The effects of contextual group guided discovery learning on students' mathematical understanding and reasoning

Slamet Arifin, Department of Elementary School Teacher Education, Universitas Kuningan, Indonesia
Wahyudin Wahyudin, Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Tatang Herman, Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia

 10.21831/jpe.v8i2.33059

Abstract


In this study, we examine the effect of contextual group guided discovery (CGGD) learning approach on students' mathematical understanding and reasoning. This study was conducted through a quasi-experimental method with a control group pre and post-test design. The participants of this study were two groups of 4th-grade students in Kuningan, Indonesia. Each group was comprised of 22 students (N=44). While the experimental group was conducting mathematics learning with the CGGD learning approach, the control group was conducting mathematics learning with problem-based learning (PBL). The data were collected through a test of students' mathematical understanding (TSMU) and a test of students' mathematical reasoning (TSMR) developed by researchers. The results showed that there were significant differences in the gain score of students' mathematical understanding (SMU) (U = 134.00, Z= -2.539, P = 0.011 < 0.05) and students' mathematical reasoning (SMR) (U = 139.500, Z= -2.412, P = 0.016 < 0.05) between the experimental and the control group . The gain score and post-test score of SMU and SMR on the experimental group that implemented the CGGD learning approach were significantly higher than the control group. Therefore, we conclude that the CGGD learning approach was proven influential to empower SMU and SMR.


Keywords


cggd learning; mathematical understanding; mathematical reasoning

Full Text:

Fulltext PDF

References


Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. National Curriculum Board.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). Mathematics proficiencies. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/mathematics-proficiencies/

Barnes, A. (2019). Perseverance in mathematical reasoning: the role of children’s conative focus in the productive interplay between cognition and affect. Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2019.1590229

Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., & Reid, E. E. (2015). The impact of highly and minimally guided discovery instruction on promoting the learning of reasoning strategies for basic add-1 and doubles combinations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30(PA), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.003

Ben-Hur, M. (2006). Concept-rich mathematics instruction: Building a strong foundation for reasoning and problem solving. ASCD.

Conner, A. M., Wilson, P. S., & Kim, H. J. (2011). Building on mathematical events in the classroom. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6), 979–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0362-1

Ellis, A., Özgür, Z., & Reiten, L. (2019). Teacher moves for supporting student reasoning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0246-6

Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2005). Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: Insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.001

Frosch, C., & Simms, V. (2015). Understanding the role of reasoning ability in mathematical achievement. Euro Asian Pacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1107.2727

Fyfe, E. R., & Brown, S. A. (2018). Feedback influences children’s reasoning about math equivalence: A meta-analytic review. Thinking and Reasoning, 24(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1359208

Fyfe, E. R., Mcneil, N. M., & Borjas, S. (2015). Benefits of “concreteness fading” for children’s mathematics understanding. Learning and Instruction, 35, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.004

Gauvain, M., Beebe, H., & Zhao, S. (2011). Applying the cultural approach to cognitive development. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.563481

Gillies, R. M., & Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9130-9

Goos, M. (2010). A sociocultural framework for understanding technology integration in secondary school mathematics. PNA, 5(1), 173–182.

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(S1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

Jäder, J., Sidenvall, J., & Sumpter, L. (2017). Students’ mathematical reasoning and beliefs in non-routine task solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9712-3

Johansson, H. (2016). Mathematical reasoning requirements in Swedish national physics tests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1133–1152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9636-3

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up. National Academy Press.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Koçak, Z. F., Bozan, R., & Işık, Ö. (2009). The importance of group work in mathematics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2363–2365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.414

Lam, T. T. (2007). Contextual approach in teaching mathematics: an example using the sum of series of positive integers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390600913376

Liu, R.-D., Zhen, R., Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, J., Jiang, R., & Xu, L. (2018). Teacher support and math engagement: roles of academic self-efficacy and positive emotions. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1359238

Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5

Melhuish, K., Thanheiser, E., & Guyot, L. (2020). Elementary school teachers’ noticing of essential mathematical reasoning forms: justification and generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-9408-4

Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 tahun 2018 Tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 24 Tahun 2016 tentang Kompetensi Inti dan Kompetensi Dasar Pelajaran pada Kurikulum 2013 pada Pendi (No. 37).

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). Pisa 2015 results in focus.

Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Human learning (7th Editio). Pearson Education, Inc.

Philipp, R. A., & Siegfried, J. M. (2015). Studying productive disposition: the early development of a construct. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(5), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9317-8

Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories. Printice Hall Inc.

Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1

Steinthorsdottir, O. B., & Sriraman, B. (2009). Icelandic 5th-grade girls’ developmental trajectories in proportional reasoning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217536

Sullivan, P., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Russo, J. (2020). Threats and opportunities in remote learning of mathematics: implication for the return to the classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, Lp 180100611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00339-6

Uhden, O., Karam, R., Pietrocola, M., & Pospiech, G. (2012). Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education. Science & Education, 21(4), 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9396-6




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jpe.v8i2.33059

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Prima Edukasia

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

Jurnal Prima Edukasia indexed by:

All rights reserved p-ISSN: 2338-4743 |e-ISSN: 2460-9927

Creative Commons LicenseJurnal Prima Edukasia by http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpe/index is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View Prima Edukasia Journal Stats