateral triangle
facing down, such as ‘ ’.
From Figure 8a, ABC is an equilateral triangle with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension and facing up,
BDC is an equilateral triangle with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension and facing down, and AEF is
equilateral triangles with 3 × 3 × 3 dimension and facing up. It will be very difficult to
explain the difference among ABC, BDC, and AEF if the new terms such as
‘dimension’, ‘facing up’, and ‘facing down’ are not yet introduced. Students are welcome
to use other terms.
51
Figure 8a. Coding. Figure 8b. The 4th figure.
5. Facilitate students to learn to validate the correctness or the reasonableness of the result.
Referring to Figure 8b, teacher may ask: How many triangles are there in the 4th figure?
The answer is 27. At least four alternatives can be identified as follows:
Alternative 1, based on the number of equilateral triangle on each row and the dimension
of the triangles. The number of equilateral triangles on each row, counting from the top,
triangles with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension is (1 + 3 + 5+ 7); the number of equilateral triangles on
each row with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension is (1 + 2 + 3 + 1); the number of equilateral triangles on
each row with 3 × 3 × 3 dimension is (1 + 2); and the number of equilateral triangle with 4
× 4 × 4 dimension is (1). So, the number of all of equilateral triangles on the 4th figure is
[(1 + 3 + 5 + 7)] + [(1 + 2 + 3 + 1)] + [(1 + 2)] + [(1)] = 16 + 7 + 3 + 1 = 27.
Alternative 2, based on the number of equilateral triangle on each row, the dimension of
the triangles, and the position of the triangles (facing up or facing down).
The number of equilateral triangles facing up on each row, counting from the top, with 1 ×
1 × 1 dimension is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4); the number of equilateral triangles facing up on each
row, counting from the top, with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension is (1 + 2 + 3); the number of
equilateral triangles facing up on each row, counting from the top, with 3 × 3 × 3 dimension
is (1 + 2); and the number of equilateral triangle facing up on each row, counting from the
top, with 4 × 4 × 4 dimension is (1). Then, the number of equilateral triangles facing down
on each row, counting from the top, with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension is (1 + 2 + 3) and the number
of equilateral triangles facing down with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension is (1). So, the number of all
of equilateral triangles on the 4th figure is [(1 + 2 + 3 + 4) + (1 + 2 + 3) + (1 + 2) + (1)] +
[(1 + 2 + 3) + (1)] = [10 + 6 + 3 + 1] + [6 + 1] = [20] + [7] = 27.
Alternative 3, based on the position of the points or vertex of each triangle on the figure.
The activity can be started from the top vertex, continuing with the vertices on the first
vertical line and so on.
9a
9b
9c
9d
Figure 9. Alternative 4.
52
Fadjar Shadiq
Alternative 4, simultaneously based on the number of equilateral triangles from each

previous figure.
In Figure 9a there is only 1 equilateral triangle, while in Figure 9b there are 5 equilateral
triangles. It can be notated that there are 1 + 4 = 5 equilateral triangles on the second figure.
On the third figure, the number of equilateral triangles are [1] + [1 + 2 + 1] + [1 + 2 + 3 +
2] = 1 + 4 + 8 = 13. Finally, on the forth figure, the number of equilateral triangles are [1]
+ [1 + 2 + 1] + [1 +2 + 3 + 2] + [1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 1] = 1 + 4 + 8 + 14 = 27.
Several patterns, in which students are expected to reason, can be identified as follows:
a. The number of equilateral triangles facing up with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension on n × n × n
dimension figure is: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … n). Why?
b. The number of equilateral triangles facing up with k × k × k dimension on n × n × n
dimension figure is: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + (n k)). Why?
c. The number of equilateral triangles facing down with 1 × 1 × 1 dimension on n × n × n
dimension figure is: (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … + (n 1)). Why?
d. The number of equilateral triangles facing up with k × k × k dimension on n × n × n
dimension figure, in which k = ½ n, is 1. For example, if n = 4 and k = 2, then on Figure 4,
with n = 4 there is only one equilateral triangle facing down with 2 × 2 × 2 dimension.
However, on Figure 5, with n = 5 there are 1 + 2 = 3 equilateral triangle facing down with
2 × 2 × 2 dimension and no equilateral triangle facing down with 3 × 3 × 3 dimension.
Why?
e. Facilitate students to learn to come up with a more accurate and convenient counting
method. From the four alternative strategies that have been identified, with or without
teacher’s help, by using Alternative 2, hopefully students can decide that on the 10th figure,
the number of equilateral triangles will be:
[(1 + 2 + 3 +…+ 10) + (1 + 2 + 3 +…+ 9) + (1 + 2 +…+ 8) + (1 + 2 +…+ 7) + … + [(1 +
2 + 3 + 4) + (1 + 2 + 3) + (1 + 2) + (1)] + [(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)+ [(1 + 2 + 3) + (1)].
From the explanation above, in mathematics problem-solving, the emphasis should be

given to the importance of pattern to produce better, easier, and reasonable solutions. To ensure
this, mathematics teachers should start the activity with the task or problem. Later, mathematics
teachers should give students opportunities to solve problems independently to ensure they
develop their skills and knowledge to solve daily problems.
Teacher as Facilitator
It cannot be denied the crucial roles of mathematics teachers in facilitating and helping their
students. Even and Ball (2009, p.1) stated: “... teachers are key to students’ opportunities to
learn mathematics.” Ki Hadjar Dewantara, one of Indonesian education leading figures in
1900s (Kemdikbud, 2011, p. 28) stated: ing ngarsa sung tuladha, ing madya mangun karsa,
tut wuri handayani (in front [a teacher] should set an example, in the middle [a teacher] should
raise the spirit, behind [a teacher] should give encouragement) to describe how an ideal teacher
53
supposed to be. The last part of the maxim Tut Wuri Handayani is used as the motto of
Indonesian MoEC.
Conclusion
Australia, through the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT, 2013, p.

1), stated:
Highly successful teachers of Mathematics are active, lifelong learners. They engage in professional
learning processes that include collegial interaction, professional reading and active exploration of new
teaching ideas, practices and resources in the classroom. They reflect on practice and their new
knowledge they gain, and learn from their experiences. Their active participation is based on their
commitment to attaining the best possible outcomes for all learners and to help build the capacity of
other educators.
To be an 'experienced' teacher, a teacher should prepare the lesson by doing task or problem
to be given to her/his students, finding out all the alternative solutions, anticipating students’
difficulties and questions, and helping them to reflect on what they are doing during the
teaching and learning process. White (2011, p. 9) stated:
Teaching is a process of continual striving for excellence, a quest for the perfect lesson and an
understanding that it can never be achieved. There is something, upon reflection, that could be improved
to meet the individual needs of the students. It is the combination of reflection, professional learning and
experience that contributes to the gradual accumulation of pedagogical knowledge and super power.
To put this in an Indonesian context, Indonesian mathematics teachers should stay in front
of their students as an example or as a model (ing ngarsa sung tuladha). On the other word,
teachers should choose the most suitable tasks, problems, or activities (contextual, realistic or
mathematical) for students and guide them through the learning process. Next, they should stay
in the middle of their students to raise their spirit (ing madya mangun karsa). In this part,
teachers are expected to praise students’ effort in completing the task or problem as well as
provide students with scaffolding. At last, Indonesian teachers must encourage their students
develop their potential and capabilities (tut wuri handayani) by keeping motivating them.
These expectations requires some changes. The Indonesian curriculum, delivery system,
and assessment in pre-service and in-service institution should be evaluated to meet the need
of the young generation.
1. Further research should be carried out to assess and enhance the ability of mathematics
teachers in problem-solving, exploring, investigating, experimenting, discovering, and
inquiring.
2. The nature and practice of national examination should focus not only on content
knowledge but also on process of acquiring skills and knowledge to ensure that
mathematics teaching and learning in the classroom is able to help students to be
independent learners.
54
Fadjar Shadiq
References
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) (2013). AAMT Position Statement,

