214

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 214-228, March 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.3.12

The Effects of a Discovery Learning Module on

Geometry for Improving Students’ Mathematical
Reasoning Skills, Communication and
Self-Confidence

Nur Choiro Siregar, Roslinda Rosli* and Siti Mistima Maat

The National University of Malaysia
Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract. The aim of the study was to examine the effectiveness of the
Discovery Learning Module on Geometry (D-Geometry Module) in
improving reasoning skills, communication, and self-confidence in
mathematics among secondary school students. The research design was
a quasi-experimental with a non-equivalent control group with pre-test
and post-test design, where 128 students were grouped according to
gender and the group of the intervention as well as a traditional group.
Mathematical reasoning skills, communication, and self-confidence
instruments were administered towards the students involved. Two-way
MANOVA analysis showed that there was a main effect of the grouping.
The finding showed that the integration of learning theories and
discovery learning in Geometry could improve students’ reasoning,
mathematical communication, and self-confidence. Students’
engagement is more dominant through the Discovery Learning Module
rather than traditional learning. Therefore, the D-Geometry module
should be used as a teaching resource for teachers, students, and
curriculum-2013 (K-13) to facilitate classroom instruction.

Keywords: Discovery learning; Reasoning; Communication; Self-

confidence; Geometry

1. Introduction
Success in education is highly dependent on teachers as facilitators in delivering
learning materials. Besides, other factors of success are derived from the content
taught by teachers (Fyfe & Brown, 2020; Martin & Towers, 2015). According to
Bier, Sherblom, Berkowitz, and Coulter (2016), learning mathematic improves,
and confidence. Besides, mathematical education should be able to create students
who can apply mathematical concepts in their daily lives (Hansen, 2020).
However, most of the mathematics learning process that takes place in Indonesia

*Corresponding author: Roslinda Rosli, Email: roslinda@ukm.edu.my

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 215

inclines on mastering mathematical principles and lacks the connection between

mathematical lessons and daily life, which leads to the lack of emphasis on
thinking, communicates mathematically, and thinks mathematically (Siregar,
Rosli & Maat, 2019).

Mathematical reasoning skills, communication, and self-confidence are aspects

that students need to consider in the T&L mathematic process. Reasoning skills
are widely used in mathematics and one of the basics for success in other
disciplines and the basis for developing students' cognitive aspects (Barnes, 2019;
Dumas, Alexander & Grossnickle, 2013). On another note, mathematical
communication is a significant part of the mathematical learning process because,
through mathematical communication, students can explain and expand their
understanding and link between mathematical solutions and the arguments that
they studied (Tabach & Nachlieli, 2016). However, the results of previous studies
found out that math communication skills are not effectively implemented by
teachers. Therefore, the students are less likely to ask teachers questions if there
are unclear questions about topics (Goldhaber, Krieg & Theobald, 2020; Ryve,
Nilsson & Pettersson, 2013).

Teachers also said that students' mathematical values were still low due to their
low self-confidence, especially when expressing their opinions, as they did not
believe in the skills they had. Students' self-confidence was strongly influenced
by students' internal factors (Julaihi, Ying, Li & Bakri, 2020; Kleitman, Stankov,
Allwood, Young & Mak, 2012). Students who find themselves weak in math
subjects have low self-confidence and often lack the skills needed to complete
math tasks. Besides, the findings of Kleitman and Gibson (2011) show that
students' self-confidence is positively related to their mathematical reasoning and
communication.

One of the most challenging topics for many students is geometry (Adolphus,
2011; Suantoa, Zakaria & Maat, 2019). Geometry is a topic learned from
elementary school through secondary school. The subjects studied are cube,
prism, and pyramid that was taught in their secondary school in the second
semester. The geometry topic is the mathematical subjects that students were
challenging to understand (Hua, Tang, Sun & Han, 2019). The difficulty of
understanding students in the topic of geometry lies in the basic concepts and the
application of formulas in solving problems (Fonna & Mursalin, 2019). Students
are not allowed to practice reasoning, which makes them find it difficult to answer
complex questions and to propose solutions to mathematical problems. At the
same time, the constructivism theory also emphasizes meaningful teaching that
involves students of the teaching and learning (T&L) process. Some experts
encourage mathematical reasoning to be incorporated into the school curriculum
as it is widely used during the T&L process (Dumas et al., 2013; Edson, Phillips,
Slanger-Grant & Stewart, 2018). Therefore, given that students' mathematical
reasoning, self-confidence, and communication aspects play a critical role in
learning mathematical, researchers expect that skills should be embedded in the
T&L process (Bier et al., 2016).

