Using Systematic Approach to Problem Solving to Increase Junior Students’ Learning Outcomes
Jauhara Dian Nurul Iffah1 , Faridatul Masruroh2
1,2Departement of Education Mathematics, STKIP PGRI Jombang

Article Info		ABSTRACT	
Article history:
Received Jun 12, 201x
Revised Aug 20, 201x
Accepted Aug 26, 201x
		Basically, learning programs aims not only to understand and master whether and how something happens, but also to provide an understanding and mastery about why it happens. Building on this issue, it is necessary to provide students with a problem-solving learning approach. Systematic approach to problem solving is useful to solve problems. Following this approach, the procedures of problem solving involve four stages: problem analysis, the strategy of problem-solving, counting operation, and answer checking and the interpretation of the results. This study is a Classroom Action Research involving the students of MTs Salafi’iyah Tebuireng Jombang East Java, particularly at class VIIIA, as the research subject. This study was in two cycles and ended as it had reached the success criteria set in this study. The instrument of this study is test on students’ learning outcomes. The results showed that applying systematic approach to problem solving enabled to increase the students’ learning outcomes, as the finding on the second cycle suggested that the students’ learning outcomes had reached the classical completeness the researcher had previously set.	
Keywords:
Systematic Approach to Problem Solving
Junior Students’
Learning Outcomes
			
		Copyright © 201x Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science. 
All rights reserved.	
Corresponding Author:
Jauhara Dian Nurul Iffah, 
Departement of Education Mathemaics,
STKIP PGRI Jombang,
Pattimura Street III/20 Jombang, East Java
Email: jauhara@stkipjb.ac.id	

1.	INTRODUCTION
Good education is an education that not only prepares the students for particular profession or positions, but also prepares them to be able to solve daily problems ([1] Trianto, 2007). The correlation between the ways teachers teach and the students’ efforts in acquiring and developing the acquired insights is such a way to enhance the quality of education in schools and to attain students’ successfulness in their learning process.
Mathematics is one fundamental subject in science and, as a course; it is categorized into exact field, which needs more concentration on comprehension rather than memorizing. To understand a subject matter in mathematics, students need to master several mathematical concepts along with their relationship in order to solve problems they encounter ([2] Rosita, 2004). They need to comprehend the given concept and apply it to solve daily problems.
The purpose of learning mathematics since elementary and general grade is to make students able to use mathematics and mathematical thinking for their daily lives and for learning various disciplines. Learning mathematics emphasizes on students’ capability to solve their daily problems. This capability is crucial. Thus, students should drill, practice, and get used on it since early ages. Learning mathematics needs reasonable and mathematical thinking to solve existing problems and learn something new; hence, it is more than just counting ([3] Iffah, 2017).
Basically, learning programs aim not only to understand and master on what and how something happens, but also to provide an understanding and mastery about “why it happens”. Building on this notion, learning how to solve problems is crucial to teach. To improve students’ successfulness in solving a problem, Metter et al. (in [4] Wena, 2011) constructed a heuristic system set in Program of Action and Methods (PAM). This PAM is a general strategy applicable in more specific fields, that is, Systematic Approach to Problem-Solving. It is useful as a guideline to solve problems.
The publication of the agenda for action by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) in the United States re-focussed the attention of the mathematics education community to problimsolving. A main recommendation of these reports was that problem solving should be the focus of school mathematics. In the United States, although the NCTM (2000) standards still emphasises the important role of problem solving in school mathematics, the situation about problem solving in schools has not improved much ([5] NCTM, 2000). There is little information in the standards document about how to implement problem solving in the school curriculum. There is now a mounting body of literature pointing to the fact that problem solving is still not implemented in mathematics classrooms in many parts of the world, or if implrmrnted, then only certain routine approaches to heuristics are being adopted ([6] English, Lesh, & Fennewald, 2008; [7] Lesh & Zawojeski, 2007; [8] Schoenfeld, 2007; [9] Silver, Ghousseini, Gosen, Charalambous, & Strawhun, 2005; [10] Dindyal, Guan, Lam, Hoong & Seng, 2012)
Be creative and open minded toward solutions are two matters individuals need to have when solving their problems. Using systematic approach to solve problems may accelerate the process of solving problems by students. Six procedures are identified for problem-solving, which involve: identifying the problem, analyzing it, identifying particular possible solutions, evaluating those possible solutions, elaborating the strategy of solving the problem, verifying the solutions whether or not they may address the problem ([11] SCME, 2013). 
However, systematic approach to problem-solving has four procedures to address problems, which involve: analyzing the problem, constructing a strategy for problem-solving, having a counting operation, and checking the solutions along with its interpretation. The first procedure is analyzing problems, which asks students to carefully read the task and then note what they just identified and felt curious on along with possible solutions addressing that problem. Second, the students need to construct a strategy to solve the problem, in case that it has been standardized. However, when it is not standardized yet, they need to write down the formulation and check whether it corresponds to the problem they encounter. Furthermore, they need to translate the problem into the standardized one.
Third, counting operation is conducted through data distribution. The data was identified in standardized one and allowed to conduct a counting process. Finally, checking the answers or solutions along with the interpretation of the result makes the students compare the counting result with the possible answer they have found in problem analysis. They need to check whether the answers correspond to the problems and identify any mistakes they did.
The analysis result of this study found a positive relationship between teacher-students interaction and motivation, as well as the students’ achievement. Thus, teacher’s instruction that leads students to solve problems is necessary for students ([12] Iffah, 2016). The procedures on the systematic approach to problem-solving and teacher’s assistance are expected to help students in solving mathematics problems. Solving problems by steps and particular rules is best and helpful for students to solve problems.
A previous study suggested that systematic approach to problem solving influenced the students’ mathematics learning outcomes ([13] Iffah, 2017). Learning outcomes is vital in learning process. It refers to patterns of actions, values, understandings, attitudes, appreciation, and skills ([14] Suprijono, 2009). The learning outcomes intended in this study points to the students’ cognitive values after applying systematic approach to problem solving. 

