The Effectiveness of COLLAPOSE: A Web-Based E-LKPD Incorporating Collaborative Problem Posing for Enhancing Elementary Students’ Mathematical Creative Thinking
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Febriarsita Eka Sasmita
Sirojuddin Abror
Hanik Yuni Alfiyah
Abstract
Mathematical creative thinking is an important competency in elementary mathematics education; however, students often struggle to generate diverse, original mathematical ideas. This study examined the effectiveness of COLLAPOSE (Collaborative Problem Posing E-LKPD), a web-based electronic student worksheet that integrates collaborative problem posing with indicator-specific scaffolding to foster students’ mathematical creative thinking. A quantitative approach employing a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control-group design was adopted. The participants comprised 48 fifth-grade students from two intact classes at SDN Geluran 3, Sidoarjo, Indonesia. The classes were purposively selected based on characteristics identified in a preliminary study, particularly the heterogeneity of students’ mathematical abilities as determined by the results of the Mathematics Ability Test (Tes Kemampuan Matematika/TKM). One class (n = 24) was designated as the experimental group and received instruction using the web-based COLLAPOSE E-LKPD, whereas the other class (n = 24) served as the control group and received conventional instruction using a non-web-based E-LKPD without collaborative problem-posing features. The intervention was implemented across six sessions, comprising a pretest, four 90-minute instructional sessions, and a posttest. Students’ mathematical creative thinking was assessed through open-ended essay tasks designed to measure three dimensions: fluency, flexibility, and novelty. The assessment instrument demonstrated acceptable empirical item validity and good internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.862. Data were analyzed using N-Gain analysis and an independent-samples t-test, while Cohen’s d was calculated to estimate the magnitude of the between-group effect. The experimental group achieved a mean N-Gain of 0.68, categorized as moderate, whereas the control group achieved a mean N-Gain of 0.21, categorized as low. Post-test performance was significantly higher in the experimental group (M = 82.33) than in the control group (M = 67.46), t(46) = 5.678, p < .001. The findings provide initial empirical evidence that integrating collaborative problem posing, peer interaction, problem modification, and indicator-specific scaffolding within a web-based E-LKPD may support the development of mathematical creative thinking among fifth-grade students within the context of the study.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Copyright (c) 2026 Febriarsita Eka Sasmita, Sirojuddin Abror, Hanik Yuni Alfiyah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
[1] E. Care, P. Griffin, and B. McGaw, Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer, 2012.
[2] K. Ananiadou and M. Claro, “21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,” EDUWorking paper, no. 41, 2009.
[3] J. C. Kaufman, V. P. Glăveanu, and R. J. Sternberg, “What is and what can be: The scope and possibilities of creativity and creativity research.,” 2019.
[4] R. Leikin and B. Sriraman, “Empirical research on creativity in mathematics (education): From the wastelands of psychology to the current state of the art,” ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2022.
[5] A. H. Schoenfeld and J. Kilpatrick, “A US perspective on the implementation of inquiry-based learning in mathematics,” ZDM, vol. 45, pp. 901–909, 2013.
[6] J. Lithner, “Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning,” Zdm, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 937–949, 2017.
[7] L. S. Vygotsky and M. Cole, Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press, 1978.
[8] M. A. Runco and S. Acar, “Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential,” Creat. Res. J., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 66–75, 2012.
[9] K. H. Kim, “The torrance tests of creative thinking-figural or verbal: Which one should we use?,” Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 302–321, 2017.
[10] E. P. Torrance, “Creativity in the Classroom; What Research Says to the Teacher.,” 1977.
[11] K. Pendidikan, R. Kebudayaan, and T. R. Indonesia, “Panduan implementasi kurikulum merdeka,” Jakarta: Kemendikbudristek, 2022.
[12] T. Ivanova et al., “OECD/NEA Expert Group on Uncertainty Analysis for Criticality Safety Assessment: Current Activities,” in Proceedings of PHYSOR, 2010, pp. 9–14.
[13] T. T. Wijaya, W. Hidayat, N. Hermita, J. A. Alim, and C. A. Talib, “Exploring contributing factors to PISA 2022 mathematics achievement: Insights from Indonesian teachers,” Infinity Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 139–156, 2024.
[14] J. Cai and S. Hwang, “Teachers as redesigners of curriculum to teach mathematics through problem posing: conceptualization and initial findings of a problem posing project,” ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 53, pp. 1403–1416, 2021.
[15] J. Cai and R. Leikin, “Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances, and future directions for research,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 105, pp. 287–301, 2020.
[16] F. E. Sasmita and R. S. Kusuma, “Learning models that can improve elementary school students’ creative thinking ability,” Jurnal Bidang Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57–71, 2023.
[17] S. I. Brown and M. I. Walter, The art of problem posing. Psychology Press, 2005.
[18] F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, and J. Cai, “Problem-posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions,” Educational studies in mathematics, vol. 83, pp. 1–7, 2013.
[19] R. Leikin, “Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks,” in Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students, Brill, 2009, pp. 129–145.
[20] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning,” Educational researcher, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 365–379, 2009.
[21] L. Vygotsky and M. Cole, “Lev Vygotsky: Learning and social constructivism,” Learning Theories for Early Years Practice. UK: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 68–73, 2018.
[22] F. Sasmita, T. Siswono, and N. Mariana, “Exploring Students’ Creative Thinking through Collaborative Problem-Posing Activities,” Perspectives of science and Education, vol. 77, pp. 278–292, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.32744/pse.2025.5.18.