Professional learning. Adelaide: The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
Cooney, T.J., Davis, E.J., & Henderson, K.B. (1975). Dynamics of Teaching Secondary School
Mathematics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
De Lange, J. (2004). Mathematical Literacy for Living from OECD-PISA Perspective. Paris:
OECD-PISA.
Even R., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2009). Setting the stage for the ICMI study on the
professional education and development of teachers of mathematics. In R. Even & D.
Loewenberg Ball (Eds). The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of
Mathematics. New York: Springer.
Fitzgerald, M., & James, I. (2007). The Mind of the Mathematician. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Goos, M., Stillman, G., & Vale, C. (2007). Teaching Secondary School Mathematics: Research
and Practice for the 21st Century. NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Haylock, D., & Thangata, F. (2007). Key Concepts in Teaching Primary Mathematics. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Isoda, M. (2015a). Mathematical Thinking: How to Develop It in the Classroom. Presentation
given on a Course on Developing Lesson Study in Mathematics Education for Primary
(Mathematics) Teachers, October 16 – 29, 2015, Yogyakarta: SEAMEO for QITEP in
Mathematics.
Isoda, M. (2015b). What is the product of Lesson Study? Japanese Mathematics Textbook and
Theory of Teaching. Power Presentation given on a Course on Developing Lesson Study
in Mathematics Education for Primary (Mathematics) Teachers, October 16 – 29, 2015,
Yogyakarta: SEAMEO for QITEP in Mathematics.
Isoda, M., & Katagiri, S. (2012). Mathematical Thinking. Singapore: World Scientific.
Kemdikbud RI (2011). Jejak langkah Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (1945-2011).
[The steps of the Ministry of Education and Culture (1945-2011)]. Jakarta: Pusat
Informasi dan Hubungan Masyarakat, Kemdikbud.
Kemdikbud RI (2014). Gawat Darurat Pendidikan di Indonesia. [Emergency Department of
Education in Indonesia] Jakarta: Author.
Shadiq, F. (2010). Identifikasi Kesulitan Guru Matematika SMK pada Pembelajaran
Matematika yang Mengacu pada Permendiknas No. 22 Tahun 2006.[ Identification of
the Difficulties of Vocational Mathematics Teachers in Mathematics Learning Referring
to National Education Minister Regulation No. 22 of 2006] Edumat: Jurnal Edukasi
Matematika, 1(1), 49 – 60.
Shadiq, F. (2014). Pemecahan Masalah dalam Pembelajaran Matematika di Sekolah. Makalah
Disampaikan pada [Problem Solving in Learning Mathematics in Schools. Paper
Presented at]: Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika (MAPIKA) di
Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta 24 Mei 2014. Yogyakarta: SEAMEO QITEP in
Mathematics. Downloaded from https://fadjarp3g.wordpress.com/ 2014/ 06/ 04/seminar-
nasional-semnas-matematika-dan-pendidikan-matematika-di-universitas-pgri-
yokyakarta/.
55
Shadiq, F. (2016a). The Opportunities and Challenges on the Teaching and Learning of
Mathematics. Experience of SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics. Power Point Presented
on: The Workshop on Promoting Mathematics Engagement and Learning Opportunities
for Disadvantaged Communities in West Nusa Tenggara in Australian Embassy, Jakarta,
12 May, 2016. Yogyakarta: SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics.
Shadiq, F. (2016b). The Japanese Problem-Solving Approach (PSA). Presentation given on a
Course on Joyful Learning for Primary School Teachers. SEAMEO QITEP in
Mathematics, Yogyakarta, 24 August – 6 September 2016. Yogyakarta: SEAMEO
QITEP in Mathematics.
Shadiq, F. (2017). What Can We Learn from the ELPSA, SA, and PSA Frameworks? The
Experience of SEAQiM. Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal, 7(1), 65-76.
Shadiq, F. (2018). The Japanese Problem-Solving Approach (PSA) for Primary School
Teachers. Presentation given on a Course on Joyful Learning for Primary School
Teachers. SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics, Yogyakarta, 7-20 March, 2018.
Yogyakarta: SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics.
University of Tsukuba (2012). 2012 Outline of the University. Imagine the Future. Tsukuba:
University of Tsukuba.
White, A. L. (2011). School mathematics teachers are super heroes. Southeast Asian
Mathematics Education Journal, 1(1), 3-17.
56
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
Editor’s Note: Is the Multiple Intelligences Theory a Research-Based

Theory or a Story with a Positive Message?
Allan Leslie White

SEAQiM Yogyakarta
Abstract
Howard Gardner introduced his Theory of Multiple Intelligences in 1983. It is a model of

intelligence which differentiates intelligence into various specific (primarily sensory)
modalities, rather than being dominated by a single general ability such as IQ. The Theory
of Multiple Intelligences has attracted controversy and criticism among the research
community but has resonated with teachers and many educationalists who have supported
the practical value of various educational approaches suggested by the Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. This paper will investigate claims that the Multiple Intelligences Theory is a
research-based theory, or as critics have claimed, it is a good story with a positive
message.
Key Words: Multiple Intelligences, Learning styles, Brain Research
Introduction
Howard Gardner, the Hobbes Professor of Cognition and Education, coordinator of

Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Adjunct Professor of
Neurology at the Boston University School of Medicine introduced his Theory of Multiple
Intelligences (TMI) in 1983 (Gardner, 1983/1993a). Earlier in 1979, The Bernard Van Leer
Foundation had approached Gardner to investigate the human potential.
The invitation led to the founding of Harvard Project Zero, which served as the
institutional midwife for the theory of multiple intelligences (Armstrong, 2009, p. 2).
The TMI is a model of intelligence which differentiates intelligence into various
specific (primarily sensory) modalities, rather than being dominated by a single general
ability such as IQ. Since 1983 there has been considerable discussion of the theory. Gardner
originally identified seven distinct intelligences, but later added an eighth 'naturalist' form of
intelligence in 1995, and since 1998 has been considering a ninth form of 'existential'
intelligence. While some commercial interests quickly adopted the theory to push their own
agenda (often with little understanding – see Gardner, 1995) and as a way of generating and
selling more resources to teachers, the TMI has attracted controversy and criticism among the
research community.
As there another paper in this current edition where multiple intelligence theory is
used, it was time to investigate if the Multiple Intelligences Theory is a research-based theory
or a story with a positive message.
57
Theory Editor’s Note: Is the Multiple Intelligences Theory
a Research-Based Theory or a Story with a Positive Message?
Research Evidence for Multiple Intelligence Theory
In 2004, Emeritous Professor of Philosophy of Education, John White of the London

Institute of Education wrote an opinion piece for the Times Educational Supplement titled:
Unpick Wooly Thinking; The modish Multiple Intelligence bandwagon is run on flaky, flawed
psychology (White, 2004, p. 23). In the same month, he gave a public lecture titled: Howard
Gardner -The myth of Multiple Intelligences. He cast serious doubts on the evidence base for
Gardner’s theory. He was not alone as many cognitive and developmental psychologists
argued that there is no empirical evidence to support the theory (Schulte, Ree, & Carretta,
2004). It is claimed that TMI:
1. lacks precise definitions (Waterhouse, 2006a, 2006b);
2. lacks measurability and has no empirical evidence to back it up (Mathews, 1995;
Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006a, b);
3. violates its assumptions where the eight intelligences did not represent separate
and unrelated domains as claimed, but were highly intercorrelated with each other
(Furnham, 2009);
4. uses the term intelligences in a way that is simply arbitrary and confusing. Locke
(2005) stated that people are capable of developing a variety of different skills,
but this does not necessarily mean they require a different kind of intelligence for
each one;
5. has produced erroneous conclusions and outcomes such as ‘learning styles’, which
some commercial publishers gleefully used to sell more resources to teachers
based on dubious educational claims. There is a great difference between the way
that a student says (s)he prefers to learn and the ways that actually leads to better
learning (De, Bruyckere, Kirschner, & Hulshof, 2015). As well, categorizing
children and then prescribing something for them based on this categorization is
very dangerous, especially when a student is a low-performing student (Stahl,
1999; McEwan-Adkins, 2012);
6. has led to erroneous conclusions and outcomes in the areas of Gifted and Talented
and ‘personalisation’ programs (White, 2004);
7. is so unclear as to be tautologous and thus unfalsifiable. Having a high musical
ability means being good at music while at the same time being good at music is
explained by having a high musical ability (Klein, 1998);
8. does not discover new “intelligences”, but is just a reframing of previously
designated cognitive styles (Morgan, 1996);
9. stresses the differences between general intelligence and multiple intelligences,
but the two frameworks nevertheless share fundamental characteristics that limit
their relevance to teaching. Both identify cognitive structures far too broadly to be
useful for interpreting any specific educational tasks (Klein, 1997);
10. does not make a distinction between intelligences and skills (White & Breen,
1998)
11. does not explain satisfactorily how different intelligences intertwine in real-life
applications (Allix, 2000).
58
Allan Leslie White
Gardner stayed quiet in the face of the mounting criticism for ten years before
responding, stating:
while Multiple Intelligences theory is consistent with much empirical evidence, it has not
been subjected to strong experimental tests… Within the area of education, the
applications of the theory are currently being examined in many projects. Our hunches will
have to be revised many times in light of actual classroom experience (Gardner, 1993b, p.
33).
Occasionally, Gardner responded to specific critics, for example:
We have 2 main criticisms: (a) Waterhouse misunderstands and oversimplifies MI theory

