Improving attitudes toward mathematics

learning with problem posing in class VIII

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 050007 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995134
Published Online: 04 August 2017

Alfha Vionita, and Dyah Purboningsih

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Problem based learning to improve proportional reasoning of students in mathematics

learning
AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 050002 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995129

Analysis of junior high school students’ difficulty in resolving rectangular conceptual problems
AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 050008 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995135

Strategic competence of senior secondary school students in solving mathematics problem

based on cognitive style
AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 050009 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995136

AIP Conference Proceedings 1868, 050007 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995134 1868, 050007

© 2017 Author(s).
 Improving Attitudes Toward Mathematics Learning with
Problem Posing in Class VIII
Alfha Vionita1, a) and Dyah Purboningsih2, b)
1, 2
Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
a)
vionitaalfha@gmail.com
b)
dyah.purboningsih@gmail.com

Abstract. This research is classroom action research which is collaborated to improve student’s behavior toward math and
mathematics learning at class VIII by using problem posing approach. The subject of research is all of students grade VIIIA
which consist of 32 students. This research has been held on two period, first period is about 3 times meeting, and second
period is about 4 times meeting. The instrument of this research is implementation of learning observation’s guidance by
using problem posing approach. Cycle test has been used to measure cognitive competence, and questionnaire to measure
the students’ behavior in mathematics learning process. The result of research shows the students’ behavior has been
improving after using problem posing approach. It is showed by the behavior’s criteria of students that has increasing result
from the average in first period to high in second period. Furthermore, the percentage of test result is also improve from
68,75% in first period to 78,13% in second period. On the other hand, the implementation of learning observation by using
problem posing approach has also improving and it is showed by the average percentage of teacher’s achievement in first
period is 89,2% and student’s achievement 85,8%. These results get increase in second period for both teacher and students’
achievement which are 94,4% and 91,11%. As a result, students’ behavior toward math learning process in class VIII has
been improving by using problem posing approach.

INTRODUCTION
The quality of education in Indonesian especially mathematics can not be separated from the quality of learning in
the classroom that classified low. To improve the quality of learning in the classroom, teachers are required to be able
to search for innovations in learning. It can improve thinking ability, attitude, and achievement of the basic
competencies of students. [5] In order to develop the attitude and creativity in mathematics learning, teachers need to
develop innovation in teaching mathematics. Teachers have to develop various types of teaching styles that varied
teaching methods, the discussion method, problem-based method, class interaction varied, and use realistic or
contextual approach. Further explained that to develop the attitude and creativity, teachers need a deep understanding
of the nature of school mathematics, the nature of learning math, and nature constructivism in learning mathematics.
Based on Ministerial Regulation Number 20 on 2016 that concerning to competency standards of primary and
secondary education said that every graduate elementary and secondary education units have competence in three
dimensions that is the attitude, knowledge and skills. Affective aspects also determine the processes, purposes, and
the results of student learning. One of the affective aspect is the attitude [7]. Students' attitudes toward learning
mathematics will affect its behavior during the learning process. Students who have a good attitude towards
mathematics will show good behavior also during the learning that will ultimately improve student achievement.
Teacher should be able to know what the students feel, think and do when they learning mathematics. The influence
of attitudes, values, and personality characteristics on participation in learning mathematics is an important thing to
be considered students. This is in line with the opinions Yates [6] that:
It is important for educators to know how their learners feel, think, and act, and towards mathematics. The
influence of ettitudes, values, and personality characteristics on achievement outcomes and later participation in the
learning of methematics are important considerationfor mathematics educators.

