International Journal of Instruction April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.

2
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X
pp. 285-302
Received: 08/03/2019
Revision: 07/11/2019
Accepted: 13/11/2019
OnlineFirst:13/01/2020

The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on Mathematics

Achievement

La Ndia
Dr., Department of Mathematics Education, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Indonesia,
[email protected]
Etin Solihatin
Dr., Department of Educational Technology, Jakarta State University, Indonesia,
[email protected]
Zulfiati Syahrial
Prof., Department of Educational Technology, Jakarta State University, Indonesia,
[email protected]

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of learning models and
multiple intelligences on mathematics achievement. It was conducted at SMPN 5
Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. The research method used a quasi-
experimental design. Data on mathematics achievement and multiple intelligences
were collected using multiple-choice tests. The collected data were analyzed using
a two-way ANOVA. The findings of this study showed that student mathematics
achievement taught with PBL model was higher than those taught with direct
learning model; mathematics achievement of students with mathematical logic
intelligence was higher than those with spatial intelligence; there was an effect of
interaction between learning models and multiple intelligences on student
mathematics achievement; mathematics achievement of students with spatial
intelligence taught with PBL model was higher than students taught with direct
learning model; mathematics achievement of students with mathematical logic
intelligence taught by PBL model was higher than those taught with direct learning
model; there was no significant difference in mathematics achievement between
students with spatial intelligence and mathematical logic intelligence taught by
PBL model; mathematics achievement of students with mathematical logic
intelligence was higher than those with spatial intelligence taught by direct learning
model.
Keywords: PBL model, direct model, spatial intelligence, mathematical logic
intelligence, students’ achievement

Citation: Ndia, L., Solihati, E., & Syahrial, Z. (2020). The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple
Intelligences on Mathematics Achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 285-302.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13220a
286 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

INTRODUCTION
Mathematics is the queen of science (Perutz, and Jenkin, 1989) because the
development of other sciences, especially in the field of science, is based on the
development of mathematical concepts (Kirkland, 2010). Therefore, a student must be
able to master and/or be smart in mathematics so that it is easier to develop his ideas
into other fields, especially in the field of science (Abtar, and Mohammed, 2019). The
reality now is from year to year, mathematics achievements in schools are still low
(Ministry of Education and Culture, 2011). One of the reasons is abstract mathematical
objects (Korn, and Korn, 2010; Josseph, 2010) where most students are not able to
analyze them. Therefore, a teacher must have the ability to translate abstract
mathematical objects into concrete ones (Orton, and Frobisher 2004; Wu, 2011;
Bremigan et al., 2011). This can be done by the use of real things (Demelo, 2007),
namely tangible or concrete things that can be observed, understood by students to
facilitate the learning process so that it reaches its goals.
Mathematics is one of the most objectives, logical and practical disciplines (Lai et al.,
2015). It is a language symbolic that allows humans to think about quantity problems
and can connect between quantities and others (Yarmohammadian, 2014). Therefore, in
learning mathematics, the teacher must be able to see the whole problem carefully to
find a right learning pattern based on students' characteristics and their level of
intelligence. Mastery of mathematics for students is very necessary because mathematics
is the basis for all world technologies (Mbugua, andMuthoni, 2014).
Learning mathematics is a series of processes to discover mathematical concepts
themselves, procedures for solving contextual problems based on ideas and stages
developed by students (Barnes, 2004), by using their own language to solve
mathematical problems, which is called as informal mathematics.
Completion of informal mathematics is a bridge to the completion of formal
mathematics (Widjaja, and Heck, 2003). Formation of mathematics is formally based on
the actual mathematical context through the use of mathematical language, general
symbols, and algorithm of problem-solving based on standard rules.
Based on the description above, the task of a teacher is not easy because the teacher
must be able to design a learning process that can facilitate students to learn and be able
to apply those effective learning models. The implementation of an effective learning
model can increase student grades (Reigeluth, and Carr-Chellman, 2009). In addition to
considering learning models that are relevant to the subject matter, the teacher must also
consider the characteristics and level of intelligence possessed by students when
designing material.
Learning model used at SMPN 5 Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, is direct
learning model that is teacher-centered where students are passive recipients of
information without trying other learning models that can activate students and support
understanding concepts, facts, principles, and generalization, Consequently, increasing
mathematics achievement from year to year is not significant.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 287

