SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

9

H-Index

Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education

an Open Access Journal

Comparative Effectiveness of Learning Starts with a Question and Question Students Have Strategies on Junior Secondary Students’ Mathematics Achievement

Nur Akbar M
Alauddin State Islamic University Makassar
Indonesia
nakbrmakbarr00@gmail.com
Abnaul Amir Moncobalang
Abnaul Amir Junior High School
Indonesia
Norma Norma
Abnaul Amir Junior High School
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study examined the comparative effectiveness of two question-based active learning strategies, namely Learning Starts with a Question and Question Students Have, on junior secondary students’ mathematics achievement.

    Methodology: A quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group design was employed involving two Grade Eight classes. One class was taught using the Learning Starts with a Question strategy and the other using the Question Students Have strategy. Mathematics achievement was measured using validated essay tests administered as pretest and posttest. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test after normality and homogeneity assumptions were met.

    Main Findings: Both strategies improved students’ mathematics achievement. The class taught using the Learning Starts with a Question strategy obtained a higher posttest mean score of 84.16 compared to the class taught using the Question Students Have strategy with a mean score of 79.72. Independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the two classes with a probability value of 0.009. The increase in scores from pretest to posttest was also higher in the Learning Starts with a Question class, indicating greater improvement in mathematics learning outcomes.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The Learning Starts with a Question strategy is more effective than the Question Students Have strategy in improving junior secondary students’ mathematics achievement. Initiating mathematics instruction with student-generated questions enhances cognitive readiness and supports conceptual understanding.

  • How to cite

    Comparative Effectiveness of Learning Starts with a Question and Question Students Have Strategies on Junior Secondary Students’ Mathematics Achievement. (2025). Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education, 3(2), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijome.v3i2.2819

