Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 9 Download : 2

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed to describe and compare the students’ fluency, flexibility, and originality in solving non-routine problems in the Palembang context. They were depicted from the student’s fluency, flexibility, and originality of solving the horizontal and vertical mathematization forms. This qualitative study employed. The subjects of this study were 30 students of grade nine of junior high schools in Palembang. The instruments used were tests and interviews. The tests were employed to investigate the written horizontal and vertical mathematizations forms. Meanwhile, the interviews were to explore the students’ ideas with inadequately detailed answers. Then, the test and interview data were reduced and grouped based on the indicators of creativity. The reduced data were presented in a descriptive form for conclusions. The results of the data analysis showed that the high-ability students were the most fluent and flexible in solving the problems. Still, the provided solutions were less original and tended to use formal mathematics in the forms of formulas, symbols, and operations. Meanwhile, the moderate-ability students tended to start to solve problems by simplifying them, then presenting them in visual images. The answer sheets of the moderate-ability students revealed their fluency in understanding the problems and solutions, flexibility, and originality of thinking. This study obtained different results from the low-ability students who tended to have difficulties understanding the problems and made many errors in solving them. Such a condition showed their inability to write the known data and relate the data to other facts they had already learned. As a result, their answers did not represent fluency, flexibility, and originality.

Keywords

Mathematization Creativity Problem-Solving Non-routine

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Arifin, S., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., & Hartono, Y. (2021). On creativity through mathematization in solving non-routine problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(2), 313–330. Retrieved from https://jme.ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/jme/article/view/3725
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. AlMutairi, A. N. M. (2015). The Effect of Using Brainstorming Strategy in Developing Creative Problem-Solving Skills among Male Students in Kuwait: A Field Study on Saud Al-Kharji School in Kuwait City. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(3), 136-145. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083780.pdf
  2. Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42-47. https://flm- journal.org/Articles/4B432EC08630646B693621E55ECA5C.pdf
  3. Barnard, & Herbst. (2018). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Creativity: The Creative Process of Entrepreneurs and Innovator. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3195912
  4. Benedek, M., Könen, T., & Neubauer, A. C. (2012). Associative abilities underlying creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027059
  5. Cai, J & Ding, M. (2015). On mathematical understanding: perspectives of experienced Chinese mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Eduacation, 18(5), 5-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9325-8
  6. Carson, J. (2007). A Problem with Problem Solving: Teaching Thinking without Teaching Knowledge.
  7. The Mathematics Educator, 17(2), 7-14. https://ojs01.galib.uga.edu/tme/article/view/1912
  8. Celebioglu, B, Yazgan, Y & Ezentas, R. (2010). Usage of non-routine problem-solving strategies at first grade level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2968–2974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.449
  9. Chamberlin, S. A. (2010). Mathematical problems that optimize learning for academically advanced students in grades K-6. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 52–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002200103
  10. Chong, M. S. F, Shahrill, M, Putri, R. I. I, & Zulkardi. (2018). Teaching Problem Solving Using Non- Routine Tasks. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1952(1), 020020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5031982
  11. Cropley, A., & Cropley, D. (2009). Fostering creativity: A diagnostic approach for education and organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  12. Csapó, B. & Funke, J. (Eds.) (2017). The Nature of Problem Solving. Using research to inspire 21st century learning. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  13. DeHaan, R. L. (2009) Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Science Education, 8(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
  14. Dendane, A. (2009) Skills Needed for Mathematical Problem Solving, [Online], Available: http://www.analyzemath.com/ math_problems/paper_7.html
  15. Diyanni, R. (2016). Critical and Creative Thinking: A Brief Guide for Teachers. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0003/6422/56/L-G-0003642256- 0007213179.pdf
  16. Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), 19-42. http://hdl.handle.net/10993/3184
  17. Gilhooly, K. J. (2016). Incubation and Intuition in Creative Problem Solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01076
  18. Hartono, Y. (2014). Problem Solving Strategy [in Bahasa]. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
  19. Heffernan, K., & Teufel, S. (2018). Identifying Problems and Solutions in Scientific Text. Scientometrics, 116, 1367–1382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2718-6