In order to improve students' creativity, the learning process done by the teacher must be
able to develop students 'creative thinking, as well as to improve students' abilities to
construct new knowledge and ideas in order to improve good mastery of mathematics
subject matter.
One learning model that can activate students and support the understanding of
concepts, facts, principles, and generalizations is Problem Based Learning (PBL). PBL
model is an innovative and student-centered learning model which simultaneously
challenges students for critical thinking (Lowenstein, and Bradshaw, 2004). PBL model
using Realistic Mathematics Approach (PMR) aims at helping students to improve their
creativity in developing new ideas by utilizing real or concrete situations that can be
observed and or understood by students, as well as by utilizing environment to develop
thinking skills and problem-solving skills, to increase self-confidence possessed to think
critically and to become independent students.
According to Ibrahim et al., the PBL model can improve students' knowledge and skills
(Ibrahim et al., 2018).
Based on the description above, it is necessary to conduct a study on the effect of PBL
model and direct learning model in teaching mathematics.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Constructivism learning theory is a foundation of thinking in a contextual approach. The
philosophy of this approach is that knowledge is built by students through exploration
activities and discussions with their friends. Knowledge is not a set of facts, concepts, or
rules that are ready to be taken and used by students, but students must construct their
own knowledge. Changes in perspective in the learning process are the basis for
designing innovative learning models.
Along with the development of science and technological progress, more innovative
learning models are found that are rooted in a constructivism learning theory. Therefore,
a teacher is required to be able to choose an effective learning model and can spur
students’ enthusiasm, motivation, and independence so that they are actively involved in
the learning process. The implementation of effective learning models allows students to
obtain higher grades so that a teacher must consider relevant learning models when
designing learning (Reigeluth, and Carr-Chellman, 2009).
A learning model is a specific method to facilitate learning that is designed to promote
learning outcomes related to the standards needed in academic disciplines through the
use of a series of specially designed activities. Therefore, special skills and expertise
from teachers are needed in designing learning models to enhance students’ creativity
for the sake of developing their skills and critical thinking skills so that they are able to
solve the problems faced in relation to the learning process which in the end can
increase their achievement.
Eggen, and Kauchak said that the PBL model is an active learning model that allows
students to learn and hone problem solving skills, to develop competencies with
standards academic content, and to realize the relevance of applying it to learn

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

288 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

according to content for practical purposes (Eggen, and Kauchak, 2012). Another
definition of PBL is a set of teaching model that uses problems as a focus for developing
problem-solving skills, material and self-regulation (Kilbane, and Milman, 2013).
From the definition of PBL model above, it could be stated that PBL model is one of the
student-centered learning models where students act as active participants in the learning
process while also providing challenges to students to improve their critical thinking
skills so that they are able to construct knowledge in their own minds. It means that the
information or knowledge that they produce is their own.
The direct learning model is based on BF Skinner's behaviorism theory (1953), which
emphasizes the understanding that human behavior basically has a relationship between
stimulus and response. In this case, learning outcomes focus on measurable and
observable behavior (Ormrod, Anderman, and Anderman, 2016).
The direct learning model is one of the learning models which in its implementation,
teachers act as a source of information (Arend, 2012). This model involves
demonstrations and teachers’ explanations accompanied by student exercises and
feedback to help them acquire real knowledge and skills needed for further learning.
Mathematical logic intelligence and spatial intelligence are part of eight types of
multiple intelligences developed by Howard Gardner, both of which are closely related
to the field of mathematics. According to Gardner, mathematical logic intelligence
includes the ability to analyze problems logically, to solve mathematical problems,
especially problems in mathematical operations, and to investigate a problem based on
scientific principles. (Gardner, 2011). According to Baum's View, Viens B, and Slatin
B, there are two keywords of mathematical logic intelligence namely; (1) allowing
individuals to use and to understand abstract relationships, and (2) skills in using
numbers and logical thinking.
Students with high mathematical logic intelligence tend to have the ability to analyze
and to investigate problems logically, to understand abstract relationships, the ability to
process numbers and measure and have the ability to use logical thinking and be able to
argue well. Students with such abilities easily learn mathematics, which in turn will
improve their learning achievement.
While spatial intelligence is related to the dimensions of space problems. According to
Taylor, spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions in terms of spatial
reasoning, mental image, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and active
imagination (Taylor 2013). While according to Mckee, spatial intelligence is the ability
to visualize concepts and relationships between concepts (Mckee, 2004). Whereas
according to Ross, spatial intelligence can also be expressed as the ability to have the
sensitivity to adapt to visual forms that look sharp, balance, color, lines, shapes, and
space (Ross, 2005).
Students who have high spatial intelligence could easily read maps, graphics, images,
and think in pictures. They can visualize images clearly and can solve jigsaw puzzles
easily. Images can provide contextual instructions for words and help students in

