Improving Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability Ahrough Numeracy-Based Quizzes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47239/k9fjdw07Keywords:
contextual problems, formative assessment, linear programming, numeracy, problem solvingAbstract
Numeracy enables learners to access, interpret, use, and communicate mathematical information in meaningful contexts. This study examined the achievement pattern of contextual problem-solving quizzes in Grade XI mathematics, specifically linear programming. A descriptive qualitative design involved 36 students of Class XI MIPA 4 at SMA Negeri 1 Gresik during the 2021/2022 academic year. Data were collected through four numeracy-based quizzes and interviews. The quizzes consisted of contextual constructed-response tasks analyzed using four problem-solving indicators: understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back. Mean scores were 8.34 for Quiz 1, 8.72 for Quiz 2, 8.66 for Quiz 3, and 8.91 for Quiz 4. The overall pattern therefore increased from the first to the fourth quiz, although a slight decline occurred in Quiz 3. Interview evidence indicated that inaccuracies in drawing the feasible region contributed to some lower scores. The findings suggest that repeated contextual quizzes can provide formative opportunities for students to articulate mathematical models, select solution strategies, execute procedures, and verify results. Because the study used one class without a comparison group, the score pattern should be interpreted descriptively rather than as causal evidence. Numeracy-oriented contextual quizzes can be used as a practical classroom assessment strategy to strengthen problem-solving habits in linear programming.
References
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 73–96). Springer.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3
Gal, I., Grotlüschen, A., Tout, D., & Kaiser, G. (2020). Numeracy, adult education, and vulnerable adults: A critical view of a neglected field. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 52, 377–394.
Geiger, V., Goos, M., & Forgasz, H. (2015). A rich interpretation of numeracy for the 21st century: A survey of the state of the field. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 47, 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0708-1
Geiger, V., Goos, M., Dole, S., Forgasz, H., & Bennison, A. (2018). Exploring the demands and opportunities for numeracy in the Australian Curriculum: English. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30, 305–327.
Grotlüschen, A., Buddeberg, K., Redmer, A., Ansen, H., & Dannath, J. (2020). Vulnerable subgroups and numeracy practices: How poverty, debt, and unemployment relate to everyday numeracy practices. Adult Education Quarterly, 70(3), 251–270.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age.
Hoogland, K., Diez-Palomar, J., O’Meara, N., & Pepin, B. (2018). The relation between numeracy and mathematics: A conceptual analysis. Adults Learning Mathematics, 13(1), 5–20.
Jablonka, E. (2015). The evolvement of numeracy and mathematical literacy curricula and the construction of hierarchies of numerate or mathematically literate subjects. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 47, 599–609.
Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38, 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652813
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
Liljedahl, P., Santos-Trigo, M., Malaspina, U., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem solving in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40730-2
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. Frontiers in Education, 6, 720195. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.720195
Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en
Ott, N., Brünken, R., Vogel, M., & Malone, S. (2018). Multiple symbolic representations: The combination of formula and text supports problem solving in the mathematical field of propositional logic. Learning and Instruction, 58, 88–105.
Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2018). Transfer of test-enhanced learning: Meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(7), 710–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000151
Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45, 13–31.
Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Rakoczy, K., Pinger, P., Hochweber, J., Klieme, E., Schütze, B., & Besser, M. (2019). Formative assessment in mathematics: Mediated by feedback’s perceived usefulness and students’ self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 60, 154–165.
Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 717–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rott, B. (2020). Teachers’ behaviors, epistemological beliefs, and their interplay in lessons on the topic of problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 903–924.
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.
Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stillman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: A survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 50, 5–18.
Stacey, K. (2015). The international assessment of mathematical literacy: PISA 2012 framework and items. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 771–790). Springer.
Stillman, G. A., Brown, J. P., & Galbraith, P. L. (2015). Identifying challenges within transition phases of mathematical modeling activities at year 9. In G. A. Stillman et al. (Eds.), Mathematical Modelling in Education Research and Practice (pp. 385–398). Springer.
Tout, D. (2020). Evolution of adult numeracy from quantitative literacy to numeracy: Lessons learned from international assessments. International Review of Education, 66, 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09831-4
Tout, D., Gal, I., & Schmitt, M. J. (2021). PIAAC numeracy: A conceptual framework. OECD Education Working Papers.
Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 52, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Yang, C., Luo, L., Vadillo, M. A., Yu, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2021). Testing (quizzing) boosts classroom learning: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), 399–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309
Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 609–626.
Cai, J., & Lester, F. K. (2010). Why is teaching with problem solving important to student learning? National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001281
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Niss, M., & Højgaard, T. (2019). Mathematical competencies revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Risa Utaminingsih (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