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 216

Learning approaches that can improve student reasoning during the T&L process
at school are needed. There have been many teaching approaches to enhance
students’ quality in mathematics, including discovery learning. Discovery
learning is essential because it could help students to solve problems and make
mathematical conclusions, generate meaningful knowledge for students, actively
engage students in T&L, help process information to long-term memory levels
(Darkis, 2020). The general objective of this research is to examine of discovery
module geometry effect to improve secondary school students’ mathematical
reasoning skills, communication, and self-confidence. This study attempts to
answer the following questions :
a) To what extend is there an impact of a discovery learning module on geometry
towards students' mathematical reasoning by group and gender?
(b) To what extend is there an impact of a discovery learning module on geometry
towards student mathematical communication by group and gender?
(c) To what extend is there an impact of a discovery learning module on geometry
towards students' self-confidence by group and gender?
The research hypotheses are
(a) H01: There were no differences in mean scores of students' mathematical
reasoning by group and gender;
(b) H02: There were no differences in mean scores of students’ mathematical
communication by group and gender;
(c H03: There were no differences in mean scores of students' mathematical self-
confidence by group and gender.

1.1. Review of Literature

Curriculum-2013
Curriculum 2013 (K-13) is a construct that integrates two major frameworks of
student's competence and character (Wachidi, Rodgers & Tumanov, 2020). The
learning process implemented in K-13 is through a scientific approach. Scientific
approaches enable students to “discover” new knowledge through
experimentation (Ginting, Joebagio & Si, 2020). Therefore, this approach has a
significant relationship to the goal of education. The current curriculum situation
in Indonesia requires student engagement and active in the T&L. One of the
learning approaches adopted by Curriculum-2013 is to use the discovery
approach. Through a discovery approach, it is believed that a learning
environment that contributes to student activities in the T&L process will emerge.
One of the strengths of discovery learning is the model of learning in the
educational world, as this approach trains students to construct knowledge
during the learning process (Shofiyati, Retnoningsih & Ridlo, 2020).

Mathematical Reasoning Skills

Reasoning during the learning of mathematics can foster students' cognitive skills
in making mathematical hypotheses and thinking logically (Kılıç & Sağlam, 2013).
Reasoning ability is a benchmark of student intelligence that cannot be separated
from mathematical learning (Mayer, Sodian, Koerber & Schwippert, 2014).
Reasoning ability guides students to understand mathematics topic more deeply
and is a cornerstone of success in other subjects (Kılıç & Sağlam, 2013). The
principle of mathematical reasoning is to train students to relate one context of

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 217

mathematics topic to another during the T&L process. The aspects that can
develop students’ mathematical reasoning skills are the aspects that can improve
students’ mathematical reasoning skills are the process of identifying patterns,
hypothesizing, supportive arguments, and evaluating conclusions (Otten,
Gilbertson, Males & Clark, 2014). According to Ferguson, Maloney, Fugelsang,
and Risko (2015), low students' mathematical reasoning will influence students to
have high levels of math anxiety that, in which case would lead to their
mathematical learning ability, does not exist. Experts recommend that
mathematical reasoning be incorporated into the school curriculum and
implemented in the T&L process (Kaufmann, 2019). Therefore, learning
approaches and the role of teachers is crucial for developing student reasoning
during the T&L process.

Mathematical Communication
Mathematical communication is a vital part of the learning process (Diez-Palomar
& Olive, 2015). Developing mathematical communication skills require specific
standards that students want to achieve. According to NCTM (2014), the standard
aspects are: (a) organizing and integrating their mathematical thinking through
communication, (b) communicating their mathematical thinking logically and
either to teachers and other students, (c) analyzing and evaluating on the
thinking-strategies of solving mathematics by others and (d) using mathematical
language to convey mathematical ideas accurately. Through mathematical
communication, students would be able to discuss ideas, value friends' opinions,
expand their understanding, and the link between mathematical solutions and the
arguments used (Tabach & Nachlieli, 2016). The application of mathematical
communication in the T&L process can be critical and responsive (Diez-Palomar
& Olive, 2015). It is found that students are becoming less interested in asking
difficult questions to teachers, while the students were needed the guidance of
teachers to develop students' communication skills (Moschkovich, 2015).

