International Journal of Education ©2017 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Vol. 10 No. 1, August 2017, pp. 67-72 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v10i1.8080

THE EFFECT OF LEARNING WITH ABDUCTIVE-DEDUCTIVE STRATEGY ON

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ REASONING ABILITY

Ali Shodikin
Mathematics Education, Indonesia University of Education
[email protected]

First draft received: 24 July 2016 Final proof received: 20 August 2017

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of learning with abductive-deductive strategy on
the achievement of mathematical reasoning abilities of high school students. It employed the
experimental pretest-posttest with non-randomized control group design to the eleventh grade students
of one high school in Pati, Central Java, Indonesia. Data were collected in the form of early
mathematical ability categories (EMA) and overall. The results showed that the achievement of
mathematical reasoning abilities that students acquire through learning with abductive-deductive
strategy was better than that of the students who received were taught with expository learning. In more
detail, only students in the medium category of EMA showed better achievement in mathematical
reasoning abilities. Meanwhile, students of the upper and lower categories had the same achievements
in their reasoning abilities. Based on the findings of the research, it is expected that teachers can
encourage students to apply abduction and deduction strategy in order to achieve in mathematical
reasoning abilities.

Keywords: abductive-deductive strategy; mathematical reasoning, early mathematical ability.

To cite this paper (in APA style):

Shodikin, A. (2017). The effect of learning with abductive-deductive strategy on high school students’
reasoning ability. International Journal of Education, 10(1), 67-72. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v10i1.8080

INTRODUCTION Based on a preliminary analysis of reasoning

Mathematical reasoning ability is the main ability, it is necessary to develop a learning that can
characteristic that cannot be separated from the improve the understanding of essential concepts. The
activities of studying and developing or solving general framework in solving a problem in
mathematical problems (Ansjar & Sembiring, 2000). mathematics is the ability to identify the given facts
In fact, the implementation of learning that (data) and formulate what is asked in the problem
emphasizes the existence of reasoning is very (final target). Determining the final target is based on
recommended (NCTM, 2000). However, many data provided, and it is necessary to elaborate the
studies show that the reasoning ability of students in ability to apply the essential concepts that are
Indonesia is still low (Rahayu, 2013). Although relevant with the given data to obtain intermediate
reasoning ability is needed in mastering and solving target before finding the answer to the final target.
mathematical problems (Wahyudin, 1999), this ability Not a few problems in mathematics can be more
is often overlooked in learning (Nizar, 2007). easily solved by adding a condition (intermediate
Therefore, in learning mathematics, mathematical target) that is based on a relevant concept to arrive at
reasoning ability should be given special attention. the final target in question.
Reports of the results of other studies support The general framework as described above has
the arguments. Reasoning ability is a part of higher been developed in the research of Kusnandi (2008)
order mathematical thinking abilities (Sumarmo, on learning with abductive-deductive strategy
2013). However, studies conducted by Henningsen & (PSAD). Abductive is a mathematical thinking skill
Stein (1997), Mullis et al. (2000), Suryadi (2005), and (reasoning) that cannot fully answer a problem, but it
Murni (2013) show that learning mathematics is is a process of offering a reason as the basis for a
generally not focused on developing higher order specific action (Aliseda, 2007). This general
mathematical thinking abilities. Students more framework was originally developed to develop the
frequently solve problems from the textbook and get proving ability of students who just begin learning
less non-routine problems that can train these higher about proof. The results showed that students who
order mathematical thinking abilities. Thus, efforts to learn with abductive-deductive strategy have better
develop mathematics learning oriented to the proving ability than students who learn with
development of higher order thinking abilities are conventional learning. Possible application of this
needed. strategy has been reviewed as well by Sun et al.