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 289

learning to read and to spell and also to recognize relationships between objects. The
use of those images is very effective because every time students hear a word, they see a
picture of the word and in the picture, there is a correct spelling. Remembering images
allows them to translate images into words to a written page.
If students have high intelligence, they are taught with a student-centered learning
model, they easily develop their potential, improve their ability to analyze problems so
that the problem can be properly addressed. Therefore, the use of PBL model by using
PMR greatly helps students to develop their learning independence through the real-
world and environment that are used as a starting point in learning and developing
mathematical concepts, sharpening and developing problem-solving skills. Students are
given the widest opportunity to develop mathematical knowledge that they have through
teacher guidance in an organized and systematic way that simultaneously trains critical
thinking skills.
Statement of Problems
Students’ low learning achievement is felt by almost all parts of the world, including
Indonesia (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2011). Various causal factors include (1)
abstract mathematical objects (Korn, and Korn, 2000), causing the students are not able
to analyze them, (2) student’s low creativity in learning, (3) teachers’ readiness to teach,
one of which is the use of inappropriate learning strategies (Salman et al., 2012) in
(Adenji et al., 2018). Most teachers still use the old pattern by using a direct learning
model. Most teachers explain mathematical material and practice solving problems
based on standard rules, consequently students are only fixated on the rules and unable
to develop their learning creativity based on their potential. When active, creative, and
explorative students with certain potential or multiple intelligences are taught by using
direct learning model, they will turn into students who are apathetic, bored, lazy, and
lack of creativity in learning. Such conditions tend to affect student achievement
because of the indirect learning model where the teacher dominates the process of
learning activities. The teacher is the only source of information in learning. They tend
to take control of the learning process actively, while students pay attention, listen,
accept and follow what the teacher says. Such condition could probably cause the
students having a lack of direct experience in terms of finding facts, concepts,
procedures, and solving problems systematically and finding relationships between facts
and mathematical concepts.
One learning model that can activate student creativity is PBL model, which is an active
learning model that allows students to learn and sharpen problem-solving skills, to
develop competencies with academic content standards, and to realize the relevance of
implementing learning in accordance with content for practical purposes (Kilbane, and
Milman, 2013). Another definition of PBL is problem-based learning characterized by
students who work with one another, can be in pairs or small groups. Through
cooperation or groups, they provide mutual motivation with one another, for continuous
involvement in complex tasks and increasing opportunities for joint inquiry and
discussion, for the development of social skills (Arend, 2012). From the definition
above, it can be concluded that in PBL, students are given the freedom to create and

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

290 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

actively develop their potential to practice problem-solving skills, either by themselves

or by groups, from simple problems to complex ones.
Research on the effect of PBL on student mathematics achievement have been done,
such as Pradnyana et al., (2013), Rohmah (2013), Firdaus et al., (2017), Hussain et al.,
(2019) in different studies reported that there were significant differences in
mathematical critical thinking skills between students taught with PBL and conventional
learning model, the use of PBL in mathematics can significantly improve mathematics
achievement and critical thinking skills, and it is more effective in improving students'
mathematical literacy.
Realistic mathematics learning (PMR) aims at helping students to develop thinking
skills and problem solving skills, to enhance self-confidence possessed to think critically
and to become independent students, to make mathematical objects more interesting
because they are no longer abstract, to emphasize learning mathematics by learning by
doing, to utilize real or concrete things that can be observed by students, as well as to
make use of environment.
From the description above, it can be concluded that PBL using the PMR approach can
improve students' creativity, systematic problem-solving abilities, critical thinking skills,
and mathematics achievement, by making mathematical objects more interesting by
utilizing observable real world and utilizing the environment.
Research Objectives
The main objective of the study was to determine the effect of learning models and
multiple intelligences on mathematics achievement. Specifically, this study aims at
finding out:
1. Is mathematics achievement of students taught with PBL higher than those taught by
direct learning model?
2. Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement between students with
spatial intelligence and mathematical logic intelligence?
3. Is there an effect of interaction between learning models and multiple intelligences
on mathematics achievement?
4. Is the mathematics achievement of students with mathematical logic intelligence
taught with PBL higher than students taught with the direct learning model?
5. Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement between students with
mathematical logic intelligence and students with spatial intelligence taught using
direct learning model?
6. Is mathematics achievement of students with spatial intelligence taught with PBL
higher than students taught with the direct learning model?
Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement between students with
spatial intelligence and those with mathematical logic intelligence taught using the PBL?

