Effect Learning Assisted GeoGebra Against Creative Thinking Ability

(Quasi Experimental Study On Students A junior high schools in Jakarta)

Risqi Rahman
Prof.Dr.Hamka Muhammadiyah University, Indonesia
risqirahman@yahoo.co.id

ABSTRACT
This study aims to examine and describe the influence of GeoGebra Assisted learning to
creative thinking skills, increased ability to think creatively. The design of this study was the
experimental group with a control group pretest and Postes. The experimental group
obtained GeoGebra Assisted learning and conventional learning groups gain control. To
obtain research data used in the form of test instruments the ability to think creatively. The
study population was all students SMPNegeri 13 Jakarta with a sample of class VII student
research as much as two classes selected purposively. Data analysis was carried out
quantitatively. Quantitative analysis performed on data normalized Postes and gain the ability
to think creatively between the two groups of test samples by using mean difference in the
two populations. The instruments are used as much as 12 questions testing the ability to think
creatively. In a trial calculation using the program Anates instruments and statistical
calculations using SPSS 17. To find the difference in the average used t-test. The results
showed that creative thinking abilities of students receiving GeoGebra Assisted learning
better than students who received conventional learning.
Key words: GeoGebra Assisted Learning, Creative Thinking Ability.

A. Background
Learning math has a function as a means to develop critical thinking skills, logical, creative,
and students working together are necessary in modern life. Competence is needed so that
learners can have the ability to acquire, manage, and utilize the information to survive in the
ever-changing circumstances, uncertain, and competitive (Minister of National Education
Regulation number. 22 2006 on content standards).Therefore, learning mathematics has an
important contribution to the development of creative thinking ability in each individual
student in order to become qualified human resources.
The low ability of creative thinking can also have implications for students' low
achievement. According Wahyudin (2000: 223) among the causes of low student
achievement in math is a learning process that is not optimal. In the learning process itself is
generally busy teacher to explain anything that has been prepared. Likewise, students busy
themselves to be the recipient of good information. As a result, students are just copying what
the teacher, without meaning and understanding in resolving problems so that students think
enough is done as the example. This causes the students lack the ability to solve problems
with other alternatives can be caused because students lack the ability of flexibility is a major

component of creative thinking abilities. The evidence suggests a lack of attention to creative
thinking skills in mathematics and its implications, thus it is necessary to give more attention
to this capability in teaching mathematics at this time.
Various learning techniques have been developed by practitioners and educational researchers
in an effort to overcome and eliminate problems that occur in the field of education. In an
effort to improve the ability to think creatively, we need a way of learning and an
environment conducive to the development of such capabilities. So that learning can
stimulate students to learn independently, creatively, and more active in participating in
learning activities. One of the techniques of learning that can be used in learning mathematics
that gives opportunity for students to learn creative, and more active learning technique is to
use computer technology in which there is a program GeoGebra so expect that the ability to
think creatively and math students can be shown to increase.
There are several considerations regarding the use of dynamic geometry
software like GeoGebra in teaching mathematics, especially geometry. According to David
Wees (2009) GeoGebra allows students to be active in building an understanding of
geometry. This program allows simple visualization of complex geometric concepts and
helps increase students' understanding of the concept. When students usedynamic geometry
software like GeoGebra, they will always always end up with a deeper understanding on the
material geometry (putz, 2001) this may occur because students are given a powerful visual
representation of the object geometry, in which students engage in activities to construct so
leads to a deep understanding of geometry.
By using GeoGebra students can construct points, vectors, segments, lines, functions and
others can then help students to visualize the shape flat and rectangular in more detail the
measures that affect students' ability to think creatively Therefore the authors propose a study
by Title: Effect of GeoGebra Against Assisted Learning Creative Thinking Ability Students

B. Research purposes
In general, this study aims to determine whether or not there is influence-assisted learning
program on the ability to think creatively GeoGebra math students.

C. Operational definitions
Mathematical ability is the ability to think creatively in mathematics that includes the four
skills are: fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. Smoothness is the ability to
correctly answer a mathematical problem. Flexibility is the ability to answer math problems,
in ways that are not standard. Authenticity is the ability to answer math problems by using
language, manner, or her own idea. Elaboration is the ability to expand the answer to the
problem, raises new problems or new ideas
GeoGebra is aided learning program that starts with the setting up of learning material
relevant to the concept to be learned and the learning that students work in groups with
teachers as facilitators. In this lesson students use computer tools in which there is a
program GeoGebra.

