Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Articles
Published: 2024-11-30

Functional thinking in Kolb learning style: A causal-comparative study

Universitas Islam Negeri Mataran
Universitas Islam Negeri Mataram
Sultan Idris Education University
Functional thinking Kolb learning style Causal comparative

Galleys

Abstract

[English]: This study aims to elucidate variations in students’ functional thinking across divergent, convergent, assimilator, and accommodator learning styles. A causal-comparative study involving 137 student samples was conducted randomly from 214 students enrolled in grade 8 of junior high schools (MTsN 3) in Mataram, Lombok, Indonesia. Data collection for students’ functional thinking utilized three types of tasks, comprising two linear pattern tasks and one non-linear pattern task. Students’ learning style data were obtained from the Kolb learning style inventory (KLSI), comprising 12 statement items. Descriptive analysis revealed that the distribution of students’ Kolb learning styles was as follows: 29.93% divergent learning styles, 24.82% convergent learning styles, 17.52% assimilator learning styles, and 27.74% accommodator learning styles. On a scale of 0-100, the average functional thinking of students was 67.90, while the average functional thinking of students with divergent learning styles was 73, convergent 64.5, assimilator 69.9, and accommodator 64.2. The ANOVA test results yielded an F test value of 10.297 with a significant value of 0.0, indicating significant differences in students’ functional thinking among students with divergent, convergent, assimilator, and accommodator learning styles. Furthermore, the students with divergent learning styles exhibited the highest mean (m = 73) compared to the other groups. The research outcomes can serve as a basis for mathematics learning design based on students’ learning styles.