The 4th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Science (4th ICRIEMS)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1868, 050007-1–050007-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4995134
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1548-5/$30.00

050007-1
 The learning objectives to be achieved by the teacher in the learning process should be able to make the students
demonstrate a manner consistent that expected by stimulus. However, when they responding to the stimulus, students’
beliefs in acting according to conscience whether or not that will result in a good or bad for himself. So that, the
students will have the good or bad attitude, like it or not, positively or negatively influence the attitude object.
Students’ attitude towards mathematics has been a factor that is known to influence students’ achievement in
mathematics [4]. Cooney & Cotton [3] also found some students view of mathematics as an interesting thing, while
others regard mathematics as boring. Nevertheless, everyone should learn math because it is a means to solve problems
in everyday life
The reality at schools show that students' attitudes toward mathematics learning still needs to be improved. This is
due, among others, learning is still monotonous, less varied and generally still centered on the teacher. It isn’t much
maximally engage students in the learning process. Mathematics still conducted predominantly use the lecture method
so centered on the teacher even though the school has implemented a curriculum of 2013. From interviews with
teachers of mathematics teacher of class VIII at SMPN 3 Kalasan, his states that students' attitudes toward mathematics
learning is still relatively lacking, and this is caused by there are many students who are less concerned and indifferent
when learning takes place.
Students' attitudes toward mathematics learning is possible mathematical grown through delivery varied, fun, easy
to understand, and indicated the usefulness of mathematics in life. One variation of learning that can be applied is the
problem posing approach. Learning mathematics using problem posing approach that emphasizes learning the students
to prepare themselves and solve their own problems. This problem building activities give the widest opportunity for
students to construct knowledge in accordance with the development of thinking ability [9]. The information that is
processed in mind and after understanding the student will be able to create questions, thereby causing the formation
of a more solid understanding in students. Activities that will make students actively construct learning outcomes.
In mathematics learning with problem posing approach, students are expected to make their own or ask a question
in accordance with the problems faced everyday with regard to the material being studied to be resolved solely by the
students without having to be answered directly by the teacher. One approach to learning that can motivate students
to think critical, creative and interactive is problem posing or filing of the problems outlined in the form of a question
[8], so the students were given the opportunity to express ideas that are owned either individually or group. It can
make a stance on students become better towards learning are taught. Reinforced by the results of research Guvercin,
Cilavdaroglu, and Savas (2014) that the problem posing approach is effective in improving students' attitudes toward
learning mathematics in junior high.
Based on the description above, researcher is interested to collaborate with teachers to conduct classroom action
research to improve students' attitudes toward learning mathematics by applying problem posing approach to the
students of grade VIII. The purpose of this study is to describe efforts to improve students' attitudes toward
mathematics through problem posing approach application to the students of grade VIII.

RESEARCH METHOD
The type of this research is the Classroom Action Research (CAR), which is done collaboratively between teachers
of mathematics teacher and research conducted in the Class VIIIA of SMP Negeri 3 Kalasan. This research was
conducted about three months from September to November 2016 to adjust the time of mathematics lesson in VIIIA.
The subjects were students of class VIIIA semester 2016/2017 academic year at SMP Negeri 3 Kalasan by the number
of students is 32.
The research design that used by researchers is the draft Action Research Model by Kemmis & McTaggart.
According Kemmis & McTaggart [1], the action research can be seen as a spiraling cycle of preparation of planning,
action, observation (observation), and further reflections may be followed by the next spiral cycle. Here is a chart of
CAR activity Kemmis & McTaggart models [2]:

050007-2
 FIGURE 1. The cart of Kemmis & McTaggart model to classroom action research

The techniques of data collection in this study is based on observations, the charging sheet questionnaires, and
workmanship of test questions to students. The observations were made for each of the learning process that includes
activities of teachers and students in learning activities using problem posing approach to improve students' attitudes
toward mathematics in the classroom. Sheet questionnaire used to determine students' attitudes toward mathematics
according to the indicators that have been determined. Questionnaires were used to load the question of positive and
negative with five answer options in accordance with the Likert scale, namely Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A),
Undecided (U), Disagree (DS), and Strongly Disagree (SDS). The test is used to determine student competency
achievement during the learning of mathematics as well as to assess students' mastery learning. Tests such as multiple
choice questions which have been prepared based on the indicators to reveal the ability of students' understanding of
mathematics material that has been taught.
The analysis data that used in this research is descriptive qualitative data analysis and supported by quantitative
data analysis. The data analysis technique for learning that materialized observation sheet is done by giving a score of
1 for every aspect has been completed and a score of 0 for every aspect that does not happen. Furthermore, the
percentage of adherence to the following formula.