D. STUDY REFERENCES
1. Creative thinking abilities of Mathematical
In brief, creative thinking can be said to be a pattern of thinking that is based on a way that
encourages us to produce creative products. There are still a lot of definitions related to
creativity, but in essence there are similarities between these definitions, namely the ability to
think creatively is a person's ability to give birth to something new, whether it be ideas or
works that are relatively different from what has gone before. The novelty here is not
necessarily the results / new creation that really even though the end result might appear as
something new, but can be a result of merging two or more concepts that already exist.
Various definitions contained within the meaning of the term berakaitan with creativity or
creative thinking. The term creativity is sometimes not distinguished in terms of creative
thinking. According Munandar (2004:37) states that creative thinking is also called divergent
thinking or the opposite of convergent thinking. Divergent thinking is thought to provide a
variety of possible answers or ways to correct a problem based on information supplied with
an emphasis on the number and suitability. Meanwhile, convergent thinking that is thought to
give an answer to a problem based on the information provided.
Results that emerged from that creative thinking is really a new thing for the student in
question and is something different than he usually did. To achieve this one must do
something about the problems faced, and not stay silent waiting. Evans (1991:98) argues that
creative thinking is detected in the four elements, namely:
Kepakaan (Sensitivity), Fluency (Fluency), Flexibility (Flexibility), and
Authenticity (Originality).
With regard to sensitivity, smoothness, flexibility, and originality in the thought process that
gave birth to the idea of (creative) the existence of an action is deemed necessary to fix up
and organize well, organized, and detail what has been dihasikan. This needs to be
implemented so that students do not miss the opportunity in an atmosphere of learning,
especially before students had time to forget the good ideas. Regular and detailed
arrangement opens up opportunities for him at any time to repeat or re-read and menkaji
lessons and what students produce. Guilford find the properties that characterize the ability to
think creatively, namely
fluency (Fluency), flexibility (flexibility), authenticity (Originality), decomposition (elaborati
on) and the reformulation of (redefinition). (Supriadi, 1997: 7).
According Utami Munandar redefinition requires the ability to stop the old interpretation of
the objects that have been known in order to use it or parts thereof in some new
way. Meanwhile, according to Williams that the abilities associated with creative thinking
ability is there are eight, four of the cognitive and affective four of the realm. Here are four of
the cognitive ability to fully cited by Williams as follows namely Thinking lancer, flexible
thinking, Original, and Detailed
Still there are some features the ability to think creatively put forward by experts in that
field. However, from some of the traits expressed in essence more perasamaan. From some of
the characteristics of creative thinking skills that have been disclosed by Williams was clear

and detailed. Therefore, the authors use the features the ability to think creatively put forward
by Williams as the characteristics of creative thinking skills developed by AMFITIL in this
study.

2. GeoGebra Program
GeoGebra is a software developed by Markus Hohenwarter. Computer programs that are
dynamic and interactive way to support learning and solving math problems, especially
geometry, algebra, and calculus. As a dynamic geometry system, the GeoGebra construction
can be done with points, vectors, segments, lines, conic sections, functions.
GeoGebra program helps us who want to study the geometry
construction. With GeoGebra we can construct a variety of geometry (dimension 2) and the
relationship between them. GeoGebra available on the program to draw the menu, ranging
from drawing to drawing lines between the circles and lines of conflict. Although it looks
simple because of the many menu options, but for mengkonstruk pictures were not simple
because we still have to think barbagai kinds of geometry concepts.

E. RESEARCH METHOD
1. Design research
This study is a quasi-experiment. In this quasi-experimental subjects are not grouped at
random, but the researchers received a state subject it is. Use of the design is done with the
consideration that, there are classes that have been formed before, so it is not done anymore
grouping randomly.
The study was conducted on students from two classes that have the ability equivalent to
learning a different approach. The first group was administered with a computer learning
program GeoGebra. The first group is the experimental group, while the second group was a
control group receiving conventional learning
Shaped design on this research:
The experimental group O X O
The control group O - O
Description:
X: Learning-assisted program GeoGebra
O: Tests are given to determine the ability of the students (pretest = Postes)

2. Research Subjects
Research carried out in SMP Negeri 13 Jakarta. The study population was all students of
SMP Negeri 13 Jakarta school year 2009/2010. Affordable population in this study is the VII

grade students of SMP Negeri 13 Jakarta. two classes were randomly selected from the
population sampled affordable for research. Because the study design using the design of
"Non-Equivalent Control Group", then the determination of the samples was done by using
"purposive sampling", ie the sampling technique based on certain considerations (Sugiyono,
2005: 54)

a. Research Instruments
The data in this study were obtained by using instruments that are arranged in the form of
tests that are answered by the respondent in writing. Test instruments used in the form of
Mathematics.
Math tests are used in the form of tests of creative thinking ability. In order thinking skills
kratif math students can be seen clearly then the test is made in the form of description. To
obtain a good test about the test questions should be assessed validity, reliability, level of
difficulty and distinguishing features. To get the validity, reliability, and level of difficulty
distinguishing the matter is first tested on other classes in school at the same level. to
calculate the validity of the item about the reliability, level of difficulty, and distinguishing
features using a program developed by To Anatesv4 and Wibisono.

b. Data Analysis Creative Thinking Ability Test

To determine whether there are differences in students' mathematical thinking skills in
learning to use the program GeoGebra and that learning needs to be done conventionally
mean difference test. Ability to think creatively math students may be using a test instrument.

