Open Approach Implementation in Understanding the Concept of Flat Shape for Elementary Schools in Indonesia

Authors

  • Sridini Sopiani Yogyakarta State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53866/ijcar.v2i2.572

Keywords:

Open Approach, Flat Shape Concept, Elementary School, Qualitative Research

Abstract

This study explores the implementation of the open approach in teaching flat shapes to fourth-grade students in a public elementary school in Ciamis Regency, Indonesia. Using qualitative research, data were collected via classroom observations and question sheets, focusing on student engagement and comprehension before, during, and after the implementation. Results show significant improvement in understanding flat shapes, transitioning from rote memorization to deeper conceptual grasp. The study also highlighted increased student participation, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. Findings suggest the open approach effectively fosters a supportive and interactive learning environment, enhancing mathematical proficiency. The implications indicate that adopting the open approach can lead to better student outcomes in mathematical understanding and engagement, promoting a more effective learning experience.

References

Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., . . . Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.

Chaona, S., Inprasitha, M., Changsri, N., & Sangaroon, K. (2021). Mathematics educators’ perspective on pre-service mathematics teachers’ professional competencies. International Educational Research, 4(1), p55-p55.

Charmaz, K. (2020). Grounded theory: Main characteristics. Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences, 1, 195-222.

Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 17-40.

Chong, S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective. Assessment & evaluation in higher education.

Hatch, J. A. (2023). Doing qualitative research in education settings: State university of New York press.

Inprasitha, M. (2022). Lesson study and open approach development in Thailand: A longitudinal study. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 11(5), 1-15.

Inprasitha, M. (2023). Blended learning classroom model: a new extended teaching approach for new normal. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 12(4), 288-300.

Jain, P., & Rogers, M. (2019). Numeracy as Critical Thinking. Adults Learning Mathematics, 14(1), 23-33.

Laah-On, S., Inprasitha, M., Sangaroon, K., & Changsri, N. (2021). Using Classroom Video in Designing Open-ended Problem Situations. International Educational Research, 4(1), p46-p46.

Larweh, V. (2021). Using constructivist approach of teaching and learning to enhance the performance of form two students of Nifa Senior High School in area of quadrilaterals. University of Education Winneba,

Maharani, R. D., & Dasari, D. (2024). Numeracy Literacy Ability Viewed by Characteristics of Students' Way of Thinking. KnE Social Sciences, 633–641-633–641.

Manmai, T.-o., Inprasitha, M., & Changsri, N. (2021). Cognitive Aspects of Students' Mathematical Reasoning Habits: A Study on Utilizing Lesson Study and Open Approach. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 29(4).

Matsko, K. K., Ronfeldt, M., Nolan, H. G., Klugman, J., Reininger, M., & Brockman, S. L. (2020). Cooperating teacher as model and coach: What leads to student teachers’ perceptions of preparedness? Journal of teacher education, 71(1), 41-62.

Namboonrueang, N., & Woranetsudathip, N. (2023). The Innovative Lesson Study for Enhancing Grade 2 Students’ Multiplication Conception through Open Approach. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 3(3), 108-118.

Nasinsroy, J., Inprasitha, M., & Changsri, N. (2021). Synthesis of Research on Mathematical Thinking Development under the Lesson Study and Open Approach Context. Randwick International of Education and Linguistics Science Journal, 2(3), 296-306.

Peters, M. T., Förster, N., Hebbecker, K., Forthmann, B., & Souvignier, E. (2021). Effects of data-based

decision-making on low-performing readers in general education classrooms: Cumulative evidence from six intervention studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(5), 334-348.

Samphantakul, N., & Thinwiangthong, S. (2019). Mathematical Conceptual Understanding about Geometry of 8th Grade Students in Classroom Using Lesson Study and Open Approach with The Geometer’s Sketchpad. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2022). Why are learning and teaching mathematics so difficult? In Handbook of cognitive mathematics (pp. 1-35): Springer.

Seah, R., & Horne, M. (2019). A learning progression for geometric reasoning. In Researching and using progressions (Trajectories) in mathematics education (pp. 157-180): Brill.

Seah, R. T. K., & Horne, M. (2020). The influence of spatial reasoning on analysing about measurement situations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 365-386.

Sibaya, K. (2019). Designing a context-based strategy for teaching and learning of mathematics word problems. University of the Free State,

Simmons, O. E. (2022). Experiencing grounded theory: A comprehensive guide to learning, doing, mentoring, teaching, and applying grounded theory: Brown Walker Press.

Takahashi, A. (2021). Teaching mathematics through problem-solving: A pedagogical approach from Japan: Routledge.

Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact: John Wiley & Sons.

Vinner, S. (2020). Concept development in mathematics education. Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 123-127.

Winarti, D. W. (2021). Developing Indonesian Grade 8 Students' Spatial Ability to Support Mathematics Learning. University of Canberra.

Downloads

Published

2024-07-31