### The Spatial Thinking Process of the Field-Dependent Students in Reconstructing the Geometrical Concept

#### Abstract

Reconstructing geometrical concepts requires a spatial thinking process, so the spatial thinking process will be correct and complete. The phenomena of cognitive style differences cause different perceptions and thinking activities to solve geometric problems. This qualitative-explorative research describes the spatial thinking process of students with field-dependent cognitive styles in reconstructing the concept of spatial geometry based on the theory of Action-Process-Object-Schema (APOS). The research subjects were 27 students and obtained five students with field-dependent cognitive styles. The researchers used a purposive sampling technique from the subjects with a certain consideration. The researchers selected a student that met the three elements of spatial thinking and the five indicators of spatial ability. This research collected the data with interviews, documentation, and GEFT. The analyzing techniques used data collection, data reduction, data presentation, and concluding. The results were the spatial thinking process of the field-dependent students had a spatial category. The indications were (1) inaccuracy in the elements of representational thinking, (2) the inaccuracy of spatial perception indicators, and (3) not using de-encapsulation mental mechanisms.

#### Keywords

#### References

H. S. Bintoro, Zaenuri, and Wardono, “Application of information technology and communication-based lesson study on mathematics problem-solving ability,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1918, no. 4, p. 042105, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1918/4/042105.

S. Arıcı and F. Aslan-Tutak, “the Effect of Origami-Based Instruction on Spatial Visualization, Geometry Achievement, and Geometric Reasoning,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 179–200, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9487-8.

R. Horsman, “International perspectives on the teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 96–100, 2019, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2018.1531055.

E. Zuliana, I. Oktavianti, Y. Ratnasari, and H. S. Bintoro, “Design and application of marionette tangram: An educational teaching media for mathematics and social science learning process in elementary schools,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 931–935, 2020, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080326.

J. Dindyal, “Geometry in the early years: a commentary,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 519–529, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0700-9.

N. Sinclair and C. D. Bruce, “New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 319–329, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0693-4.

M. Cirillo and J. Hummer, “Competencies and behaviors observed when students solve geometry proof problems: an interview study with smartpen technology,” ZDM Math. Educ., 2021, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01221-w.

J. S. Thom and L. M. McGarvey, “The act and artifact of drawing(s): observing geometric thinking with, in, and through children’s drawings,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 465–481, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0697-0.

E. Sevimli and A. Delice, “The influence of teacher candidates’ spatial visualization ability on the use of multiple representations in problem solving of definite integrals: A qualitative analysis,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 93–94, 2011, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2011.550750.

J. Moss, Z. Hawes, S. Naqvi, and B. Caswell, “Adapting Japanese Lesson Study to enhance the teaching and learning of geometry and spatial reasoning in early years classrooms: a case study,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 377–390, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0679-2.

D. D. da Costa, “Mozambican student-teachers’ perceptions of developing their understanding of teaching spatially dependent geometry,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 25–39, 2014, doi: 10.1080/10288457.2014.884354.

S. Khan, K. Francis, and B. Davis, “Accumulation of experience in a vast number of cases: enactivism as a fit framework for the study of spatial reasoning in mathematics education,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 269–279, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0623-x.

National Research Council, Learning to Think Spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

J. Mulligan, “Looking within and beyond the geometry curriculum: connecting spatial reasoning to mathematics learning,” ZDM Math. Educ., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 511–517, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0696-1.

T. Logan and T. Lowrie, “Gender perspectives on spatial tasks in a national assessment: a secondary data analysis,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 199–216, 2017, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2017.1334577.

P. H. Maier, “Spatial Geometry and Spatial Ability - How to make solid Geometry solid?,” in Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics 1996, 1998, pp. 63–75.

T. Septia, R. C. I. Prahmana, Pebrianto, and R. Wahyu, “Improving students spatial reasoning with course lab,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 327–336, 2018, doi: 10.22342/jme.9.2.3462.327-336.

I. Arnon et al., APOS Theory. Springer-Verlag New York, 2014.

L. Mutambara and S. Bansilal, “An Exploratory Study on the Understanding of the Vector Subspace Concept,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 14–26, 2019, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2018.1564496.

V. Borji and R. Martínez-Planell, “On students’ understanding of implicit differentiation based on APOS theory,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 163–179, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09991-y.

M. Trigueros, “The development of a linear algebra schema: learning as result of the use of a cognitive theory and models,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1055–1068, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01064-6.

E. K. Moru, “An APOS Analysis of University Students’ Understanding of Derivatives: A Lesotho Case Study,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–14, 2020, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2020.1821500.

K. Moon, “New approaches for two-variable inequality graphs utilizing the Cartesian Connection and the APOS theory,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 351–367, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09956-1.

M. Altieri and E. Schirmer, “Learning the concept of eigenvalues and eigenvectors: a comparative analysis of achieved concept construction in linear algebra using APOS theory among students from different educational backgrounds,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1125–1140, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01074-4.

F. M. Singer, C. Voica, and I. Pelczer, “Cognitive styles in posing geometry problems: implications for assessment of mathematical creativity,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 37–52, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0820-x.