[23] F. E. Sasmita, W. Wiryanto, and A. Khan, “Tracing Creative Thinking Patterns in Homogeneous Primary Student Groups during Collaborative Problem Posing,” EduStream: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 170–188, 2025.
[24] R. D. Satriani and L. D. Prasojo, “The effectiveness of website-assisted learning multimedia to improve mathematics learning achievement of elementary school students,” Journal of Integrated Elementary Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 120–135, 2024.
[25] Q. Wang, “Using online shared workspaces to support group collaborative learning,” Comput. Educ., vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1270–1276, 2010.
[26] B. Gan, T. Menkhoff, and R. Smith, “Enhancing students’ learning process through interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 51, pp. 652–663, 2015.
[27] N. R. T. Ghaisani and N. Setyasto, “The development of Liveworksheets-based electronic student worksheets (E-LKPD) to improve science learning outcomes,” Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6147–6156, 2023.
[28] W. Hidayat and U. Aripin, “HOW TO DEVELOP AN E-LKPD WITH A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO ACHIEVING STUDENTS’MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION ABILITIES?,” Infinity Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 85–100, 2023.
[29] J. Cai and B. Rott, “On understanding mathematical problem-posing processes,” ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 61–71, 2024.
[30] J. Cai and S. Hwang, “Learning to teach through mathematical problem posing: Theoretical considerations, methodology, and directions for future research,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 102, p. 101391, 2020.
[31] J. Sweller, “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning,” Cogn. Sci., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257–285, 1988.
[32] P. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86, 2006.
[33] J. R. Fraenkel and N. E. Wallen, How to design and evaluate research in education. ERIC, 1990.
[34] J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications, 2017.
[35] J. W. Creswell, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc, 2012.
[36] S. Campbell et al., “Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples,” Journal of research in Nursing, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 652–661, 2020.
[37] A. Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited, 2024.
[38] H. Levene, “Robust tests for equality of variances,” Contributions to probability and statistics, pp. 278–292, 1960.
[39] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, “Multivariate data analysis,” 2019.
[40] B. B. Frey, “Levene’s homogeneity of variance test,” 2018, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation.
[41] J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge, 2013.
[42] M. Berger, “Vygotsky’s Theory of Concept Formation and Mathematics Education.,” International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 2, pp. 153–160, 2005.
[43] E. A. Silver, “Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Looking back, looking around, and looking ahead,” Educational studies in mathematics, vol. 83, pp. 157–162, 2013.
[44] S. McLeod, “Albert Bandura’s social learning theory,” Simply Psychology. London, 2011.
[45] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: The exercise of control,” 1997, Freeman.
[46] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1987.
[47] C.-H. Chen, W.-P. Chan, K. Huang, and C.-W. Liao, “Supporting informal science learning with metacognitive scaffolding and augmented reality: Effects on science knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and cognitive load,” Research in Science & Technological Education, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1480–1495, 2023.
[48] Z. Cai, P. Mao, D. Wang, J. He, X. Chen, and X. Fan, “Effects of scaffolding in digital game-based learning on student’s achievement: A three-level meta-analysis,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 537–574, 2022.
[49] J. P. Guilford, “Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow,” J. Creat. Behav., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 1967.
[50] E. P. Torrance, “Torrance tests of creative thinking,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., 1966.
[51] I. Q. Utami and W.-Y. Hwang, “The impact of collaborative problem posing and solving with ubiquitous-decimal app in authentic contexts on math learning,” Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 427–454, 2022.
[52] H.-Y. Sung, G.-J. Hwang, and Y.-C. Chang, “Development of a mobile learning system based on a collaborative problem-posing strategy,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 456–471, 2016.
[53] A. Farasat, A. Nikolaev, S. Miller, and R. Gopalsamy, “Crowdlearning: Towards collaborative problem-posing at scale,” in Proceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, 2017, pp. 221–224.
[54] A. Marini, D. Safitri, A. Niladini, M. Zahari, L. Dewiyani, and U. Muawanah, “Developing a website integrated with project-based learning: Evidence of stimulating creativity among elementary school students in Indonesia,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 11, p. 101402, 2025.
[55] C.-S. Lin and R. Y.-W. Wu, “Effects of web-based creative thinking teaching on students’ creativity and learning outcome,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1675–1684, 2016.
[56] S.-J. Jang, “Exploration of secondary students’ creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum,” Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 247–255, 2009.
[57] F. M. Singer and C. Voica, “Is problem posing a tool for identifying and developing mathematical creativity?,” in Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice, Springer, 2015, pp. 141–174.
[58] A. Bicer, Y. Lee, C. Perihan, M. M. Capraro, and R. M. Capraro, “Considering mathematical creative self-efficacy with problem posing as a measure of mathematical creativity,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, pp. 457–485, 2020.
[59] X. Y. Van Harpen and B. Sriraman, “Creativity and mathematical problem posing: an analysis of high school students’ mathematical problem posing in China and the USA,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 201–221, 2013.
[60] M. K. Serin, G. Uyanık, and L. İncikabı, “The relationship between pre-service primary school teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and critical thinking dispositions,” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 513–535, 2018.
[61] G.-J. Hwang and Y.-F. Tu, “Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 584, 2021.
[62] B. Kemendikbudristek, P. Adiprima, W. K. Sekar, and T. Y. Harjatanaya, “Panduan pengembangan projek penguatan profil pelajar Pancasila,” Jakarta: Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan Kementerian, 2022.
[63] C.-H. Chen, “An adaptive scaffolding e-learning system for middle school students’ physics learning,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 30, no. 3, 2014.