Article Sidebar

Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 71

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Proportional reasoning is a critical component of mathematical competence that should be developed at the senior high school level, as it fosters both foundational and advanced mathematical understanding. Educators frequently encounter variations in proportional reasoning abilities among students, often influenced by individual personality types. However, limited research has specifically investigated the proportional reasoning capabilities of high school students with artisan personality types. This study aims to examine the strategies and approaches utilized by students with Artisan Personality Types (APT) in solving trigonometric comparison problems. Employing a qualitative descriptive methodology within a case study design, the research focused on high school students identified as having APT. Data were collected using proportional reasoning tasks, the Keirsey Personality Type Questionnaire, and structured interviews. The analysis was conducted qualitatively, with findings categorized based on established indicators of proportional reasoning. Results indicate that APT students demonstrate the ability to address proportional reasoning problems related to covariation, ratios, and proportions, employing distinct strategies and logical reasoning. Nevertheless, instances of both correct and incorrect responses were observed, often stemming from misinterpretations of the problem context. These findings provide valuable insights for future studies aimed at designing targeted instructional strategies and developing learning tools to enhance the proportional reasoning skills of students with APT.

Keywords

Artisan Personality Type High School Students Proportional Reasoning Trigonometric Ratios

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Ramlan, A. M., Budayasa, I. K., & Rahaju, E. B. (2025). Proportional reasoning in the artisan personality type: A case study of high school students in trigonometry ratios. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i1.pp71-90
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Anggorowati, W., Kariadinata, R., & Widiastuti A., T. T. (2024). Analysis of creative thinking skill in solving mathematical vroblems viewed from the types of personality. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education, 2024, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.15928
  2. Bronkhorst, H., Roorda, G., Suhre, C., & Goedhart, M. (2020). Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1673–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10039-8
  3. Buwono, I. S., Kartono, K., & Asih, T. S. N. (2022). Mathematics reasoning ability based on personality types on 9e learning cycle with kid-friendly rubrics. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 11(2), 2022–2212. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/ujmer
  4. Castillo, S., & Fernández, C. (2022). Secondary school students’ performances on ratio comparison problems. Acta Scientiae, 24(6), 60–88. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.6834
  5. Civak, R. A., Bostan, M. I., & Karpuzcu, S. Y. (2020). Orantısal akıl yürütmenin gelişimine yönelik varsayıma dayalı öğrenme rotasının geliştirilmesi. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2020063485
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (p. 273). SAGE Publications Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p40
  7. Dong, A., Jong, M. S.-Y., & King, R. B. (2020). How does prior knowledge influence learning engagement? the mediating roles of cognitive load and help-seeking. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(October), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591203
  8. Fitriana, L. D., Fuad, Y., & Rosyidi, A. H. (2019). Dynamism of open-ended problem solving: study on junior high school students behavior based on keirsey personality type. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Technology, Education, Arts, Culture and Humanity - “Interdisciplinary Challenges for Humanity Education in Digital Era” (STEACH 2018), 277(Steach 2018), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2991/steach-18.2019.1
  9. Gea, M. M., Hernández-Solís, L. A., Batanero, C., & Álvarez-Arroyo, R. (2023). Relating students’ proportional reasoning level and their understanding of fair games. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(4), 663–682. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i4.pp663-682
  10. Hadi, Abd., Asrori, & Rusman. (2021). Penelitian kualitatif studi fenomenologi, case study. Pena Persada. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362371905_Penelitian_Kualitatif_Studi_Fenomenologi_Case_Study_Grounded_Theory_Etnografi_Biografi
  11. Hjelte, A., Schindler, M., & Nilsson, P. (2020). Kinds of mathematical reasoning addressed in empirical research in mathematics education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 10(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100289
  12. Izzatin, M., Waluya, S., Rochmad, Kartono, Dwidayati, N., & Dewi, N. (2021). Students’ proportional reasoning in solving non-routine problems based on mathematical disposition. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1918(4), 042114. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/4/042114
  13. Kahraman, H., Kul, E., & Aydoğdu İskenderoglu, T. (2019). Strategies 7th and 8th graders employ for quantitative proportional reasoning problems. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 10(1), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.333046
  14. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me: Character and temperament (Fifth Edit). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272159871_Please_Understand_Me
  15. Lamon, S. J. (2020). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. In Teaching Fractions and Ratios for Understanding. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617132
  16. Listiawati, N., Sabon, S. S., Siswantari, Subijanto, Wibowo, S., Zulkardi, & Riyanto, B. (2023). Analysis of implementing Realistic Mathematics Education principles to enhance mathematics competence of slow learner students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(4), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i4.pp683-700
  17. Mazni, O., Syed-Abdullah, S.-L., & Naimah Mohd Hussin. (2010). Analyzing personality types to predict team performance. 2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010), Cssr, 624–628. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773856
  18. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis (Third Edit). Arizona State University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272566756_Qualitative_Data_Analysis_A_Methods_Sourcebook
  19. Nabila, C., Sukirwan, S., Setiani, Y., Farooq, S. M. Y., Vereshchaha, V., & Caw, S. (2023). Senior high school students’ strategies for solving mathematical problems based on their personality type. Numerical: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.25217/numerical.v7i2.3861
  20. Novitasari, Y., Setianingsih, R., & Novitasari, Y. F. (2020). Flexibility of guardian and artisan selected students in solving fraction problems. Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International Conference (MISEIC 2019), 95(Miseic), 119–122. https://doi.org/10.2991/miseic-19.2019.28
  21. Öztürk, M., Demir, Ü., & Akkan, Y. (2021). Investigation of proportional reasoning problem solving processes of seventh grade students: a mixed method research. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.66
  22. Pambudi, D. S., Murtikusuma, R. P., Trapsilasiwi, D., Oktavianingtyas, E., Wiliandani, I., & Ningrum, T. P. (2021). Mathematical representation of the grade 11 of senior high school students in solving linear programming questions based on david keirsey’s personality type. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Mathematics and Mathematics Education (ICMMEd 2020), 550(Icmmed 2020), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210508.059
  23. Putra, R. W. Y., Supriadi, N., Ilmiyana, M., Khoiriah, Fitriani, D., Aziz, A. F., & Solihat, T. (2019). The analysis of the mathematical problem-solving ability of high school students reviewed from personality types of the rational and artisan. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155(1), 012039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012039
  24. Sari, R. N. (2024). Level of students’ proportional reasoning in solving mathematical problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1095–1114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1095-1114
  25. Sari, Y. M., Fiangga, S., Milla, Y. I. El, & Puspaningtyas, N. D. (2023). Exploring students’ proportional reasoning in solving guided-unguided area conservation problem: A case of Indonesian students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp375-394
  26. Sholli, A. K., Lukito, A., & Setianingsih, R. (2020). Guardian high school student’s conception about mathematics as sensible. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1581(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1581/1/012031
  27. Sunarto, M. J. D. (2015). Improving students soft skills using thinking process profile based on personality types. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 4(3), 118. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v4i3.4502
  28. Supply, A. S., Vanluydt, E., Van Dooren, W., & Onghena, P. (2023). Out of proportion or out of context? Comparing 8- to 9-year-olds’ proportional reasoning abilities across fair-sharing, mixtures, and probability contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(3), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10212-5
  29. Van de Walle, J. A. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics teaching developmentally. Pearson Education.
  30. Vanluydt, E., Degrande, T., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Early stages of proportional reasoning: A cross-sectional study with 5- to 9-year-olds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00434-8