A. L. Son, Darhim, and S. Fatimah, “Students’ mathematical problem-solving ability based on teaching models intervention and cognitive style,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 209–222, 2020, doi: 10.22342/jme.11.2.10744.209-222.

A. R. Masalimova et al., “The interrelation between cognitive styles and copying strategies among student youth,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1–7, 2019, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/103565.

X. Chen, S. Zhao, and W. Li, “Opinion Dynamics Model Based on Cognitive Styles: Field-Dependence and Field-Independence,” Complexity, vol. 2019, p. 12, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2864124.

G. Tsitsipis, D. Stamovlasis, and G. Papageorgiou, “a Probabilistic Model for Students’ Errors and Misconceptions on the Structure of Matter in Relation To Three Cognitive Variables,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 777–802, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9288-x.

M. S. Motahari and M. Norouzi, “The Difference between Field Independent and Field Dependent Cognitive Styles regarding Translation Quality,” Theory Pract. Lang. Stud., vol. 5, no. 11, p. 2373, 2015, doi: 10.17507/tpls.0511.23.

E. Khodadady and S. Zeynali, “Field-Dependence/Independence Cognitive Style and Performance on the IELTS Listening Comprehension,” Int. J. Linguist., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 622–635, 2012, doi: 10.5296/ijl.v4i3.2389.

T. Muhammad, E. G. S. Daniel, and R. A. Abdurauf, “Cognitive Styles Field Dependence / Independence and Scientific Achievement of Male and Female Students of Zamfara State College of Education Maru , Nigeria,” J. Educ. Pract., vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 58–64, 2015.

Kamid, M. Rusdi, O. Fitaloka, F. R. Basuki, and K. Anwar, “Mathematical communication skills based on cognitive styles and gender,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 847–856, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v9i4.20497.

Usman Mulbar, Abdul Rahman, and Ansari S. Ahmar, “Analysis of the ability in mathematical problem-solving based on SOLO taxonomy and cognitive style,” World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 68–73, 2017.

Sumaji, C. Sa’Dijah, Susiswo, and Sisworo, “Mathematical communication process of junior high school students in solving problems based on APOS theory,” J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 197–221, 2020, doi: 10.17478/jegys.652055.

Junarti, Y. L. Sukestiyarno, Mulyono, and N. K. Dwidayati, “The process of structure sense of group prerequisite material: A case in indonesian context,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1047–1061, 2020, doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.9.3.1047.

A. Shodiqin, Y. L. Sukestiyarno, Wardono, and Isnarto, “Probabilistic Thinking Profile of Mathematics Teacher Candidates in Problem Solving based on Self-Regulated Learning,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1199–1213, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1199.

M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis, vol. 4, no. 25. Los Angeles: Sage, 2020.

E. Hashimov, “Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook and The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers,” Tech. Commun. Q., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 109–112, 2015, doi: 10.1080/10572252.2015.975966.

Z. Ndlovu and D. Brijlall, “Pre-service teachers’ mental constructions of concepts in matrix algebra,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 156–171, 2015, doi: 10.1080/10288457.2015.1028717.

Y. Chen and F. Yang, “Problems Solving and Science Learning : an Eye,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. August 2013, pp. 579–603, 2014.

C. Kazunga and S. Bansilal, “An APOS analysis of solving systems of equations using the inverse matrix method,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 339–358, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10649-020-09935-6.

H. S. Bintoro, Y. L. Sukestiyarno, Mulyono, and Walid, “The Spatial Thinking Process of the Field-Independent Students based on Action-Process-Object-Schema Theory,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1807–1823, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.1807.

A. Oktaç, “Mental constructions in linear algebra,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1043–1054, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01037-9.

N. Reid, “Field Dependency and Performance in Mathematics,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 43–57, 2014, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.3.1.43.

Y. E. Setiawan, Purwanto, I. N. Parta, and Sisworo, “Generalization strategy of linear patterns from field-dependent cognitive style,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 77–94, 2020, doi: 10.22342/jme.11.1.9134.77-94.

E. Cataloglu and S. Ates, “the Effects of Cognitive Styles on Naïve Impetus Theory Application Degrees of Pre-Service Science Teachers,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 699–719, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9430-z.

L. Tascón, M. Boccia, L. Piccardi, and J. M. Cimadevilla, “Differences in spatial memory recognition due to cognitive style,” Front. Pharmacol., vol. 8, no. AUG, pp. 1–7, 2017, doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00550.

M. Boccia, F. Vecchione, L. Piccardi, and C. Guariglia, “Effect of cognitive style on learning and retrieval of navigational environments,” Front. Pharmacol., vol. 8, no. JUL, pp. 1–10, 2017, doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00496.

A. Bocchi, M. Giancola, L. Piccardi, M. Palmiero, R. Nori, and S. D’Amico, “How would you describe a familiar route or put in order the landmarks along it? It depends on your cognitive style!,” Exp. Brain Res., vol. 236, no. 12, pp. 3121–3129, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s00221-018-5367-3.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i3.22399

### Refbacks

- There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science

**International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)**p-ISSN: 2252-8822, e-ISSN: 2620-5440

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.