Research Article
Mathematic Creative Thinking Processes Through Mind-Mapping Based Aptitude Treatment Interaction Learning Model: A Mixed Method Study
Gunawan 
,
Kartono,
Wardono,
Iqbal Kharisudin
Article Metrics
Views
175
Downloads
426
Citations
Crossref
0
Gunawan, Kartono, Wardono, Kharisudin I. Mathematic creative thinking processes through mind-mapping based aptitude treatment interaction learning model: A mixed method study. . 2022;3(2):181-190. doi: 10.12973/ejmse.3.2.181
Gunawan, Kartono, Wardono, & Kharisudin, I. (2022). Mathematic creative thinking processes through mind-mapping based aptitude treatment interaction learning model: A mixed method study. European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 3(2), 181-190. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.3.2.181
Gunawan, Kartono, Wardono, and Iqbal Kharisudin. "Mathematic Creative Thinking Processes Through Mind-Mapping Based Aptitude Treatment Interaction Learning Model: A Mixed Method Study," European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education 3, no. 2 (2022): 181-190. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.3.2.181
Gunawan, Kartono, Wardono, & Kharisudin, 2022, 'Mathematic creative thinking processes through mind-mapping based aptitude treatment interaction learning model: A mixed method study', European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 181-190. Gunawan, et al. "Mathematic Creative Thinking Processes Through Mind-Mapping Based Aptitude Treatment Interaction Learning Model: A Mixed Method Study." European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, vol. 3, no. 2, 2022, pp. 181-190, https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.3.2.181.
Abstract
This study aims 1) to determine the effectiveness of the Mind-Mapping based Aptitude Treatment Interaction model towards creative thinking and 2) to explain the mathematical creative thinking process based on the creative level. The number of participants was 26 students who took the Multivariable Calculus course in the odd semester of 2020/2021. This research used the mixed-concurrent embedded method. The data collection techniques were validation, observation, creative thinking tests, and interviews. The results showed that 1) the Mind-Mapping based Aptitude Treatment Interaction model was effective in developing creative thinking, as indicated by the average creative thinking score of the experimental class, which was higher than the control class and 2) the characteristics of students mathematical creative thinking process varied following the creative thinking levels. The students mathematical creative thinking level consists of not creative (CTL 0), less creative (CTL 1), quite creative (CTL 2), creative (CTL 3), and very creative (CTL 4). Students at the CTL 2, CTL 3, and CTL 4 can meet the aspects of fluency, flexibility, and originality.
Keywords: Aptitude treatment interaction, creative thinking ability, mind mapping, Wallas creative thinking process.
References
Allen, A. P., & Thomas, K. (2011). A dual process account of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571183
Bacanlı, H., Dombaycı, M. A., Demir, M., & Tarhan, S. (2011). Quadruple thinking: Creative thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.065
Buzan, T. (1974). Use your head. BBC Books.
Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creativity gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-393
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1981). The peer review question. Science, 214(4527), 1294-1294. https://doi.org/jphm
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kaper, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellwood, S., Pallier, G., Snyder, A., & Gallate, J. (2009). The incubation effect: Hatching a solution? Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633368
Fuchs, L. S., Schumacher, R. F., Sterba, S. K., Long, J., Namkung, J., Malone, A., & Changas, P. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude–treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 499-514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034341
Geisinger, K. F. (2016). 21st century skills: What are they, and how do we assess them? Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209207
Hanum, O., & Johar, R. (2021). Students’ thinking process in solving higher-order thinking (HOT) problems through aptitude treatment interaction (ATI) learning model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882, Article 012086. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012086
Hines, M. E., Catalana, S. M., & Anderson, B. N. (2019). When learning sinks in: Using the incubation model of teaching to guide students through the creative thinking process. Gifted Child Today, 42(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518804858
Hwu, F., Pan, W., & Sun, S. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510381
Joao, I., & Silva, J. (2014). Concept mapping and mind mapping to lift the thinking skills of chemical engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(5), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i5.3538
Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4_3
King, R. G. (1982). A general systems model of the creative process. Gifted International, 1(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.1982.11672662