Self-Confidence
Confidence in this context can be defined as faith in one's own ability to solve
mathematic materials and problems (Stankov, Kleitman & Jackson, 2015).
However, the lack of self-confidence in mathematic subjects among students is
higher than in other subjects (Stankov, Lee, Luo & Hogan, 2012). Students’ anxiety
over mathematic subjects is one of the factors contributing to their low confidence
(Kleitman & Gibson, 2011). Low confidence among high school students is a
problem that teachers pay less attention to. Be that as it may, if this condition is
ignored, it will negatively impact the students’ mathematical achievement in their
future (Humble & Dixon, 2017). Student mathematics achievement is influenced
by the student's self-confidence (Kleitman et al., 2012).

Impact of Gender
Gender also influences students' mathematical reasoning, communication, and
self-confidence. The results of previous studies show that male students are better
in terms of mathematical reasoning, communication, and self-confidence than
female students (Voyer, Voyer & Saint-Aubin, 2017). There are differences
between male and female students in the mathematical problem-solving process
(Murhayati et al., 2019; Voyer et al., 2017). Furthermore, the overall self-

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 218

confidence of female students has a negative average. However, some researchers

have found that the differences between male and female students are relatively
small in the mathematical learning process (Cho, 2017).

Discovery Learning
There have been many teaching approaches that tried to improve the quality of
students in mathematics, including discovery-based approaches (Siregar et al.,
2019). Discovery learning applied three theoretical learning in the T&L process,
such as cognitive, constructivism, and behaviorism (Siregar et al., 2019). Students’
involvement in their exploration is the application theory of constructivism. The
exploration process can actively affect students' cognitive processes. As a closing
T&L stage, each group tends to demonstrate the results of a mathematical solution
as a form of their understanding and skills that they possess. The application of
discovery learning ensures to improve intelligent and knowledgeable students.
Students finding solutions to their problems will lead to the improvement of their
self-confidence, communication skills, and academic achievement. This method
emphasizes the constructions, cognitions, and practices that would be associated
with their everyday life and, at the same time, ensures that the students have
innovative skills (Cetin-Dindar, 2016). Through discovery learning, students
would participate to the extent that they have a positive impact on developing
critical thinking skills, analyzing, and interpreting information (Edwards, 2015;
Majid & Majid, 2018).

Theoretical Framework
The discovery learning module is developed on three learning theories, namely
constructivism, cognitive, and behaviorism. The constructivism principles such as
(a) student-generated knowledge, (b) student-centered learning process, (c)
teacher role as facilitator, and (d) learning goals focused on non-final processes
(Bakar, Mukhtar & Khalid, 2019; Baroody, Clements & Sarama, 2019). Whereas,
cognitive learning theory relies on information processing theory and cognitive
load theory. Cognitive theory plays a significant role in helping students
understand mathematical reasoning, communication, and self-confidence.
Cognitive aspects are strongly related to students’ mental activity. These cognitive
aspects comprise six stages, including (a) knowledge, (b) understanding, (c)
application, (d) analysis, (e) synthesis, and (f) evaluation (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
Hill & Krathwohl, 1956). On the other hand, for behaviorism, learning is a change
in behavior as a result of the relationship between stimulus and response that
takes place in one’s life (Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp, 2013). Through this
module, students learn actively in constructing knowledge based on learning
experiences (Von Glaserfield, 1989; Norton & Alibali, 2018), and utilize their
cognitive ability to solve various mathematical problems.

2. Research Methodology
2.1 Research Design
The design used in this quasi-experimental study was the pre-test and post-tests
with non-equivalent groups. There are tests performed before the data were
collected. The actual experiments were conducted and then presented with the
results of the post-test (Rogers & Révész, 2020). This design was conducted

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 219

because, in this study, there were treatment classes and control classes (Cook,
Campell & Shadish, 2013). Measurements were collected at the same time for both
experimental (discovery module) and control (traditional) groups. The method of
data collection is through testing of three instruments, namely mathematical
reasoning and communication test, and self-confident questionnaire. The test
performed consists of several steps. Firstly, both groups (discovery module and
traditional) were given a pre-test. Secondly, the implementation of learning use
with the discovery module and traditional learning. The learning process and
components of the discovery module are based on the section in 2.3. Traditional
learning processes are (a) teachers conducting T&L processes, students
responding, and (b) teachers implementing assessments of students' responses
(Luguetti, Aranda, Nuñez Enriquez & Oliver, 2019). Lastly, both groups
performed the post-tests.

