See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311535129

THE EFFECT OF LEARNING MATERIALS BASED

ON JOYFUL PROBLEM BASED LEARNING
TOWARDS STUDENTS...

Article · November 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 14

3 authors, including:

Ani Minarni E Elvis Napitupulu

State University of Medan State University of Medan
13 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PENGEMBANGAN KEMAMPUAN PEMAHAMAN DAN REPRESENTASI MATEMATIS SISWA SMP MELALUI

JOYFULL PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING 3 View project

DEVELOPING THE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING AND REPRESENTATION ABILITY

THROUGH JOYFUL PROBLEM BASED LEARNING View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ani Minarni on 09 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

THE EFFECT OF LEARNING MATERIALS BASED ON JOYFUL PROBLEM

BASED LEARNING TOWARDS STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL
UNDERSTANDING ABILITY

Ani Minarni, E. Elvis Napitupulu, & Rahmad Husein

Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Mathematics Department, State University of Medan, Indonesia

Abstract
The implementation of learning materials developed based on Joyful Problem Based Learning
(JPBL) has been carried out from March to July 2016. The subject of the research is 8 grade students
at Public Junior High School (PJHS) 27 Medan, PJHS 1 Percut, and PJHS 7 Pematangsiantar. The
data was collected by 5 essay test given at the beginning and at the end of all learning process. Then
data was analyzed using t-test Independent. The results showed there was the improvement of the
students’ mathematical understanding ability (MUA) at all school included in this research. Some
aspects of MUA in this study include the ability to connect and represent problem in various ways.
The achievement of students in these two aspects are quite balanced with a mediocre category. It is
recommended to teachers to use this learning materials which is developed based on JPBL in order
to get the students ability in MUA.

Keywords: Mathematical understanding, Joyful Learning, Problem-based Learning.

BACKGROUND
In the post-industrial era, the demands on the quality of human resources increasingly
complex, it being understood that the present era is the era of information and communication
technology in which rapid development of information and communication technologies
require capable humans in order to get benefit and prosper. One sector that plays an important
role in developing human resources is education. Education is the process of facilitating
learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits.
The process of learning through education can be facilitated through mathematics
because mathematics is a universal science that underlies the development of modern
technology, have an important role in a variety of disciplines and advance the capabilities of
human thinking (logical, analytical, systematic, critical and creative) (MoE, 2006). In fact,
when someone is in the process of acquiring the content of mathematics through problem
solving, then that person is constantly thinking analytical, systematic, critical, logical and
creative.
 2

The ability to think can be achieved by students if mathematics is given through

Problem-based Learning (PBL). Through PBL students are trained to look for solving the
problem. Actually, problem solving is used as a means to build new mathematical
knowledge, typically by building on students' prior understandings. The key word here is the
problem. Mathematical problems play role to force students individually or in groups to
attain the solution. That problem is designed so that it can generate high order thinking skills
(HOTS) as proposed by Resnick (Arends, 2004), that is, tends to be complex, often yields
multiple solutions, involves uncertainty, involves self-regulation of the thinking process,
impossing meaning, finding structure in apparent disorder, and effortful.
Students will be able to solve mathematical problems if he is able to understand his
problems, and understand what must be solved from the problem. Thus, the key
mathematical problem-solving ability is the ability in mathematical comprehension
(understanding abilities) (Indonesia MoE, 2006). In the NCTM (2000) also noted that the
students' skills in understanding allows students be able to solve the problem. Explicitly
mentioned in Indonesian MoE (2006) that the ability of mathematical understanding is the
main purpose of learning math at school. Unfortunately, until now the students have not
achieved yet that ability, especially the students either at junior or high school. Their abilities
in mathematical understanding are still low (TIMSS 2011; PISA 2012; Minarni, 2013).
Marzano & Kendall (2007) stated that the ability of understanding is an ability to
integrate information and make a symbol for such knowledge. Integrating is the process of
combining new information received to the information already available in the cognitive
structure of the students. Example of integrating process is the process of applying
knowledge of Pythagorean rule to form algebraic equations. Symbolization process is to
determine the equation of a problem. On the other hand, with referred to Hiebert & Carpenter
(1992), a process of understanding involves mathematical connection ability and
representation. Carpenter & Lehrer (1999) suggest that understanding is the process of
bringing together small pieces of information that were scattered. Thus, it can be summarized
that if wanted to assess the ability of mathematical understanding of students, teachers can
assess how students represent (external representation) what is contained in the structure of
cognitive (internal representation) related to the problems faced, then how these students
make connections among various representations made.
 3