and (b) Waterhouse's own line of argument undermines her claim that MI theory is not
supported by the literature (Gardner & Moran, 2010).
However, there has not been a comprehensive refutation of the mounting

dissatisfaction with TMI which is partly summarised by Allix (2000):
Analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences uncovers a conception that, in terms

of its content and structure, is informed by an outmoded and narrow empiricist theory of
knowledge, and associated theory of mind and cognition. As a consequence, the theory
fails to furnish methodological resources that are adequate to the tasks of explicating and
defending the integrity of its most basic categories, namely the multiple intelligences
themselves, and of underwriting the explanatory generalisations that arise therefrom (p.
286).
So, the weight of evidence from research findings appears to be casting doubt upon
the theoretical and evidential foundations of TMI but that is not the end of this paper. Having
briefly considered the first part of the central question contained in the title of this paper
regarding the evidence for TMI, it is time to consider if there are positives for education to be
gained from TMI as an inspirational story with a positive message to all teachers, lecturers
and educators.
A Story with a Positive Message?
Gardner first arrived at his intuitions concerning the multi-faceted nature of human
intelligence from a synthesis of a number of sources of data, especially evidence from
neurological, evolutionary, and cross-cultural origins, which had not been considered
together before. ... From these new sources of knowledge, Gardner saw the need for a
better classification of human capabilities, and description was seen to be an appropriate
place to begin this task (Allix, 2000, p. 276).
Why is TMI so popular, and why has it resonated with teachers and many
educationalists who have supported the practical value of various approaches suggested by
TMI? Even critics such as the earlier mentioned Professor White saw positive messages
arising from TMI and was moved to state:
59
The idea that intelligence is not tied to IQ but takes many forms has been a liberation…
And MI does appear to deliver the goods in terms of inclusion and raising self-esteem…
MI also seems good news for pedagogy, as the same topic can be presented differently…
(White, 2004, p.23)
TMI has helped to get rid of the days when the grading of students was rigidly
implemented according to IQ scores, which have been variously criticised as racist and
lacking equity. Rather than limited to the narrow view of IQ scores, TMI promoted the
recognition of the multiple skills and talents of students that have boosted acceptance of
diversity within classrooms and schools and placed responsibility upon teachers to cater for
the individual learning needs of all students.
When Frames of Mind (1983/1993a) was conceived and written in the early 1980s, I
viewed myself as a psychologist, attacking the standard notion of intelligence as a single
capacity, with which an individual is born, and which proves difficult, if not impossible, to
alter. I offered a more pluralistic cognitive universe. (Gardner, 1995, p. 16).
Brain Research has highlighted that children are different through genetic differences
but mostly because of their experiences and a teacher must use a variety of approaches within
a lesson to cater for all students, both their strengths and their weaknesses, because:
Children are not always stuck with the mental abilities they are born with (Doidge, 2008,
p. xv).
The implications for education are profound, especially for school teaching and learning. It
opposes the traditional beliefs that some children are born with certain fixed abilities such as
intelligence or the ability to do mathematics.
… scientists now know that any brain differences present at birth are eclipsed by the
learning experiences we have from birth onward (Boaler, 2016, p. 5).
In the classroom, teachers have students who are faster than others or who seem to
grasp ideas easily. That is because they have had multiple opportunities to make brain
connections during their childhood. It is not that students who struggle have less potential,
but rather they have not had the opportunities that other students have received. Children are
born with the potential to learn and how this potential is nurtured, encouraged, and
challenged is the responsibility of parents and teachers.
So, contrary to some misinformed views about students learning styles which advised
teachers to categorize all students and then concentrate only upon the dominant style for each
student, Gardner proposes:
“Deep” applications of the theory go beyond a reflexive invocation of the categorical

scheme and ultimately bring about a different way of thinking about children and their
education (Gardner, 1995, p. 16)
60
Allan Leslie White
In other words, placing students in categories is not the essence of the TMI. What is
the essence is realising that all children are different and have likes and dislikes when it
comes to teaching and learning and this creates challenges for lecturers and teachers.
Conclusion
So, to construct an answer to the title of this article: Is the Multiple Intelligences
Theory a Research-Based Theory or a Story with a Positive Message? There is enough
critical evidence from researchers at this point in time to question whether the Multiple
Intelligences Theory has a solid research-based although it does resonate with a number of
results that have arisen from other rigorous research studies such as the evidence uncovered
the theory that intelligence can reveal itself in different ways (Shearer, & Karanian, 2017).
However, for all teachers and lecturers, it is a story with a very positive message
about classroom teaching and about their students. Students come to class with their
individual strengths and weaknesses and the challenge for teachers and lecturers is to cater
for all the individual needs of their students. This challenge goes to the heart of pedagogy, to
the variety of experiences and strategies that teachers use within their classrooms. In the
teachers’ lesson plans are group work and collaborative learning ever used? Are illustrations,
graphs, diagrams, films, or videos regularly used? Are music, radio and recordings ever used
in the teaching of mathematics? Are discussions a regular part of lessons? Do mathematics
classrooms ever have brief ‘mathletics’ breaks where the class participates in a ‘maths-
robics’ session that involves some body movement and stretching? What strategies are being
used to differentiate teaching, differentiate learning and differentiate assessment?
Thus, for all educators the TMI issues a challenge which is to provide all their
students with a learning environment containing the richest variety of strategies to cater for
all the different types of ‘intelligences’ in a way that improves not only the students’
strengths but also improves their weaknesses. The more areas of the brain that the teaching
‘lights up’, the greater the learning and retention in the student’s long-term memory.
To conclude this paper, it is only fitting to leave the final say to Professor Gardner
himself:
From my perspective, the essence of the theory is respect for the many differences among
people, the multiple variations in the ways that they learn, the several modes by which they
can be assessed, and the almost infinite number of ways in which they can leave a mark on
the world (Gardner, 2009, p.x).
61
References
Allix, N. M. (2000). The theory of multiple intelligences: A case of missing cognitive matter.
Australian Journal of Education, 44(3), 272- 293.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple Intelligences in the classroom, 3Rd Edition (pp. 1x-x). VA:
Assn for Supervision & Curriculum.
Basak, B., & Bengi, B. (2013). Multiple Intelligence Theory for Gifted Education: Criticisms
and Implications. Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness, 1(2),
1-12
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical Mindsets. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
De, Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. A., & Hulshof, C.D. (2015). Urban Myths about Learning
and Education. New York: Academic Press.
Doidge, N. (2008). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the
frontiers of brain science (Revised Edition). Melbourne: Scribe Publications Pty Ltd
Furnham, A. (2009). The Validity of a New, Self-report Measure of Multiple Intelligence.
Current Psychology, 28(4), 225-239. doi: 10.1007/s12144-009-9064-z.
Gardner, H. (1983/1993a) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993b). The multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1995). "Multiple intelligences" as a catalyst. English Journal, 84(8), 16-18.
Gardner, H. (1998). A multiplicity of intelligences. Scientific American, 9(4), 18-23.
Gardner, H. (2009). Preface, In T. Armstrong, Multiple Intelligences in the classroom, 3Rd
Edition (pp. 1x-x). VA: Assn for Supervision & Curriculum.
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2010). The Science of Multiple Intelligences Theory: A Response
to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227-232.
Klein, P. D. (1997). Cognitive Processes; Curriculum Development; Educational Planning;
Intelligence; Multiple Intelligences; Teaching Methods; Theories; Gardner (Howard).
Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 377-94.
Klein, P. D. (1998). A Response to Howard Gardner: Falsifiability, Empirical Evidence, and
Pedagogical Usefulness in Educational Psychologies. Canadian Journal of Education
23(1): 103–112.
Matthews, D. (1995) Gardner's multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant
research literature and a consideration ofits application to gifted education. In R. Fogarty
& J. Bellanca (Eds.), Multiple intelligences: A collection. Highett, Vic.: Hawker
Brownlow Education, Australia.
McEwan-Adkins, E. (2012). Emphasizing learning styles based on hunches. Illinois Loop,
Retrieved November 10, 2019, from: http://www.illinoisloop.org/mcewan_hunches.html
Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review,
18(4), 263-269
62
Allan Leslie White
Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: not much more
than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 1059-1068. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014.
Shearer, C.B., & Karanian, J.M. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support
for the theory of multiple intelligences? Trends in Neuroscience and Education 6, 211–
223.
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? American Educator. Retrieved
November 1, 2019, from:
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/DiffStrokes.pdf
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006a). Beyond g: Putting multiple
intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5), 487-502. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.004.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006b). g and the measurement of Multiple
Intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence 34, 507–510
Waterhouse, L. (2006a). Inadequate Evidence for Multiple Intelligences, Mozart Effect, and
Emotional Intelligence Theories. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247-255. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep4104_5.
Waterhouse, L. (2006b). Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional
Intelligence: A Critical Review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207-225. doi:
10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1.
White, J. (2004, November 12). Unpick Wooly Thinking: The modish Multiple Intelligence
bandwagon is run on flaky, flawed psychology. Times Educational Supplement,
Opinion, Issue 4609, 23.
63
64
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
Developing Learning Kit of Geometry for Vocational School Grade X