2.2 Participants
The procedure for selecting respondents in the study was through purposive
sampling for the chosen school. This technique is used to derive similarities from
the sample, the quality of the study participants was in terms of knowledge and
experience and the willingness of the participants to participate in the study
(Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The study involved 128 students in grade VIII
from secondary school (SMP) at Padangsidimpuan, Indonesia. The experimental
group consisted of 22 males and 42 females, while the control group consisted of
24 males and 40 females. The justification for the selection of SMP as respondents
in this study was due to (a) students from applying the K-13 with grade A and
less than 1-2 years, (b) grade 8, (c) classes consisting of male and female, and (d)
taught in geometry topics. Also, (e) the homogeneity of student groups in the
classroom, (f) the teacher experience more than four years, and (g) good
collaboration between teachers and school principals.

2.3 Classroom Instruction

There is a difference between the T&L of the D-Geometry process and the
traditional T&L process in class. In the D-Geometry process, teachers will focus
on four main components, such as (1) lesson plan, (2) teacher's book, (3) student
book, and (4) the student activity sheet. Table 1 below showed the T&L process in
D-Geometry. The implementation of traditional learning was carried out as
practiced in schools. Traditional learning methods are teaching methods that were
either delivered by the teacher directly to the student or teacher-centered, and the
T&L process presented by the teacher was passive and memorable. In the
traditional classroom, teachers will provide information related to the topic of
geometry and give students time to solve questions in the textbook (Lessani,
Yunus & Burn, 2017).

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 220

Table 1: The T&L process in D-Geometry

Steps of D-
Question Students Activities
Geometry

A rectangular prism- First: Prerequisite Prerequisite topics are the process of

shaped swimming pool, students' exploration and thinking
which base area is a activity.
trapezium. It is known
that the size of the Second: The process of identifying various
trapezium is 17 m, and problems is one of the ways students
Identifying find solutions to the topics they are
the length of one side is
problems learning.
three times the length of
the other side. If the sum
Third: Students can explore various sources
of the two sides of the
related to the topics.
same size is 32 m and the Planning and
depth of the pool is 2 m, collecting data
then (a) sketch the pool
and its dimensions; (b) Fourth: Students should analyze the data to
calculate the volume of support the finding that they have
water needed to fill the Analyzing data obtained.
pool to the full.
Fifth: The data process is the result of a
combination of the first until the
Processing data fourth steps that the student has
taken.

Sixth: The planning solution process is not

limited to specific forms of problem-
Planning solution solving. Students can take many
forms as long as the answers they
make are correct and follow the
appropriate mathematical concepts.
Seventh:
The argumentation is one of the best
Argumentation opportunities for students to share
different ideas and to build
knowledge.

Eighth: Identifying student errors and

making corrections based on
Assessing correcting analysis results are called
“assessing”.
Ninth: Students finding presentations in the
classroom is one of the forms of
Communicating communication carried out.
Tenth: Students will make conclusions and
receive feedback from the teacher.
Concluding

2.4 Data Collection, Analysis, and Tools

The instruments consist of three parts to measure (a) reasoning, (b) mathematical
communication, and (c) self-confidence. The mathematical reasoning and

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 221

communication parts contain five subjective questions aimed at measuring

students' mathematical reasoning and communication skills. The self-confidence
part is developed to determine students' level of self-confidence in learning
geometry using a Likert scale. The self-confidence instrument contains four
constructs consisting of 26 items. Valid instruments facilitate researchers in
obtaining correct, accurate, and reliable data. The inter-rater was calculated to
present the item analysis on mathematical reasoning and communication. This
study involved two teachers as inter-rater agreement or interrater reliability.
Thirty-two students participated in the test that satisfies the requirement for
Cohen’s Kappa calculations (Bujang & Baharum, 2017). Table 2 shows the analysis
result of the mathematical reasoning and communication instruments.

Table 2: Reliability of mathematical reasoning and communication instruments

Instrument Kappa Index Interpretation

Mathematical Reasoning 0.67 Good agreement

Mathematical Communication 0.66 Good agreement

The Kappa Index in Table 2 shows that mathematical reasoning and

communication questions are in good agreement and can be used in the actual
study, whereas the reliability coefficient of the self-confidence instrument
indicates that the self-confidence item is in the “High” category with a Cronbach
Alpha value of 0.86. Therefore, all items are reliable for use during the study.
The data collected through this study were analyzed descriptively and
inferentially using SPSS version 21.0 software. The inferential analysis is a
statistical inference based on data. The analysis was performed with Two-Way
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) because it had two factors, namely
group (D-Geometry and traditional) and gender (male and female). In the
MANOVA test, the independent variable is the factor (Pallant, 2016). The Two-
Way MANOVA test contains at least two independent data categories. Two-way
MANOVA was used to examine the effects on categorical variables (group and
gender) simultaneously on the mean scores of students. The results of this analysis
can provide information on students' mathematical reasoning, communication,
and self-confidence, based on the interaction effect. When the results show that
there is interaction, then it can be extended to see the "main effects" of each
independent variable. Before conducting the Two-Way MANOVA test, there are
underlying assumptions that must be satisfied. The first assumption is that the
dependent variable is measured at a continuous level, in which the data are in the
form of an interval or ratio scale of measurement (Aryadoust & Raquel, 2019).
Two categorical variables consist of two or more categories of categories (the
second assumption).