[Bahasa]: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perbedaan berpikir fungsional siswa dengan gaya belajar divergen, konvergen, asimilator dan akomodator. Penelitian causal-comparative ini melibatkan 137 sampel siswa yang diambil secara acak dari 214 siswa kelas 8 Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri (MTsN) 3 Mataram, Lombok, Indonesia. Data berpikir fungsional siswa dikumpulkan melalui tiga jenis tugas, yang terdiri dari dua tugas pola linier dan satu tugas pola non-linier. Data gaya belajar diperoleh dari Kolb learning style inventory (KLSI), yang terdiri dari dua belas item pernyataan. Analisis deskriptif mengungkapkan bahwa distribusi gaya belajar Kolb siswa adalah sebagai berikut: 29.93% gaya belajar divergen, 24.82% gaya belajar konvergen, 17.52% gaya belajar asimilator, dan 27.74% gaya belajar akomodator. Pada skala 0-100, rata-rata berpikir fungsional siswa adalah 67.90, sedangkan rata-rata berpikir fungsional siswa dengan gaya belajar divergen, konvergen, assimilator, dan akomodator secara berturut-turut adalah 73, 64.5, 69.9, dan 64.2. Hasil ANOVA menunjukkan nilai uji F sebesar 10.297 dengan signifikansi 0.0, artinya terdapat perbedaan yang signifikan kemampuan berpikir fungsional keempat kelompok siswa tersebut. Lebih jauh, kelompok siswa dengan gaya belajar divergen menunjukkan rerata tertinggi (m = 73) dibandingkan dengan ketiga kelompok lainnya. Hasil penelitian ini dapat dijadikan sebagai acuan dalam mendesain pembelajaran matematika berdasarkan gaya belajar siswa.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Akinyode, B. F., & Khan, T. H. (2016). Students’ learning style among planning students in Nigeria using Kolb’s learning style inventory. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(47), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i1/107129
  2. Altun, H. (2019). Examining the problem solving skills of primary education mathematics teacher candidates according to their learning styles. International Education Studies, 12(4), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n4p60
  3. Amit, M., & Neria, D. (2008). Rising to the challenge: using generalization in pattern problems to unearth the algebraic skills of talented pre-algebra students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0069-5
  4. Anwar, A., Turmudi, T., Juandi, D., Saiman, S., & Zaki, M. (2023). Level of visual geometry skill towards learning style Kolb in junior high school. Jurnal Elemen, 9(2), 542–557. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v9i2.15121
  5. Autida, N. (2024). The influence of learning styles on mathematical performance among junior high school students. Journal of Educational Issues, 10(2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v10i2.22029
  6. Aydın, B. (2016). Examination of the relationship between eighth grade students’ learning styles and attitudes towards mathematics. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(2), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i2.1162
  7. Blanton, M. (2008). Algebra and the elementary classroom. Transforming thinking, transforming practice. Heinemann.
  8. Blanton, M., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M., Sawrey, K., & Newman-owens, A. (2015). A learning trajectory in 6-year-olds ’ thinking about generalizing functional relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(5), 511–558. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.5.0511
  9. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. J. (2011). Functional thinking as a route into algebra in the elementary Grades. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 5–23). Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht.
  10. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 135–142.
  11. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 412–446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30034944
  12. BSKAP. (2024). Keputusan BSKAP Kemdikbudristek tentang Capaian pembelajaran pada pendidikan anak usia dini, jenjang pendidikan dasar, dan jenjang pendidikan menengah pada kurikulum merdeka (Patent 032/H/KR/2024). Kemdikbudristek.
  13. Bush, S. B., & Karp, K. S. (2013). Prerequisite algebra skills and associated misconceptions of middle grade students: A review. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.07.002
  14. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Keith, M. (2007). Research methods in education (Sixth). Routledge.
  15. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1991). A framework for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations, and transformations. In R. Underhill & C. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the north American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 57–63). Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED352274.pdf
  16. Damavandi, A. J., Mahyuddin, R., Elias, H., Daud, S. M., & Shabani, J. (2011). Academic achievement of students with different learning styles. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 3(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v3n2p186
  17. DePorter, B., & Hernacki, B. (1999). Quantum Learning: Membiasakan Belajar nyaman dan menyamakan. Kaifa.
  18. DePorter, B., & Hernacki, M. (2000). Quantum Learning. Kaifa.
  19. Dermawan, D. A., Siagian, P., & Sinaga, B. (2021). Analysis of students’ mathematical problem solving ability in terms of student learning styles with models problem based learning. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 4(1), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.33258/birle.v4i1.1607
  20. Digel, S., & Roth, J. (2020). A qualitative-experimental approach to functional thinking with a focus on covariation. Proceedings of the 10th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2020, 167–174. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344270344
  21. Ding, R., Huang, R., & Deng, X. (2023). Multiple pathways for developing functional thinking in elementary mathematics textbooks: a case study in China. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 114(October), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10237-w
  22. Dwiyanto, A. R., & Kurniasih, M. D. (2024). Analysis of mathematical literacy ability based on learning style of middle school students. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.v5i1.605
  23. Farman, F. (2023). Student learning style of mathematics education based on gender. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 4(2), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v4i2.208
  24. Fatkhiyyah, I., Winarso, W., & Manfaat, B. (2019). Kemampuan komunikasi matematika siswa ditinjau dari perbedaan gaya belajar menurut david Kolb. Jurnal Elemen, 5(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v5i2.928