As well as problem solving ability, the ability of mathematical understanding can be

developed in the classroom through Problem-based Learning (PBL). Problems intended to
elicit mathematical understanding can be designed by considering the aspects of the
mathematical connection and representation. That is, the problem of mathematical
understanding should be issued a student's ability to represent and connect.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A. Mathematical Understanding
According to Marzano & Kendall (2007: 21), understanding is one part of the
cognitive system, while the relationship between cognitive systems and knowledge can be
seen in Figure 1.
.

Figure 1. Knowledge Domain

Knowledge is the key to a person's ability to engage and manage a new task. By
having the necessary knowledge, the child will have a high motivation to engage in tasks
(think self-system). Domain knowledge is interrelated and became the object of the action of
cognitive, metacognitive, and a system of self (self-system). Domain knowledge consists of:
(1) the information domain (declarative knowledge): a glossary of terms, facts,
generalizations, principles), (2) mental procedures (knowledge procedural) covering macro-
procedure, skills (tactics, algorithms and single rule). (3) The procedure Psychomotor
domain, built by physical procedures used by someone to negotiate everyday life and to
engage in physical activity at work and recreation.
The process of understanding includes storing critical features of information in
permanent memory. There are two things that were involved in the process of understanding:
(1) integrating and (2) symbolizing. Integrating is a knowledge screening process into the
 4

key characteristics, organized as economical as possible and in a general form, technically

called macro-structure. The integration process includes mixing the knowledge that had just
experienced with the available knowledge stored in the permanent memory of the student.
Symbolization is to understand the process by creating a symbolic analogy of the knowledge
that is in the macro-structure; knowledge is processed into two main modes: linguistic and
mental images. So the symbolism is the shift of knowledge contained in the macro-structure
in the form of symbolic (non-verbal). For example: 'In a triangle ABC, right-angled at A, the
Pythagorean formula is written symbolically as a2 + b2 = c2.
Symbolization process assumes the integration of knowledge accurately. Therefore,
in order to create a symbol of knowledge, students need to make their knowledge connected
tightly and firmly.
Anderson, et al. (2001: 70-75) stated that a person is called to understand if he can
construct meaning from instructional messages that include oral communication, text, and
graphics in any form as presented in the classroom, book, or a computer screen. Students
understand when they establish a relationship between the knowledge to be obtained (new
knowledge/incoming knowledge) with their prior knowledge. Cognitive processes of
understanding covering interpret, give examples, classifying, summarizing, inferring,
comparing, and explaining.
The framework to understand understanding is based on the representation and
connections (Hiebert and Carpenter, 1992). This idea could become a reference to the
question of how children learn with understanding and how to teach for understanding.
Attempts to understand how people learn and understand mathematics is largely based on
the assumption that knowledge is represented internally, and the internal representation is
structured (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992: 66). According to the authors, to think and express
mathematical ideas, we need the capability to disclose it in various ways (external
representation in the form of spoken language, written symbols, or physical objects).
According to Inhelder & Piaget (Slavin, 2008), "Developing understanding Involved
increasing ability to hold several relationships in mind, permitting further abstraction and
anticipation". Hiebert & Carpenter (1992: 69) stated that the network or mental
representations awoke slowly when new information is connected to an existing network or
a new relationship formed between the information that had been separated from each other.
 5