Based on Multiple Intelligence Theory
Aep Sunendar
Mathematics Education Department Majalengka University, Majalengka, Indonesia
aepfromciamis@gmail.com
Ali Mahmudi
Mathematics Education Department Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
ali_uny73@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study aims to develop a learning kit of geometry for Indonesian vocational schools,
grade X based on the multiple intelligence theory. This research and development used the
4D model suggested by Thiagarajan, Semmel and Semmel (1974) consisting of four stages
that are: define, design, development, and disseminate. The data were analyzed by
converting the actual scores obtained into a qualitative five category scale. The effectivity
was analyzed by determining the percentage of students’ who completed a test and the
percentage of students in each category as collected by the questionnaires. The Lesson Plan
and worksheets were found to be valid. The results showed that the Lesson Plan and
worksheet were practical based on the result of implementation, teacher’s assessment and
students’ assessment. Furthermore, the Lesson Plan and worksheet were regarded as
effective as reported by the students’ increasing achievement of spiritual attitudes, social
attitudes, and knowledge competences. However, in terms of skill competences, the Lesson
Plan and worksheet were not effective.
Keywords: Learning kit, Multiple Intelligences Theory, Geometry, Indonesian secondary

vocational school.
Introduction
According to the Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 20 of 2003, article 1

paragraph 1,
Education means conscious and well-planned effort in creating a learning environment and
learning process so that learners will be able to develop their full potential for acquiring
spiritual and religious strengths, develop self-control, personality, intelligence, morals and
noble character and skills that one needs for him/herself, for the community, for the nation,
and for the State (IMNE, 2003, p. 6)
But in reality, education in Indonesia has not achieved these goals. This can be seen
from the UNESCO Educational for All Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2012) which reported
that Indonesia was ranked 64th out of 120 countries in measuring the quality of education. This
means that the quality of education in Indonesia was still low.
Also monitoring of the mathematics subject shows achievements that have not been
optimal, as is indicated by the results of TIMSS and PISA and reported in Permendikbud
65
Developing Learning Kit of Geometry
for Vocational School Grade X Based on Multiple Intelligence Theory
number 60 (MECRI, 2014, p.2). Yet mathematics is an important subject, as NCTM (2000,
p.5) states that in an ever-changing world those who understand and can do the mathematics
will have more opportunities and choices in determining their future. In line with this,
Permendikbud number 60 (MECRI, 2014, p.323) states that to master and create technology in
the future, it takes mastery and understanding of mathematics that is strong from an early age.
Therefore, it is important for vocational students especially in the technology field to master
mathematics.
However, based on the results of observations conducted at the State Vocational High
School 1 Padaherang, students' mathematics learning achievement is less than optimal. This is
shown from the completeness of students who only 20% at the end of learning and the results
of the National Examination (UN) which decreased in 2012/2013. The decline in UN results
for mathematics subjects can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1.
Mathematics National Examination (UN) Results Data (Source from BSNP, 2012 &2013)
Exam Value Years 2011/2012 Years 2012/2013
Classification A D
Mean Score 9,43 4,64
Lowest Score 8,50 3,00
Highest Score 10,00 9,25
From Table 1, it can be seen that the average score on the National Examination in
2012/2013 was 4.64 which had dropped drastically from the previous year's average of 9.43.
From the results of the National Examination, it was concluded that mathematics learning
achievement had decreased.
SMK Negeri 1 Padaherang is one of the vocational schools that implemented the 2013
Curriculum. Based on Permendikbud number 65 (MECRI, 2013, p.1) states that the learning
process in educational units is organized interactively, incentive, fun, challenging, motivating
students to actively participate and provide space sufficient for initiative, creativity and
independence in accordance with the talents and interests, and the physical and psychological
development of students. However, based on observations it appeared that students were less
enthusiastic in learning mathematics, and students tended to get bored quickly. Students tended
to prefer productive subjects compared to other subjects including mathematics. This is
hypothesized the reasons are the learning of mathematics is monotonous and the pedagogy is
still teacher-centered.
Current Indonesian teaching practices have been described as the teacher being the
center of teaching activities and giver of knowledge, while the students are seen as empty
glasses that must always be filled with knowledge (Suyono & Hariyanto, 2014). According to
Yaumi (2012), a new student-centered approach is needed based on the theory that students are
active participants in the learning process and that this should be fully integrated into the
learning implementation plan. To maximize student learning, planning of learning must pay
attention to learning styles and multiple intelligences (Moore, 2009). Moore emphasizes that
multiple intelligences can be used in planning learning to achieve the expected competencies,
including in mathematics learning. Hoerr (2000) states that teachers who use multiple
66
Aep Sunendar & Ali Mahmudi
intelligences can give students the opportunity to use their strongest intelligence to demonstrate
what they are learning. However, these claims should be questioned in light of criticisms of the
theory (Carson, 2003).
Review of Literature
Compound intelligence is used to mean the multiple intelligences proposed by Gardner.