2.	RESEARCH METHOD 
Generally, this study aimed to see an improvement of the students’ learning outcomes through the application of systematic approach to problem solving. Corresponding to this purpose, this study is a Classroom Action Research (CAR). Kunandar defined CAR as a scientific activity of a teacher, also acted as the researcher, in her/his class, either individually or collaboratively, by designing, executing, and reflecting the action in collaborative and participative manner aimed to improve or enhance the quality of teaching and learning process in class through particular treatment in a cycle ([15] Kunandar, 2011).
This study was conducted with the students of MTs Salafi’iyah Tebuireng, particularly at class VIIIA. It is a private Islamic school in Jombang, East Java. This study was conducted in one class containing 25 students in order to see the improvement of the students’ learning outcomes after a treatment –Systematic Approach to Problem Solving- was implemented. Geometry referring to cube and rectangular cuboid was selected as the learning material, which started from understanding the features of cube and cuboid, drawing the nets, up to determining the surface area and volume of those type of geometry. The key concept of Classroom Action Research, following Kurt Lewin, consisted of four components which included planning, acting, observing, and reflecting ([16] Kusuma, 2011).
The instrument used in this study is test on students’ learning outcomes. The test was in the form of essay about cube and rectangular cuboid. It was aimed to observe the students’ understanding on those types of geometry (i.e., cube and rectangular cuboid) and, thus, see whether or not their learning outcomes was improved after a treatment - Systematic Approach to Problem Solving- was implemented. Before it was applied for data collection, it should be firstly validated by experts. Hence, the researcher asked a favor to an expert of mathematics and an expert of education to validate the instrument for this study. The indicator of students’ improvement on their learning outcomes pointed to the percentage of their score that considered complete, at least 75%, in classical manner after Systematic Approach to Problem Solving was applied.

