Mathematical Creative Thinking and Differences in Students' Cognitive Styles in Learning Achievement: A Systematic Literature Review

Supratman Supratman; Deti Sri Rahayu Deti; La Ode Sirad Sirad

doi:10.31004/cendekia.v8i2.3273

Supratman Supratman Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka
Deti Sri Rahayu Deti Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka
La Ode Sirad Sirad Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v8i2.3273

Keywords: Creative Mathematical Thinking, Cognitive Style, Field Dependent (FD), Field Independent (FI)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explain how students' varied cognitive styles and the outcomes of their mathematical creative thinking interact. The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method. To find, examine, assess, and interpret all of the research that is currently available on the topic of interest, the SLR technique is employed. All publications pertaining to mathematical creative thinking and cognitive style in student learning achievement are compiled and reviewed in order to gather data. The international journals used were 5 which only focused on Scopus. The results showed that creative thinking can be strengthened in the science curriculum, but empirical evidence supporting the relationship between the two is still limited, but examining the predictive value of creative thinking (divergent and convergent thinking) for scientific reasoning, while considering task specificity and academic achievement, various aspects of divergent thinking (i.e. fluency, flexibility, and originality) benefit from different types of support. Students' fluency scores increased under the full support condition, but decreased in the other two conditions, the FI group had lower and more efficient cognitive load than the FD group. The effect of information load on cognitive load follows a piecewise linear correlation with two prominent nodes, field dependence-independence (FDI) can affect academic performance, selective attention, and working memory. However, the underlying mechanisms of how FDI modulates selective attention and working memory remain unclear, field independence (FDI) may affect academic performance, selective attention, and working memory. However, the underlying mechanism of how FDI modulates selective attention and working memory remains unclear and field-independent students produced better learning achievement but field-dependent students showed higher frustration tolerance, low-ability students experienced more significant improvement than high-ability students. Low ability students also showed higher frustration tolerance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Almolhodaei, H. (2002). Students’ Cognitive style and Mathematical Word Problem Solving. In Korean Society of Mathematical Education (Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 171–182). https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO200211921431195.pdf

Bolden, D. S., Harries, T. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ conceptions of creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9207-z

Craft, A. (2003). Creative thinking in the early years of education. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140303105

Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. Lou, & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in
second language learning11The content of this article does not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of State; the observations and opinions are those of the author. System, 31(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00045-9

Elgrably, H., & Leikin, R. (2021). Creativity as a function of problem-solving expertise: posing new problems through investigations. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 53(4), 891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01228-3

Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Tam, K.-P., Lai, Y.-H., & Liu, L.-C. (2012). Effects of cognitive style on digital jigsaw puzzle performance: A GridWare analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 920–928. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.012

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

Ke, J., Liao, P., Li, J., & Luo, X. (2023). Effect of information load and cognitive style on cognitive load of visualized dashboards for construction-related activities. Automation in Construction, 154, 105029. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.105029

Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Brereton, O. P., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 52(8), 792–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006

Leikin, R., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2013). Creativity and mathematics education: The state of the art. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0459-1

Li, H., Zhang, Y., Wu, C., & Mei, D. (2016). Effects of Field Dependence-Independence and Frame of Reference on Navigation Performance Using Multi-dimensional Electronic Maps. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 289–299. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.078

Ling, C., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Effect of evaluators’ cognitive style on heuristic evaluation: Field dependent and field independent evaluators. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.11.002

Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264

Meguro, Y. (2020). The effects of individual differences in field dependence/independence and analogical reasoning for L2 instruction. System, 94, 102296. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102296

Sriraman, B. (2005). Are Giftedness and Creativity Synonyms in Mathematics? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
Van Hooijdonk, M., Mainhard, T., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2023). Creative problem solving in primary school students. Learning and Instruction, 88, 101823. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101823

Wang, X. (2017). The Enlightenment of Cognitive Style Differences between Field Dependent and Field Independent Mode on College English Teaching. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 5(6), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0506004

Willemsen, R. H., de Vink, I. C., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Lazonder, A. W. (2023). The role of creative thinking in children’s scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101375. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101375