–‘–ƒŽ•…‘”‡ (1)
؏ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ‹œ‡†ൌ ൈͳͲͲΨ
–‘–ƒŽ‘ˆŽ‡ƒ”‹‰ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•

The analysis data of questionnaire scale students' attitudes toward mathematics is done by calculating a student
questionnaire scores, determine the criteria for the measurement results, and grouping students into several criteria.
The following criteria measurement produce questionnaire that presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Categorization guidelines for student attitudes questionnaire score results

No. Interval Score (X) Criteria
1 Mi+1,5Si < X ≤ Mi+3Si 100 < X ≤ 125 Very High
2 Mi+0,5Si < X ≤ Mi+1,5Si 83,33 < X ≤ 100 High
3 Mi-0,5Si < X ≤ Mi+0,5Si 66,66 < X ≤ 83,33 Middle
4 Mi-1,5Si < X ≤ Mi-0,5Si 50 < X ≤ 66,66 Low
5 Mi-3Si ≤ X ≤ Mi-1,5Si 25 ≤ X ≤ 50 Very Low
Information:
Mi = Mean attainable ideal instrument = 1/2 (maximum score + minimum score)
Si = Standard deviation attainable ideal instrument = 1/6 (maximum score - minimum score)

The data analysis of this test is done by giving a score on the answers of each student, the score of 1 for a correct answer
and a score of 0 for a wrong answer. Once that is done the calculations to determine the value of each student by using
the following formula.

050007-3
 ‘–ƒŽ…‘”‡ (2)
ƒŽ—‡ ൌ ൈ ͳͲͲ


Meanwhile, the success criteria in this study are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Success criteria research

Variable Criteria Target
Very High 30%
Students' attitudes High 50%
toward learning Middle 20%
mathematics Low 0%
Very Low 0%
Cognitive/skills Students who complete ≥ 75%
Learning process Materialize ≥ 90%

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

Description of Pre-study Observation

This pre-study found the data obtained from the questionnaire about students' attitudes toward mathematics and
the data from the students’ grades by doing the pre-test related to the students’ competences regarding to material that
is taught during the study. Preliminary observations carried out in class VIIIA SMPN 3 Kalasan produce preliminary
data on students' attitudes toward mathematics learning in the form of questionnaire results distributed to the students.

TABLE 3. The data of students’ manner questionnaire in Pre-Study

The Interval for The Score Achieved by The Respondents Criteria Initial condition
100 < X ≤ 125 Very high 0%
83,33 < X ≤ 100 High 6,25%
66,66 < X ≤ 83,33 Middle 53,13%
50 < X ≤ 66,66 Low 40,63%
25 ≤ X ≤ 50 Very Low 0%
Average Middle 67,187
The data obtained by giving the pre-test 20 times shows that there are no students achieving the criteria which
means 0%, with the average value obtained on the initial conditions is 39.37. The Results of the pre-test given to
students in VIII A relating straight-line have not reached 75, the minimum limit of KKM.

Description of Action Implementation Cycle I

Planning

In the planning stage, it is prepared of determining the learning materials, developing learning implementation
plan (RPP), compiling students’ worksheet (LKS), making assignment sheet to create questions, arranging
assessment instruments and setting up the observation sheet toward the learning process. The learning material used
in the first cycle is the equation of a straight line. Planned learning in the RPP is the learning by problem posing
approach that consists of 4 meetings. At each meetings, worksheets and also the task sheets are given to the students.
Those are the process of problem posing approach. In addition, each meetings is evaluated by using observation sheet
drawn up to determine the enforceability of learning. Furthermore, after four sessions, there will be an assessment of
students' attitudes toward mathematics learning, knowledge, and skills of students in mathematics. The instruments
developed for the assessment, namely questionnaire and a written test.