    More Citation Formats

  • 122
    Abstract views
    93
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. M. Wang, M. E. E. Mohd Matore, and R. Rosli, “A systematic literature review on analytical thinking development in mathematics education: trends across time and countries,” Front. Psychol., vol. 16, no. June, pp. 1–10, 2025, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1523836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1523836
    2. F. Sosa-Gutierrez, H. M. V. Apaza, S. V. Valdivia-Yábar, and W. W. Condori-Castillo, “Critical Thinking and Teaching Mathematics: An Analysis from Education,” Int. J. Relig., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 387–405, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.61707/94v23344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61707/94v23344
    3. A. A. Radiamoda, “Difficulties Encountered by the Students in Learning Mathematics Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Technology,” Indones. J. Educ. Res. Technol., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2024.
    4. M. Pokhrel, “Challenges Toward Learning Mathematics,” Shikshya Sandesh, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 59–67, 2023, doi: 10.3126/ss.v6i1.63094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ss.v6i1.63094
    5. K. H. D. Tang, “Student-centered Approach in Teaching and Learning: What Does It Really Mean?,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 72–83, 2023, doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v2i2.218
    6. Z. N. Ghafar, “International Journal of Arts and Humanities The Teacher-Centered and the Student-Centered: A Comparison of Two Approaches,” Int. J. Arts Humanit., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61424/ijah.v1i1.7
    7. E. Guntoro, S. Abdo, M. Elsayed, and A. E. Pohan, “Efforts to Improve Student Activeness and Mathematics Learning Outcomes: Think Pair Share Approach,” J. Prof. Learn. Sustain. Educ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 60–66, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://iesrjournal.com/index.php/jplse DOI: https://doi.org/10.62568/jplse.v1i2.279
    8. M. Arias-Albuja, M. Coronel-Sánchez, and L. Logacho-Morocho, “Aprendizaje activo a través de proyectos en matemáticas: una estrategia para la implementación efectiva del diseño curricular,” Cátedra, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 181–195, 2025, doi: 10.29166/catedra.v8i2.8011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29166/catedra.v8i2.8011
    9. I. Vale and A. Barbosa, “Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning,” Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 573–588, 2023, doi: 10.30935/scimath/13135.
    10. M. E. Martinez and V. Gomez, “Active Learning Strategies: A Mini Review of Evidence-Based Approaches,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 43–54, 2025, doi: 10.53623/apga.v4i1.555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v4i1.555
    11. I. Kusmaryono and D. Wijayanti, “Exploration Of Students’ Mathematics Learning Experiences And Engagement Outside The Classroom,” Int. J. Educ., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 75–84, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.17509/ije.v16i2.48399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v16i2.48399
    12. S. Rahmah and A. H. Lubis, “Problem Posing as a Learning Model to Improve Primary School Students’ Mathematics Learning Outcomes in Gayo Lues,” J. Indones. Prim. Sch., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 93–104, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.62945/jips.v1i4.409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jips.v1i4.409
    13. I. Fitrianto, S. ’Aimah, R. Hamid, and A. Mulalic, “The Effectiveness of the Learning Strategy ‘Think, Talk, Write’ and Snowball for Improving Learning Achievement in Lessons Insya’ at Islamic Boarding School Arisalah,” Int. J. Post Axial Futur. Teach. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–22, 2023, doi: 10.59944/postaxial.v1i1.142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59944/postaxial.v1i1.142
    14. J. Liu, S. Li, and Q. Dong, “Collaboration with Generative Artificial Intelligence: An Exploratory Study Based on Learning Analytics,” J. Educ. Comput. Res., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1014–1046, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1177/07356331241242441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241242441
    15. C. Hattan, P. A. Alexander, and S. M. Lupo, “Leveraging What Students Know to Make Sense of Texts: What the Research Says About Prior Knowledge Activation,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 73–111, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3102/00346543221148478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478
    16. Z. Pi, X. Guo, C. Liu, and J. Yang, “Students with low prior knowledge learn more when explaining to a peer than to a teacher after viewing educational videos,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 91–107, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1177/14697874231212260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231212260
    17. I. Vale and A. Barbosa, “Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning,” Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 573–588, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.30935/scimath/13135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13135
    18. R. C. I. Prahmana, “Ethno-Realistic Mathematics Education: The promising learning approach in the city of culture,” SN Soc. Sci., vol. 2, no. 12, p. 257, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43545-022-00571-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00571-w
    19. P. Doolittle, K. Wojdak, and A. Walters, “Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review,” Teach. Learn. Inq., vol. 11, pp. 1–24, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25
    20. N. Solikhah and M. J. Sofi, “Teacher’s strategies for stimulating EFL students’ active learning in an Indonesian senior high school,” Erud. J. English Lang. Teach., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 144–155, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.28918/erudita.v3i2.2147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28918/erudita.v3i2.2147
    21. H. Husnaini, A. T. Syam, N. Niken, and A. Soares, “Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching Speaking at High Schools: Obstacles and Challenges,” Linguist. Initiat., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 243–262, 2024, doi: 10.53696/27753719.42165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53696/27753719.42165
    22. T.-T. Wu, I. P. Hapsari, and Y.-M. Huang, “Effects of incorporating AI chatbots into think–pair–share activities on EFL speaking anxiety, language enjoyment, and speaking performance,” Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn., pp. 1–39, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2025.2478271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2478271
    23. X. Xu, Z. Shi, N. A. Bos, and H. Wu, “Student engagement and learning outcomes: an empirical study applying a four-dimensional framework,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2268347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2268347