67
 Shodikin, A.
The effect of learning with abductive-deductive strategy on high school students’ reasoning ability

(2005) for the problem of reasoning and problem deductive strategy has effects on high school
solving ability. The possibility of applying this students’ reasoning ability.
framework to the wide range of problems Based on the notion of learning with
(mathematical literacy) for students in secondary abductive-deductive strategy, in this study a more
schools has also been studied theoretically (Shodikin, operational learning syntax of abductive-deductive
2013), but not at the practical level. Herein, the strategy is developed as shown in Figure 1.
present study attempts to find out whether abductive-

Key Process
Analyze and evaluate
process

Abductive Process
Generalize the
Deductive Process

Organize learning findings

Orientation of Discussion of strategies

problem to more problems
Figure 1. Schematic of Learning with Abductive-Deductive Strategy

The stages of learning with abductive-deductive

strategy above are described in more detail in Table
1.
Table 1. The Syntax of Learning with Abductive-Deductive Strategy
Phase Teacher Behavior
Phase 1 Orientation of problem • Teacher discusses the problem of learning objectives
• Teachers describe various important logistics needs
• Teachers motivate students to be directly involved in learning
activities
• Teachers provide apperception
Phase 2 Organization of • Teachers help students to define and organize the tasks of
learning learning and information related to the problem
Phase 3 Analysis and process • Analyze and evaluate the teacher directs students to find their
evaluation own solutions from information already possessed by students
• Teachers encourage students to do transactive reasoning as to
criticize, explain, clarify, justify and elaborate a proposed idea,
either initiated by students and teachers
• Teachers assist students in planning and preparing materials for
presentations and discussion
• Teachers help students to reflect on the investigation process
and other processes used in solving problems
Phase 4 Generalization of the • Teachers help generalize the findings obtained
findings

Phase 5 Discussion • Teachers assist students in finding more strategies for the
of
strategies to more
problems
problems • Teachers provide training and evaluation
Based on the background and formulation of
To be involved in transactive discussion, students’ the problem described above, this study aims to
early mathematics ability (EMA) plays a very investigate the effect of learning with abductive-
important role, by which the idea that appears to deductive strategy on the achievement of high
develop gradually so as to build a comprehensive school students’ mathematical reasoning abilities.
mathematical concept of information is obtained.
Students’ EMA are divided into three categories:
upper, middle, and lower levels. This grouping is METHODOLOGY
used to see if there is mutual effect between the The method applied in this study was the
learning done and students’ early mathematics experimental with pretest-posttest with non-
ability and reasoning abilities. Besides that, the randomized control group design. With this design,
effects of learning in each category of early subjects initially performed pretest, and then treated
mathematical ability can be explained. with a form of learning with abductive-deductive
strategy and subsequently performed post-test to

68
 International Journal of Education ©2017 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Vol. 10 No. 1, August 2017, pp. 67-72 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v10i1.8080

measure their mathematical reasoning abilities in abductive-deductive strategy on the achievement of

the topic of polynomial. This design was chosen students’ mathematical reasoning ability. The
according to the purpose of the research, namely to research design is presented in Figure 2.
show the effect of the application of learning with
Experimental Class O X1 O
pretest treatment posttest
Control Class O X O
pretest expository posttest
Figure 2. Research Design

The study was conducted at one high school in Pati, FINDINGS

Central Java, Indonesia, in the academic year of The selection of the class used as the research
2013/2014. The samples consisted of two classes sample, in addition to being based on early
that have the same early mathematical abilities out mathematical abilities was also based on the initial
of the eight classes available with purposive reasoning abilities shown by the pretest scores,
sampling, each totaling to 34 students. The both overall and by EMA category. The findings
grouping of students by the category early revealed that the students who learned with
mathematical ability was done based on the abductive-deductive strategy and those with
average scores of two daily tests: mid semester test expository method showed no differences in early
and end-of-semester test. The weights of these mathematical ability and reasoning ability, both as a
values were 20%, 30%, and 50 %, respectively. whole and by category of EMA (upper, middle,
lower).
The achievement of mathematical reasoning
ability was determined based on the posttest
scores. Details of the achievement are provided in
Figure 3.

upper middle under overall

30 30
25.81 24.53

15.88 17
13.67 12.83

Experimental Control
Figure 3. Achievement Score Bar Chart
To find out which students achieved better
Reasoning Ability reasoning ability, mean difference test was
Figure 3 shows that the students who learned with conducted. Before the mean difference test was
abductive-deductive strategy (experimental class) carried out, the normality test and homogeneity
had the overall average score of achievement of tests were undertaken. Then, t-test was used for
mathematical reasoning abilities greater than the normally distributed and homogeneous data, while
students who received the expository learning for non-normally distributed data Mann-Whitney U
(control class). Judging from EMA category, the non-parametric test was employed. The results of
students with upper level EMA had the greatest mean difference test are presented in Table 3.
average score of achievement of mathematical
reasoning ability.