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 291

METHOD
This study used quasi-experiments design by involving two variables. Independent
variable consisted of: (1) treatment variables, namely learning model consisting of
Problem Based Learning (PBL) model using Realistic Mathematics Approach (PMR)
(A1) and direct learning model (A2), and (2) moderator variables, namely multiple
intelligences consisting of mathematical logic intelligence (B1), and spatial intelligence
(B2), while dependent variable was mathematics achievement.
The research design used a 2 x 2 factorial design. The design model was presented in
table 1. (Montgomeri, 2017).
Table 1
Factorial Design 2X2
Treatment variable
Moderator variable
PBL through PMR (A1) Direct learning model (A2)
Logic mathematic intelligence (B1) A1B1 A2B1
Spatial intelligence (B2) A1B2 A2B2
A1B1 Group of students taught with PBL with mathematical logic intelligence
A1B2 Group of students taught with PBL with spatial intelligence
A2B1 Group of students taught with direct learning model with mathematical logic
intelligence
A2B2 Group of students taught with direct learning model with spatial intelligence
The population in this study was all eighth-grade students of SMPN 5 Kendari,
Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, who were enrolled in the odd semester of the 2018/2019
academic year, consisting of 10 parallel classes with 388 students. The sample was
chosen by using purposive sampling techniques, with the aim at obtaining two classes as
samples whose scores were relatively the same based on the average value and variance.
With those considerations, class VIII A and class VIII B were chosen as samples,
consisting of 62 students (class VIIIA 31 students, and class VIIIB 31 students). The
determination of the experimental class and control class was carried out by a simple
random method, using a lottery method. The result of randomization was that class VIII
A as the experimental class was taught with the PBL model using PMR, and class VIII
B as the control class was taught by a direct learning model. The number of samples in
each group was presented in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Distribution of Samples in Each Cell
Treatment PBL Through Direct Learning
Moderator Total
Variable (A) PMR (A1) Model (A2)
Variable (B)
Logic
Mathematics 14 15 29
Intelligence (B1)
Spatial
17 16 33
Intelligence (B2)
Total 31 31 62

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

292 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

Grouping of samples of the moderator variable was based on the score of spatial
intelligence and mathematical logic intelligence test. If the score of spatial intelligence
test was higher than the mathematical logic intelligence score, students were included in
the group of mathematical logic intelligence (B1), otherwise if the score of mathematical
logic intelligence test was higher than the spatial intelligence score, the students were
included in the group of spatial intelligence (B2).
Instruments used to collect data were a set of tests arranged in the form of multiple-
choice tests. Tests of mathematics achievement and mathematical logic intelligence were
compiled by researchers, while spatial intelligence tests used standardized tests. Before
being used to collect data, all tests were validated, namely content, construct, and
empirical validity. Content and construct validity were carried out by experts in
accordance with their respective fields, while empirical validity was done through a pilot
study. It was carried out at class X SMPN 5 Kendari with the consideration that they had
studied the two-variable linear equation system. The result of validity for mathematics
test was that there were 31 valid items of 35 items tested with a reliability level 0.88, all
45 items for spatial intelligence test were declared valid with a reliability level 0.89, and
there were 34 valid items of 36 items for mathematical logic intelligence test with a
reliability level 0.91. With those levels of reliability, the instrument can be used to
collect data.
Data analysis was done by; (1) descriptive statistical analysis used to calculate the
average value, variance, and standard deviation, (2) prerequisite test of inferential
statistical analysis including normality test and variance homogeneity test, and (3)
inferential statistical analysis using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). If there was
an interaction between learning models and multiple intelligences, then further test was
analyzed using a t-test, (Phakiti, 2014) to find out which treatment groups were higher
or which groups differed significantly.
FINDINGS
The results of the descriptive analysis are presented in table 3 below

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 293

Table 3
Results of Descriptive Analysis
Learning Model (A)
Multiple
A1 A2 Students’
Intelligence Statistical data
Students’ Students’ achievement
(B)
achievement achievement
N 14 15 29
Average 79.49 70.32 74.75
Variance 21.38 54.38 69.75
B1
Standard of deviation 4.62 7.37 8.35
Maximum 90 84 90
Minimum 74 58 58
n 17 16 33
Average 77.32 60.28 69.21
Variance 32.38 32.60 128.28
B2
Standard of deviation 5.69 5.71 11.33
Maximum 90 68 90
Minimum 71 52 52
n 31 31
Average 78.46 65.14
Variance 25.63 44.37
Standard of deviation 5.06 6.67
Maximum 90 84
Minimum 71 52
Research Question 1: Are mathematics achievement of students taught with the PBL
model higher than students taught with the direct learning model presented in Table 2.
Hypothesis 1: Mathematics achievement of students taught with the PBL model was
higher than students taught with direct learning model.
H0 : μA1 = μA2
H1 : μA1> μA2
The results of descriptive analysis (table 3) showed that the average mathematics
achievement of students taught with the PBL model (78.46) was higher than the average
mathematics achievement of students taught with direct learning model (65.14).
The results of inferential statistical analysis are presented in table 4 below.
Table 4
Results of Variance Analysis
Sum of Mean Square
Source of Variance df F-count F-table
Squares (SS) (MS)
Main Effect (A) 2749.8248 1 2749.8248 42.1077 4.0069
Main Effect (B) 473.9839 1 473.9839 7.2581 4.0069
Interaction (A X B) 333.7003 1 333.7003 5.1099 4.0069
Error Term (Within Groups) 3787.6629 58 65.30453
Total 7345,.1719 61