1. Normality Test
Normality test used to determine whether or not normal distribution of data that a
requirement to determine the type of statistics used in the subsequent analysis. Statistics used
to test for normality is the One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov.

2. Homogeneity
Aims to determine whether the data obtained from the population that has a homogeneous
variance (same). Because this study were analyzed using t-test statistic with the unification of
the two variances, then it must meet the requirements of homogeneity of variance. Suharsimi
Arikunto argues, Testing homogeneity of the sample becomes very important if researchers
intend to generalize for the results of research and study research data drawn from separate
groups from one population. For testing homogeneity in this case can be tested using
the Homogeneity of variances (Levene Statistics).

3. Test Mean Differences

This test was used to test differences in mean scores of students Postes experimental group
and control group. Statistical test used was the Mean Compare Independent Samples Test.

F. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Research Results
This study aims to examine and describe the creative thinking abilities of students
receiving GeoGebra-assisted learning. The data analyzed are the results of the pretest data
graders experiment and the control class to see a picture of the early second-class capabilities,
analysis of the results Postes experimental class and control class to see the differences in the
ability of each class after getting treatment with assisted learning GeoGebra can also measure
the increase in capacity when same initial ability of students.

a. Analysis of Creative Thinking Ability

Creative thinking skills pretest results obtained before the study were given either the
experimental classes and control classes.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Creative Thinking Ability
Class

N Ideal score

Pretest

Postes
%

SD

SD

Experiment

34 48

17.91 37.32 5.32 29.59 61.64 4.89

Control

34

17.65 36.76 6.63 26.32 54.84 6.57

Table 1 shows that the average pretest results on the experimental classes and control classes
have differences. Score mean the ability to think creatively on the experimental class is
17.91, or 0.26 higher than the control class. Mean percentage score of the score is ideal for
experimental and control classes respectively 37.32% and 36.76%. Average results Postes on
experimental class and control class has a difference.Mean scores on the ability of
experimental class is 29.59, or 3.27 higher than the control class. Mean percentage score of
the score is ideal for experimental and control classes respectively 61.64% and 54.48%.This
suggests that the ability to think creatively experimental class students is higher than the
ability to think creatively control class students. Table 4.1 also shows that the standard
deviation of the experimental class which was originally 5.32 to 4.89 smaller than the class
kontroldari 6.63 to 6.57, but the smaller the standard deviation has a meaning that variations
in the distribution of the data on the experimental class is not too diverse. Based on Table 4.1
the average score of the ability to think creatively in the classroom experiment has increased
the original 17, 91 to 29.59. So also in the control class saaat 17.65 pretest to 26.32 at Postes.
Postes score results of creative thinking abilities of students obtained after the learning
provided in either the experimental or control class class .. Based on Table 4.1 note that the
average ability to think creatively experimental class students is higher than the ability to
think creatively control class students.
To determine the significance of differences in mean Postes ability to think creatively
experimental class students and students in grade control necessary to test the mean

difference. Previous first tested the normality and homogeneity of the test scores of students
Postes experimental class and control class.

a. Data Normality Test Postes Creative Thinking Ability

To see if the data Postes normally distributed, the normality test performed using a statistical
test of One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to both classes of data.
Table 2 Normality Test Results Score Postes Creative Thinking Class Student Class
Experiments and Control
CLASS
POSTEST CLASS EXPERIMENT
CLASS CONTROL

Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistics
dk Sig.
0.110
34 0.200
0.127
34 0.177

From Table 2 obtained significance value (Sig.) of 0.200 and 0.177 respectively for the
pretest scores of creative thinking skills in classroom experiments and classroom
control. Significance value is greater than the value (= 0.05) so that it can be concluded that
the null hypothesis normally distributed sample, acceptable. That is, both classes of data
score Postes ability to think creatively is normally distributed.