In the first edition in his book "Frame of Mind", Gardner describes seven types of intelligence
namely logical-mathematics, verbal-lingstic, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Then in the second edition he added two types of intelligence
namely naturalist and existential (Calik & Birgili, 2012). However, Connell (Yaumi, 2012,
p.229) states that Gardner himself still considers existential intelligence as a half or imperfect
intelligence due to its physiological location in the human brain. So, in this study, the meaning
of multiple intelligences is the eight intelligences expressed by Gardner namely logical-
mathematics, verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal and naturalist.
In Bas and Beyhan's research (2010) the results of their research showed that there was
an influence from multiple intelligences on learning when supported by project-based learning.
This learning influenced student achievement and attitudes in their English lessons. Previous
research by Xie and Lin's (2009) showed that polytechnic students in Taiwan in classes that
implemented multiple intelligence-based learning were significantly better than students in
classes which did not when working on project design tasks.
Temur's (2007) study of the effect on learning by teaching based on multiple literacy
theories on mathematics learning achievement of fourth-grade elementary school students at
Gazi University Foundation Private Primary School. The results of the research showed that
the students' mathematics learning outcomes increased after implementing mathematics
learning based on the multiple intelligences theory.
The multiple intelligence potential that students have should be used as an opportunity
to create interesting learning contexts. Interesting learning requires careful planning supported
by adequate learning media. However, based on the results of the interviews, teachers have not
actively developed all the potential possessed by the students including multiple intelligences,
nor the implementation of the 2013 curriculum. The teachers still have difficulties in
developing learning tools based on the 2013 Curriculum and there are no mathematics learning
devices based on multiple intelligence theories developed especially at the secondary
vocational school level. Therefore, the development of mathematics learning devices based on
the multiple intelligence theory is oriented towards achieving competence according to the
2013 Curriculum is proposed as a solution. Based on this, the researcher conducted a research
study on the development of mathematics learning devices based on multiple intelligence
theories oriented to the achievement of competencies according to the 2013 curriculum of SMK
students of class X in semester 2.
67
Methodology
This study uses the developmental model discussed by Thiagarajan, Semmel and
Semmel (1974) and called the 4D model and consists of 4 stages, namely: define, design,
development, and disseminate (Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel, 1974, p.5).
Research Procedure
The first stage is defining which establishes and defines the requirements for
development. It consists of five stages of analysis: namely preliminary analysis, curriculum
analysis, student analysis, material analysis, and analysis of the final goal. The preliminary
analysis aims to obtain information about the tools of mathematics learning in the field. The
curriculum analysis aims to establish the competencies in which learning tools are developed.
The student analysis seeks the characteristics of students at the level of vocational high school
(SMK). These characteristics include initial abilities, background, knowledge, students'
cognitive development, and the multiple intelligences potential of the students. The potential
of multiple intelligences of students can be obtained through the use of a multiple intelligences’
questionnaire given to students who are the subjects of the research. The material analysis is
done by identifying the material to be taught, collecting and selecting relevant material, and
rearranging it systematically. The analysis of the final goal is useful to restrict the researcher
and prevent deviation from the initial goal of the study.
The second stage of the 4D model is the design stage where the design and preparation
of products are carried out, namely the Lesson Plan and the Student Worksheet based on
multiple intelligences theory. The steps for the design stage involve media selection, format
selection, and the initial product design. The selection of media is related to the determination
of what is the right media to present the subject matter based on the material analysis, the
analysis of the students, and the available facilities at the school. The format selection includes
determining the format for designing learning tools in the form of the Lesson Plan and the
Student Worksheet. The initial design is the designing and writing of the Lesson Plan and the
Student Worksheet so that the first drafts are obtained.
The third stage of the 4D model is the development stage which is divided into two
activities, namely expert appraisal and development testing. The expert appraisal is a technique
used to validate or assess the feasibility of the product design, and for this study validation was
carried out by outside experts in their fields. In this study, there were four validators, two
lecturers from Yogyakarta State University (UNY), and two mathematics teachers from SMK
Negeri 1 Padaherang. The suggestions given were used to improve the learning tools that have
been compiled. The development testing is of the product design on the target subjects and
consists of two activities, namely: limited trials to find out in terms of legibility and
understanding of the words and sentences used in the Student Worksheet; and the learning
achievement tests as well as the spiritual attitude questionnaires and the social attitude
questionnaires. Field trials were conducted to determine the practicality and effectiveness of
the learning devices.
68
The last stage is the disseminate stage involving a limited number of learning tools for
teachers in order to obtain responses and feedback on the learning tools. If the response was
good, then they would be disseminated through printing in large quantities so that the learning
device can be used by a wider audience.
Subjects of Testing, Time & Research Sites

This research was conducted at SMK 1 Padaherang in Karangsari Village, Padaherang
District, Pangandaran District. The subjects of the limited trials in this study were 10 students
of class XI TKJ C and the subject of field trials were 31 students of class X TPMP. The research
was conducted in March-May 2015.
Data, Techniques and Data Collection Instruments

The quantitative data were obtained from the results of the expert validation, the teacher
assessment questionnaire, the student response questionnaire, the observation of learning
achievement, the achievement tests, the spiritual attitude questionnaire, and the social attitude
questionnaire.
The qualitative data were obtained from comments and suggestions about the learning
tools developed, as well as the qualitative data taken from the instruments for measuring:
validity; practicality via teacher assessment questionnaires, student response questionnaires
and learning implementation observation sheets; effectiveness via achievement tests, spiritual
attitude questionnaires, and the social attitude questionnaires.
Validity and practicality data analyses involved converting the average score obtained
into a five-scale qualitative form. The data conversion criteria can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2.
Data Conversion Criteria (Source: Azwar, 2013, p.163)
Interval Score Category
Very good
Good
Enough
Not good
Poor
Data analysis techniques for the effectiveness of the learning devices in terms of
achievement tests is done by determining the percentage of student completeness, while the
effectiveness of the learning devices in terms of spiritual attitudes and social attitudes is by
determining the percentage of students in each category.
The geometry learning devices, based on the multiple intelligences theory, are said to
be:
• valid if the expert judgment is mostly in the good categories;
• practical if the results of teacher assessment and student responses are in the good
categories and the learning achievement is at least 80% implemented;
69
• effective in terms of achievement tests if at least 80% of students have reached the
minimum completeness criteria, set by the school for geometry material, namely 75%.
For questionnaires on spiritual attitudes and social attitudes, geometry learning devices
based on multiple intelligence theories are said to be effective if the percentage of
students who attained attitudes in the high category was at least 80%.
The description of the results of the development of the geometry learning device based
on multiple intelligence theories using the Thigarajan, Semmel and Semmel’s (1974) 4D
development model is as follows.
Define phase
The preliminary analysis
Based on the preliminary analysis, the learning tools used in SMK 1 Padaherang were
the results of the subject teachers' deliberations (MGMP) and only limited to the
implementation plan of learning (Lesson Plan) without being supported by adequate learning
media, while the learning resources used by students were the mathematics books available in
the school library and even then the numbers are limited. As well, the learning tools made by
the teacher did not facilitate students learning making use of the students' multiple
intelligences. In relation to the implementation of the 2013 Curriculum, the learning tools that
are oriented towards achieving competencies according to the 2013 Curriculum are still limited
and teachers are still having difficulties in developing these learning tools.
As a result of these problems, the development of learning tools based on the multiple
intelligences theory was oriented towards the achievement of competencies according to the
2013 curriculum as a possible solution to solving these problems. It was hoped that the learning
tools would facilitate students’ learning of mathematics and they would achieve the expected
competencies based on the 2013 curriculum.
The curriculum analysis

The curriculum analysis revealed that SMK 1 Padaherang used the 2013 curriculum,
and the recommended scientific approach with five main learning experiences: observing,
asking, collecting information, associating, and communicating. The competencies that must
be achieved by students in learning included the four core competencies namely: core spiritual
attitudes (KI-1); core competencies (KI-2); core knowledge competencies (KI-3); and core
skills competencies (KI-4). However, based on the results of observations and interviews with
the mathematics teachers, the scientific approach had not been implemented correctly as the
teachers used a more direct teaching approach as they were still having difficulties in
developing learning tools whose activities used the scientific approach. Teachers also had
difficulties in assessing each core competency in the 2013 Curriculum, especially the
assessment of KI-1 spiritual attitudes and KI-2 social attitudes.
70
The student analysis

The student analysis used as basis Piaget's development stages, where vocational
students were found to belong to the formal period of operation or the stage of development of
formal operations, this period begins at 12 years of age (Riyanto, 2012, p. 124). In this period
students are able to think symbolically and can understand something meaningfully and can
understand things that are imaginative. The implication in mathematics learning is that students
can learn if the input (learning material) is in accordance with students' interests and talents.
So, based on the results of observations and interviews, vocational students tended to be less
enthusiastic in learning mathematics compared to the productive subjects. Students also
became bored quickly when learning mathematics. This causes student achievement in learning
mathematics to decline, as indicated by only 20% of students who can achieve the KKM at the
end of learning.
The analysis phase

In the analysis phase, the researcher analyzed the mathematics lesson material
developed in accordance with the 2013 Curriculum, and the material chosen was the geometry
material of X grade semester 2 of SMK which included basic competencies (KD) 3.13, namely
describing the concepts of distance and angle between points, lines and the plane through
demonstration using props and other media, and 4.13 that is using various principles of 2D
building and 3D building space and solving real problems related to distance and angle between
points, lines and planes.
The final goal analysis