050007-4
 Action

Implementation of the first cycle is done in four meetings with the duration; 11 hours of lesson or 440 minutes.
The implementation stage is adapted to the RPP which has been designed by researcher and teacher to be implemented
in the learning process. Researcher acts as observers in the implementation by following the guidelines set up in the
learning observation sheet.
The first meeting was held on Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 for 3 x 40-minutes. The learning material at the
first meeting talked about knowing the gradient of a straight line. The learning activities opened with greetings and
pray, and then proceed with preliminary activities such as providing motivation and apperception. At the main stage,
the teacher grouped four students into one group. Furthermore, each groups had a discussion to resolve the issues
presented on the worksheet. After that, several groups of students designated to present the results of their group
discussions in class and if the results of the discussion experiencing a mistake, the teacher was in charge to fix it.
When finished discussing the worksheets, teacher shared assignment sheet to create questions. The task of making
this issue done by individuals and should not be the same because it emphasizes the students whether it is familiar
with the material that has been discussed. Before learning activities ended with a prayer, teacher and students, in
advance, reflected the learning activities.
The second meeting was held on Wednesday, October 5, 2016 with an allocation for 3 x 40 minutes. Learning
material at the second meeting was to determine the relationship between gradient with parallel lines and gradients
with lines that are perpendicular. While the third meeting was held on Monday, October 10th, 2016 with an allocation
for 2 x 40 minutes that discussed the equation of a straight line. Overall, learning activities in the second and third
meetings were similar to the activity at the first meeting.
The fourth meeting was held on Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 with an allocation for 3 x 40 minutes. Learning
materials at this meeting was to draw a graph of the equation and determine the straight line. Overall, learning activities
at the fourth meeting was not so different with learning activities at the previous meetings. In addition, at this meeting,
the teacher also informed the students that would be carried out tests on the material equation of a straight line.
Observation
The observations done in the form of observations toward implementation of the study, the results of students’
manner questionnaires and students’ test results. The results of the observation of the enforceability of the learning is
presented below:
TABLE 4. Implementation of cycle 1 learning
1st Cycle
Meeting Syntax
Teacher Student
Done 25 22
I 83,3% 73,3%
Not Done 5 8
Done 27 27
II 90% 90%
Not Done 3 3
Done 27 27
III 90% 90%
Not Done 3 3
Done 28 27
IV 93,3% 86,7%
Not Done 2 3
Average 89,16% 85,83%
Next, the result of students’ manner questionnaire toward math learning is presented below:

TABLE 5. The result of students’ manner questionnaire toward math learning in 1st cycle
Variabel Criteria Initial Condition
Very high 18,75%
High 37,50%
Students’ manner toward math
Middle 37,50%
learning
Low 6,25%
Very Low 0%
Average High 83,9%

050007-5
The results obtained from the analysis of post-test that is the average value of all the students gained 75.15 with the
presentation of classical completeness by 68.75% or as many as 10 students from 32 students in VIIIA who received
grades below 75.

Reflection

Based on observations, it appears that the results of the study in the first cycle relating to enforceability of the
activity of students and teachers, attitudes of students, knowledge, and skills of students in mathematics have not
reached the indicators of success yet. It was caused by the obstacles of learning, such as the lack of active students in
learning activities, difficulties of students in the learning process because it is unfamiliar, and the limitation of time.
To minimize these obstacles in the second cycle, then it is planned the improvements such as asking questions to
students who are less active, providing guidance and direction better, and learning time management according the
RPP.

Description of Action Implementation Cycle II

Planning

The planning stage of the second cycle is not different from the planning stage in the cycle I. However, the planning
is done by observing the reflection on the cycle I. Things are done at this stage is to determine the learning materials,
develop lesson plans, preparing worksheets and assignment sheets to create questions, preparing assessment
instruments, and composing observation sheet of learning implementation. Learning materials that are used in the
second cycle is the Pythagoras Theorem.

