The Pedagogical Role of Verification in Supporting Mathematical Justification within the ACTIVER Learning Model

Sri Lestari; Kartono Kartono; Masrukan Masrukan; Emi Pujiastuti

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1963

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1963

Authors

Sri Lestari Universitas Negeri Semarang
Kartono Kartono Universitas negeri Semarang
Masrukan Masrukan Universitas Negeri Semarang
Emi Pujiastuti Universitas negeri Semarang

Keywords:

ACTIVER learning model, mathematical justification, mathematical reasoning, verification of understanding, vocational mathematics education

Abstract

Mathematical justification requires students to examine and defend mathematical claims rather than merely produce correct answers. However, vocational students often experience difficulty constructing defensible mathematical arguments, while verification may be limited to checking final answers. This study examines the pedagogical role of Verify Understanding within ACTIVER, a differentiated mathematical reasoning learning model developed using the ADDIE framework. The broader study was conducted from March 2025 to May 2026. The comparative implementation involved 216 Grade X vocational high school students across six intact classes and was delivered over eight meetings. Quantitative evidence included posttest achievement, mastery proportions, and normalized gain, while implementation evidence was examined in relation to predefined justification indicators. In the limited trial, the ACTIVER group achieved a higher posttest mean than the comparison group (83.86 vs. 64.39), t(70) = 17.232, p < .001, d = 4.06. In the broader trials, experimental means of 84.44 and 85.39 exceeded comparison means of 69.56 and 71.00, respectively (p < .001). Mastery proportions and learning gains consistently favored ACTIVER. Verification provided structured opportunities to examine evidence, respond to critique, and revise mathematical reasoning. Its contribution should nevertheless be interpreted within the integrated ACTIVER sequence rather than as an independently tested intervention.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

M. Niss and T. Højgaard, “Mathematical competencies revisited,” Educ. Stud. Math., 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9 Mathematical.

OECD, PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. 2023.

A. J. Stylianides, “Proof and proving in school mathematics,” J. Res. Math. Educ., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 289–321, 2007.

M. E. Staples, J. Bartlo, and E. Thanheiser, “The Journal of Mathematical Behavior Justification as a teaching and learning practice : Its ( potential ) multifacted role in middle grades mathematics classrooms,” J. Math. Behav., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 447–462, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.07.001.

E. Yackel and P. Cobb, “Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, And Autonomy In Mathematics,” J. Res. Math. Educ., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 458–477, 2011.

Y. A. Sarumaha and I. Rizkianto, “PROMOTING MATHEMATICAL JUSTIFICATION THROUGH,” J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 83–94, 2022.

A. T. Fatimah, P. Studi, P. Matematika, and U. G. Ciamis, “Mathematical Reasoning of Vocational High School Students on Mathematical Tasks in the Law of Demand Context,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 7, no. November, pp. 101–113, 2021.

D. Septi, N. Afifah, M. Syauqy, and M. I. Nafián, “Adaptive Reasoning Characteristics of Vocational School Students in Solving Mathematical Problems,” Al-Ishlah J. Pendidik., vol. 15, pp. 3028–3039, 2023, doi: 10.35445/alishlah.v15i3.3748.

R. T. Ronny, Harry D. Putra, and H. Hendriana, “Analysis Of Vocational School Student ’ S Mathematical Reasoning In Quadratic,” J. Innov. Math. Learn., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 145–152, 2024.

W. Widjaja, C. Vale, S. Herbert, E. Y. Loong, and L. A. Bragg, “Linking comparing and contrasting, generalising and justifying : a case study of primary students ’ levels of justifying,” Math. Educ. Res. J., 2020.

T. Öz and Z. Çİftcİ, “Mathematical Reasoning Activity : Compare, Generalize and Justify,” Necatibey Fac. Educ. Electron. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 291–323, 2024, doi: 10.17522/balikesirnef.1506921.

M. F. Mueller, “The co-construction of arguments by middle-school students,” J. Math. Behav., vol. 28, pp. 138–149, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.06.003.

J. Hiltunen, K. Jokiranta, S. Lehesvuori, and P. Nieminen, “Learning, Culture and Social Interaction Students ’ dialogic and justifying moves during dialogic argumentation in mathematics and physics ¨ hki o,” Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. J., vol. 33, no. August 2020, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2022.100608.

A. G. Uzun, “The development of mathematical argumentation : A case study on two mathematics classrooms,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, 2024.

J. Mata-pereira and J. Ponte, “Enhancing students ’ mathematical reasoning in the classroom : teacher actions facilitating generalization and justification,” Educ Stud Math, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10649-017-9773-4.

J. Mata-Pereira and J. P. Da Ponte, “Promoting Students’ Mathematical Reasoning: A design-based research,” Bolema - Math. Educ. Bull., vol. 32, no. 62, pp. 781–801, 2018, doi: 10.1590/1980-4415v32n62a02.

A. Mukuka, S. Balimuttajjo, and V. Mutarutinya, “Teacher efforts towards the development of students’ mathematical reasoning skills,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 4, p. e14789, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14789.

J. M. Francisco, “Teacher support of collective argumentation in mathematics classrooms : insights from an afterschool program,” J. Math. Teach. Educ., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 211–237, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10857-024-09651-5.

F. Bredow and C. Knipping, “Teacher actions that shape mathematical argumentation in the classroom,” J. Math. Teach. Educ., no. 0123456789, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10857-025-09728-9.

A. E. Smale-Jacobse, A. Meijer, M. Helms-Lorenz, and R. Maulana, “Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence,” Front. Psychol., vol. 10, no. November, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366.

M. Afifi, B. Setambah, M. Ikhwan, and M. Saad, “A comprehensive synthesis of differentiated instruction approaches in mathematics,” Int. J. Math Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 12, no. 4, 2025.

H. L. Roediger and J. D. Karpicke, “Test-Enhanced Learning Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention,” Psychol. Sci., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 249–255, 2006.

L. Anna and T. S. Csaba, “Investigating the efficacy of retrieval practice in university mathematics,” 2024.

R. M. Branch, Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Springer, New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_2438.

M. Marlina, R. Rohati, A. Kumalasari, and S. Winarni, “Levels of Mathematical Argumentation : An Analysis of Junior High School Students ’ Reasoning in Number Pattern Tasks,” J. Gen. Educ. Humanit., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2457–2468, 2026.

M. F. Mueller, “The Journal of Mathematical Behavior The co-construction of arguments by middle-school students,” J. Math. Behav., vol. 28, pp. 138–149, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.06.003.