the improvement of students mathematical creative thinking through resources-based learning rbl with...

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences ISSN 2454-5899

© 2015 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/PEOPLE/people.html

558

Deti Ahmatika et al.

Special Issue Vol.1 Issue 1, pp. 558-570

THE IMPROVEMENT OF STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL

CREATIVE THINKING THROUGH RESOURCES-BASED

LEARNING (RBL) WITH SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

Deti Ahmatika,

Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Kependidikan, Universitas Islam Nusantara,

Bandung, Indonesia, [email protected]

Yayu Laila Sulastri,



Zubaedah Wiji Lestari



Abstract

The background of this research is the low ability of junior high school students in mathematical

creative thinking. The objective of this research is to investigate the improvement of students’

mathematical creative thinking by comparing the student who received Resources-Based

Learning (RBL) with those who received Discovery Learning Model. The researchers analyze

the improvement based on class result and mathematical initial ability categories (high achiever,

middle achiever, and low achiever). The research applied quasi experimental research with a

pretest-posttest control group design. The population of this research is junior high school

students in Bandung Indonesia, while the samples are two eighth grader classes in one public

junior high school in Bandung. In this research, both classes use scientific approach as

characteristics of curriculum that implemented in the Indonesian context. The experimental class

was taught using Resources-Based Learning (RBL) whereas the control class was taught using

Discovery Learning Model. The instruments used in this research are designed to test students’

mailto:[email protected]





559

mathematical creative thinking. The data were analyzed quantitatively using non parametric t-

test. The results of the research were divided into two categories. First category was the

students’ improvement based on overall result of control and experimental class. Second

category was students improvement based on mathematical initial ability. The results show that

based on the first category the improvement of class taught using Resources-Based Learning

(experiment class)was better than the class taught using Discovery Learning Model (control

class). Whereas based on second category, mathematical initial ability, the result of high and

middle achiever in experimental class were better compared to the control class, but for the low

achiever the result in experimental and control class is similar.

Keywords

Resources-Based Learning, mathematical creative thinking, scientific approach

1. Introduction

Thinking is a mental activity that one experiences when they were faced with a situation

or problem to be solved. Ruggiero (1998) defines thinking as a mental activity to help to

formulate solution to solve a problem, to make a decision, or to fulfill a desire to understand.

Ruggiero’s opinion shows that when someone formulate and solve problems, or want to

understand something, then s/he dothinking activity. Thinking, as person's mental ability can be

divided into several types: logical, analytical, systematic, critical, and creative thinking.

An effective creative thinking ability need to be given to students in order students are

able to face a rapid science and technology development, mainly in the field of

telecommunications and information, which flow quickly and abundantly. To look ah ead and

survive in the ever-changing state of the uncertain and competitive era, students need to have the

ability to obtain, select and manage the information. This ability requires one to have creative

thinking.In line with that, in current Indonesian curriculum, known as curriculum 2013 one

skillthat should be posessed by junior high school students is the ability to think and act

effectively and creatively in abstract and concrete domainbased on material obtained. In

mathematics, students are often facing complex and unusual problems. Therefore, in

mathematics, creative thinking is urgently needed.



560

The initial test result show that the students’ mathematical creative thinking abilityare

still low. Students are only able to solve the exact same problem exemplified by the teacher.

Students face difficulty when they have to solve different problemsand they endnote do the task.

It shows that thestudents’ mathematical creative thin king ability is still low. To foster junior

high school students’ creative thinking abilityy, learning strategy that can improve student’s

mathematical creative thinking is required. An alternative learning strategy that can be used to

develop students’ skills is Resources-Based Learning (RBL).

Learning based on sources does not mean negate the role of the teacher. Nor does it

mean that teachers do not get involve when the students studying in the library or in the

laboratory. The teacher was involved in every learning process, start from planning,

determinateng, and gathering information, giving motivation, and provide assistance if needed.

Furthermore, teacher will correct the error if necessary. In other words, RBL is relevant to the

current Indonesian curriculum which is emphasizes on t modern pedagogic dimension in learning

by using scientific approach.

In this study, the writers not only highlight learning aspect but also pay attention to the

students’initial capabilities aspect.Information about students’ initial mathematical knowledge

was used to determine students’ level of Mathematical Initial Ability whether high, medium or

low. Students’ Mathematical Initial Abilitylevels were obtained through set of test as material

prerequisites of research materials. Mathematical Initial Ability was used to see the difference in

each level between class that receive instructional Resources-Based Learning (RBL) and class

that received Discovery Learning.