Action

Implementation of the second cycle is done in three meetings for 7 hours or 280 minutes. Implementation of the
learning is done by teacher adapted to the RPP, while the researcher conducted observations. Furthermore, in order to
be more effective learning, learning activities conducted by discussion in groups.
The first meeting was held on Monday, November 7, 2016 for 2 x 40 minutes. Learning material was the
Pythagoras theorem and the lengths of the sides of the triangle. The learning activities opened with greetings and pray,
and then proceed with preliminary activities such as providing motivation and apperception. In the main stage, the
teacher grouped students into groups of four students. Furthermore, each groups had a discussion to resolve the issues
presented on the worksheet. After that, several groups of students designated to present the results of their group
discussions in class and if the results of the discussion experiencing a mistake, the teacher fix it. When finished
discussing the worksheets, teacher shared assignment sheet to create questions. The task of making this issue done by
individuals and should not be the same because it emphasizes the students whether it is familiar with the material that
has been discussed. In this meeting, the teacher controlled the implementation of learning so that the allocation of time
for all the stages would be accomplished compared to the previous meeting. At the end, the learning activity ended
with a prayer, teacher and students, in advance, reflected the learning activities.
The second meeting was held on Wednesday, November 10th, 2016 for 3 x 40 minutes. Learning material at this
meeting was to determine the comparison and the long side of the particular right-angled triangles. Overall, learning
activities at the second meeting were similar to the activity at the first meeting.
The third meeting is the last meeting of the second cycle which was held on Monday, November 14th, 2016 for 3
x 40 minutes. Learning material at a meeting was the use of the Pythagoras theorem to solve problems. Overall,
learning activities at the third meeting were not different with learning activities at the first meeting and the second
meeting. In addition, at this meeting, the teacher also informed the students that would be carried out tests on the
material the Pythagoras Theorem.

050007-6
 Observation

The observations done is observation toward the enforceability of the study, the results of students’ manner
questionnaires and students’ test results. Following the result of observation of enforceability of learning in the second
cycle:

TABLE 6. The implementation of learning in Cycle II

2st Cycle
Meeting Syntax
Teacher Student
Done 28 26
I 93,3% 86,7%
Not Done 2 4
Done 28 27
II 93,3% 90%
Not Done 2 3
Done 29 29
III 96,7% 96,7%
Not Done 1 1
Average 94,44% 91,11%
Then, the result of students’ manner questionnaire toward mathematic learning is presented below:

TABLE 7. The result of students’ manner questionnaire toward mathematic learning in Cycle II
Variabel Criteria Initial Condition
Very High 31,25%
High 53,13%
Students’ manner toward
Middle 15,63%
mathematic learning
Low 0%
Very Low 0%
Average High 92,06%

The results obtained from the analysis of post-test show the average value from all students is 81.88% with
percentage of classical completeness is 78.13% or as much as 7 students from 32 students in VIIIA who received
grades below the KKM, 75. Therefore, generally, mathematics applying problem posing approach was able to
complete the main competencies of knowledge and skills of students due to classical completeness has already reached
the target of 75%.

Reflection

Based on observations, it appears that the enforceability of learning, both teacher and students, in cycle II has
achieved the success indicators. This can be achieved due to the obstacles in the first cycle can be solved so there are
improvements in the learning process. But even so, there are still some obstacles, as there are still some students who
are less active and the difficulties during the learning activities. Beside the implementation of learning, students'
attitudes toward learning mathematics in the second cycle also has achieved success indicators that has been decided.
The results obtained in the second cycle shows that the implementation of learning by problem posing approach
can improve students' attitudes toward learning mathematics after some improvements from the first cycle to the
second cycle. It can be concluded that the improvement actions in this study is enough and also it can be stopped.

DISCUSSION
Mathematics learning by applying problem posing approach that implemented in class VIIIA has been accordance
with the Learning Implementation Plan (RPP) prepared by researchers. Mathematics learning with problem posing
approach is one of many ways that was done by teachers in order to improve student attitudes toward mathematics
learning. The concept that presented can be adapted by the students by giving the opportunity to the students to arrange
their own problems and finish it.

