Effect of Learning Strategies and Anxiety of Learning Mathematics
Dr.Ir.Rusmono
Jakarta State University
www.unj.ac.id
Jalan Rawamangun Muka Jakarta Timur, 13220
[email protected]
Descriptors for use in the index: problem based learning; math anxienty
Abstract
The research is intended to discover the effect of instructional strategies and math anxiety on learning outcomes in
mathematics. Factorial design 2 x 2 was employed in order to answer the research question how the effect of the
instructional strategies and math anxiety on learning outcomes in mathematics. It implies that there is no single
instructional strategy that gives better result on learning outcomes in mathematics for all students with the different
math anxieties. Based on this research findings mathematics vocational teachers in the field of technology and
industry should apply several instructional strategies to serve students with different math anxieties.
Introduction
Learning strategies that have been developed by a math teacher at SMK result in a contribution to the
extent of checking students' reception and interpretation of mathematical concepts and procedures, causing anxiety
on students, especially every time they do the tasks as well as will take the test. It appears that the role of learning
strategies in mathematics learning activities is importan. PBL learning strategy offers the freedom of students in the
learning process.The problem in this study were:
• Are there differences in learning outcomes between students who take mathematics learning strategy PBL with
students who take Expository learning strategy?,
• Are there differences in mathematics learning outcomes of students who have high levels of math anxiety
among the strategies followed by the PBL learning and teaching strategies that follow Expository?
• Are there differences in mathematics learning outcomes of students who have low levels of math anxiety among
which followed the PBL and learning strategy that follows Expository learning strategy?
• Is there an interaction effect between learning strategy and the level of mathematics anxiety on math learning
outcomes?
Methods
The research was conducted at the Central Jakarta SMK 39 semester 2008-2009 school year. The method
used is an experimental method with a 2x2 factorial design. The dependent variable in this study is a result of
students' mathematics learning. The independent variable is the treatment of learning strategies, which can be
divided into two groups, namely PBL as a learning strategy and the experimental group and Expository teaching
strategy as a control group. Intervention in the form of the independent variable is the variable attribute mathematics
anxiety.
Data collection used a test developed by math anxiety Gilani (2002:159) which has been tested again and the test
results to learn metematika. For hypothesis testing is done using Analysis of Variance technique (ANOVA)
followed by a two-lane Scheffe test '.
Results
Based on the analysis of data by ANOVA two lines of evidence point hypothesis in this study can be
explained in the following description. First, there are differences in the overall learning outcomes of students who
take math learning strategies with PBL higher mathematics achievement than students who take Expository learning
strategies. From the calculations, the average score for a group of students who take the PBL learning strategies of
183
24.12, while the group of students who take the Expository learning strategies have an average score of 21.90.
ANOVA calculation results indicate that the two pathways value Fh= 40.67 which was greater than the value of Ft =
3.91 for significance level α = 0.05 or (Fh > Ft). This means that H₀ rejected and H₁ accepted, so there is a
significant difference between the application of learning strategies with PBL with Expository learning strategies on
learning outcomes of mathematics. Scheffe test results' obtained at Ft = 41.07 and Fh = 2.70 at the significance level
α = 0.05. Turns Fh > Ft so that H₀ rejected and H₁ accepted. It can be concluded that, overall learning outcomes of
students who take math learning strategies with PBL higher than students who take the expository teaching
strategies.
Second, the results of the group of students learning mathematics with high math anxiety and learning
strategies followed by PBL has an average score of 25.68, while a group of students who have high math anxiety
and follow Expository learning strategies have an average score of 18.38. Scheffe test results' obtained at Fh =
197.37, while for α = 0.05 significance level of 2.80 and a significance level of 0.01 to 4.22 magnitude. It turned out
better value greater than the significance level of 0.05 and a significance level of 0.01, so H₀ rejected and H₁
accepted. Means for groups of students who have high math anxiety, students who take learning strategies with
learning outcomes PBL have higher math than students who take Expository learning strategies.