The final goal of learning which is the basis for the preparation of the learning tools in
the form of the Lesson Plan, the Student Worksheet, an assessment instrument (achievement
tests) and attitude questionnaires at this stage the learning objectives are arranged from KI-1 to
KI-4.
Design phase
The design phase starts with media selection such as blackboards, markers, rulers,
projectors, worksheets and teaching aids in the form of a cube frame. The Lesson Plan format
was adjusted to the Lesson Plan format for the 2013 Curriculum and adjusted to multiple
intelligences-based theory while the Student Worksheet was designed and printed.
The steps in developing a multiple intelligences-based Lesson Plan, involved:
reviewing the syllabus and choosing geometry material KD 3.13 which was translated into 14
learning goals and KD 4.13 which was collapsed into 2 learning objectives. KD 3.13 and KD
4.13; conducting a multiple intelligence survey; selecting the type of intelligence that will be
facilitated; developing learning scenarios; and, selecting the media and tools to be used in the
learning.
The following is the result of a multiple intelligence survey in class X TPMP.
71
20 19
15
10
10 8
6 5
4 3
5 1
0
Figure 1. Compound Intelligence Survey Results.
Based on the results of the multiple intelligence survey in Figure 1, it can be seen that
the most prominent intelligence in class X TPMP is interpersonal intelligence, based on this
group discussion activities were chosen to facilitate interpersonal intelligence of the students,
so group discussion was used at each of the six learning meetings. As well, other intelligences
(at least 4) were also facilitated according to the material taught at each learning meeting.
The development of a learning scenario involves a scientific approach in which a
combination of intelligences is integrated in the learning experience using the scientific
approach. The researcher then designs the media and tools that will be used with the scenario
such as the Student Worksheet as well as props such as reference books and other tools such
as Geogebra and Corel Draw X6 applications are adapted to the needs of each meeting.
Achievement tests in this study were divided into two: a 14-question multiple choice
test of knowledge competencies; and 3 descriptive problem questions intended to measure the
achievement of skills competencies. The spiritual attitude questionnaire was composed of 5
positive statements and 5 negative statements and the social attitude questionnaire consisted of
9 positive statements and 9 negative statements.
The quality of achievement tests and questionnaires in this study were obtained from
the validity and estimation of reliability. According to Reynolds, Livingstone & Wilson (2010),
validity is the accuracy or accuracy of interpretation of test scores. There are two validities that
are carried out in this study, namely content validity and construct validity. Based on the
content validity and construct validity, it was found that the achievement tests, the spiritual
attitude questionnaire and the social attitude questionnaire were valid and feasible to use.
According to Reynolds, Livingston, & Wilson (2010), reliability is the consistency or
stability of the results of the assessment. Based on the analysis, it was found that the
achievement tests, the spiritual attitude questionnaire, and the social attitude questionnaire
were reliable and could be used in subsequent trials.
Development stage
In this study there were four validators who validated the product, two lecturers and
two mathematics teachers and based on their judgment, there were several suggestions made
and were used to revise the instruments. The results of the validation analysis of learning
devices can be seen in Table 3 below.
72
Table 3.
Results of Validation Analysis of Learning Devices
Developed Devices Actual Score Category
Lesson Plan 3,57 Very Good
Student Worksheet (Content) 3,57 Very Good
Student Worksheet (Graphics) 3,56 Very Good
From the results above, the average actual score of Lesson Plan validation is 3.57, for
Student Worksheet in terms of material is 3.57, and in terms of graphics is 3.56. Based on this,
it was concluded that the Lesson Plan and the Student Worksheet are valid and able to be used
in mathematics learning. Then a limited trial in terms of the legibility of the instruments was
conducted involving 10 students of class XI TKJ C as they had studied geometry. This
readability included clarity of instructions, language, material and meaning of statements in the
questionnaire. The results indicated that 6 students considered the readability of the developed
devices to be excellent and 4 students to be in the good category. The Student Worksheet
needed more pictures or illustrations and correction of typing errors. In the attitude
questionnaire, several statements required explanation and the researcher revised the product
before field testing.
The field trials were conducted and the practical assessment could be seen from three
sources: the teacher assessment questionnaire; the student response questionnaire; and the
observations. The results of the practical analysis in terms of the teacher's assessment can be
seen that all categories in Table 4 were very good.
Table 4.
Results of Practical Analysis Viewed from Teacher Assessment
Developed Devices Actual Score Category
Lesson Plan 3,57 Very Good
Student Worksheet 4 Very Good
Total 3,78 Very Good
In addition, the practicality of the developed device was reviewed from the student
response questionnaire given after students carry out mathematics learning using worksheets.
The average student response score was 3.31, a very good category. Learning practicality in
terms of learning implementation is done by calculating the average percentage of learning
implementation and the results can be seen in Table 5 below
Table 5.
Results of Practical analysis in terms of the implementation of learning
Learning Percentage of completeness
1 82,60%
2 88,46%
3 96,15%
4 100%
5 100%
73
6 100%
Average 94,53%
Based on the results of the analysis in Table 5, it was found that the percentage of
learning implementation at each meeting was greater than 80% in terms of.
The effectiveness of geometry learning devices can be seen from the percentage of
students' completeness on achievement imaginative things was divided into two: knowledge
competency using multiple-choice tests; and skills competencies used a description test. The
results of achievement tests can be seen in Table 6 below
Table 6.
Results of Student Achievement Tests
Multiple Choice Description Test
Average Score 88,24 62,90
Students Who Completed 28 9
Percentage of Students Who Completed 90,32% 29,03%
Students Who Did Not Complete 3 22
Percentage of Students Who Did Not Complete 9,68% 70,97%
From Table 6, 28 (90.32%) students completed the multiple-choice test while in the
description test only 9 (29.03%) students completed. The geometry learning device is said to
be effective in terms of the achievement of knowledge competencies being over 80% and not
yet effective in terms of achievement of skill competencies being less than 75%.
The results of the analysis of spiritual attitudes can be seen in Table 7 below.
Table 7.
Results of Spiritual Attitude Questionnaire Analysis
Category Number Of Students Percentages
Very Hight 13 41,93%
Hight 12 38,70%
Medium 5 16,12%
Low 1 3,22%
Very Low 0 0%
Based on Table 7, it can be concluded that the geometry learning device is effective in
terms of the achievement of spiritual attitude competencies.
While the effectiveness of geometry learning devices based on multiple intelligence
theories in terms of achievement of social attitude competencies is shown in Table 8 below
74
Table 8.
Results of Analysis of Social Attitude Questionnaire
Category Number Of Student Percentages
Very Hight 3 9,67%
Hight 23 74,19%
Medium 5 16,12%
Low 0 0%
Very Low 0 0%
Based on Table 8 it can be concluded that the geometry learning device is effective in
terms of the achievement of social attitude competencies.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this research and discussion, it was concluded that the geometry
learning tools (Lesson Plan and Student Worksheet) based on the multiple intelligences theory-
oriented to the achievement of competencies according to the 2013 curriculum fulfilled the
criteria of validity and practicality. The geometry learning tools (Lesson Plan and Student
Worksheet) were effective in terms of the achievement of spiritual attitudes, social attitudes
and knowledge competencies. However, it was not effective in terms of the achievement of
skill competencies. [Editors note: Due to the size of the sample the conclusions cannot be
generalised beyond the current subjects. They should not be used to support an argument using
different subjects].
References
Bas, G., & Beyhan, O. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-based
learning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English lesson.
International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,2(3). Downloaded on 30th
November, 2014, from www.iejee.com/2_3_2010/365-385.pdf/.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan, [National Education Standards Agency](BSNP) (2012).
Laporan hasil UN SMA/MA tahun pelajaran 2011/2012, [Report on the results of the
SMA / MA National Examination for the academic year 2011/2012]. Jakarta:
Kementrian Pendidikan Nasional Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan.
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP)(2013). Laporan hasil UN SMA/MA tahun
pelajaran 2012/2013. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan Nasional Badan Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Pendidikan.
Calik, B. & Birgili, B. (2013). Multiple Intelligence Theory for Gifted Education: Criticism
and Implications. Journal for the Education of the Young Scientist and Giftedness. 1.
2147-9518. Downloaded from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271832916_Gifted_children's_educations_and
_a_glance_to_Turkey
Carson, A. D. (2003). Why has Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences had so little
impact on vocational psychology? Retrieved February 21, 2008, from
http://vocationalpsychology.com/essay_10_gardner.htm.
75
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflection on Multiple Intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta
Kappan. 77, 200-209. Downloaded on 20 February 2015, from
http://learnweb.harvard.edu/WIDE/courses/files/reflections.pdf.
Indonesian Ministry of National Education (IMNE)(2003). Act Of The Republic Of Indonesia
Number 20, Year 2003 On National Education System. Jakarta: Author. [Editor’s note:
The English version of the Act as published was originally in Bahasa Indonesia in the
National Gazette Number 78 Year 2003. The original text of this Act in Bahasa
Indonesia is the authentic version.]
Hoerr, T. R. (2000). Becoming a multiple intelligences school. Alexandria. ASCD.
Kemendikbud. (2013). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 65 Tahun
2013 tentang Standar Proses Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah [Minister of Education
and Culture Regulation Number 65 Year 2013 concerning Basic and Secondary
Education Process Standards]. Jakarta: Author.
Kemendikbud. (2014). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan nomor 60 tahun
2014 tentang Kurikulum SMK. Jakarta: Author.
Minister Of Education And Culture Of The Republic Of Indonesia (MECRI) (2013).
Regulation Of The Minister Of Education And Culture Republic Of Indonesia Number
65 of 2013, About Basic and Middle Education Process Standards. Jakarta: Author
Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia (MECRI) (2014). Regulation
of the Minister of Education and Culture Republic of Indonesia, Number 60 of 2014.
About 2013 Curriculum Middle Vocational School / Madrasah Aliyah Vocational.
Jakarta: Author
Moore, K. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies. London: SAGE Publications.
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Republik Indonesia. (2003). Undang- Undang RI Nomor 20 Tahun 2003, tentang Sistem
Pendidikan Nasional [RI Law Number 20 of 2003, concerning the National Education
System]. Jakarta: Author.
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Wilson V. (2010). Measurement and assessment in
education. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Riyanto, Y. (2012). Paradigma Baru Pembelajaran: Sebagai referensi bagi Guru/ Pendidik
dalam Implementasi Pembelajaran yang Efektif dan Berkualitas [New Learning
Paradigm: As a reference for Teachers / Educators in the Implementation of Effective
and Quality Learning]. Jakarta: Kencana.
Suyono & Hariyanto. (2014). Belajar dan Pembelajaran: Teori dan Konsep Dasar.
Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya [Learning and (promoting) Learning: Basic Theory and
Concepts]. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Temur, O.D. (2007). The effects of teaching activities prepared according to the multiple
intelligence theory on mathematics achievements and permanence of information
learned by 4th grade students. International Journal of Environmental & Science
Education, 4(2), 86-91.
Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D.S, & Semmel, M.I. (1974). Instructional development for
training teacher of execeptional children. Minneapolis: Indiana University.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)(2012).
Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2012 - Youth and skills: Putting education
to work. Paris: Author
Xie, J., & Lin, R. (2009). Research on multiple intelligences teaching and assessment. Asian
Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 4(2-3), 106-124.
Yaumi, M. (2012). Pembelajaran Berbasis Multiple Intelligences [Multiple Intelligences
Based Learning]. Jakarta: PT. Dian Rakyat.
76
2019, Vol. 9, No. 1
STEM Outreach via Science Forensic Module:

The Impact of the Near-peer Mentoring Approach
1,2
Hazeeq Hazwan Azman, 1,3Maegala Nallapan Maniyam, 2Marini Ibrahim, 2Hasdianty
Abdullah, 1Khairil Bariyyah Hassan, 1Hasnur Hidayah Kamaruddin, 1Rahayu Md. Khalid,
1
Norhisyam Mat Sout, 1,3Norazah Mohammad Nawawi, 1,3Normawati@Nadzirah Abu
Samah, 1,3Rozila Alias, 1,3Nor Suhaila Yaacob, 2Yusmi Mohd Yunus, 4Noraini Idris.
1
Centre for Foundation and General Studies, Universiti Selangor, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Engineering and Life Sciences, Universiti Selangor, Malaysia
3
Selangor BioIT Institute, Universiti Selangor, Malaysia
4
Universiti Malaya STEM Centre, Universiti Malaya, Malaysia
hazeeq87@unisel.edu.my
Abstract
STEM education emphasizes the integrated study of science passing the boundaries of
traditionally labelled disciplines while demonstrating its application in real life. Science
forensic is an eye-catching subject for students, which implements the knowledge of
biology, physics, and chemistry. The purpose of this study was to identify students’
interest towards STEM through science forensic module and the impact of the near-peer
mentoring approach in the module for STEM outreach. This pilot study was conducted for
the students of Sekolah Berasrama Penuh Integrasi (SBPI) Gombak with 36 participants.
By using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), the analysis revealed that
94.5% of students found the module interesting and 77% of participants agreeing that the
module increased their interest to pursue their future study in the STEM-field. Focusing on
demographics, this module received more positive responses from females and pure
science stream students as compared to males and Islamic science stream, respectively.
This result is consistent with the higher number of female students and pure science stream
students in STEM-field study at university level. The near-peer mentoring approach
showed a promising impact with 88% of students giving positive feedback on the
credibility of mentors. The science forensic modules consisted of 8 main stations with the
Fingerprinting station being the most popular (94.5%) and DNA profiling being the least
popular (77.8%). One possible explanation of this is that the level of understanding for
DNA profiling is harder with larger amounts of knowledge needed to be learned in a short
period of time. Overall, the outcomes of this study suggest that exposing secondary school
students to science forensic has a positive impact on their level of interest towards STEM
education.
Keywords: science forensic, near-peer mentoring, STEM outreach, STEM education.
Introduction
The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 includes STEM education as part of

the national agenda to address the worrying trend of the declining number of students
pursuing STEM-field courses at university level (Bahrum, Wahid, & Ibrahim, 2017). STEM
education emphasizes the integrated study of science passing the boundaries of traditionally
labelled disciplines while demonstrating its application in real life. Science forensic is an eye-
catching subject for students, which implements the knowledge of biology (e.g. DNA
77
fingerprinting), physics (e.g. blood splatter) and chemistry (e.g. toxicology) as well as
mathematics as integrated tools.
The purpose of this study was to identify students’ interest towards STEM through
science forensic module and the impact of the near-peer mentoring approach in the module
for STEM outreach.
Methodology
This pilot study was conducted with the secondary school students of Sekolah
Berasrama Penuh Integrasi (SBPI) Gombak with 36 participants. The module is based on a
detective role-play setup where the students were divided into a group of 6 with the aim of
solving a crime. There were 8 experimental stations in which they were required to analyse
the samples collected from the crime scene. The stations were fingerprinting, blood typing,
DNA profiling, bioinformatics, toxicology, forensic mathematics, geology, and trace
elements. Each station was duplicated in a training room where they were equipped with
relevant knowledge and skills to solve the task. Students were allowed to switch between
training room and the experimental stations as long as the crime is solved within the expected
given time frame.
Besides the eye-catching content, the near-peer mentoring approach was applied,
where the mentors were selected among trained university students. Their age range is
between 18 to 22 years old. These volunteer mentors were supervised by the lecturers who
acted as facilitators in the module. The module was evaluated at the end of the program via a
short survey answered by the participants and analysed by using the Statistical Package for
the Social Science (SPSS).
70
70
60
60
50
50
Frequency (%)
Frequency (%)
40
40
30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Question 4 Question 12 Question 4 Question 12
Male Female Pure Science Islamic Science
(A) (B)
Figure 1. Participants’ feedback after completing the module. Data is shown for the
segregated responses based on gender (A) and study course (B). Question 4: The module is
interesting. Question 12: If qualified, I would like to pursue my study in the STEM-field.
Questions were ranked on a scale from 1 (no) to 5 (yes).
78
Hazeeq Hazwan Azman
Figure 1 revealed that 94.5% of students found the module interesting and 77% of
participants agreed that the module increased their interest in pursuing their future study in
the STEM-field. The science forensic module consisted of 8 main stations with the
fingerprinting station being the most popular (94.5%) and the DNA profiling station being
the least popular (77.8%). One possible explanation for this is that the level of understanding
needed for DNA profiling is harder with larger amounts of knowledge needed to be learned
in a short period of time. A previous study has reported the effectiveness of forensic science
in increasing students’ level of confidence and motivation towards science (Marle et al.,
2014). Another study has also claimed that the forensic based activity could encourage
students to discover a diverse career in science (Miller, Chang, & Hoyt, 2010).
Focusing on the demographics (see Figure 1), this module received more positive
responses from females and pure science stream students when compared to males and
Islamic science stream students, respectively. This result is consistent with the higher number
of female students and pure science stream students in the STEM-field study at Malaysian
university level. However, there is a gender gap problem in certain STEM-fields especially
the male dominant field of engineering. A STEM outreach program has been shown to
address this problem by encouraging female students, boosting their enthusiasm, and tackling
their perception of this male niche area in STEM (Levine et al., 2015).
The near-peer mentoring approach showed a promising impact with 88% of students
giving positive feedback on the credibility of the mentors. This approach has been identified
as guiding students to a visible education pathway as well as envisioning themselves as future
scientists (Pluth et al., 2015). The smaller gender gap between the students and mentors could
break the wall and allow a safe space for students to interact and learn science without being
labelled or judged. In addition, this approach could also tackle the problem of science
teachers with lack of STEM literacy. Several studies have highlighted this alarming issue in
Malaysia (Amiruddin, Azman & Ismail, 2018; Mahmud et al., 2018) and the near-peer
approach could also be applied to teacher-training where the mentors could either be
university students or lecturers.
Conclusion
Forensic science reflects a good STEM module in which it encompasses all the STEM
education elements. Early exposure to STEM education through the forensic science module
could nurture the interest of the next generation towards science and technology. The study
was conducted successfully showing a positive impact on students’ level of interest towards
STEM education through the implementation of this module. Similar extended problem-
based scenario modules and using the near-peer mentoring approach could be integrated in
the STEM outreach program in order to catapult the interest of students as well as exposing
them to a STEM career.
Acknowledgements
This program was financed by Centre for Community Engagement and Student
Movement (COMNET) UNISEL with source funding via Menteri Besar Cooporation (MBI).
The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance of Prof (E) Dato’ Dr. Abdul Latif Ibrahim
that enables the STEM in UNISEL comes to reality. Special thanks to the UNISEL STEM
Squad, which were part of the committee in conducting the program. The support from
National Stem Movement as well as everyone who was involved in this program is well
appreciated.
79
References
Amiruddin, S., Azman, H.H., Ismail, M.N. (2018). Teacher’s perception towards STEM in
early childhood education. Simposium Kebangsaan Kanak-Kanak dan Keluarga.
http://www.ums.edu.my/fpp/images/download/PROSIDING-SKKK2018.pdf
Bahrum, S., Wahid, N., & Ibrahim, N. (2017). Integration of STEM education in Malaysia
and why to STEAM. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 7(6), 645-654.
Levine, M., Serio, N., Radaram, B., Chaudhuri, S. & Talbert, W. (2015). Addressing the
STEM gender gap by designing and implementing an educational outreach chemistry
camp for middle school girls. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1639-1644.
Mahmud, S.N.D., Nasri, N.M., Samsudin, M.A. & Halim, L. (2018). Science teacher
education in Malaysia: Challenges and way forward. Asia Pacific Science Education.
4(8), 1-12.
Marle, P.D., Decker, L., Taylor, V., Fitzpatrick, K., Khaliqi, D., Owens, J.E. & Henry, R.M.
(2014). CSI-chocolate science investigation and the case of the recipe rip-off: Using
an extended problem-based scenario to enhance high school students’ science
engagement. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(3), 345-350.
Miller, L., Chang, C.I., & Hoyt, D. (2010). CSI web adventures: A forensic virtual
apprenticeship for teaching science and inspiring STEM careers. Science Scope,
33(5), 42-44.
Pluth, M.D., Boettcher, S.W., Nazin, G.V., Greenaway, A.L. & Hartle, M.D. (2015).
Collaboration and near-peer mentoring as a platform for sustainable science education
outreach. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 625-630.
80
2019, Vol.9 No.1
INSTRUCTION FOR AUTHORS
It is important that authors follow these instructions before preparing a manuscript and
submitting it to Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal (SEAMEJ). Submissions
must be in English based on the style outlined by American Psychological Association (6th
edition). Documents that are not in compliance with the Journal’s submission criteria will be
returned to the sender for corrections. Each manuscript should have the following items placed
in the order given:
Cover Page
Include the authors’ names and affiliations, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-
mails as well as corresponding author information.
Second page
Include an abstract of up to 250 words and identify up-to-five keywords.
Third page
This page should include the title at the top of the page and centered. Note that you should not
include the author information in the main body of the text. Manuscripts should not exceed 30
double-spaced pages in length. They should be prepared on (A4) pages with margins of at
least 2.5cm (1 inch) from each side.
References
The full references should be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the main text and should
be aligned with the criteria set by American Psychological Association (APA) (Sixth Edition).
Tables and Figures