3.	RESULT AND ANALYSIS 
3.1	Cycle 1
The first cycle run in two meetings. The former conducted the learning process by applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving, and the latter conducted the test of students’ learning outcomes. This cycle consisted of four procedures. First, planning. The researcher designed the teaching plan, the task for testing the students’ learning outcomes, and the alternative test, and then validated the test. 
Second, acting. The researcher did the teaching-learning process by applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. Understanding the features of cube and cuboid, drawing the nets, and determining the surface area and volume of those types of geometry were selected as the learning material. In this process, the researcher provided students with task and asked them to complete it using the systematic approach. This approach involved analyzing the problem, designing the strategy to solve the problem, conducting counting operation, and checking the answers followed by interpreting the results, respectively. 
Third, observing. The researcher observed the students during the learning process. She assisted them who found difficulty in solving the problem, while observing and admonishing the others who seemed not focused on their learning in order to make sure that they all were able to understand the material well. The researcher acted as teacher observing the students solving the given problem by applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. After the process ended, the researcher provided them with a test on the next meeting in order to see their learning outcomes. The following table presented the students’ learning outcomes in Cycle 1.
Table 1. Students’ learning outcomes at Cycle 1
No.	Student	Students’ Learning Outcomes at Cycle 1	
1	Student 1	60	
2	Student 2	80	
3	Student 3	60	
4	Student 4	80	
5	Student 5	60	
6	Student 6	50	
7	Student 7	50	
8	Student 8	80	
9	Student 9	60	
10	Student 10	50	
11	Student 11	70	
12	Student 12	60	
13	Student 13	60	
14	Student 14	70	
15	Student 15	90	
16	Student 16	80	
17	Student 17	65	
18	Student 18	40	
19	Student 19	70	
20	Student 20	80	
21	Student 21	80	
22	Student 22	80	
23	Student 23	70	
24	Student 24	80	
25	Student 25	50	

Based on the table, 16 of 25 students having the test reached their score less than 75 or under the minimum criteria of successfulness (i.e. KKM) the school had predetermined. It indicated that they did not complete their learning yet. The other 9 students had their score above 75, which indicated their complete learning. The students’ average score was 67 with the classical completeness at 36%. Classically, it was not yet considered complete since it did not reach 75%.
Forth, reflecting. The researcher analyzed and evaluated the students’ observed learning outcomes in order to see the successfulness of this study, respectively. The result of this stage was used for refinement to conduct Cycle 2. The students’ learning outcomes only reached 36% classical completeness. It indicated that most of them did not comprehend Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. Hence, in the next cycle, the researcher -as teacher- should be more active to interact with the students and motivate them to ask what they did not know yet. The researcher should pay more attention on students who needed assistance to get out from the difficulty they might encounter in problem-solving. The students should be drilled to be familiar with Systematic Approach to Problem Solving in order to make them easier for problem-solving, and finally in turn, their classical completeness might reach more than 75%.

3.2	Cycle 2
This second cycle run in two meetings. The former conducted the learning process by applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving, and the latter conducted the test of students’ learning outcomes. Similar to the previous one, this cycle consisted of four procedures. First, planning. The researcher designed the teaching plan that corresponded to the reflection on Cycle 1. In addition, the researcher also designed the task for testing the students’ learning outcomes and the alternative test for this second cycle, and then validated the test to the experts, respectively. After conducting validation and it was considered valid, the researcher collected the data.
Second, acting. The researcher acted as teacher conducting teaching-learning process by applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. The material continued to determining the surface area and the volume of cube and rectangular cuboid. The researcher provided the students with task containing related problems which pointed to Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. The researcher refined the learning process based on the reflection in Cycle 1. She made students more active in their learning process. She stressed more on problem-solving and asked the students to be more active in learning. She asked them to make questions for any difficulty they found. In addition, she motivated them to solve the problem well.
Third, observing. The researcher observed the students during the learning process. She led them to be more active and to make questions for any difficulty they found. Compared to Cycle 1, this current cycle was better. The students were more enthusiastic and encouraged to pay attention on the researcher, acting as teacher. They were more likely to ask and interact with the teacher, since they were accustomed to the researcher acting as their teacher and it made them enjoy the learning. Additionally, they were more capable to apply Systematic Approach to Problem Solving and hence, more motivated to solve the problem. After the learning process ended, the researcher provided them with a test in order to see their learning outcomes. The following table presented the students’ learning outcomes in Cycle 2. 
Table 2. Students’ learning outcomes at Cycle 2
No.	Student	Students’ Learning Outcomes in Cycle 2	
1	Student 1	80	
2	Student 2	100	
3	Student 3	100	
4	Student 4	100	
5	Student 5	90	
6	Student 6	80	
7	Student 7	80	
8	Student 8	100	
9	Student 9	100	
10	Student 10	60	
11	Student 11	80	
12	Student 12	90	
13	Student 13	100	
14	Student 14	60	
15	Student 15	80	
16	Student 16	70	
17	Student 17	100	
18	Student 18	80	
19	Student 19	90	
20	Student 20	100	
21	Student 21	80	
22	Student 22	100	
23	Student 23	80	
24	Student 24	50	
25	Student 25	70	