Table 3
Test Results Mean Difference of Post-test Scores in Mathematical Reasoning Ability
EMA Comparison of t Mann- Sig. Sig. Ho
average (E:C) Whitney U (2 tailed) (1 tailed)
Upper 30.00 : 30.00 0.000 - 1.000 0.500 Accepted
Middle 25.81 : 15.88 - 130.5 0.006 0.003 Rejected
Lower 13.67 : 12.83 0.166 - 0.871 0.435 Accepted
Overall 24.53 : 17.00 - 304.5 0.001 0.000 Rejected

69
 Shodikin, A.
The effect of learning with abductive-deductive strategy on high school students’ reasoning ability

Ho: The average achievement of reasoning ability of the experimental class was lower or equal to that of the
control class in terms of EMA (upper, middle, lower) as well as overall.

Table 3 shows that the mathematical reasoning ability abductive-deductive is still less than optimal. The
of the students who learned with abductive-deductive reason for this is related to adjustments in thought
strategy (experimental class) was better than that of that are relatively difficult for students. In fact, thinking
the students who used expository learning (control hard is vital in constructing knowledge in the view of
class). Seen more detail in terms of EMA categories, constructivism-based learning (Ormrod, 2008).
only the mathematical reasoning ability of students Another reason is the test used in this study was
whose EMA at the middle category and learning with relatively difficult. It was revealed during the
abductive-deductive strategy that was better than that interviews that the test items in this study were more
of the students used expository learning. However, difficult than the normal questions given by the
for students of the upper and lower categories of teacher prior to the study. The test results also
EMA who learned with abductive-deductive strategy indicate that the questions used were in the “most
(experimental class), the achievement of difficult” category.
mathematical reasoning ability was lower or equal to It is clear then that higher order mathematical
that of the students who employed expository thinking ability (reasoning) is not easy to achieve.
learning (control class). Based on the average However, it is undeniable that the students learning
achievement, the experimental class students in the with abductive-deductive strategy demonstrate better
upper and lower categories of EMA gained an achievement than the students taught with expository
average score that was greater than the average learning. This finding indicates that if abductive-
score of the control class. Hence, it can be concluded deductive strategy is consistently applied, it is
that the achievement of mathematical reasoning possible to increase students’ reasoning ability
ability of the students learning with abductive- optimally.
deductive strategy (experimental class) was equal to Reviewed in more detail by categories of EMA,
that of the students who used the expository learning only students in the middle category show learning
(control class). with abductive-deductive strategy had better
achievement of mathematical reasoning ability than
students who were taught with expository learning.
DISCUSSION Meanwhile, experimental class students in the upper
Specifically, the indicators of mathematical reasoning and lower EMA categories had the same
ability in this research are focused on three skills, achievement same ability. This suggests that learning
namely: (1) making logical conclusions; (2) estimating with abductive-deductive strategy has facilitated
answers and solution processes; and (3) using students with middle category of EMA to improve
patterns and relationships to analyze mathematical mathematical reasoning ability. On the other hand,
situations. the students with upper category of EMA had similar
It has been shown that the students who learned results in their reasoning ability, possibly because the
with abductive-deductive strategy and expository students have great motivation and are able to accept
learning had no difference in their early mathematical the learning materials, so despite the lack of
ability, both as a whole and in terms of each category supporting learning method they were still able to
of Early Mathematical Ability/EMA (upper, middle, obtain good results. The fact that the increase in the
lower). This finding is understandable because both reasoning ability of the students learning with
classes were not subjected to different learning abductive-deductive strategy was not greater than
methods. that of the students with expository learning does not
The achievement of mathematical reasoning mean that the former students did not improve or
ability of the students learning with abductive- facilitated, but with both of learning strategies have
deductive strategy was better than that of the increased the students’ ability. Similarly, the students
students who used expository learning. These results with lower category of EMA did not optimally improve
are consistent with the hypothesis proposed their reasoning ability through learning with
previously and showed that indeed the phases of abductive-deductive strategy and expository learning
learning with abductive-deductive strategy support because the students with have low motivation.
and facilitate the improvement of students’ reasoning Based on these arguments, in general learning with
ability. The results are also in line with those of abductive-deductive strategy has been able to
Mayadiana’s (2011) which show that students who facilitate the achievement of better reasoning ability.
learned with mathematical process thinking had The following arguments reinforce the notion
reasoning ability (inductive and deductive) better than that learning with abductive-deductive strategy has
that of the students taught with conventional learning. been able to facilitate the achievement of
Although the research was conducted to students mathematical reasoning ability of students better than
with different levels of early mathematical ability and expository learning.
using inductive approach, the similarity to learning For indicator (1), making logical conclusions,
with abductive-deductive strategy lies in the emphasis learning with abductive-deductive strategy facilitates
on mathematical thinking process. the phase of generalizing the findings obtained.
The average achievement score (post-test) on Learning activities encourage students to generalize
the reasoning ability of students learning with the findings obtained from the problems or the data.
abductive-deductive strategy was 24.53 of the ideal The activities also familiarize and help students in
40. From this finding, it can be concluded that the understanding the problems or data so as to be able
reasoning ability of the students learning with to make conclusions from a logical statement. This

