Students’ Creative Thinking in Geometry Problem Solving Across Adversity Quotient Levels

Authors

  • Athrieana Badi Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2659-1229
  • Sonny Yalti Duma Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia
  • Hersiyati Palayukan Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia
  • Suri Toding Lembang Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v18i2.8984

Keywords:

creative thinking, geometry problem solving, adversity quotient (AQ), qualitative case study, mathematics education

Abstract

Creative thinking is essential in geometry problem solving because students are required to generate ideas, use varied strategies, elaborate reasoning, and produce original solutions. However, students’ creativity may be influenced not only by cognitive ability but also by non-cognitive factors such as Adversity Quotient (AQ). This study analyzes students’ creative thinking in solving geometry problems across three AQ levels: Climber, Camper, and Quitter. This study employed a qualitative case study design involving three students selected purposively based on AQ categories. AQ levels were identified using a questionnaire adapted from Stoltz’s framework. Data were collected through open-ended geometry problem-solving tasks and semi-structured interviews. Students’ responses were analyzed using creative thinking indicators: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Data analysis followed the Miles and Huberman interactive model, supported by thematic coding. The findings show clear differences across AQ levels. The high-AQ student demonstrated integrated creative thinking through multiple relevant ideas, varied strategies, detailed reasoning, and persistence in verifying solutions. The moderate-AQ student showed partial creative thinking, relying mainly on familiar procedures with limited flexibility and elaboration. The low-AQ student displayed minimal creative engagement, difficulty initiating problem solving, lack of alternative strategies, and low persistence when facing challenges. The study indicates that AQ shapes both persistence and the quality of students’ creative thinking in geometry problem solving. Creative thinking should therefore be understood as an interaction between cognitive processes and affective resilience. Mathematics instruction should integrate open-ended tasks, reflective questioning, scaffolding, and supportive learning environments to foster both creativity and resilience.

References

Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of student engagement in PISA 2015:Exploring the relationship with metacognition. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101299

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 32(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1869081

Efklides, A. (2020). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09527-4

Iswari, N. R., Sulistyaningsih, D., &Sutopo, D. (2021). Profil berpikir kreatif siswa ditinjau dari adversity quotient dalam menyelesaikan masalah geometri. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.25273/jipm.v10i2.9291

Kim, H., Park, J., & Lee, S. (2024). The role of adversity quotient in mathematical problem solving and creativity development. Journal of Mathematics Education, 35(1), 45–60.

Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2021). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 53, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01175-6

Langi EL, Juniati, Abadi. (2021) Understanding definite integral concepts of prospective teachers through actions and processes based on gender difference. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing Ltd.

Langi EL, Palayukan H, Palengka I. (2022) Proses Berpikir Mahasiswa Calon Guru Matematika Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Integral Berdasarkan Teori APOS. In: Seminar Nasional 2 Pendidikan Matematika UKI Toraja. Makale, Tana Toraja: Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Kristen Indonesia Toraja. p. 1–7.

Lembang, S. T. “Characteristics Of Toraja Culture-Based Mathematics Learning Modelâ€. Dalam jurnal International Journal of Educational, Vocational and Social Studies. https://doi.org/10.99075/ijevss.v1i01.1192

Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2018). Characterizing shifts in middle school students’ metacognitive functioning during mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(3), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1474532

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Creative minds, creative schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0c7f6c77-en

Putra, S. P., & Jailani, J. (2020). Profil adversity quotient dan berpikir matematis siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah matematika. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 15(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v15i1.28479

Rachmadyanti, I., & Wahyudi, A. (2022). Profil kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa AQ rendah dalam menyelesaikan masalah matematika. Aksioma: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 11(2), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v11i2.4533

Rochmiyati, D., & Widodo, S. A. (2020). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa berdasarkan adversity quotient dalam menyelesaikan masalah matematika. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Raflesia, 5(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.33369/jpmr.v5i1.11169

Saputri, N. W., Jailani, J., & Suryadi, D. (2020). Profil berpikir kreatif siswa ditinjau dari adversity quotient dalam menyelesaikan masalah geometri. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v7i1.30372

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x

Sulistyowati, T., & Sujadi, I. (2021). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kreatif matematis siswa ditinjau dari adversity quotient. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 8(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v8i1.37954

Susanti, E., Widodo, A., & Nurhayati, S. (2023). The contribution of metacognitive awareness to mathematical problem solving: A structural equation modeling approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101301

Sternberg, R. J., & Karami, S. (2021). An 8P theoretical framework for understanding creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.460

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-05-30

How to Cite

Badi, A., Duma, S. Y., Palayukan, H., & Lembang, S. T. (2026). Students’ Creative Thinking in Geometry Problem Solving Across Adversity Quotient Levels. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 18(2), 1971–1980. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v18i2.8984

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 2 (2026): JUNE 2026

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.