  25. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  26. Frey, K., Sproesser, U., & Veldhuis, M. (2022). What is functional thinking? Theoretical considerations and first results of an international interview study. Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12), Feb 2022, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy. ⟨hal-03744607⟩. https://hal.science/hal-03744607v1/document
  27. Ganesen, P., Osman, S., Abu, M. S., & Kumar, J. A. (2020). The relationship between learning styles and achievement of solving algebraic problems among lower secondary school students. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(9 Special Issue), 2563–2574.
  28. Günster, S. M., & Weigand, H. G. (2020). Designing digital technology tasks for the development of functional thinking. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 1259–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01179-1
  29. Hajaro, U., Nayazik, A., & Kusumawati, R. (2021). Analysis of David Kolb’s learning style according to mathematical representation ability. Journal of Medives : Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 5(2), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.31331/medivesveteran.v5i2.1709
  30. Hamdani, M. (2021). Predicting academic student’s achievement: a Kolb learning styles approach. Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology, 10(4), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.12928/jehcp.v10i4.21787
  31. Huntley, M. A., Marcus, R., Kahan, J., & Miller, J. L. (2007). Investigating high-school students’ reasoning strategies when they solve linear equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(2), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.05.005
  32. Idkhan, A. M., & Idris, M. M. (2021). Dimensions of students learning styles at the university with the Kolb learning model. International Journal of Environment, Engineering and Education, 3(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.55151/ijeedu.v3i2.60
  33. Juniawan, E., Yulianto, D., & Junaedi, Y. (2024). Gaya belajar Kolb dan kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematis pada mahasiswa pendidikan matematika Universitas La Tansa Mashiro. Jurnal Silogisme: Kajian Ilmu Matematika dan Pembelajarannya, 9(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.24269/silogisme.v9i1.8720
  34. Jupri, A., Drijvers, P., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2014). Difficulties in initial algebra learning in Indonesia. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 683–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0097-0
  35. Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. D. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315097435-2
  36. Knisley, J. (2003). A Four-Stage Model of Mathematical Learning. https://faculty.etsu.edu/knisleyj/mathematicseducatorarticle.pdf
  37. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
  38. Krüger, K. (2019). Functional thinking: The history of a didactical principle. In: Weigand, HG., McCallum, W., Menghini, M., Neubrand, M., Schubring, G. (eds) The Legacy of Felix Klein. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99386-7_3
  39. Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification : The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0703_3
  40. Lepak, J. R., Wernet, J. L. W., & Ayieko, R. A. (2018). Capturing and characterizing students’ strategic algebraic reasoning through cognitively demanding tasks with focus on representations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50(January), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.01.003
  41. Lichti, M., & Roth, J. (2018). How to foster functional thinking in learning environments using computer-based simulations or real materials. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1–2), 148–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0007-1
  42. Lichti, M., & Roth, J. (2019). Functional hhinking — A three-dimensional. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-019-00141-3
  43. Loo, R. (1999). Confirmatory factor analyses of Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI-1985). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709999157680
  44. Maulina, S., Nisa, L. C., & Nadhifah. (2021). Learning style preferences and students’ abilityn mathematical investigation on display data. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1776(1), 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1776/1/012029
  45. Mishra, P., Singh, U., Pandey, C., Mishra, P., & Pandey, G. (2019). Application of student’s t-test, analysis of variance, and covariance. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(4), 407. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA
  46. Miswanto. (2024). Characteristics of computational thinking in solving mathematical problems based on Kolb’s learning style. Journal of Mathematics Education and Application (JMEA), 3(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.30596/jmea.v1i4.18855
  47. Mouhayar, R. El, & Jurdak, M. (2016). Variation of student numerical and figural reasoning approaches by pattern generalization type, strategy use and grade level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1068391
  48. Muro, P. D., & Terry, M. (2007). A matter of style: Applying Kolb’s learning style model to college mathematics teaching practices. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2007.10850204
  49. Muttaqin, W. E. P., Junaidi, I., & Sulhadi, S. (2019). Mathematical problem solving ability based on Kolb learning style in creative problem-solving learning models. Journal of Primary Education, 8(8), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpe.v10i2.34309
  50. NCTM. (2000). Principless and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  51. Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education - Is the learning styles 'Myth' important?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444
  52. Ocampo, E. N., Mobo, F. D., & Cutillas, A. L. (2023). Exploring the relationship between mathematics performance and learn-ing style among grade 8 students. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(4), 1165–1172. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.04.14
  53. Orhun, N. (2007). An investigation into the mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics with respect to learning style according to gender. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390601116060
  54. Pittalis, M., Sproesser, U., Demosthenous, E. & Odysseos, E. (2025). Enhancing functional thinking in grade 5–6 students through a dynamic mathematics intervention program. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 1329–1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12865-y