70
 International Journal of Education ©2017 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Vol. 10 No. 1, August 2017, pp. 67-72 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v10i1.8080

argument is in accordance with the opinion of mathematical reasoning ability as described above
Vygotsky (John & Thornton, 1993) who said that the reinforce that learning with abductive-deductive
process of improving the understanding and strategy is better than expository learning in the
reasoning of students occurs as a result of learning. achievement and improvement of students’ reasoning
In other words, the phase of generalizing the findings abilities.
obtained in learning with abductive-deductive strategy
has been able to facilitate the indicator of making
logical conclusions. Meanwhile, in expository CONCLUSION
learning, students have fewer opportunities to do Based on the research findings and discussion, it can
such activities. be concluded that the in general the achievements of
The second indicator of estimating answers and mathematical reasoning ability of the students
solutions in learning with abductive-deductive learning with abductive-deductive strategy was better
strategy greatly facilitates the analysis and evaluation than those with expository learning. In terms of EMA
phase. In this phase, the teacher first directs students category, only students in the middle category
to find their own solutions of the information that has showed better achievements of mathematical
been gained by the students. The teacher then reasoning ability. Meanwhile, students in the upper
encourages students to do transactive reasoning as and lower categories demonstrated similar
to criticize, explain, clarify, justify and elaborate a achievements of mathematical reasoning ability.
proposed idea, either initiated by the students or Teachers are recommended to use learning with
teacher. Next, the teacher assists students in abductive-deductive strategy with learning materials
planning and preparing materials for presentations that possess abductive-deductive characteristics to
and discussions. The teacher then helps students to improve mathematical reasoning ability. Further
reflect on the investigation process and other research needs to be done for the development of
processes used in solving the problem to give learning with abductive-deductive strategy for other
students the ability to estimate answers and solution. materials in accordance with the characteristics of
Compared to expository learning, in which the abductive-deductive strategy, such linear program,
teacher presents the material through lecture or logarithmic, and trigonometric. The research should
reading materials from a textbook or instructional also be extended to the level vocational schools and
material, students cannot optimally develop the ability junior high schools. Research on the improvement of
to estimate answers and solution processes. This is other mathematical abilities using learning with
supported by the learning theories expressed by abductive-deductive strategy can also be done. For
Piaget, where knowledge is not passively received. comparison, it is also necessary to do research on
Mathematical knowledge is constructed by the the comparison of the strategy to the inductive,
children themselves; should not be given. Students deductive, inductive-deductive or other strategies.
should become active seekers and processors of
information, not a passive recipient (Schunk, 1986; REFERENCES
Davis & Murrell, 1994). In other words, students are Aliseda, A. (2007). Abductive reasoning: Challenges
given the opportunity to learn independently and ahead. Theoria, 60, 261-270.
connect the concepts that have been previously Ansjar, M., & Sembiring. (2000). Hakikat
obtained and become involved in meaningful Pembelajaran MIPA dan Kiat Pembelajaran
learning. The opportunity to explain ideas is also one Matematika di Perguruan Tinggi. Jakarta:
of the factors supporting the increase in students’ Directorate General of Higher Education
reasoning ability (Baig & Halai, 2006). This is the Department.
advantage of learning with abductive-deductive Baig, S. & Halai, A. (2006). Learning mathematical
strategy compared to expository learning. rules with reasoning. Eurasia Journal of
The third indicator of using patterns and Mathematics, Science and Technology
relationships to analyze mathematical situations in Education, 2, 15-39.
learning with abductive-deductive strategy facilitates Chiston, C. & Papageorgiau, E. (2006). A Framework
in discussion of strategies to be applied to more of mathematics inductive reasoning. Journal
problems. Students’ activities in finding strategies to Learning and Instruction. Cyprus. Elsevier,
the problems require students to see patterns and Ltd. 17.
relationships between a problem and another Dienes, Z.P. (1969). Mathematics in the Primary
problem. Students will construct new mathematical School. London: Macmillan and Co Ltd.
knowledge through reflection on actions undertaken Davis, T. M. & Murrell, P. (1994). Turning Teaching
both physically and mentally. They make into Learning: The Role of Student
observations to find patterns and relationships, and Responsibility in the Collegiate Experience.
form generalizations and abstractions (Dienes, 1969). (Report No.EDO-HE 93-8). Washington, DC:
The investigation of the objects, comparison and George Washington University, School of
analysis of the similarity or non-similarity (pattern) will Education and Human Development. (ERIC
enhance students’ reasoning ability (Christon & Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372
Papageorgion, 2006). Therefore, this phase is very 702).
helpful in familiarizing students to use patterns and Henningsen, M., & Stein, M.K. (1997). Mathematical
relationships to analyze mathematical situations. tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based
The more advantages that learning with factors that support and inhibit high-level
abductive-deductive strategy have than expository mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal
learning in facilitating the development of students’

