SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

9

H-Index

Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education

an Open Access Journal

Cultivating Mathematics Learning Autonomy through Resource-Based Learning: Insights from Classroom Action Research

Siti Fadiyatun Nikmah
State Senior High Swasta Bina Bangsa-01
Indonesia
sitiifadiyatunnikmah81@gmail.com
Edo Prancis Kuno
Universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi Medan ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of Resource-Based Learning in cultivating mathematics learning autonomy among junior high school students and to identify its contribution to improving students’ mathematics learning outcomes through classroom action research.

    Methodology: This study employed Classroom Action Research based on the Kemmis and McTaggart model involving planning, acting, observing, and reflecting stages. Participants were 18 seventh-grade students. Data were collected using observation sheets, interview guides, documentation, mathematics achievement tests, and a mathematics learning autonomy questionnaire validated through content validity and Cronbach’s Alpha reliability. Descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses were applied.

    Main Findings: The implementation of Resource-Based Learning increased students’ mathematics learning autonomy in terms of initiative, self-confidence, and responsibility. Students’ mathematics achievement also improved across cycles. Learning activities became more active through the utilization of worksheets, peer tutors, manipulative media, and library resources. Limited learning resources were identified as a factor affecting instructional effectiveness.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study presents a comprehensive integration of Resource-Based Learning with multiple learning resources, including peer tutors, worksheets, manipulative media, and library utilization, to foster mathematics learning autonomy. The findings provide empirical evidence regarding the role of diverse learning resources in developing autonomous learning habits and enhancing mathematics achievement in classroom action research settings.

  • How to cite

    Cultivating Mathematics Learning Autonomy through Resource-Based Learning: Insights from Classroom Action Research. (2026). Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education, 4(2), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijome.v4i2.3447