In line with the growing understanding of the network whenever they are increasingly large
and increasingly organized. However, an understanding can be limited if only a partial
representation of the idea of the actual mental potentially interrelated, interconnected, or if
the relationship is weak. Understanding is increased when the network grows and existing
relationships strengthened through the experience and the network structure is more tightly
bound.
Activities that may elicits mathematical understanding includes building relationships
between mathematical topics or between mathematics with other sciences, extend and apply
mathematical knowledge in solving problem, let the students give articulation to the new-
found knowledge, and make the students as the owner knowledge they found.
B. Joyful Problem Based Learning
Direct teaching could make the students grasp abundant of knowledge but it could not
promote students’ problem solving ability and even understanding ability and transfer
knowledge to new situation (Ronis 2008). On the other side, there is learning model, that is
Problem Based Learning (PBL), which can be hoped to increase transferring knowledge to
new problems, integrating concepts, catering intrinsic learning motivation and skills (Wilson,
1997). PBL start the learning process by giving problems to the students, and have some
other caracteristics such as the problems should be designed as ill-structured problems,
trigger learning, student-centered, while teacher takes role as tutor, coach, or facilitator,
students worked in groups to analyze, investigate, discuss, and propose solution, also
improving and encouraging self and group-assessment.
Problems proposed in PBL classroom should be designed properly to give context and
meaningful, considering scope, conected to student’s need and students’ previous knowledge
to motivate and engage students in solving problem (Tan, 2003). Assestment in PBL
classroom is made along the learning process run, not only based on paper and pencil test
only. It is and is called as a holisctic assestment. The teacher cans help the students by
proposed question and probes as a scaffold for the students to solve the problems. But
scaffolding must be eliminated gradually so in the end the students become a self-learner and
good problem solver. The weaknesses and success story of implementing PBL can be seen
in Tan (2003; Ronis, 2008; Napitupulu, 2011).
 6

Meanwhile, Joyful Problem-Based Learning means problem-based learning that is

designed such that the learning activity is conducted in pleasant environment and convenient
situation. Sometimes learning is conducted outside the classroom and using a variety of
hands-on manipulatives around the classroom or school yard that is interesting for students;
the teacher scaffolds the students with friendly language (tone of the teachers’ voice, facial
expression, body posture and gesture makes the child comfortable). The objects that exist
inside and outside the classroom, as well as the environment around the classroom can be
used as devices to increase the interest of students to learn, but the focus remains on efforts
to lead the students making a variety of representations for a problem and making connection
between facts, mathematical ideas, procedures and concepts so they understand what to be
solved in the problem and attain knowledge being studied.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Whether learning materials developed in order to improve students' mathematical
understanding effective?
2. Does the ability of mathematical understanding of students increase significantly?

OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

1. Obtaining effective learning materials developed based on JPBL
2. Increase the ability of students' mathematical understanding through the learning
materials developed.
RESEARCH METHODS
a. Subject of The Research
The subject of the research is the students in public junior high school (PJHS) in the
Province of North Sumatera, Indonesia. Three PJHS are chosen randomly. There are 88
students engaged in the research, they are from PJHS 27 Medan, PJHS 1 Percut, and PJHS
7 Pematangsiantar.
b. Instrumentation
The ability of mathematical understanding in this research is the ability to represent
the problems into various external representation and make connection between the problem
into mathematical knowledge they have grasped along learning process. Aspects of
 7

mathematical understanding ability in the research follow aspects proposed by Anderson

(2001). Five item of essays test are given to the subject of the research.