b. Homogeneity Test Data Postes Creative Thinking Ability

To test the homogeneity of variance of both classes of data Postes creative thinking abilities
between experimental classes and control classes used Homogenity test of variances (Levene
Statistics).
Table 3 Homogeneity of Variance Test Results Postes Thinking Ability Score
KreatifKelas Experimental and Control Classes

POSTEST

Levene's Test
F
0.961

Sig.
0.331

From Table 3 to test the homogeneity of variance seen the value of Levene Statistic (F) is
equal to 0.961 with a significance value of 0.331. Significance value is greater than the
significance level = 0.05). So it can be concluded that the null hypothesis population
variance the two classes of data is homogeneous, diterima.Artinya, both classes of data score
Postes ability to think creatively has a homogeneous variance.

c. Testing Research Hypotheses

Based on the test for normality and homogeneity that has been made to both classes of data
score Postes ability to think kreatifkelas experimental and control classes, declared that the

two classes of data derived from normal berditribusi population and have a homogeneous
variance, then to know the significance of differences in rates of both classes of test data
used Compare statistics Mean Independent Samples Test. The analysis was conducted to see
the direct influence of two different treatment of students' creative thinking abilities.
Hypothesis of the study to look at creative thinking skills based learning, namely: "creative
thinking skills of students receiving GeoGebra-assisted learning better than students who
received conventional learning".Formulation of hypotheses Postes mean difference test is the
ability to think creatively
H 0: Average of creative thinking abilities of students receiving GeoGebra-assisted
learning with students receiving conventional learning
H 1: Average of creative thinking abilities of students receiving GeoGebra-assisted
learning better than students who received conventional learning
Table 4 Test Results Difference Two RerataPostesKemampuan Thinking KreatifKelas
Experimental and Control Classes

Postes

t-test
t
2.323

dk Sig. (2-tailed)
66 0.023

Mean Difference
3.265

From Table 4 above shows that the value of significance (Sig. 2-tailed) of 0.023, but because
in this study using a test of one hand the value of the sig. 1-tailed is 0.023 which is
0.0115 less than = 0.05. So it can be concluded that the null hypothesis of no difference
mean both classes of data, was rejected. Means of creative thinking ability of students
receiving GeoGebra-assisted learning is better than creative thinking abilities of students
who received conventional learning.

b. Analysis of Creative Thinking Ability Improvement

To see an increase in creative thinking skills attained by students used data normalized
gain. The increase was also seen under each of the indicators of creative thinking skills
achieved by students. Reratagain normalized image enhancement is the ability to think
kreatifbaik with GeoGebra and assisted learning with conventional learning is viewed in total
and each indicator.
Table 5-Gain RerataN Creative Thinking Ability
N

Category

N-gain experiments

34 0.3782

Moderate

N-gain control

34 0.2859

Low

Based on Table 5 above are the conclusions that can be brought, namely the average gain is
the ability to think creatively experimental class belong to the category of being. Average
gain the ability to think creatively control class belong to the low category. Average student
gain the ability to think creatively experimental class (0.3782) higher than the average gain of
students' abilities to think creatively control class (0.2859).
Table 6
The mean N-Gain Based Indicators Creative Thinking Ability
Indicator

Classroom Experiments

Control Class

Information

Information

Smoothness

0.3782

Moderate

0.2859

Low

Flexibility

0.4891

Moderate

0.1465

Low

Authenticity

0.2279

Low

0.2559

Low

Detailed

0.3806

Moderate

0.3244

Moderate

N = 34 (for both classes)

Table 6 shows that the average gain is normalized in classroom experiments for the ability to
think creatively on the indicators of smoothness and suppleness is the category of being,
while the control class is at a low category. Average normalized gain in the experimental
class and control class for the ability to think creatively on the authenticity of both indicators
are on a low category. Average normalized gain in the experimental class and control class
for the ability to think creatively on detailed indicators are both located in the category of
being.

G. CONCLUSION
After different treatment between the two sample groups namely experimental group who
obtained assisted learning mathematics with GeoGebra and a control group receiving
conventional learning is based on the results of data analysis to test the hypothesis, the
conclusion of the findings made by the creative thinking abilities of students receiving mathassisted learning GeoGebra better than students who had received conventional learning.

H. Suggestion
View and pay attention to the findings and conclusions of the study, it is no exaggeration to
say that assisted learning with GeoGebra has positive benefits for both teachers and
students. GeoGebra-assisted learning-based theoretical framework can improve the ability to
think creatively, based on this research can improve the ability of creative math students.
GeoGebra-assisted learning that takes longer than conventional learning. So advised, assisted
learning GeoGebra applied mathematical topics are essential, so that students can apply

mathematical knowledge and procedures they have learned. Seeing the results of tests of
creative thinking skills, teachers should familiarize students with the questions the ability to
think creatively and matters other mathematical ability.
For subsequent researchers to examine the weaknesses of this study and also to examine the
influence of learning is to be seen on other mathematical skills such as problem-solving
skills, communication skills and critical thinking skills.