    More Citation Formats

  • 15
    Abstract views
    9
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. [1] A. Bagger and H. Vennberg, “Care for the learning of mathematics–put to the test,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 505–523, 2025, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2024.2339802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2024.2339802
    2. [2] C. K. Lo, K. L. Cheung, H. R. Chan, and C. L. E. Chau, “Developing flipped learning resources to support secondary school mathematics teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 4787–4805, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1981397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1981397
    3. [3] R. Weinhandl, S. Baldinger, and M. Kapplmüller, “Educational design characteristics of digital mathematics learning environments from a student perspective,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1–28, 2025, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2025.2562275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2562275
    4. [4] R. Weinhandl, M. Mayerhofer, C. S. Große, and B. Anđić, “Employing a multi-layered approach for validating mathematics student personas in technology-enhanced learning environments,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2389361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2389361
    5. [5] A. Roche, J. Russo, P. Kalogeropoulos, and J. Hubbard, “Reframing aspirations for mathematics learning: Exploring underachieving students’ voices through self-determination theory,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2026, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2026.2633241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2026.2633241
    6. [6] P. Nguyen, C. Webel, S. Yeo, and W. Zhao, “Elementary teachers’ agency: The role of perceived professional space and autonomy,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 665–686, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2022.2081821. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2081821
    7. [7] T. M. Abate, T. G. Gebremeskal, and Y. E. Mulu, “Conceptualization and development of validated authentic learning environment scale in mathematics,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2577976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2577976
    8. [8] K. Porteus, “Mapping design principles to instructional realities in early grade mathematics in south africa: A framework for designing and evaluating learning and teaching support materials,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 350–366, 2023, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2023.2255375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2023.2255375
    9. [9] S. Rezeki, D. Andrian, L. M. Angraini, A. Sthephani, and Z. Zetriuslita, “The SASMC effectiveness in improving mathematics learning outcomes and students’ cultural knowledge,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2561420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2561420
    10. [10] J. Hoddinott, M. Araya, R. Sabates Aysa, T. Woldehanna, D. T. Tiruneh, and N. Eryilmaz, “Student composition, equity, and mathematics learning outcomes during a time of educational reforms in Ethiopia,” Oxford Rev. Educ., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 669–687, 2025, doi: 10.1080/03054985.2024.2388047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2388047
    11. [11] C. H. Lin, B. C. Kuo, and F. T. Y. Chang, “The impact of Taiwan adaptive learning platform (TALP) on self-regulated learning and mathematics achievement,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 458–479, 2025, doi: 10.1080/01443410.2025.2561028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2561028
    12. [12] P. Kácovský et al., “Lower secondary intended curricula of science subjects and mathematics: A comparison of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 384–405, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2021.1978557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1978557
    13. [13] A. Hidayat and P. Firmanti, “Navigating the tech frontier: A systematic review of technology integration in mathematics education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2373559
    14. [14] M. N. Anwar, A. Khizar, and M. K. Kahungu, “Empowering mathematics learning: Feedback orientation as a mediator in feedback, achievement motivation, and achievement,” Res. Math., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2025, doi: 10.1080/27684830.2025.2578874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/27684830.2025.2578874
    15. [15] C. Vale, A. Roche, J. Cheeseman, A. Gervasoni, S. Livy, and A. Downton, “The practices of middle leaders of mathematics: Alignment of their goals and activities,” Sch. Leadersh. Manag., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 238–260, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13632434.2023.2179982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2179982
    16. [16] M. Araya, C. Rolleston, P. Rose, R. Sabates, D. Tiruneh, and T. Woldehanna, “Tracking learning outcomes in Ethiopia: How large-scale educational reform shaped student attainment from 2012/13 to 2018/19,” Africa Educ. Rev., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 145–164, 2025, doi: 10.1080/18146627.2025.2504043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2025.2504043
    17. [17] S. Alija, B. Asare, S. Orhani, and Y. Dissou Arthur, “Examining the Nexus between high school students’ mathematics performance and their mathematics self-efficacy: The role of mathematics interest and academic buoyancy,” Res. Math., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2026, doi: 10.1080/27684830.2026.2657077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/27684830.2026.2657077
    18. [18] P. Frejd and K. Muhrman, “Is the mathematics classroom a suitable learning space for making workplace mathematics visible?–An analysis of a subject integrated team-teaching approach applied in different learning spaces,” J. Vocat. Educ. Train., vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 333–351, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13636820.2020.1760337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1760337
    19. [19] J. Suno Wu, X. Font, P. Barbrook-Johnson, and A. Torres Delgado, “Social learning communities of practice as mechanisms for sustainable tourism: A process tracing evaluation of a government intervention,” Tour. Recreat. Res., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 521–534, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02508281.2023.2291589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2023.2291589
    20. [20] V. Y. Tobias, P. Runhaar, and M. van Woerkom, “Towards strengths-based professional learning: A multiple case study of the implementation of strengths-based human resource management practices in schools,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–23, 2025, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2025.2510649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2025.2510649
    21. [21] L. von Keyserlingk, J. Schwerter, O. Kunina-Habenicht, and F. Lauermann, “Motivation and self-regulated learning as predictors of learning resource use in learning management systems in higher education,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 437–457, 2025, doi: 10.1080/01443410.2025.2564891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2564891
    22. [22] G. J. Tobón, “How to implement structured case-based resource sessions within the medical curriculum,” Adv. Med. Educ. Pract., vol. 17, pp. 1–6, 2026, doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S594899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S594899
    23. [23] R. P. C. Janogha, B. A. K. S. Perera, H. C. Victar, K. A. T. O. Ranadewa, and I. M. C. S. Illankoon, “Machine learning integrated resource management framework for construction projects,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–15, 2026, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2026.2636014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2026.2636014
    24. [24] M. Bergroth, J. Llompart-Esbert, N. Pepiot, S. Sierens, T. Dražnik, and K. Van Der Worp, “Whose action research is it?: Promoting linguistically sensitive teacher education in Europe,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 265–284, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2021.1925570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.1925570
    25. [25] L. Malva, E. Kikas, and D. Hooshyar, “Differentiated learning materials—Effects on mathematics knowledge and motivation,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–15, 2026, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2026.2613827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2026.2613827
    26. [26] Y. M. Tang, K. Y. Chau, Y. yip Lau, and G. T. S. Ho, “Impact of mobile learning in engineering mathematics under 4-year undergraduate curriculum,” Asia Pacific J. Educ., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 147–163, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2022.2082379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2082379
    27. [27] C. E. M. Askildsen, K. Aggerholm, K. L. Madsen, and E. S. Volshøj, “Phenomenologically grounded action research: Suggestions for broadening the scope of educational action research,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–16, 2026, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2026.2623918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2026.2623918
    28. [28] M. Z. Kamarudin and M. S. A. Mat Noor, “What do we know about the selection of action research methodologies in primary science education?–A systematic literature review,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 825–847, 2024, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2023.2261502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2261502
    29. [29] K. Gibbs, “School leaders’ approaches to supporting differentiated instruction,” Educ. Res., vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 367–384, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00131881.2025.2530613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2025.2530613
    30. [30] P. Johannesson, “Development of professional learning communities through action research: Understanding professional learning in practice,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 411–426, 2022, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100
    31. [31] P. Johannesson, “Student participation in teachers’ action research: Teachers’ and students’ engagement in social learning,” Educ. Action Res., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 234–250, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09650792.2023.2301335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2301335
    32. [32] D. Lundie et al., “A practitioner action research approach to learning outside the classroom in religious education: Developing a dialogical model through reflection by teachers and faith field visitors,” Br. J. Relig. Educ., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 138–148, 2022, doi: 10.1080/01416200.2021.1969896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1969896