The objective of this research is to investigate the improvement of students’ mathematical

creative thinking by comparing the student who received Resources-Based Learning (RBL) with

those who received Discovery Learning Model. The researcher analyzes the improvement based

on class result and mathematical initial ability categories (high achiever, middle achiever, and

low achiever).



561

2. Literature Review

2.1 Learning Mathematics

According to Suyitno in Muslich (2007: 233), "Learning is an effort to create a climate

and services towardsdiverse learners ability, potential, interests, talents and needs to enable the

optimal interaction between teachers and students and between students and students". While,

according to Suhito in Muslich (2007: 233), "in order the purpose of teaching can be achieved,

the teacher should be able to organize all the components so that all components can interact in

harmony". In line with the definitions above, the Ministry of Education in Muslich (2007: 233)

states that, "One component in learning is the use of various learning strategies and methods

dynamically and flexibly in accordance with the material, students and learning context".

2.2 Resource-Based Learning (RBL)

Nasution (2013: 18) elaborates that, Resource-Based Learning is a learning process that

directly exposes students to some or a number of learning resources individually or in groups

with all activities related to learning resources. It is in contrary to the conventional mathematics

learning where teachers deliver learning materials to students. Thus, in Resource-Based Learning

teacher is not the only learning resource. Students can learn inside the classroom, in the

laboratory, in the library, in the special hall of learning or even outside of school, when they

study environment related subjects

Furthermore, Nasution (2013: 26-28) describes the characteristics of Resource-Based

Learning (RBL):

RBL optimize all resources as a source for lessons including equipment – audiovisual

devices, and gives opportunity to plan learning activities by considering available

resources.

In RBL, students are learn to comprehend that there are many resources can be used for

learning. The sourcescould be from community and environment, texts, libraryy, audio,

visual, and the likes.

In RBL students’ learning activities were driven by self-interest and involvement in

education.



562

In RB Various possibilities of learning materials, working methods, and communication

medium were introduced to increase students’s learning motivation.

In RBL each students are learn according to their own speed.

In RBL the use learning time and space is flexiblye

In RBL students’confidence were stire to develop

2.3 Discovery Learning (DL)

Discovery learning is series of learning activities that maximally involve learners’ ability

to locate and investigate systematically, critically and logically so that they can find their own

knowledge, attitudes and skills as the manifestation of behavioral change.

Shah (2004: 244) elaborates that in applying Discovery Learning method in the

classroom, some teaching and learning activities should be implemented:

2.3.1 Stimulation

At this stage students are faced with something that causes confusion but do not provide

generalization to increase self investigation. Teacher can start teaching learning activity by

asking questions, giving suggestion to read book, and other learning activities that lead to the

preparation of problem solving.

2.3.2 Problem statement

In the next step teacher provide opportunities for students to identify many issues that

relevant to learning materials. Then one of them is selected and formulated in the form of

hypothesis.

2.3.3 Data collection

When exploration was ongoing, teacher provides opportunityies for students to gather

relevant information to prove the hypothesis.



563

2.3.4 Data processing (data processing)

According to Shah (2004: 244) data processing is activities in processing data and

information that has been obtained by the students through interviews, observation, and the

likes.then interpreted. All information from reading source, interviews, observation, and so on

are processed, randomized, classified, tabulated, calculated and interpreted in a certain way at a

certain confidence level (Djamarah, 2002:22).

2.3.5 Verification

At this stage, the students perform a careful examination to prove whether the hypothesis

is accepted or not. The verification is based onalternatives finding associated with the results of

data processing (Shah 2004: 244).

2.3.6 Generalization

Ggeneralizationis process of drawing conclusion that can be used as a general principle

and appley to all events or the same problem, by taking into account the results of the

verification (Shah 2004: 244).

2.3 Scientific Approach

Indonesia Ministry of Education (2013), state that scientific approach is believed to be

the golden bridge to develop learners’ attitudes, skills, and knowledge. In the approach or

processes that meet the criteria of scientific work, the scientists put forward inductive reasoning

rather than deductive reasoning. In learning all subjects scientific approach covers digging

through observation, questioning, trying, processing,then presenting data or information, and

followed by analyzing, reasoning, concluding, and creating.