    24. M. Maryana, C. Halim, and H. Rahmi, “The Impact of Gamification on Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes in Mathematics Education,” Int. J. Business, Law, Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1697–1608, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.56442/ijble.v5i2.682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v5i2.682
    25. F. Dogan and B. Yucel-Toy, “Students’ question asking process: a model based on the perceptions of elementary school students and teachers,” Asia Pacific J. Educ., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 786–801, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2021.1873104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1873104
    26. M. S. Mahmud and N. F. M. Drus, “The use of oral questioning to improve students’ reasoning skills in primary school mathematics learning,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, no. May, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1126816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1126816
    27. B. Sinaga, J. Sitorus, and T. Situmeang, “The influence of students’ problem-solving understanding and results of students’ mathematics learning,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, no. February, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1088556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1088556
    28. L. M. Angraini, A. Susilawati, M. S. Noto, R. Wahyuni, and D. Andrian, “Augmented Reality for Cultivating Computational Thinking Skills in Mathematics Completed with Literature Review, Bibliometrics, and Experiments for Students,” Indones. J. Sci. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 225–260, 2024, doi: 10.17509/ijost.v9i1.67258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijost.v9i1.67258
    29. X. Yang and G. Kaiser, “The impact of mathematics teachers’ professional competence on instructional quality and students’ mathematics learning outcomes,” Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci., vol. 48, p. 101225, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101225
    30. N. Monrat, M. Phaksunchai, and R. Chonchaiya, “Developing Students’ Mathematical Critical Thinking Skills Using Open-Ended Questions and Activities Based on Student Learning Preferences,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2022, pp. 1–11, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/3300363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3300363
    31. S. Liou, C. Cheng, T. Chu, C. Chang, and H. Liu, “Effectiveness of differentiated instruction on learning outcomes and learning satisfaction in the evidence‐based nursing course: Empirical research quantitative,” Nurs. Open, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 6794–6807, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1002/nop2.1926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1926
    32. H. W. Mbhiza and A. Zondo, “Teachers’ interpretations of questioning practices to enhance critical thinking in Grade 10 financial mathematics,” Al-Jabar J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 703–720, 2025, doi: 10.24042/ajpm.v16i2.28704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v16i2.28704
    33. S. M. Alturaiki, M. K. Gaballah, and R. A. El Arab, “Enhancing Nursing Students’ Engagement and Critical Thinking in Anatomy and Physiology Through Gamified Teaching: A Non-Equivalent Quasi-Experimental Study,” Nurs. Reports, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 333, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/nursrep15090333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15090333
    34. C. C. Umoke, M. A. Ayanwale, S. O. Nwangbo, N. C. Ezeoke, S. O. Abonyi, and S. O. Olatunbosun, “Modeling instructional strategies and their transformative role in enhancing engagement and equity in computer studies: a quasi-experimental study,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00648-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00648-7
    35. M. G. Şahin, Y. Yıldırım, and N. B. Öztürk, “Examining the Achievement Test Development Process in the Educational Studies,” Particip. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 251–274, 2023, doi: 10.17275/per.23.14.10.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.14.10.1
    36. N. Kania, C. Fitriani, and E. Bonyah, “Analysis of Students’ Critical Thinking Skills Based on Prior Knowledge Mathematics,” Int. J. Contemp. Stud. Educ., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2023, doi: 10.56855/ijcse.v2i1.248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56855/ijcse.v2i1.248
    37. F. Habibzadeh, “Data Distribution: Normal or Abnormal?,” J. Korean Med. Sci., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2024, doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e35
    38. O. Rainio, J. Teuho, and R. Klén, “Evaluation metrics and statistical tests for machine learning,” Sci. Rep., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56706-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56706-x
    39. N. A. K. Alreshidi, “Enhancing topic-specific prior knowledge of students impacts their outcomes in mathematics,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, no. February, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1050468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1050468
    40. R. Schumacher and E. Stern, “Promoting the construction of intelligent knowledge with the help of various methods of cognitively activating instruction,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, no. January, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.979430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.979430
    41. G. Türkmen and Z. Yıldırım, “Science Centres as Metacognitive Learning Environments: Insights From Eye‐Tracking and Metacognitive‐Oriented Worksheets,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 42, no. 1, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1002/jcal.70180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcal.70180
    42. A. Morales-Jaramillo, É. Intriago-Palacios, P. Fabre-Merchán, and F. Recalde-Garcia, “Using Self-generated Drawings to Facilitate Reading Comprehension in an Undergraduate EFL Class,” Mextesol J., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 0–2, 2024, doi: 10.61871/mj.v48n4-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v48n4-4
    43. M. Ncube and K. Luneta, “Concept-based instruction: Improving learner performance in mathematics through conceptual understanding,” Pythagoras, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.4102/pythagoras.v46i1.815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v46i1.815
    44. S. S. Otajonova, “Interactive Methods in Teaching Mathematics To Primary School Students: Fostering Engagement and Conceptual Understanding,” Pedagog. Tadqiqotlar Jurnali, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 84–87, 2025.
    45. N. Tarasenkova et al., “Efficient Questioning in Teaching Mathematics: Teachers’ Attitudes and Practices,” Rev. Rom. pentru Educ. Multidimens., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 216–246, 2023, doi: 10.18662/rrem/15.1/694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/15.1/694
    46. C. P. Cortez, A. M. F. Osenar - Rosqueta, and M. S. Prudente, “Cooperative-flipped classroom under online modality: Enhancing students’ mathematics achievement and critical thinking attitude,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 120, p. 102213, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102213