c. Learning Material
Learning material consist of Student Activity Sheets (SAS), Student’s Book, Lesson
Plan, Instrumentation, Observation & Interview Guidance. Content of material instruction
consists of System of Linear Equation of Two Variables and Pythagorean Rule. According
to Nieveen (2013), intervention in instruction is effective if using the intervention results in
desired outcome. The desired results of this research among others the improvement of the
students’ MUA, the students and teachers’ positive response towards developed learning
materials, and the improvement of the students’ engagement in the classroom discussion.
c. Implementing Learning Material
Learning materials developed based on JPBL implemented on 88 students in three
schools. Learning implementation thoroughly monitored by observers to comply with the
syntax of PBL and joyful learning. That is, there are times when teachers take students out
of the classroom to experience the real problems associated with SPLDV.
Overall, activity in learning process take place like in the following order: At the first
meeting, the teacher gives pre-test. nine meetings used to carry out learning process using
the developed learning materials. At the end of implementing developed learning materials,
all 88 students take a post-test of MUA (mathematical understanding ability).
Five syntax of PBL used in the research including (1) organize the students into
small group discussion, (2) orient the students to the problem, motivate them to engage in
solving the problem, (3) Assists students in planning and preparing appropriate reports, ppt
presentation, and poster, help students share their work with others, (4) help students to
reflect on the process of solving problem they used, (5) facilitate students to presenting the
result of their work.
Learning materials developed in this study is said to be effective if more than 50% of
students received a score of over 70 in test of mathematical understanding ability (MUA);
get positive response from the students and the teachers give positive response towards
learning materials, and the students engagement in solving problems improved.
 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSION

Table 1 displays a description of mathematical understanding abilities (MUA) of
the students in three schools after the implementation of learning materials developed by
JPBL.

Table 1. Skor Rata-rata Kemampuan Pemahaman Matematis Siswa

Type of test PJHS 27 Medan PJHS 1 Percut PJHS 7 P.Siantar

Average SD Average SD Average SD
Pre-test 7,441 2,134 7,153 1,349 6,75 1,404
Pos-test 12,147 2,720 12,153 2,475 12,071 2,750
Note: Max score = 20
Table 1 shows the difference in average scores of MUA between pretest and posttest.
This represents an increase understanding of mathematical ability of students in three
schools. Through a statistical test, this data has a normal distribution properties and
homogeneous variance so statistical independent t-test o test is used to analyze the difference
between pretest and posttest scores (Table 2). Tests carried out at 95% confidence level. The
test results turned out to be significant for the three schools involved in the study, so it can
be concluded that there is an improvement of the students’ MUA after the implementing
JPBL in the classroom.
Table 2. Mean difference of The Students’ Mathematical Understanding Ability
School Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
Sig. T Df tailed) Difference Difference
PJHS 27 Medan .000 8.865 50 .000 5.000 .564
PJHS 1 Percut .000 8.865 50 .000 5.000 .564
PJHS 7 P.Siantar .022 6.574 54 .000 4.357 .663

Here is the distribution of the interval score of the students’ MUA.

Table 3. Score Interval of Students MUA

Interval PJHS 27 Medan PJHS 1 Percut PJHS 7 Siantar
12 ≤ X ≤ 15 22 16 18
9 ≤ X ≤ 11 7 3 6
X≤8 5 7 4
N 34 26 28
Note: Max score = 20
 9

From Table 3 can be seen that more than 60% of the students acquire average score
of 70 or more. So, there is an improvement of mathematical understanding of the students.
It means, learning materials developed based on JPBL was effective to fulfill the desired
criteria, it must be more than 60% of the students achieved score 70. But, still further research
needed to conduct in order to get higher classical achievement, that is more than 80% of the
students get score 70 for MUA test. Hopefully, within the next study the revised learning
materials can be implemented in five schools in the city of Medan, Percut Sei Tuan,
Tebingtinggi, and Pematangsiantar.
The Student Performance
Figure 2 shows an example of MUA test. That problem requires the ability of the
students to connect their knowledge to the concept of gradient of a line which is parallel to
other line, then represent new line based on gradient information about parallel line.

Problem
Look at the figure below, lines k and l represent by y = 2x + 2 and y = 2x respectively. If line m is
parallel to the line k and l. Determine the line equation of line m.