564

Figure 1: The Step of Scientific Approach

2.4 Mathematics Creative Thinking

Semiawan in Sumarmo (2013: 201) proposes that creativity is the ability to draw up new

ideas and apply it in problem solving and to identify the association between two unobvious

ideas. Rhodes, et.al. in Sumarmo (2013: 201) defines creativity by analyzing four dimensions

known as "the Four P's of Creativity: Person, Product, Process, and the Press. Firstly, it

illustrates the creativity of the individual person with unique mind or expression. Secondly,

creativity as a product is an original, new, and meaningful creation. Thirdly, creativity as a

process reflects proficiency in thinking that include: fluency, flexibility, originality, and

elaboration. The last, creativity as the Press is an internal or external conditions that encourage

the emergence of creative thinking.

Munandar (1999: 167) states that creative thinking (also called divergent thinking) is to

provide a variety of possible answers based on information supplied by an emphasis on number

of diversity and appropriateness. Furthermore, Coleman and Hammen in Sumarmo (2013: 202)

argues that creative thinking is mental activity to improve the purity (originality), and the

sharpness of uderstanding (insight) in developing something (generating).

Moreover, Puccio and Murdock in Sumarmo (2013: 202) states that creative thinking

consists of cognitive and metacognitive skills among others identify problems, develop

questions, identify relevant and irrelevant data, productive, result many ideas, different ideas



565

and products or new idea. Creative thinking also consistsof disposition that is open, willing to

take a position, act quickly, act or view that something is part of the whole complex, utilize other

people's critical way of thinking, and the show sensitive attitude towards others feelings.

From the opinions above, it can be concluded that mathematics creative thinking ability is

the ability to think something newthat obtained by trial and error characterized by the use of

smooth, original, and elaboration ways of thinking.

Mathematics Creative Thinking Distinctive Capabilities

Tall (1991: 46) states that mathematics creative thinking is the ability to solve problems

and/or developmental thinking on structures by considering deductive rules thinking, and

relationship of generated concept to mengintgrasikan important subject in mathematics. Important

factorsof creative thinking abilitiesare:

Fluency of thinking, is number of ideas that come out of one's thinking, flexbility isthe

ability to use a variety approaches in addressing the issues. Creative people are those who flexible

in thinking, they can easily abandon the old ways of thinking and replace with new ways of

thinking, elaboration or specifications, is the ability to develop ideas and outline in details, and

originalitythat is the ability to spark original thought.

3. Research Methodology

This study is a quasi-experimental research because the subject is not grouped randomly,

(Ruseffendi, 2005). The research design used in this research is pretest-posttest control group

design, since it involves two groups of students those experimental class and control class.

Aaccording to Ruseffendi (2005: 50) pretest-posttest control group design is as follows.

Experiment Class A: O X O

Control Class A: O O

Description

A: The selection of a random sample class

O: Observation pretest / posttest

X: Treatment with RBL with a scientific approach

The populations in this study were all students of state junior high school in Bandung

while the sample were students of class VII in particular state junior high school. This study use



566

some instruments, namely initial mathematical ability test, mathematics creative thinking test,

and the observation sheet.

4. Findings and Discussion

The data on mathematics creative thinking abilities were obtained through the pretest,

posttest, and N-gain. The following table are the description of the pretest, posttest, and N-gain

in experimental class with Resource Based Learning with a scientific approach and control class

with Discovery Learning with a scientific approach according to 2013 curriculum.

Tabel 4.1: Statistics Descriptive of Mathematics Creative Thinking

Table 4.1 shows that the average score of students' ability in experimental group before

the treatment is smaller than the control group, the difference was about 1.18. This small

differences, indicates that both pretest relatively similar. Meanwhile, after the treatment there

was difference average between the experimental and control groups around 11.11. This

suggests thatthe students’ score of mathematics creative thinking in experimental class based on

RBL are better compare to control class based on Discovery Learning.

Tabel 4.2: Mann-Whitney Mathematics Creative Thinking Data

From the results of Mann-Whitney test above p-value or Sig.is 0.588> α = 0.05. It

indicates that the H0 is accepted, meaning that there is no difference pretest rank between



567

students in experiment and control class. From this analysis it can be concluded that the initial

ability of students’mathematics creative thinking in experimental and control class are similar.