  55. Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2020). Young students’ functional thinking modes: the relation between recursive patterning, covariational thinking, and correspondence relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(5), 631–674. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0164
  56. Purwasih, R., Turmudi, & Dahlan, J. A. (2024). How do you solve number pattern problems through mathematical semiotics analysis and computational thinking? Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp403-430
  57. Rohmanawati, E., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2021). Student’s mathematical communication ability based on Kolb’s learning styles of assimilator and accommodator type. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE) 2020 on Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1), 0–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012091
  58. Rokhima, W. A., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2019). Mathematical problem solving based on Kolb’s learning style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1306, 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1306/1/012026
  59. Rustamovna, R. V. (2019). The importance of learning styles in teaching process. International Journal of Research, 6(10), 761–768. https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/view/19431
  60. Sari, N. I. P., Subanji, & Hidayanto, E. (2018). Diagnosis kesalahan penalaran matematis siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah pola bilangan. Jurnal Kajian Pembelajaran Matematika, 2(2), 64–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um076v2i22018p64-69
  61. Shayer, M. (1979). Has Piaget's construct of formal operational thinking any utility? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1979.tb02425.x
  62. Smith, E. (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95–132). Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group & NCTM.
  63. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in liniar generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00579460
  64. Stephens, A. C., Fonger, N., Strachota, S., Isler, I., Blanton, M., Knuth, E., & Murphy Gardiner, A. (2017). A learning progression for elementary students’ functional thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(3), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2017.1328636
  65. Stephens, A. C., Isler-Baykal, I., Marum, T., Blanton, M. L., Knuth, E. J., & Gardiner, A. M. (2012). From recursive pattern to correspondence rule: Developing students' abilities to engage in functional thinking. Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304526974
  66. Sugihartono, S., Fathiyah, K. N., Harahap, F., Setiawati, F. A., & Nurhayati, S. R. (2007). Psikologi pendidikan. UNY Press.
  67. Sujadi, A. A., Arigiyati, T. A., Kusumaningrum, B., & Utami, T. (2019). The correlation of motivation, activeness, and learning style with mathematical learning achievement. International Conference on Technology, Education and Science, 54–58.
  68. Suryowati, E. (2021). Proses berpikir fungsional siswa SMP dalam menyelesaikan soal matematika (Functional thinking process of junior high school students in solving mathematics problems). AKSIOMA : Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 12(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.26877/aks.v12i1.7082
  69. Syawahid, M. (2022). Elementary students’ functional thinking in solving context-based linear pattern problems. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 15(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v15i1.497
  70. Syawahid, M., Nasrun, N., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2024). Figural and non-figural linear pattern: case of primary mathematical gifted students’ functional thinking. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 16(4), 94–115. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1442320.pdf
  71. Syawahid, M., Purwanto, Sukoriyanto, & Sulandra, I. M. (2020). Elementary students’ functional thinking: From recursive to correspondence. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(3), 1031–1043. https://doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.765395
  72. Syawahid, M., & Sucipto, L. (2023). Functional thinking and Kolb learning style: Case in solving linier and non-linier pattern problems. Jurnal Elemen, 9(2), 526–541. https://e-journal.hamzanwadi.ac.id/index.php/jel/article/view/14779
  73. Tanıslı, D. (2011). Functional thinking ways in relation to linear function tables of elementary school students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30, 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.08.001
  74. Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Suryadi, D. (2023). Students’ Learning Obstacles in Solving Early Algebra Problems: A Focus on Functional Thinking. International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 395–412. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED655429.pdf
  75. Villajuan, A.-M. L. (2019). Relationship between learning styles & academic achievement in mathematics of grade 8 students. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 4(4), 1052–1055. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.4419
  76. Warren, E. A., Cooper, T. J., & Lamb, J. T. (2006). Investigating functional thinking in the elementary classroom : Foundations of early algebraic reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(1), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.09.006
  77. Wei, H., Bos, R. & Drijvers, P. (2024). Developing functional thinking: From concrete to abstract through an embodied design. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 10, 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-024-00142-z
  78. Wei, H., Bos, R., & Drijvers, P. (2023). An embodied approach to abstract functional thinking using digital technology: A systematic literature review. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v30.2.2
  79. Wilkie, K. J. (2015). Learning to teach upper primary school algebra : Changes to teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching functional thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(2), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0151-1
  80. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
  81. Yuniati, S., Nusantara, T., & Sulandra, I. M. (2019). The Use of Multiple Representation in Functional Thinking. Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 8(1C2), 672–678. https://www.ijrte.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i1C2/A11120581C219.pdf

How to Cite

Sucipto, L., Syawahid, M., & Bahurudin Setambah, M. A. . (2024). Functional thinking in Kolb learning style: A causal-comparative study. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 17(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v17i2.656