Integrasi Problem-Based Learning dan Media Papan Jurang dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Dasar: Kajian Kognitif dan Tarbiyah Islamiyah
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59966/isedu.v4i1.2850Keywords:
Problem-Based Learning, Papan Jurang, Place Value, Cognitive Load, Tarbiyah IslamiyahAbstract
Elementary school students frequently struggle to master addition and subtraction of whole numbers up to 100,000, because the transition from three-digit to five-digit numbers sharply increases cognitive load and disrupts place-value understanding. This qualitative case study examined how integrating Problem-Based Learning (PBL) with the “Papan Jurang” (Chasm Board) manipulative supported Grade V students’ arithmetic proficiency at SDN 2 Lumansari, Kendal, Indonesia, viewed through the lens of Tarbiyah Islamiyah. Data were collected from July 2024 to mid-2025 through classroom observation, in-depth interviews with eight informants (the principal, the curriculum vice-principal, and six Grade V students), and document analysis, then analyzed thematically following the Miles and Huberman model. Findings show that the PBL–Papan Jurang synergy was associated with a marked improvement in students’ place-value understanding and procedural fluency, eased the enactive–iconic–symbolic transition, and reduced regrouping errors alongside mathematics anxiety. Tarbiyah values were observed operationally: tafakkur manifested as students’ reflective reasoning about numerical patterns, and taisir as the ease the board provided in bridging concrete and symbolic representation. This study contributes a model that converges Cognitive Load Theory with Islamic educational philosophy, offering primary schools—particularly faith-based ones—a locally grounded, low-cost alternative to digital manipulatives for teaching large-number arithmetic.
References
Al-Attas, S. M. N. (1980). The concept of education in Islam: A framework for an Islamic philosophy of education. ABIM (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia).
An-Nahlawi, A. (1979). Ushul al-tarbiyah al-Islamiyyah wa asalibiha fi al-bayt wa al-madrasah wa al-mujtama’. Dar al-Fikr.
Anghelo Josué, Bedoya-Flores, M. C., Mosquera-Quinonez, E. F., Mesias-Simisterra, Á. E., & Bautista-Sánchez, J. V. (2023). Educational platforms: Digital tools for the teaching-learning process in education. Ibero-American Journal of Education & Society Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.56183/iberoeds.v3i1.626
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00196
Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282908330580
Björklund, C., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kullberg, A. (2020). Research on early childhood mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 52(4), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01177-3
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Boaler, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bognar, B., Mužar Horvat, S., & Jukić Matić, L. (2025). Characteristics of effective elementary mathematics instruction: A scoping review of experimental studies. Education Sciences, 15(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010076
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2019). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the “growth mindset.” Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.
Elia, I., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Levenson, E., Matsuo, N., Feza, N., & Lisarelli, G. (2024). Early childhood mathematics education research: Overview of latest developments and looking ahead. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 28. https://doi.org/10.4000/adsc.3113
Gravemeijer, K. (1997). Instructional design for reform in mathematics education. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_3
Inayah, Y., & Safari, Y. (2025). Inovasi media pembelajaran matematika untuk meningkatkan pemahaman siswa sekolah dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 9(1).
Indah L, N. A., & Hamdu, G. (2022). Analisis pelaksanaan pembelajaran literasi dan numerasi di sekolah dasar. PEDADIDAKTIKA: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.17509/pedadidaktika.v9i3.53452
Jamali, S. M., Ale Ebrahim, N., & Jamali, F. (2023). The role of STEM education in improving the quality of education: A bibliometric study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(3), 1105–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09762-1
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lafay, A., Osana, H. P., & Levin, J. R. (2023). Does conceptual transparency in manipulatives afford place-value understanding in children at risk for mathematics learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221124088
Laski, E. V., Jor’dan, J. R., Daoust, C., & Murray, A. K. (2015). What makes mathematics manipulatives effective? Lessons from cognitive science and Montessori education. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589588
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Muliantara, I. K., & Suarni, N. K. (2022). Strategi menguatkan literasi dan numerasi untuk mendukung merdeka belajar di sekolah dasar. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 4(3), 3583–3592. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v4i3.2847
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
Ramli, M. S., Ayub, A. F. M., Razali, F., Ghazali, N., & Norudin, S. W. A. W. (2024). Impacts of problem-based learning towards calculus achievement and mathematical critical thinking skills among pre-university students. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.47836/mjms.18.4.07
Rizki, L. M., & Priatna, N. (2019). Mathematical literacy as the 21st century skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4), 042088. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042088
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883785
Sari, M., & Rosidah, A. (2023). Implementasi model pembelajaran problem based learning (PBL) terhadap hasil belajar IPS SD. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidik Indonesia, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.56916/jipi.v2i1.307
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Tjandra, C. (2023). Effectiveness of using manipulatives in mathematics teaching in inclusive education programs in an elementary school. Dharmas Education Journal (DE_Journal), 4(1). https://doi.org/10.56667/dejournal.v4i1.944
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Witono, S., & Hadi, M. S. (2025). Numerasi dan kemampuan berpikir kreatif pada pembelajaran matematika di sekolah dasar. JIIP – Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.54371/jiip.v8i3.7180
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Festiana Fajar Suryaningsih Sumbawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.