Third, mathematics learning outcomes for students who have low levels of math anxiety yangmengikuti
PBL learning strategies with lower than students who take Expository learning strategies. From the calculations, the
average score of the group of students who have low math anxiety and learning strategies followed by PBL has
amounted to 21.72, while the group of students who have math anxiety low and follow the expository instructional
strategies have an average score of 23.89. Based on Scheffe test 'was obtained for Fh = 18.84, while for the 0.05
significance level of 2.80 and a significance level of 0.01 to Ft = 4.22 magnitude. It turned out better value smaller
than the significance level of 0.05 and a significance level of 0.01, so H₀ accepted and H₁ rejected. Means for
groups of students who have low math anxiety, students who take learning strategies with learning outcomes PBL
had lower math than students who take Expository learning strategies
Fourth, there is an interaction effect between strategoi learning and math anxiety on math learning
outcomes. The test results show that the second hypothesis, the results of students' mathematics learning with high
math anxiety and learning strategies followed by PBL higher than students who had high math anxiety and learning
strategies Expository follow. The third hypothesis test results showed that students' mathematics learning outcomes
that have low math anxiety and learning strategies followed by PBL lower than students who had low math anxiety
and learning strategies Expository follow.
Results of the second and third hypothesis test indicates the interaction between learning strategy math
anxiety in their influence on mathematics learning outcomes. ANOVA calculation results confirm these indications,
because of the calculation obtained Fh= 176.99 which was higher than the value of Ft = 3.91 for significance level α
= 0.05 and also larger than the significance level Ft = 6.90 for α = 0.01 or Fh > Ft. This means that H₀ rejected and
H₁ accepted, so it can be concluded that, there is a highly significant interaction effect between learning strategies
and mathematics anxiety in their influence on mathematics learning outcomes. Interaction between learning
strategies and mathematics anxiety in their influence on mathematics learning outcomes are graphically shown in
Figure 1. below this.
184
Figure 1. Interaction between Learning Strategies and Mathematics Anxiety Impact
on Learning Outcomes in Mathematics
Findings
Testing the four hypotheses proposed in this study has yielded details of the test results the following
hypothesis. First, the results of the first hypothesis test has been successfully reject the null hypothesis that states
there is no difference in mathematics achievement between groups of students who take lessons with and PBL
learning strategies with groups of students who take Expository learning strategies. So overall there are differences
in mathematics achievement between students who take the PBL learning strategies with students who take
Expository learning strategy, ie learning outcomes of students who take math learning strategies with PBL higher
mathematics achievement than students who take Expository learning strategies. Second, the results of the second
hypothesis test successfully reject the null hypothesis that states there is no difference in students' mathematics
learning outcomes that have high math anxiety, among the group of students who take learning strategies with PBL
and the group of students who take Expository learning strategies. So that there are differences in mathematics
learning outcomes of students who have high levels of math anxiety among the following learning strategy with the
following PBL Expository learning strategy, ie learning outcomes of students who take math learning strategies with
PBL higher learning outcomes than students who take math learning strategies Expository. Third, the results of the
third hypothesis test successfully reject the null hypothesis that states there is no difference in students' mathematics
learning outcomes that have low math anxiety, among the group of students who take learning strategies with PBL
and the group of students who take Expository learning strategies. So that there are differences in mathematics
learning outcomes of students who have low levels of math anxiety among students who take learning strategy with
the following PBL Expository learning strategy, ie learning outcomes of students who take math learning strategies
with PBL inferior learning outcomes of students who take math learning strategies expository. Fourth, the results of
the fourth hypothesis testing has been successfully reject the null hypothesis that states there is no interaction
between PBL and learning strategies with math anxiety in their influence on mathematics learning outcomes. Thus
the fourth hypothesis test showed that there was an interaction between learning strategies and mathematics anxiety
in their influence on mathematics learning outcomes.
Limitations
First, SMK 39 Jakarta Students come from different economic backgrounds, family backgrounds, and
neighborhoods. The similarity of the characteristics of students still require further study. Second, control of
mathematical skills for research subjects only include the variable learning strategies and mathematics anxiety. The
results can be influenced by other variables outside the predefined variables in this study. Other variables, such as:
intelligence, interest, motivation, learning styles, learning environment, reasoning ability and others not controlled.