Independent observation can be explained as there is no relationship between

observations in each group, for the third assumption. The fourth assumption is to
detect the value of outliers. According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010),
when the sample size is > 80, then observations with a Z score of 3 or < -3 are
extreme outliers. The fifth assumption is the test of normality. This stage is to see

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 222

the normality of the distribution of reasoning test data, communication, and

confidence among the groups compared then the severity test was conducted. The
last assumption is the test of homogeneity. The Levene test was performed to
determine the relative variability of the variance. The variance values of the
dependent variables across all groups in the independent variables were similar.
The distributions had identical variation based on p-values for equal variances
assumed is higher than 0.05 (Pallant, 2016).

3. Research Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics serve as a means of collecting data and presenting useful
information. The mean values of the mathematical reasoning, communication,
and self-confidence scores of the students who experienced T&L using the D-
Geometry method are higher than that of students who experienced traditional
learning methods. The mean values T&L using D-Geometry method are higher
than traditional learning methods in reasoning (male, min = 79.31 and female, min
= 79.23), communication (male, min = 76.59 and female, min = 76.30), and self-
confidence (male, min = 81.40 and female, min = 81.40). Whereas, the value that
students participated in the traditional learning process is the reasoning (male,
min = 53.59 and female, min = 53.50), communication (male, min = 55.83 and
female, min = 55.62), and self-confidence (male, min = 65.79 and female, min =
65.57). Table 3 is the result of the Two-Way MANOVA test for all three variables
according to group and gender.

Table 3: Results of the multivariate test for the post data

Effect Pillai’s Trace F F0.05(3,128) p

Group 0.57 54.82 2.68 0.000

Gender 0.67 84.12 2.68 0.007

Group*Gender 0.06 2.83 2.68 0.041

The multivariate tests in Table 3 have shown that p = 0.041 (p < 0.05), which shows
that there was a statistically significant interactional effect based on the group.
There was no significant interactional effect between gender and group on
dependent variable F (3,128) = 2.83, p = .041; Pillai’s Trace = .065. Table 4 refers to
the results of the test of between-subjects effects.

Table 4: Results of the test of between-subjects effects

Effect Dependent Variable df F p

Group Mathematical Reasoning 1 43.63 0.00

Mathematical Communication 1 37.60 0.00

Self-confidence 1 67.77 0.00

Gender Mathematical Reasoning 1 8.11 0.07

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 223

Mathematical Communication 1 16.24 0.09

Self-confidence 1 0.69 0.40

Group*Gender Mathematical Reasoning 1 5.20 0.12

Mathematical Communication 1 1.10 0.29

Self-confidence 1 2.12 0.14

Table 4 showed that there was a main effect of grouping on students' reasoning,
communication, and self-confidence F (1,128) = 43.63; 37.60; 67.77, p < 0.001.
Therefore, indicates that there are significant differences in students' reasoning,
communication, and self-confidence between the control and experiment groups.
Furthermore, there was no main effect of students' reasoning, communication,
and self-confidence based on gender F (1,128) = 8.11; 16.24; 0.69, p < 0.05 and
group*gender F (1,128) = 5.20; 1.10; 2.12, p < 0.05.

3.1 Effects of Learning Discovery Module and Traditional on Students

Some of the positive impacts of using the D-Geometry module includes
encouraging students to develop skills in assessing, analyzing, drawing
conclusions, giving ideas, being creative, and thinking critically and actively. The
type of questions in the student activity sheet that teachers create can foster
reasoning, especially in terms of formulating mathematical solutions. The D-
Geometry Module can reduce anxiety and skepticism during the process of ideas
exchange. Each group member works together in generating ideas and making
excuses to find the best solution. This module helps students to link the
mathematical theory studied with their previous knowledge (Siregar et al., 2019).
Among the goals of mathematics education are aspects of mathematical
communication (Tabach & Nachlieli, 2016). The impact of the D-Geometry
Module on students' mathematical communication can be seen through (1) using
mathematical vocabulary, (2) improving understanding and thinking processes,
and (3) connecting between mathematical concepts (Kosko & Gao, 2015; Tabach
& Nachlieli, 2016). In-module questions encourage the active participation of
students in building knowledge to enhance their mathematical communication
and self-confidence. The principle of learning with the D-Geometry Module is that
teachers allow students to discover their problems in different ways. Each group
has the opportunity to present their work in front of all students, which will
encourage and foster their confidence (Charalambous, 2015). Students' self-
confidence positively affects their math skills (Bates, Kim, & Latham, 2011).