050007-7
 From the results of this research, it can be seen that the questionnaire that measures students' attitudes toward
mathematics learning in cycle I has increased from 83.09 to 92.06 in cycle II of maximal score 125. Improvement
occurs in each category. For the category of highly skilled students from cycle I that is 18.75% to 31.25% in cycle II.
For the high category also increased from cycle I which initially 37.50% to 53.13% in cycle II. But in the category
results are down from 37.50% in the first cycle to 15.63% in cycle II, as well as in the low category of the cycle I is
6.25% to only 0% in cycle II.
There is also an increase for the average score of students on cognitive / skill variables. In the first cycle increased
by 6.73 from the score average of 75.15 in the first cycle increased to 81.88 in cycle II of a maximum score of 100. In
addition, in cycle I the percentage of students who achieved KKM score (above 75) has not reached the expected
target of 75% that is only reached 68.75%, while in cycle II the percentage has reached the target of 78.13%. Based
on the description can be concluded that students' attitudes toward learning and student achievement class VIIIA SMP
Negeri 3 Kalasan experience improvement from each cycle that is from cycle I to cycle II.
By judging from the observation of the implementation of learning, mathematics learning using problem posing
approach has been done well. The average percentage of observation results of the implementation of learning is
divided into two, namely from teachers and from students. The result of observation analysis of the implementation
of learning on teachers from 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 meetings in the first cycle was 83.3% and 90% and 90% and 93.3%
respectively with 89.16% average. While the result of observation analysis of student learning implementation from
meeting 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the first cycle is 73,3% and 90% and 90% and 90% with average reach 85,83% This result
have not reached The target set is ≥ 90%. In the second cycle has reached percentages above 90%, with the percentage
results in meetings 1 and 2 and 3 in teachers in a row is 93% and 93.3% and 96.7 with an average of 94.44%. While
the percentage results in meetings 1 and 2 and 3 in the students in a row is 86.7% and 90% and 96.7 with an average
reached 91.11%. So it can be concluded that the application of mathematics learning using problem posing approach
has been implemented well.

CONCLUSION
According to the results of this research and the discussions that have been outlined, the research concluded that
learning by applying problem posing approach for students in class VIIIA of SMPN 3 Kalasan 2016/2017 is able to
improve the learning process and improve the students' attitudes toward mathematics learning after several cycles.
The suggestions which is put forward in this research is problem posing approach can be used as an alternative learning
of mathematics to improve students' attitudes toward mathematics learning and improve the quality of learning.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Jailani who teach us to doing this research and Mr. Agus Supriyanto as the mathematics teacher at SMP N 3
Kalasan who wants to collaborated with us to doing this research.

REFERENCES
1. A. Suharsimi, Penelitian Tindakan Kelas (PT Bumi Aksara, Jakarta, 2012), pp. 33.
2. D. Hopkins, A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research Ed. 4 (McGraw Hill-Open University Press, New York,
2008), pp.51.
3. Khiat, A Grounded Theory Approach: Conceptions of Understanding in Engineering Mathematics Learning, The
Quantum report, Vol. 15, pp. 1459-1488 (2010).
4. L. Mohamed & H. Waheed, Secondary Students’attitude Towards Mathematics in a Selected School of Maldives,
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.1, pp. 277-281 (2011).
5. Marsigit, “Developing the Attitude and Creativity in Mathematics Eduaction,” in The International and The
Fourth National Conference on Mathematics (UNY, Yogyakarta, 2011), pp.1.
6. Mc. Cutcheon, ”Self Efficacy in Mathematics: Affective, Cognitive, and Conative Domain of Functioning
[electronic version]”, Proceedings of The 31th Annual Conference of The Mathematics Education Research grup
of australasia (MERGA) (Australia, 2008), pp. 507-513.
7. R. K. Gable, Instrument Development in Affective Domain (Kluwer-Nijhooff Publishing, Boston, 1986), pp. 2.
8. Suryosubroto. Proses Belajar Mengajar di Sekolah (PT Rineka Cipta, Jakarta, 2009), pp. 203.
9. Yaya S. Kusumah, “Model-Model Pembelajaran Matematika untuk Meningkatkan Kognitif dan Afektif Siswa
Sekolah Menengah”, in National Seminar of Mathematics Education (Department of Mathematics Education,
UNY, 2004), pp. 8

050007-8