Third, this study also does not take into account the influence of early mathematical skills of students who became
the object of research, so it can not be known a gain score. Fourth, the mathematical material used in this study only
mathematics X class vocational courses electronics and technology industries, namely: matrices, linear
programming, and mathematical models fit the book Education Unit Level Curriculum (SBC) SMK 39 Jakarta in
2007.
Recommendations
1. Suggestions To Teachers
With the results of these studies as described earlier discussions, the SMK and the technology industry in
particular, it is recommended that:
a. Implementing learning using learning strategies with PBL as one of the alternatives in the learning of
mathematics. With learning strategy and PBL learning achievement of mathematics as a whole proved to be more
successful than Expository learning strategies. Learning strategies with more PBL allows terbelajarkannya
mathematics as a whole. In other words, students are actively involved in the learning process, practice solving
problems through discussions and access information from a variety of learning resources.
b. In designing and developing mathematical learning programs, teachers need to pay attention to the
characteristics of students who received math learning program. To students who have a high math anxiety would be
more appropriate if the following learning strategies with PBL, whereas for students who have low math anxiety is
more apt to follow the Expository learning strategies. To that end, teachers are expected to be more careful in
185
identifying the students' characteristics, the characteristics of the subject matter, and competencies to be achieved, in
order to select and implement learning strategies more appropriate mathematics.
c. Teachers, should strive to improve its ability to use learning strategies with PBL. This is because the
PBL learning strategy is relatively new and unfamiliar teachers use it.
d. Do the math student learning outcomes assessment and continuous continuously. Therefore, assessment
tools can be developed in the form of a test or non-test with a variety of in accordance with the characteristics of the
object being evaluated and the objectives to be achieved.
2. To the suggestion Principal
A process of innovation in the field of education, requiring innovation support system where it will be
applied. To support the process of change in the paradigm of teaching in schools in accordance with the demands of
science and technology development, the head of technology and industrial vocational schools are expected to
provide opportunities for teachers to undertake various reform efforts in learning mathematics, especially in
adopting strategies for learning with PBL as an alternative learning strategy mathematics in school. To implement
this decision, in addition to providing the opportunity for teachers, also need support from the principal and school
superintendent. Renewal process that occurs at the level of the class, will depend on the opportunities provided to
teachers to implement the learning process seriously, as a framework of overall achievement of learning objectives.
3. Advice To Other Researchers
Suggested to other researchers to develop further research related to mathematics learning strategy that is
more likely to improve students' mathematics learning outcomes, and assess other learning strategies as well as
taking into account the characteristics of student learning outcomes related to mathematics. In connection with that,
it is necessary to study the following matters: a) conduct another investigation by looking at the mathematics
learning outcomes not only in terms of content, but also in terms of process and mathematics attitude, b) control the
independent variables beyond the variables examined more closely, such as: initial test scores, student interest and
motivation, learning styles, ways of thinking, talent and intelligence, c) conducted a study on the re-location or a
different school levels, to determine whether the results of research conducted by the same research this, d)
custodian chose mathematics teacher with sex or different levels of education.
References
A, Anastasi and Urbina, S, Psychological Testing (7th-ed), NJ: Prentice Hall Engelwood Cliffs, 1997.
Abdurrahman, Mulyono, Education For Children learning disabilities, Jakarta: Publisher Rineka Copyright, 1999.
Anderson, W. Rin and David R. Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.., 2001.
Baron, Leora, Problem Based Learning, 2003, p.1. (Http://[email protected]/atresourcesttqt.html).
Barry, Kevin and Len King, Beginning Teaching, A Developmental Text for Effective Teaching, Wentworth Falls,
NSW: Social Science Press, 1994.
Bell, Frederick H, Teaching and Learning Mathematics (in Secondary Schools), Wm.C.Brown Company Publishers,
1978.
Betz, NE, Prevalence, Distribution and Correlates of Anxiety in College Student Mathematic. (Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 25 (5)., 1976
Christiansen, B. Lary. Experimental Methodology, Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 1988.