Based on the table, 21 of 25 students reached their score more than 75 or more than the minimum criteria of successfulness (i.e. KKM) the school had set. It indicated that they had completed their learning. However, the other 4 students had their score less than 75, indicating their incompleteness in learning the subject matter. The students’ average score was 85.5 with the classical completeness at 84%. It showed that the indicator of students’ improvement in their learning outcomes had completed, and thus, the research completed in Cycle 2 as well.  
Forth, reflecting. In this phase, the students’ learning outcomes were analyzed in order to see the successfulness of this current study. The result of Cycle 2 showed that the students had successfully reached the classical completeness. Therefore, the study ended in Cycle 2 since it had matched the successful criteria. In addition, the students’ learning activity in Cycle 2 was found better than the first one. They seemed more motivated to learn and more focused on the process of problem-solving.

4.	CONCLUSION 
The result concluded that applying Systematic Approach to Problem Solving enabled to improve the 8th students’ learning outcomes, particularly in cube and rectangular cuboid. This improvement was found in the increasing results from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. In Cycle 1, the students’ average score was 67 with the classical completeness at 36%. In Cycle 2, however, the students’ average score was 85.5 with the classical completeness at 84%. It indicated an improvement and completeness on students’ classical learning outcomes since it reached over the criteria of successfulness which was predetermined at 75%, as the researcher set. The result of this study showed that the application of Systematic Approach to Problem Solving could be used as an option for teachers to teach problem-solving to their students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is funded by Directorate of Research and Public Services, Directorate General of R&D Reinforcement, and the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education based on the research contract no: 086/SP2H/P/K7/KM/2016 for the research program of beginner lecturer (PDP), 2017. Therefore, financial support from Directorate of Research and Public Services, Directorate General of R&D Reinforcement, and the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education is acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1]	Trianto. Model-Model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik. 2007. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka Publisher
[2]  	Rosita, R.C.N. (2004). Analisis Kesulitan Siswa dalam Memecahkan Masalah Soal Cerita Menurut Polya. Proposal.  Jurusan Tadris UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung, 2004
[3] 	Iffah, J. D. N., Sutawidjaja, A.., Sa’dijah, C., & Subanji. Using Valsiner’s Zone Theory for Identifying the Forms of Students’ Pseudo Responses in Mathematics Teaching Process. Educational Research and Reviews. ISSN 1990-3839. Vol. 12(15), pp. 744-753, 2017
[4] 	Wena, M. Strategi Pembelajaran Inovatif Kontemporer. 2011. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara
[5] 	National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and standards for school mathematics. 2000. Reston, VA: Author
[6] 	English, L., Lesh, R., & Fennewald, T. Future directions and perspectives for problem solving research and curriculum development. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Mathematical Education, Monterrey, Mexico, 2008
[7] 	Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763-804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2007
[8] 	Schoenfeld, A. H. Problem solving in the United States, 1970-2008: Research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM, 39, 537-551, 2007
[9] 	Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. T. F. Moving from rhetoricto praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal for Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287-301, 2005
[10] 	Dindyal, J., Guan, T. E., Lam, T. T., Hoong, L. Y., Seng, Q. K. Mathematical Problem Solving for Everyone: A New Beginning. The Mathematics Educator. Vol. 13, 2, 1-20, 2012
[11] 	SCME. A Systematic Approach to Problem Solving. Systtematic Problem Solving PK Problem Solving Tools PK Four ((4)) Activities. The University of New Mexico, 2013
[12]	Iffah, J. D. N., Sutawidjaja, A., Sa’dijah., C., & Subanji. Teacher’s Rejected Promote Action (RPA) for Mathematics Teaching Practice in Class. IOSR Journals of Research and Method in Education. E-ISSN:2320-7388, p-ISSN: 2320-737X (6), issue 5. Ver III, 12-18, 2016
[13] 	Iffah, J. D. N., Masruroh, F., Pengaruh Penggunaan Systematic Approach to Problem Solving terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas VIII MTs Salafiyah Syafi’iyah Tebuireng. Edumath. Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika. ISSN: 2337-7682. Volume 4. No.1, 2017
[14] 	Suprijono, A. Cooperative Learning Teori & Aplikasi PAIKEM. Surabaya: Pustaka Pelajar, 2009
[15] 	Kunandar. Langkah Mudah Penelitian Tindakan Kelas sebagai Pengembangan Profesi Guru. 2011. Jakarta Utara: Rajawali Pers
[16] 	Kusumah,W., Dwitagama, D. Mengenal Penelitian Tindakan Kelas, Edisi Kedua. 2011. Jakarta: Indeks