This module implements active participation between male and female students.
Therefore, there was no difference between male and female students for
mathematical reasoning, communication, and self-confidence levels. The result of
this study fits the conclusion of previous studies, in the case that it was inferred
that gender does not affect the students’ mathematical reasoning, communication,
and self-confidence (Lauer & Lourenco, 2016). The result exists because male
students and female students had the same experience in T&L. On another note,
both the male and female students have the assumption that mathematic is a

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 224

strenuous subject (Wolfe, 2019). However, there are differences in the T&L process
in schools that have traditionally adopted learning methods. In a typical
mathematics classroom, there is no active involvement of students in learning.
Utilizing a learning method with active student engagement has more positive
effects on learning outcomes than traditional (Borko, 2019). The traditional
teaching approach, usually a teacher provides information to students and is not
allowed to present ideas during the learning process. The teachers are active in
giving information about geometry without the active participation of students.
So, students are good at memorizing geometry concepts without understanding
concepts. Besides, students study individually without engaging the group.
Classroom centered around the teacher and each student sitting behind a separate
desk (Naseri, 2019).

4. Conclusion
A learning process that promotes active engagement among students can create
effective learning of skills in any subject area. Among the skills that the students
gained is fostering high-level thinking, creativity, and innovation. Teachers need
to take into account the teaching methods that students need to achieve their
learning goals. The T&L process implemented in the D-Geometry Module is direct
engagement through learning in small groups. Group learning can overcome
students' anxiety to learn mathematics. Also, this module encourages students to
undertake the construction of existing knowledge in mathematical T&L. The
results of the T&L with the D-Geometry Module have significant differences in
the aspect of mathematic scores. The scores of the students who experienced
learning with the module are higher than the scores of the students experiencing
traditional learning. For all three study variables, it was found that male students'
scores were the same as female students. The D-Geometry Module has a positive
impact on students' mathematical reasoning, communication, and self-
confidence. Therefore, this module is one of the alternative ways that teachers and
policymakers can utilize in the future. The implementation of the D-Geometry
Module in the process of learning mathematics is appropriate with the objectives
of K-13.

5. Recommendation
Future studies are recommended to use more participants from different regions
in Indonesia and increase the duration of the study to avoid bias in the study
results. In addition, future researchers are also advised to build more specific
questions on student activity sheets and integrate a discovery learning approach
into other difficult mathematics topics.

6. Implication
This study produced a discovery module on geometry topics in the form of
learning plans, teacher books, student books, and student activity sheets.
Therefore, this module can have implications for (a) learning theory, (b)
mathematics T&L practice, and (c) curriculum design of K-13 on mathematics
subjects. The learning theories of constructivism, cognitive, and behaviorism are
implemented in this module. Teachers only have as a facilitator in the T&L
process. Therefore, the source of information that students gain is no base on

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 225

teachers. Students should note the knowledge they have gained from various
sources. The K-13 draftsman implies that geometry topics can be integrated with
discovery methods to solve students' problems in learning mathematics.

7. Limitation
This study was conducted only for the secondary students (SMP) at
Padangsidimpuan that implemented the K-13 based teaching process. The
modules of the T&L process only use the discovery learning approach. The
discovery module is limited to geometry topics (cube, cube, prism, and pyramid).
The duration of the study was included as short as 6 weeks.