Leeds, A. J., Kudrowitz, B., & Kwon, J. (2019). Mapping associations: Exploring divergent thinking through mind mapping. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 7(12), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1463178
Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: Providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/d2gtg2
Mace, M., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_5
Maskur, R. (2020). The effectiveness of problem based learning and aptitude treatment interaction in improving mathematical creative thinking skills on curriculum 2013. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.375
Nuha, M. A., Waluya, S. B., & Junaedi, I. (2018). Mathematical creative process Wallas model in students problem posing with lesson study approach. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11236a
Pirayanti, N. M. (2012). Pengaruh penerapan model pembelajaran aptitude treatment interaction (ATI) terhadap hasil belajar TIK siswa kelas VIII SMP Laboratorium Undiksha Singaraja tahun ajaran 2011/2012 [The influence of application of aptitude treatment interaction (ATI) learning model on ICT learning outcomes of class VIII students of SMP Undiksha Singaraja Laboratory academic year 2011/2012]. KARMAPATI, 1(2),215–225. https://cutt.ly/w1L14mV
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Purba, E. P., Sinaga, B. M., & Surya, E. (2017). Analysis of the difficulties of the mathematical creative thinking process in the application of problem based learning model. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 104, 265–268. https://doi.org/10.2991/aisteel-17.2017.55
Ramdhani, I., Mariani, S., & Waluya, S. B. (2015). Keefektifan model PBL dengan mind map melalui hands on activity terhadap kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa [The effectiveness of PBL model with mind map through hands-on activity on students' creative thinking ability]. Unnes Journal of Mathematic Education, 4(2), 187–195. https://cutt.ly/h1L16Bl
Runco, M., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Wallas’ four-stage model of the creative process: More than meets the eye? Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.1087277
Sapp, T. L. B. (1991). An investigation of ethnicity, gender, and anxiety on the creative thinking abilities of Anglo and Mexican-American college students under conditions of cooperation and competition [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM, 29, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, development, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151
Siswono, T. Y. E. (2010). Leveling students’ creative thinking in solving and posing mathematical problem. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 1(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.1.1.794.17-40
Sitorus, J. (2016). Students’ creative thinking process stages: Implementation of realistic mathematics education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22(7), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007
Sitorus, J., Anas, N., & Waruhu, E. (2019). Creative thinking ability and cognitive knowledge: Big Five personality. Research and Evaluation in Education, 5(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.21831/reid.v5i2.22848
Sugiyono. (2015). Memahami penelitian kualitatif [Understanding qualitative research]. Alfabeta.
Syazali, M., Sari, N. R., Sukawati, S., Sari, W. R., Pertiwi, S. D., Putra, A., & Putra, F. G. (2019). Islamic-nuanced linear algebra module with problem-based learning approach for linear equation system material. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1155, Article 012097. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1155/1/012097
Van Hooijdonk, M., Mainhard, T., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Tartwijk, J. (2020). Creative problem solving in primary education: Exploring the role of fact finding, problem finding, and solution finding across tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, Article 100665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100665
Wadaani, M. R. (2015). Teaching for creativity as human development toward self-actualization: The essence of authentic learning and optimal growth for all students. Creative Education, 6(7), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.67067
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. Butler & Tunner LTD.
Welsh, G. S. (1973). Perspectives in the study of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1973.tb01095.x
Wulantina, E., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Riyadi, R. (2015). Proses berpikir kreatif siswa dalam pemecahan masalah matematika ditinjau dari kemampuan matematika pada siswa kelas X Mia SMA N 6 Surakarta [Creative thinking process of students in solving mathematical problems in terms of mathematical ability in class X Mia SMA N 6 Surakarta]. Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika, 3(6), 671–682. https://cutt.ly/S1L0yO3
Zip, G., & Maher, C. (2013). Prevalence of mind mapping as a teaching and learning strategy in physical therapy curricula. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(5), 21–32. https://cutt.ly/I1L0oaL
Zubaidah, S., Fuad, N. M., Mahanal, S., & Suarsini, E. (2017). Improving creative thinking skills of students through differentiated science inquiry integrated with mind map. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(4), 77–91. https://bit.ly/3iAtlmK
