THE EFFECTS AND INTERACTION OF GENDER AND LEARNING STYLES ON TENTH-GRADE STUDENTS' MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION ABILITY

Rozi Fitriza, Amania Khairul, Amalina Amalina

Abstract


This study examined whether tenth-grade students’ mathematical representation ability on systems of linear inequalities in two variables differs by gender and learning style, and whether these two factors interact. An ex post facto design was employed. Of the 313 tenth-grade students at SMAN 1 Kota Pariaman, West Sumatra, 223 students with a dominant learning style were selected as the sample. The sample comprised 87 male and 136 female students; by learning style, 65 were auditory, 148 kinesthetic, and 10 visual learners. Representation ability was measured using a validated essay test covering verbal, symbolic, and visual representations. Because the visual group was too small (7 males and 3 females), the main analysis was a 2 × 2 two-way ANOVA on auditory and kinesthetic students (n = 213). For comparison, a full 2 × 3 model, an ANOVA with Type II sums of squares, and Welch’s t-tests were also conducted. Female students scored higher than male students, F(1, 209) = 6.47, p = .012, partial η² = .030 (M = 60.18 vs. 53.25). In contrast, the 2 × 3 factorial model yielded non-significant results, owing to the very small number of visual learners. Learning style had no significant effect, F(1, 209) = 0.25, p = .618, and there was no interaction between gender and learning style, F(1, 209) < 0.01, p = .988. These findings indicate a modest advantage for female students, whereas learning-style categories provide no basis for distinguishing students’ representation ability. The study also demonstrates that unbalanced cell sizes can alter conclusions in factorial ANOVA.

Keywords


Gender; Learning Style; Mathematical Representation Ability; Two-Way ANOVA

Full Text:

PDF

References


Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-Normal Data: Is ANOVA Still A Valid Option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Lea`rning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2end ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duval, R. (2006). A Cognitive Analysis of Problems of Comprehension in a Learning of Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z

Dwijayanti, N. K. A., Payadnya, I. P. A. A., & Wulandari, I. G. A. P. A. (2024). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Siswa dalam Mempelajari Materi Aljabar Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar Tingkat SMA Kelas XI. Jurnal Pembelajaran Dan Pengembangan Matematika (PEMANTIK), 4(2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.36733/pemantik.v4i2.9855

Fuad, M. N. (2016). Representasi Matematis Siswa SMA dalam Memecahkan Masalah Persamaan Kuadrat Ditinjau dari Perbedaan Gender. Kreano: Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 7(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.15294/kreano.v7i2.5854

Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364

Inayah, S., & Nurhasanah, G. A. (2019). Pengaruh Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa terhadap Kepercayaan Dirinya. JPPM: Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran Matematika, 12(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppm.v12i1.4852

Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop Propagating the Learning Styles Myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006

Kurniati, F., Mariyam, & Buyung. (2024). Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa Ditinjau dari Perbedaan Gender. Pendas: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 9(3), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.23969/jp.v9i3.17520

Langsrud, Ø. (2003). ANOVA for Unbalanced Data: Use Type II Instead of Type III Sums of Squares. Statistics and Computing, 13(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023260610025

Lestari, D. P., & Palupi, E. L. W. (2023). Representasi Matematis Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Teorema Pythagoras Berdasarkan Tahapan Polya Ditinjau dari Perbedaan Gender. MATHEdunesa, 12(2), 588–610. https://doi.org/10.26740/mathedunesa.v12n2.p588-610

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New Trends in Gender and Mathematics Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276

Melzner, L., & Kappes, C. (2025). Testing the Meshing Hypothesis in Prospective Teachers: Are there Affects of Matching Learning Style and Presentation Mode on Learning Performance and on Metacognitive Aspects of Learning? Instructional Science, 53, 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09689-1

Nangim, N., & Hidayati, K. (2021). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa Saat Pembelajaran dalam Jaringan di Masa Pandemi Covid-19. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 1034. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v10i2.3593

Natonis, S. F. M., Daniel, F., & Gella, N. J. M. (2022). Analisis Representasi Matematis Siswa Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 4(2), 3025–3033. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v4i2.2592

NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. United States of America: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How Common is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does it Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review. Frontiers in Education, 5, Article 602451. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Putra, R. W. Y., Sunyono, S., Haenilah, E. Y., Hariri, H., Sutiarso, S., Nurhanurawati, N., & Supriadi, N. (2023). Systematic Literature Review on the Recent Three-Year Trend Mathematical Representation Ability in Scopus Database. Infinity Journal, 12(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v12i2.p243-260

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2020). Providing Instruction Based on Students’ Learning Style Preferences Does Not Improve Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164

Sintia, & Effendi, K. N. S. (2022). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa SMAN 1 Klari. Transformasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan Matematika, 6(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.36526/tr.v6i2.2225

Sugihartini, R., Amrullah, Junaidi, & Hayati, L. (2025). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar pada Materi Sistem Persamaan Linier Dua Variabel (SPLDV) kelas VIII MTs Mu’allimat NW Anjani Tahun Pelajaran 2024/2025. Pendas: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 10(1), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.23969/jp.v10i01.23330

Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Sukmawati, A., Hayati, L., & Baidowi, N. H. (2023). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis pada Materi Program Linear Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar Siswa. Journal of Classroom Action Research, 5(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.29303/jcar.v5iSpecialIssue.3980

Suningsih, A., & Istiani, A. (2021). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v10i2.655

Umaroh, U., & Pujiastuti, H. (2020). Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Siswa dalam Mengerjakan Soal PISA Ditinjau dari Perbedaan Gender. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Raflesia, 5(2), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.33369/jpmr.v5i2.11408

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15548/mej.v10i2.15105

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Author

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Sinta 2
Accredited Sinta 2 Starting from Vol. 8 No. 2 (2024) until Vol. 13 No. 1 (2029)
Math Educa Journal
Mathematics Education Department | FTK UIN Imam Bonjol Padang

Jl. Prof. Mahmud Yunus Lubuk Lintah, Anduring, Kec. Kuranji, Kota Padang, Sumatera Barat 25153

Email: [email protected]
p-ISSN: 2580-6726 | e-ISSN: 2598-2133