References
Adolphus, T. (2011). Problem of teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools
in rivers state, Nigeria. International Journal of Emerging Science, 1(2), 143-152.
Aryadoust, V., & Raquel, M. (2019). Quantitative data analysis for language assessment volume
I: Fundamental techniques. London: Routledge.
Bakar, M. A., Mukhtar, M., & Khalid, F. (2019). The development of a visual output
approach for programming via the application of cognitive load theory and
constructivism. (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications, 10(11), 305-312.
Barnes, A. (2019). Perseverance in mathematical reasoning: The role of children’s conative
focus in the productive interplay between cognition and affect. Research in
Mathematics Education, 1-24. doi:10.1080/14794802.2019.1590229
Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Teaching and learning mathematics
in early childhood programs. Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education, 329-
354.
Bates, A. B., Kim, J., & Latham, N. (2011). Linking pre-service teachers’ mathematics self-
efficacy and mathematics teaching efficacy to their mathematical performance.
School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 325-333.
Bier, M. C., Sherblom, S. A., Berkowitz, M. W., & Coulter, B. (2016). The ways character
strengths support K–8 mathematics and the common core state standards. Journal
of Character Education, 12(1), 35-53.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). The
taxonomy of educational objectives the classification of educational goals, handbook:
Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Borko, H. (2019). Learning trajectories in mathematics professional development. Learning
trajectories for teachers: Designing effective professional development for math
instruction. New York: Teacher College Press.
Cetin-Dindar, A. (2016). Student motivation in constructivist learning
environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2).
doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1399a
Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). Working at the intersection of teacher knowledge, teacher
beliefs, and teaching practice: A multiple-case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 18(5), 427-445. doi:10.1007/s10857-015-9318-7
Cho, S. Y. (2017). Gender and confidence-evidence from the PISA math test. Retrieved
from http://kea.ne.kr/conference-2017/download/S6-7-2_Seo-
Young%20Cho.pdf
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2013). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 226

Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darkis, J. M. (2020). Views and challenges in teaching mathematics of elementary teachers
in rural and urban school districts. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(4), 107-112.
doi:10.31838/jcr.07.04.19
Diez-Palomar, J., & Olive, J. C. (2015). Using dialogic talk to teach mathematics: The case
of interactive groups. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1299-1312.
doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0728-x
Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its
manifestations in the educational context: A systematic review of the literature.
Educational Pscyhology Review, 25(3), 391-427. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9224-4
Edson, A. J., Phillips, E., Slanger-Grant, Y., & Stewart, J. (2018). The arc of learning
framework: An ergonomic resource for design and enactment of problem-based
curriculum. International Journal of Educational Research, 1-12.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.020
Edwards, S. (2015). Active learning in the middle grades: This article offers examples of
developing students’ participation as a central tenet of ideal middle level
education that is intellectually active, socially active, and physically active. Middle
School Journal, 46(5), 26-32. doi:10.1080/00940771.2015.11461922
Ferguson, A. M., Maloney, E. A., Fugelsang, J., & Risko, E. F. (2015). On the relation
between math and spatial ability: The case of math anxiety. Learning and Individual
Differences, 39, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.007
Fonna, M., & Mursalin, M. (2019). Using of wingeom software in geometry learning to
improving the of mathematical representation ability. Malikussaleh Journal of
Mathematics Learning (MJML), 1(2), 40-43. doi:10.29103/mjml.v1i2.1174
Fyfe, E. R., & Brown, S. A. (2020). This is easy, you can do it! Feedback during mathematics
problem solving is more beneficial when students expect to succeed. Instructional
Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-019-09501-5
Ginting, A. S., Joebagio, H., & Si, C. D. (2020). A needs analysis of history learning model
to improve constructive thinking ability through scientific approach. International
Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 3(1), 13-18.
Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J. M., & Theobald, R. (2020). Exploring the impact of student
teaching apprenticeships on student achievement and mentor teachers. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1-22. doi:10.1080/19345747.2019.1698087
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hansen, R. (2020). The use of learning goals in mathematics education. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 1-13. doi:10.1080/00313831.2020.1739125
Hua, X., Tang, M., Sun, S., & Han, Z. (2019, January). Inquiry into mathematics teaching
in senior high school-taking “planar analytic geometry” as an example. In 3rd
International Seminar on Education Innovation and Economic Management (SEIEM
2018). Atlantis Press. doi:10.2991/seiem-18.2019.81
Humble, S., & Dixon, P. (2017). The effects of schooling, family and poverty on children’s
attainment, potential and confidence-evidence from kinondoni, dar es salaam,
Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 94-106.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.03.001
Julaihi, N. H., Ying, L. C., Li, V. L., & Bakri, S. R. A. (2020). Confidence level and self-
efficacy beliefs of mathematics teachers: evidence from Sarawak. International
Journal of Service Management and Sustainability, 4(2), 1-23.
doi:10.24191/ijsms.v4i2.8145