I. REFERENCES

Al-Rashid, H. 1994. Sampling techniques and preparation of Scale. London:

Postgraduate ubuntu
Arikunto, S. 2003. Fundamentals of Educational Evaluation. London: Earth
Literacy.
Bloom, BS 1974. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Attitude Inventory. New York:
David Mc Kay Company Inc..
Budiarto, MT. 2000. Learning Geometry and Geometric Thinking. The Proceedings
of the National Mathematics Seminar "The Role of Mathematics Entering the third
millennium". Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences ITS
Surabaya. Surabaya, 2 November.
Dayono, S. 1976. Hope Against Direction of Mathematics Education in
Indonesia. Surabaya: Surabaya Teachers' Training College.
MOEC. 1998. Teaching Mathematics for Secondary Schools. London: Director
General, Higher Education MOEC
Dennis KF 2008. Reveals the Secrets of Critical and Creative Thinking. Jakarta:
PT. Achievement pustakaraya
Dewanto, SP 2007. Improving Capabilities Through Mathematical Representation of
Multiple-Problem-Based Learning. Dissertation. UPI: Not published
Evans, JR 1991. Creative Thinking in the Decision and Management Sciences. USA:
South-Western Publishing Co..
Gagne, RM 1981. Essentials of Learning Instructions. Translation Ahmad
A. Hinduan. Jakarta: MOEC P3G.
1987. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Grondlund, NE 1982. Constructing Achievement Test. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall.
Hall, CS and Lindzey, G.. 1978. Theories of Personality. Third Edition. New York:
John Willey and Sons, Inc..
Karsol. 1995. Mathematics and Science Education Basics Module 1 - 6 (Open
University). Jakarta: MOEC.
Nasution,. AH 1978. The foundation of Mathematics. New York: Bharata.
Nasution, S. 2000. Didactic Principles of Teaching. Jakarta: PT. Earth Literacy.
Mina, E. 2005. Effect of Learning Mathematics with the Open-Ended Approach to
Creative Thinking Ability of Mathematical High School Students of Bandung. New
York: Thesis SPS UPI: Not published.
Munandar, U. 2004. Development of Gifted Children's Creativity. New York: Rineka
reserved.
Rukhiyat, A. 2003. Pradigma New Relationship with Student Teachers. Jakarta: Gema
Widyakarya.
Ruseffendi, ET 1997. Mathematics Education 3. New York: Open University.
Sabandar, J. 2002. Learning Geometry Using Cabri Geometry II. Collection of
Papers, Training. Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta
Sadirman AM 1990. Interaction and Motivation for Learning and Teaching. Jakarta:
CV. Eagle.
Sahertian, MA 1985. Supervision of Education in the Context of Inservice Education
Program. New York: Rineka reserved.
Silvernail, David. 1985. Developing Positive Student SelfConcept. 2 nd Ed. Washington DC: National Education Associatess.
Sudjana, N. 1993. Learning Strategies in Special Education School. New York:
Archipelago.
. 1995. Basics of Teaching and Learning. London: New Light Algensindo.
Sugiyono. 2006. Educational Research Methods: Quantitative Approaches,
Qualitative, R & D. Bandung: CV Alfabeta

Supriadi, D. (1994). Creativity, Culture & Science and Technology

Development. New York: Alfabeta.
Suriasumantri, JS 1982. Philosophy of Science An Introduction to Popular. Jakarta:
Sinar Harapan.
Suherman, E. and Kusumah, YS 1990. Practical Guide To Implementing Mathematics
Education Evaluation. London: Wijayakusumah 157
Supriadi, D. 1997. Creativity Culture and the Development of Science and
Technology. London: Alfabeta
The, LG 1985. Philosophy of Mathematics, New York: Super Success.
To, Karno (1996). Know Test Analysis (Introduction to Computer Programs
ANATES). Bandung: Bandung IKIP FIP
Usman, U. 1992. Being a Master Professional. New York: Remadja Rosdakarya.
and Setiawari, L. 1993. Efforts Optimizing Teaching and Learning
Activities. London: Youth Rosdakarya.
Wahyudin. (1999). The ability of Teachers of Mathematics, Mathematics Teacher, and
Student in Mathematics Lesson. Bandung: Bandung IKIP Dissertation PPS: Not
published.
Winkel. 1984. Evaluation of Educational Psychology and Learning. New York:
Scholastic.