Failures of Mathematical Creative Thinking in Solving Three-Variable Linear Equation Systems Viewed from Self-Regulation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v4i4.934

Authors

  • Rina Puspitasari Universitas Jambi
  • Nizlel Huda Universitas Jambi
  • Fiki Alghadari Universitas Jambi

Keywords:

Mathematical creative thingking, Learning failure, Self-regulation, SPLTV

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the failure of students’ mathematical creative thinking abilities in solving systems of linear equations in three variables (SPLTV) problems based on their level of self-regulation. Mathematical creative thinking is an essential higher-order skill, yet many students struggle to generate ideas, apply flexible strategies, and elaborate solutions when solving complex problems. This research employed a qualitative descriptive approach involving students categorized into high, medium, and low self-regulation levels. Data were collected through creative thinking tests, self-regulation questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The analysis focused on identifying patterns of failure across indicators of creative thinking, including fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The results indicate that students with low self-regulation tend to fail at planning problem-solving strategies, monitoring solution steps, and evaluating results, leading to incomplete or incorrect solutions. Students with moderate self-regulation partially fulfill creative thinking indicators, while those with high self-regulation demonstrate better control of their thinking processes, though some difficulties remain in originality and elaboration. These findings highlight the critical role of self-regulation in supporting students’ mathematical creative thinking and provide implications for designing instructional interventions to reduce learning failure in SPLTV topics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. Rafiqoh, “Arah Kecenderungan dan Isu Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Sesuai Pembelajaran Abad 21 Untuk Menghadapi revolusi industri 4.0,” J. MathEducation Nusant., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 58–73, 2020.

J. Simanjuntak, “Perkembangan Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika Di Indonesia,” Sepren, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 32–39, 2021, doi: 10.36655/sepren.v2i2.512.

A. Schleicher, PISA 2018 results: What Students Know AND Can Do, vol. I. 2018.

J. W. Pellegrino, M. L. Hilton, and D. D. Learning, Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. 2012.

S. R. Amelia and H. Pujiastuti, “Analisis Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematis Melalui Tugas Open-Ended,” J. Pembelajaran Mat. Inov., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 247–258, 2020, doi: 10.22460/jpmi.v3i3.247-258.

A. N. Aini, M. Mukhlis, A. M. Annizar, M. H. D. Jakaria, and D. D. Septiadi, “Creative thinking level of visual-spatial students on geometry HOTS problems,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1465, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1465/1/012054.

S. Suherman and T. Vidákovich, “Assessment of mathematical creative thinking: A systematic review,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 44, no. March, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101019.

E. Paul Torrance, “Torrance Tests Of Creative Thinking,” Scholast. Test. Serv..

L. S. Almeida, L. P. Prieto, M. Ferrando, E. Oliveira, and C. Ferrándiz, “Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: The question of its construct validity,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 53–58, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.003.

M. Fitrianawati and H. Hartono, “Perbandingan keefektifan PBL berseting TGT dan GI ditinjau dari prestasi belajar, kemampuan berpikir kreatif dan toleransi,” J. Ris. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2016, doi: 10.21831/jrpm.v3i1.9684.

H. Nufus et al., “Analyzing the students’ mathematical creative thinking ability in terms of self-regulated learning: How do we find what we are looking for?,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 3, p. e24871, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24871.

R. J. Fineldi and K. Hidayati, “Students’ difficulties: mathematical creative thinking skill questions based on habits of mind.,” J. Ris. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2023, doi: 10.21831/jrpm.v10i1.60001.

N. S. Rahmawati, M. Bernard, and P. Akbar, “Pada Materi Sistem Persamaan Linier Dua Variabel,” J. Educ., vol. 01, no. 02, pp. 344–352, 2018.

D. H. Jonassen and B. L. Grabowski, “Guilford’s Structure of the Intellect,” Handb. Individ. Differ. Learn. Instr., no. 630, pp. 87–96, 2020, doi: 10.4324/9780203052860-12.

G. Polya, How to Solve It Mathematical Method. 1973.

A. Sfard, “There Is More To Discourse Than Meets The Ears : Looking At Thinking As Communicating To Learn,” pp. 13–57, 2002.

R. Zazkis, P. Liljedahl, and N. Sinclair, “Lesson Plays : Planning Teaching Versus Teaching Planning,” vol. 1, no. 2006, pp. 39–46, 2009.

and B. F. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, Adding It Uo: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001.

B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner : An Overview,” vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 64–70, 2002.

B. Zimmerman, “Becoming Learner : Self-Regulated Overview,” vol. 41, no. 2, 2002.

P. R. Pintrich, “The Role Of Goal Orientation In Self-Regulated Leraning,” 2000.

F. Fattayati, M. Masrukan, and D. Dwijanto, “Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability and Self-Regulation Character of Class X Students in Problem Based Learning assisted by Google Classroom in terms of Goal Orientation,” vol. 10, no. 82, pp. 144–150, 2021.

J. W. Creswell and V. L. P. Clark, “Choosing a mixed methods design,” in Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2011, pp. 53–106.

R. E. Slavin, “Educational Psychology : Theory and Practice , Tenth Edition,” 2012, p. 608.

J. Saldana, Coding Manual For Qualitative Researches. 2013.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2025-12-31

How to Cite

[1]
R. Puspitasari, N. Huda, and F. Alghadari, “Failures of Mathematical Creative Thinking in Solving Three-Variable Linear Equation Systems Viewed from Self-Regulation”, J.Math.Instr.Soc.Res.Opin., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1517–1528, Dec. 2025.

Issue

Section

Articles