Tables and figures should follow the references. Each table and figure should be placed in a
separate page with the appropriate number and headings. Both tables and figures should be
referred to in appropriate places in the text. Tables should be double-spaced and should not
include any inside/outside borders. Sources of information and table notes should be given
under the table and should be double-spaced.
Miscellaneous
Author(s) should write for an international audience. When the article is accepted, author(s)
will be asked to provide a final version of the article formatted in Windows MS Word.
Manuscripts received will be blind review by a panel of international reviewers. Accepted

manuscripts may be reviewed for organization, clarity, sexist language and length.
Communication address:
The Director, SEAMEO Regional Centre for QITEP in Mathematics

Jl. Kaliurang Km. 6, Sambisari, Condongcatur
Depok, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Telephone: +62(274) 889955
Facsimile: +62(274) 887222
E-mail: secretariat@qitepinmath.org
URL: http:// www.qitepinmath.org
81
2019, Vol.9 No.1
82
SEAMEO
QI
TEP
i
nMat
hemat
ics
SEAMEORegi
onalCentr
e
forQI
TEPi
nMa t
hema t
ics
Jl
.Kal
iur
angKM.6Sambi sari
,Condongcatur
,Depok,SlemanYogyakarta
Tel
p.+62274889987,Fax.+62274887222
Email:secr
etar
iat
@qit
epinmat
h.or
g,Website:www. qit
epinmat
h.org
I
SSN2089-
4716

Jurnal SEAQIM PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Jurnal SEAQIM PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dec

VOLUME 9, NO. 1 2019 ISSN 2089-4716

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)

Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal

External Advisory Panel

Editorial Board Members

Cover Design & Typesetting

Sumardyono and Allan L. White 1-2 Editorial

Dorian Stoilescu 17-24 Exploring the Introduction of

Kadek Adi Wibawa 25-36 Fragmentation of the Thinking

Angga Kristiyajati & Ariyadi Wijaya 37-44 The Effectiveness of Visualization of

Fadjar Shadiq 45-56 Examples of the Use of the Scientific

Allan Leslie White 57-64 Editor’s Note: Is the Multiple

Aep Sunendar 65-76 Developing Learning Kit of Geometry

Hazeeq Hazwan Azman 77-80 STEM Outreach via Science Forensic

The Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal (SEAMEJ) is supported by the

Sumardyono and Allan L. White

Students’ Use of Graphs in Understanding the Concepts of Derivative

Haliza Abd Hamid1, Noraini Idris2 and Ruzela Tapsir3

Keywords: Derivative, graphs, mathematics education, visual reasoning.

Zimmerman’s statement on the use of visual elements as a tool to understand calculus

The calculus domain, specifically derivatives, is an essential and interesting

Students’ understanding of derivative

Visual Argument Hypothesis

It is known that some students are introduced to differentiation as a rule to be applied

There has been an increase in mathematics educational research highlighting the

extracting information through the perceptual processes. In mathematical problem solving

Figure 1. The Cartesian graph for Task 1.

Figure 2. The Cartesian graph for Task 2.

Figure 3. The distribution of responses for Task 1.

Figure 4. The distribution of responses for Task 2.

Pre-university students have always portrayed calculus, specifically differential

Tiwari, T. K. (2007). Computer Graphics as an Instructional Aid in an Introductory

Exploring the Introduction of Computational Thinking in STEM Education in

Keywords: computational thinking, STEM education, Australian curriculum reforms.

As such, computational thinking has had an important impact on educational curriculum

The main research questions discussed here are:

microcontrollers, and programming Internet of Things technologies. Some products already

This research paper explores tendencies of introducing computational thinking revealed in

Attempts of Introducing Computational Thinking in Australian Schools

Challenges of Introducing Computational Thinking in Australia

suggestions in computational thinking activities centres upon getting robots to move in

implementation is restricted to a few disciplines. As such, the amount of work involved in

Conclusion and Discussions

Fragmentation of the Thinking Structure of Translation in Solving Mathematical

Kadek Adi Wibawa

Fragmentation of the thinking structure is the process of construction of information in the

Keywords: Fragmentation of thinking structure, translation process, problem solving,

In solving mathematical modeling problems, students often experience difficulties and

Result and Discussion

In this study, students experience errors in making new representations of previously

Picture 1: The beads

Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Verbal to Graphics

Figure 1. Illustration of Fragmentation of Translation Thinking Structure from Verbal to

Figure 2. S3 draws Sphere drilled into Cartesian diagram.

Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Graphical to Symbolic

Figure 3. Illustration of Structure Fragmentation Thinking of Translations from Graph

Figure 4. S2 creates a quadratic equation from the Cartesian diagram

(H13). Based on these results, students determine the quadratic equation,

Fragmentation of Thinking Structure Translations from Graph and Symbol

Figure 5. Illustration of Fragmentation of Translations Thinking Structure from Graphical

Students begin to construct new representations by focusing on the integrated

The Effectiveness of Visualization of Proofs in Learning Mathematics by Using