71
 Shodikin, A.
The effect of learning with abductive-deductive strategy on high school students’ reasoning ability

for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, pelajaran matematika. (Unpublshed

524-549. Dissertation). IKIP Bandung.
John, G.A., & Thornton, C.A. (1993). Vygotsky
revisited: Nurturing young children’s
understanding of number. Focus on Learning
Problems in Mathematics, 15, 18-28.
Kusnandi (2008). Pembelajaran matematika dengan
strategi abduktif-deduktif untuk
menumbuhkembangkan kemampuan
membuktikan pada mahasiswa. (Unpublished
Dissertation). Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung.
Mayadiana, D. (2011). Mengembangkan kemampuan
penalaran dan pemecahan masalah kreatif
matematis mahasiswa calon guru sd melalui
pembelajaran dengan pendekatan induktif.
(Unpublished Dissertation). Indonesia
University of Education, Bandung.
Mullis, I., Martin, M.O., Ruddock, G.J., O’Sullivan,
C.Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2000). TIMMS 1999:
International Mathematics Report. Boston: The
International Study Boston College.
Murni, A. (2013). Peningkatan kemampuan
pemecahan masalah dan representasi
matematis siswa smp melalui pembelajaran
metakognitif berbasis soft skill. (Unpublished
Dissertation). Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics. USA: NCTM.
Nizar, A. (2007). Kontribusi matematika dalam
membangun daya nalar dan komunikasi
siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Inovatif. 2 (2), 74-80.
Ormrod, E.J. (2008). Psikologi pendidikan. Jakarta:
Erlangga.
Rahayu, S. (2013). Kemampuan pemahaman dan
penalaran matematis dalam pembelajaran
inkuiri terbimbing dengan penguatan e-
learning berbasis aplikasi Moodle.
(Unpublished Thesis). Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung.
Schuck,D.H. (1986). Verbalization and children’s self-
regulated learning. Contemporary Education
Pshycology, 11, 347-369.
Shodikin, A. (2013). Abductive-deductive strategy:
How to apply it in improving student
mathematics literacy in junior high school?.
International Seminar on Mathematics,
Science, and Computer Science Education.
Bandung. October 19, 2013.
Sumarmo, U. (2013). Kumpulan makalah: Berpikir
dan disposisi matematik serta
pembelajarannya. Bandung: Indonesia
University of Education.
Sun, Z., Finnie, G. & Weber, K. (2005). Abductive
Case Based Reasoning. International Journal
of Intelligent Systems. 20(9), 957-983.
Suryadi, D. (2005). Penggunaan pendekatan
pembelajaran tidak langsung serta
pendekatan gabungan langsung dan tidak
langsung dalam rangka meningkatkan
kemampuan berpikir matematik tingkat tinggi
siswa SLTP. (Unpublished Dissertation).
Indonesia University of Education, Bandung.
Wahyudin. (1999). Kemampuan guru matematika,
calon guru matematika, dan siswa dalam mata

72