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS
First author’s 
	Jauhara Dian Nurul Iffah was born in Ponorogo on April 22, 1988, the first child of two brothers (Najmuddin Maya'ba) from the couple Drs. H. Shafi'i and Hj. Siti Munashikin. Basic education history up to university is taken in Jombang regency, namely MI Perguruan Mua'llimat Cukir (graduated in 2000), MTsN Tambakberas (graduated in 2003), MA Perguruan Mu'allimat Cukir (graduated 2006). After graduating, she then continued her S1 Mathematics Education at STKIP PGRI Jombang (graduated in 2010), in the same year continued her S2 Mathematics Education at Universitas Negeri Surabaya with BPPDN On-Going (graduated in 2012). Furthermore, to increase insight and improve the quality of education, in 2013 continue S3 Mathematics Education with BPPDN scholarship at State University of Malang.
Work history, in 2010 after graduation S1 has been a teacher at MTs Salafiyah Syafi'iyah Tebuireng Jombang. In the same year also accepted to be a lecturer in Mathematics Education Studies Program STKIP PGRI Jombang until today. During his time as a lecturer, he has served as research staff at the Center for Research and Community Service at STKIP PGRI Jombang.
On February 20, 2012 married a man named M. Syam'un Rosyadi, M.H. Dear husband from Gresik who was born on May 15, 1985. On December 1, 2012, we are blessed with a beautiful daughter named Zumrotus Sholihah commonly called "icha" and on April 16, 2015, we are blessed with a handsome son named M. Nameer Yatalatthov, which is commonly called "nameer". Hopefully our beloved son's son will become a child who sholih sholihah, devoted to parents, family, useful for nusa, nation and religion. Amiinn	
		
Second author’s 

	FARIDATUL MASRUROH was born in Gresik on May 13, 1981.  Basic education history up to university is taken in Gresik, namely MI Al-Asyhar (graduated in 1994), MTs Al-Asyhar (graduated in 1997), MA Al-Asyhar (graduated 2000). After graduating, she then continued her S1 Mathematics at UIN Malang (graduated in 2004), in 2007 continued her S2 Mathematics at ITS Surabaya (graduated in 2010). In 2010 continue S3 Mathematics Education at State University of Malang.
Work history, in 2010 after graduation S2 has been a lecturer in Mathematics Education Studies Program STKIP PGRI Jombang until today.	

.