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 227

Kaufmann, O. T. (2019). Students’ reasoning on multiplication in primary school

classroom context. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 6-29.
doi:10.17583/redimat.2019.2822
Kılıç, D., & Sağlam, N. (2013). Students’ understanding of genetics concepts: the effect of
reasoning ability and learning approaches. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 63-
70. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.837402
Kleitman, S., & Gibson, J. (2011). Metacognitive beliefs, self-confidence and primary
learning environment of sixth grade students. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(6), 728-735.
Kleitman, S., Stankov, L., Allwood, C. M., Young, S., & Mak, K. K. L. (2012). Metacognitive
self-confidence in school-aged children. In Self-directed Learning Oriented
Assessments in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 139-153). Springer, Dordrecht. doi:10.1007/978-
94-007-4507-0_8
Kosko, K. W., & Gao, Y. (2015). Mathematical communication in state standards before the
common core. Educational Policy, 31(3), 275-302. doi:10.1177/0895904815595723
Lauer, J. E., & Lourenco, S. F. (2016). Spatial processing in infancy predicts both spatial
and mathematical aptitude in childhood. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1291-1298.
Lessani, A., Yunus, A., & Bakar, K. (2017). Comparison of new mathematics teaching
methods with traditional method. People: International Journal of Social Sciences,
3(2), 1285-1297. doi:10.20319/pijss.2017.32.12851297
Luguetti, C., Aranda, R., Nuñez Enriquez, O., & Oliver, K. L. (2019). Developing teachers’
pedagogical identities through a community of practice: Learning to sustain the
use of a student-centered inquiry as curriculum approach. Sport, Education and
Society, 24(8): 855-866.
Majid, N. A. A., & Majid, N. A. (2018). Augmented reality to promote guided discovery
learning for STEM learning. Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and
Information Technology, 8(4-2), 1494-1500.
Martin, L. C., & Towers, J. (2015). Growing mathematical understanding through
collective image making, collective image having, and collective property
noticing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 3-18. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-
9552-4
Mayer, D., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Schwippert, K. (2014). Scientific reasoning in
elementary school children: Assessment and relations with cognitive abilities.
Learning and Instruction, 29, 43-55. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.005
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective
instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices.
ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1067-1078. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0730-3
Murhayati, S., Hartono, Hertina, Yendra, R., Desvina, A. P., & Fudholi, A. (2019). Spatial
analysis for detect gender influence on score test English language and
mathematics subjects junior high school in Pekanbaru. International Journal of
Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 8(3), 204-208.
Naseri, E. (2019). Comparing the impact of audio-visual input enhancement on collocation
learning in traditional and mobile learning contexts. Applied Research on English
Language, 8(3): 383-422.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:
Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Norton, A., & Alibali, M. W. (2018). Constructing number: Merging perspectives from
psychology and mathematics education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.

 228

Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of
reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51-79. doi:10.1080/10986065.2014.857802
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows (version 12). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Rogers, J., & Révész, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. The
Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Ryve, A., Nilsson, P., & Pettersson, K. (2013). Analyzing effective communication in
mathematics group work: The role of visual mediators and technical
terms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(3), 497-514.
Shofiyati, A., Retnoningsih, A., & Ridlo, S. (2020). Development of learning modules
discovery learning models based on results of plant identification in school
environments. Journal of Innovative Science Education, 9(1), 19-27.
doi:10.15294/JISE.V8I1.32153
Siregar, N. C., Rosli, R., & Maat, S. M. (2019). Development of the D-geometry module
based on discovery learning. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development, 8(3), 99-109. doi:10.6007/IJARPED/v8-
i3/6290
Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2015). Measures of the trait of confidence.
In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs (pp. 158-189).
Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00007-3
Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. J. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of
academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learning and
Individual Differences, 22(6), 747-758. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013
Suantoa, E., Zakaria, E., & Maat, S. M. (2019). The development of the KARA module
based on experiential learning approaches in the threedimensional geometry
blocks topic for lower secondary school students. International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and Change, 7(11), 26-46.
Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Communicational perspectives on learning and
teaching mathematics: Prologue. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(3), 299-306.
doi: 10.1007/s10649-015-9638-7
Von Glaserfield, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In. Husen, T. and Postlewaite
(Ed.). International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S. D., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2017). Sex differences in visual-spatial working
memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 307-334.
doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1085-7
Wachidi, W., Rodgers, A., & Tumanov, D. Y. (2020). Professional competence
understanding level of elementary school in implementing curriculum 2013.
International Journal of Educational Review, 2(1), 99-105.
Wolfe, M. J. (2019). Smart girls traversing assemblages of gender and class in Australian
secondary mathematics classrooms. Gender and Education, 31(2), 205-221.
doi:10.1080/09540253.2017.1302078

©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.