  20. İncebacak, B. B., & Ersoy, E. (2016). Problem Solving Skills of Secondary School Students. China- USA Business Review, 15(6), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.17265/1537-1514/2016.06.002
  21. Loc, N. P., & Hao, M. H. (2016). Teaching Mathematics Based On “Mathematization” of Theory of Realistic Mathematics Education: A Study of the Linear Fungtion Y=Ax+B. The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES), 5(6). 20-23. http://www.theijes.com/papers/v5- i6/D050602023.pdf
  22. Mabilangan, R. A., Limjap, A. A., & Belecina, R. R. (2011). Problem solving strategies of high school students on non-routine problems: A case study. Alipato: A Journal of Basic Education, 5, 23-46. https://www.journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/ali/article/download/2759/2580
  23. Madzík, P. (2019) Capture and evaluation of innovative ideas in early stages of product development.
  24. TQM J, 31(6), 908–927. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2019-0050
  25. Malik, R. S. (2018). Educational Challenges In 21 St Century and Sustainable Development. Journal of Sustainable Development Education and Research, 2(1), 9-20.
  26. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsder.v2i1.12266
  27. Maulana, F., & Yuniawati, N. T. (2018). Students’ Problem-Solving Ability in Non-routine Geometry Problem. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(9), 661-667. http://www.ijiet.org/vol8/1118-SK012.pdf
  28. Marchetti, G. (2018) Consciousness: a unique way of processing information. Cognitive Processing, 19, 435–464 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0855-8
  29. Menon, U. (2013). Mathematization – Vertical and Horizontal. Conference: epiSTEME 5 International Conference to Review Research on Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, Conference Proceedings., At Mumbai, India. http://episteme.hbcse.tifr.res.in/index.php/episteme5/5/paper/view/168/52
  30. Miller, B., & Ranum, D. (2013) Problem solving with algorithms and data structures, 3rd edn.
  31. Franklin: Beedle & Associates.
  32. Minarni, A., Napitupulu, E. E., & Husein, R. (2016). Mathematical understanding and representation ability of public junior high school in north sumatra. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(1), 43-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.1.2816.43-56
  33. Murdiyani, N. M. (2018). Developing non-routine problems for assessing students’ mathematical literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983(1), 012115. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/983/1/012115
  34. Novita, R., & Putra, M. (2016). Using task like PISA’s problem to support student’s creativity in mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(1), 31-42.
  35. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.1.2815.31-42
  36. Nufus, H., Duskri, M., & Bahrun. (2018). Mathematical creative thinking and student self-confidence in the challenge-based learning approach. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v3i2.6367
  37. Ozturk, T., & Guven, B. (2016). Evaluating Students’ Beliefs in Problem Solving Process: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1208a
  38. Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2009). Cognitive Styles, Dynamic Geometry and Measurement Performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649- 008-9139-z
  39. Puccio, G. (2017). From the dawn of humanity to the 21st century: Creativity as an enduring survival skill. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 330-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.203
  40. Saragih, S., & Habeahan, W. L. (2014). The Improving of Problem-Solving Ability and Students’ Creativity Mathematical by Using Problem Based Learning in SMP Negeri 2 Siantar. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(35), 123-132.
  41. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/17463/17722
  42. Siswono, T. Y. E. (2010). Levelling students’ creative thinking in solving and posing mathematical problem. Journal on Mathematics Education, 1(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.1.1.794.17-40
  43. Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  44. Sudia, M., & Lambertus. (2017). Profile of High School Student Mathematical Reasoning to Solve the Problem Mathematical Viewed from Cognitive Style. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(6), 163-174. https://www.ijern.com/journal/2017/June-2017/14.pdf
  45. Tambychik, T., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). Students’ Difficulties in Mathematics Problem-Solving: What do they Say? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.020
  46. Tjoe, H. (2019). “Looking Back” to Solve Differently: Familiarity, Fluency, and Flexibility. In P. Liljedahl, & M. Santos-Trigo (Eds). Mathematical Problem Solving. ICME-13 Monographs (pp. 3-20). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10472-6_1
  47. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
  48. Villareal, I. (2014). Heuristics in solving non-routine problems of selected students in a city science high school. Master’s Thesis. Manila: Philippine Normal University.
  49. Yimer, A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2009). Cognitive and Metacognitive Aspects of Mathematical Problem Solving: An Emerging Model. Identities, Cultures, and Learning Spaces, 575-582.
  50. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=736B460ACDD8EADC7F5BE63B11 DA5704?doi=10.1.1.554.9923&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  51. Yazgan, Y. (2015). Sixth graders and non-routine problems: Which strategies are decisive for success?
  52. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(13), 1807-1816. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2230

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4