Cooper, James M. (ed.). Classroom Teaching Skills, Lexington: D.C. Healt and Company, 1990.
Ministry of Education, Dikmenjur, SMK Curriculum Edition, 2004, pp.6. 2004
(http://kurikulum.dikmenjur.net/produktif21_2004/MULTIMEDIA/index.html).
Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, James O.Carey, The Systematic Design of Instruction (Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers Inc, 2001.
Dorothy, Evensen., H Cindy E.Hmelo, Problem Based Learning A Vendor's Perspective on Learning Instructions
Research, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2000.
Gagne, RM, Briggs, LJ, & Wager, WW, Principles of Instructional design.4th ed, Orlando: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1992.
Henbree, Ray, "The Nature, Effects, and Relief of Mathematics Anxiety," Journal for research in Mathematics in ,
1990, Vol.21, No.1
Hudoyo, Herman, Teaching and Learning Mathematics, Jakarta: Directorate General of Higher PPLPTK
Department of Education, 1988.
186
Jailani, Math Anxiety Students, Survey on the State Universitas of Yogyakarta (2000). PPs-UNJ Dissertation, 2002.
James, W. Popham, Modern Educational Measurement, Los Angels: Prentice Hall, Inc.1981.
James W. Popham, Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to know, London: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
J.Duch, Barbara, Susan E. Groh, Deborah E, The Power of Problem-Based Learning. A Practical "How To" for
Teaching Endergraduate Course in Any Dicipline, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2001.
Kemp, Jerrold E.. The Instructional Design Process, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985.
Kisroi, Curriculum Vocational School (SMK) 39 Jakarta Foreign Expertise Adaptive Mathematics Syllabus of
Electronics Engineering, Jakarta: SMK 39 Jakarta, 2007.
Merrill, M.David, Instructional Design Theory, Englewoods Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1994.
Miarso, Yusufhadi. Menyemai Seed Technology Education, Jakarta: Pranada Media, 2004.
Nur, Mohamad, Problem Based Learning Model, Surabaya: LPMP PMPTK DG Education Ministry., 2006.
P.A.J, Bouhuijs., Schmidt, H.G., Van Berkel, H.J.M. Problem-Based Learning as an Educational Strategy,
Maastricht: Network Publications, 1993.
Panen, Paulin, et al, Constructivism in Learning, Jakarta: PAU PPAI EDUCATION Higher Education, 2001.
Pedazhur, Elazar J. and Lora Pedazhur Schmelkin, Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Publishers, 1991.
Plomp, Tjeerd and Donald P.Ely, Instructional Encyclopedia of Educational Technology, Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Romberg, TA, Problematics Features of the School Mathematics Curriculum, in J Philip (Ed.). Handbook of
Research on Curriculum, New York: A Project of the American Educational Research Association, 1992.
Romizowsky, AJ, Designing Instructional Systems, Decision Making in Palanning Course and
Curriculum
Design, London: Kagan Page Ltd., 1981.
Ronald C., Johnson, & Medinnus, Gene R, Child Psychology Behavior and Development, Canada: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.., 1974.
Romizowski, AJ, Producing Instructional System, Lesson Planning for Individualized and Group Learning
Activities, London: Kogan Page Ltd, 1984.
Sanjaya, Vienna, Standard Process Oriented Learning Strategies Education, (New York: Kencana Prenada Media
Group, 2008)
Seels, Barbara B. and Rita C. Richey, Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of theField,
Washington DC:. AECT, 1994.
Snelbecker, Gleen E., Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design, New York: McGrawHill, 1974.
Smith, Patricia L. and Tillman J Ragan. Intructional Design, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.
Soekamto, Toeti, Instructional Systems Design and Development, Jakarta: Intermedia, 1993.
Sondakh, Angelina, 2006. Tabel 1 Development Studies International Mathematics and Science in 2003 (Trends in
International Maths and Science Study/TIMMS 2003). (Http://www.angelina
sondakh.com/Articles/Education /HomeSchooling/Perpustakaan01.doc).
Suparman, Atwi, Instructional Design, Jakarta: PAU-PPAI, 1993.
187