Tabel 4.3: Mean and Standar Deviation Mathematics Creative Thinking Ability

Table 4.3 describe information about the average difference of N-gain of students’

mathematics creative thinking abilities in each category of Mathematics Initial Ability.As

previously stated, Mathematics Initial Ability categories were devided into high, medium and

low. From the table, it could be seen that differenceswere about 0.1792 in high category, 0.121

in medium category, and 0.104 inlow category. This indicates thatin high category the Gain N

ratio is higher than medium and low. Moreover, from the total average N-gain between

mathematics initial ability, there are also average differences in creative thinking abilities

between students who got RBL with a scientific approach with those who got Discovery

Learning with scientific approach. The total average N-gain of the experimental class is greater

compare to the average N-gain control class that is 0.362 to 0.2047 for the experimental class

and control class.

Tabel 4.4: t test N-Gain Mean

Table 4.4 shows that the significance value (sig. 1-tailed) of 0.000. less than the

significance level α = 0.05 so that H0 is rejected. Thus it can be concluded that average increase



568

in creative thinking ability of students who got RBLwith a scientific approach are significantly

better than the average increase those who got Discovery Learning with scientific approach.

Tabel 4.5: t test N-Gain Mean on Mathematics Creative Thinking Based on Mathematical Initial

Ability

The results of independent sample t-test and non-parametric test above shows that for

thehigh, medium, and low category are respectively in p-value or Sig. (One-tailed) is 0.043 <α =

0.05; 0.001 <α = 0.05; 0,034 <α = 0.05. This indicates that the H0 is rejected, meaning that the

average increase in sudents’ mathematicscreative thinking ability in experimental class are

significantly better than the control class in high, medium, and low categories. It can be

concluded that the increase of students’ mathematical creative thinking ability who got RBL with

a scientific approach are better better than students who got Discovery Learning with scientific

approach in high, medium, and low categories.

RBL enables students to improve theirmathematics creative thinking ability. This is in

accordance to Nasution (2005: 18) opinion that RBL is learning process that directly exposes

students to numbers of learning resources, individually or in groups, with all activities related to

learning resources. This is in contrary with conventional mathematics learning where teachers

deliver learning materials to students. The possibilities to maximize learning resource is

estimated lead to the increasing of students’s creative thinking skills. As in this study the

students who got RBL with a scientific approach get better score compare with the students who

got Discovery Learning with a scientific approach. But of course this mathematics learning

method should be conducted in longer session.

Meanwhile, according Kemendik bud (2013), the 2013 curriculum emphasize on the

modern pedagogic dimension in learning, by using scientific approach. Scientific approach in

learning all subjects covers digging information through observation, questioning, trying, then



569

process andpresenting data or information, followed by analyzing, reasoning, concludeing, and

creating.

5. Conclusion

Based on the findings, it can be conclude that in this research the data were analyzed

quantitatively using non parametric t-test. The results of the research were divided into two

categories. First category was the students’ improvement based on overall result of control and

experimental class. Second category was students improvement based on mathematical initial

ability. The results show that based on the first category the improvement of class taught using

Resources-Based Learning (experiment class)was better than the class taught using Discovery

Learning Model (control class). Whereas based on second category, mathematical initial ability,

the result of high and middle achiever in experimental class were better compared to the control

class, but for the low achiever the result in experimental and control class is similar.

REFERENSI

Djaramah, S. B. (2002). Psikologi Belajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Kemendikbud (2013) Modul Pelatihan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013.Jakarta.

Munandar, U. (2009). Pengembangan Kreativitas Anak Berbakat. Jakarta: Rineca

Muslich, M. (2007) KTSP Pembelajaran Berbasis Kompetensi Dan Contextual. Malang: Bumi

Aksara.

Nasution, S. (2013) Berbagai Pendekatan dalam Proses Belajar dan Mengajar. Bumi Aksara:

Jakarta

Peraturan Menteri Pendelikon Dan Kebudayaan Nomor 54 Tahun 2013.(2013). Standar

Kompetensi Lulusan Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah. Jakarta.

Ruggiero, V. R. (1998). The Art of Thinking A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought New

York: Longman, An Imprint of Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Ruseffendi, E.T. (2005). Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Pendidikan dan Bidang Non Eksakta Lainnya.

Semarang: KIP Semarang Press.

Syah, Muhibbin. (2004). “Psikologi Pendidikan”, Bandung: PT Remaja Rosda karya



570

Sumarmo, U. (2013). Kumpulan Makalah Bepikir Dan Disposisi Matematik Serta

Pembelajarannya. FMIPA: UPI

Tall, D. (Ed) 1991 Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

the improvement of students mathematical creative thinking through resources-based learning rbl with...

Documents