Figure 2
Figure 3 displays the student performance in pre-test of mathematical understanding
ability (MUA).
 10

Figure 3

The performance of the student in pre-test presented in Figure 3 showed that this
student could not do anything instead of writing an equation of gradient and an equation of
any line. This is reasonable, as long as learning process is conventional learning which
always start learning with the teacher explaining the material, followed by giving the
example problems and their resolution, asking the students do the problems similar to those
the described teacher (routine problems), until at the end of the lesson teachers give
homework to students. Learning like this is hard to make the students understand the
knowledge they learned, moreover apply that knowledge to complex problems. The finding
is in line with Ronis (2008).
Figure 4 presented the student performance in post-test of mathematical
understanding ability (MUA).
 11

Figure 4

The performance of the student in MUA post-test presented in Figure 4 showed that this
student understood the concept of parallel gradient, he also fluent in determining a point lies
in line m. So, he did not have difficulty in solving this problem, even gave perfect solution.
Overall, after implementing learning materials developed based on JPBL, the
students’ performance has improved significantly (Table 1). This finding support the power
of problem based learning which is conducted in joyful environment. Teachers as well as
students gave positive response toward learning materials. The students’ engagement in
group discussion has improved. Furthermore, based on observation result, the teachers
activity in learning process fulfill JPBL requirement.
The weaknesses found in this research including too much time needed to conduct
learning activity. Much of the time consume by the activity to encourage the students to be
consistently in solving the problem; the teachers need to do a lot of effort to make scaffolding
is only given as needed, students must continue to solve the problem diligently in order to be
able to build their own knowledge (this part is rather hard to be). Assessment of students’
performance also requires a lot of time because it is done holistically. Teachers actually
experiencing fatigue. Time was too limited to make the students have fun learning outside
the classroom.
To overcome the weaknesses in implementing learning materials developed based on
JPBL no other way than the dedication of teachers consistently. By providing this dedicated,
teachers can get the excitement that could not be measured with money. Why not, because
 12

actually the real teacher is the people who really want their students to master science is
taught by him.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Learning materials developed based on JPBL is effective to improve the students’
mathematical understanding ability.
2. The teachers and the students’ response towards learning materials are positive.
3. The weakness of this study include lack of seriousness in working to solve problems
of students, the students easily give up and frustrated (there is no perseverance they
have), teachers are not skilled in providing scaffolding, therefore they still need
training to master the technique of scaffolding.

REFERENCES
Anderson, L.W., et al., (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Arends, R.I. (2004). Learning to Teach, 6th Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Company, Inc.

Carpenter, T.P., dan Lehrer, R., (1999). Teaching and Learning Mathematics with
Understanding. In Fennema, E. Dan Romberg, T.A. (eds). Mathematics Classrooms
that Promote Understanding. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hiebert, J. dan Carpenter, T.P., (1992). Learning and Teaching with Understanding. Dalam
Grouws, Douglas A. (Ed). Handbook of research on mathematics

NCTM, (2000). Principle and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Nieveen. N. (2013). Educational Research. Enchede: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum
Development.
Ronis, D., L. (2008). Problem-based Learning for Math & Science; Integrating Inquiry and
the Internet. California: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R.J. dan Kendall, J.S., (2007). The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Minarni, A. (2013). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah terhadap Kemampuan

Pemahaman Matematis, Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis, dan
Keterampilan Sosial Siswa SMP. Disertasi: Tidak Diterbitkan.

MoE of Indonesia (Depdiknas, 2006). Kurikulum 2006: Depdiknas.

 13

Napitupulu, E., E. (2011). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah terhadap Kemampuan

Penalaran, Pemecahan Masalah Matematis, dan Sikap Siswa terhadap Matematika.
Disertasi: Tidak Diterbitkan.
PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science,
Problem Solving, and Financial Literacy, OECD Publishing.
Slavin, R., E. (2006). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. You York: Pearson
Education Inc.
Tan, O., S. (2003). Problem-based Learning Innovation. Singapore: Thomson Learning.
TIMSS (2011). TIMSS 2011 International Results In Mathematics: Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS
International Study Center.
Wilson, J.W., et al. (1997). Mathematical Problem Solving [Online]. Available:
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu [retrieved 10 Desember 2009].

View publication stats