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

294 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

The results of the two-way ANOVA test (Table 4) showed that the source of variance
between A was obtained F-count= 42.1077 greater than F-table= 4 0069, with α = 0.05.
This means that there were significant differences in mathematics achievement between
students taught with the PBL model (A1) and those taught with direct learning model
(A2). T-test results (table 5) showed that t-count (A1 vs A2) = 3.4520 was higher than t-
table = t(0.05;60) = 1.9996. The results of the t-count showed that the average
mathematics achievement of students taught with the PBL model was significantly
higher than the mathematics achievement of students taught with a direct learning
model. These results indicated that hypothesis 1 was accepted.
Table 5
Summary of Further Tests A1 vs A2
Compared Groups df t-count t-table
A1 with A2 60 3.4520 1.9995
Research question 2: Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement
between students with spatial intelligence and mathematical logic intelligence?
Hypothesis 2: There were significant differences in mathematics achievement between
students with spatial intelligence and those with mathematical logic intelligence.
H0:µB1= µB2
H1 : µB1>µB2
The results of descriptive analysis (table 3) showed that the average mathematics
achievement of students with mathematical logic intelligence (74.75) was higher than
the average mathematics achievement of students with spatial intelligence (69.21).
The results of the two-way ANOVA test (Table 4) showed that the source of variance
between B was F-count= 7.2581 greater than the value of F-table= 4.0069, with α = 0.05.
This means that there were significant differences in mathematics achievement between
students with mathematical logic intelligence (B1) and students with spatial intelligence
(B2). The t-test results (Table 6) showed that t-count (B1 vs B2) = 2.1063 was higher than t
table = 1.6702; The t-test results showed that the average of mathematics achievement of
students with mathematical logic intelligence was significantly higher than the
mathematics achievement of students with spatial intelligence. These results indicated
that hypothesis two was accepted.
Table 6
Summary of Further Tests B1 vs B2
Compared Groups df t-count t-table
B1 with B2 60 2.1063 1.6702
Research question 3: Is there the effect of interaction between models of learning and
multiple intelligences on mathematics achievement?
Hypothesis 3: There was an effect of interaction between learning models and multiple
intelligences on mathematics achievement.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 295

H0:µAB = 0
H1 : µAB ≠ 0
The results of the two-way ANOVA test (table 4) showed that the source of AXB
interaction variance was F-count = 5.1099, and F-table = 4.0069, with α = 0.05. This
means that there was a significant effect of interaction between multiple intelligences
and learning models. These results indicated that hypothesis 3 was accepted.
Research question 4: Are mathematics achievement of students with mathematical
logic intelligence taught with the PBL model higher than students with mathematical
logic intelligence taught with direct learning model?
Hypothesis 4: Mathematical achievement of students with mathematical logic
intelligence taught with the PBL model was higher than students taught with the direct
learning model.
H0 : µA1B1 = µA2B1
H1 : µA1B1> µA2B1
The results of descriptive analysis (table 3) showed that the average of students with
mathematical logic intelligence taught with the PBL model (A1B1) 79.49 was higher
than the average of students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with direct
learning model (A2B1) 70.32. The results of t-test (Table 7) showed that t-count (A1B1 vs
A2B1) = 4.4346 was greater than the value of t-table= 2.0484 with α = 0.05; The t-test
results showed that the average of students with mathematical logic intelligence taught
with PBL model was significantly higher than that of students with mathematical logic
intelligence taught by direct learning model. These results indicated that hypotheses 4
was accepted
Table 7
Summary of Further Tests A1B1 vs A1B2
Compared Groups Df t-count t-table
A1B1 with A1B2 27 4.4346 2.0484
Research question 5: Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement
between students with mathematical logic intelligence and students with spatial
intelligence taught with direct learning model?
Hypothesis 5: There was a significant difference in mathematics achievement between
students with mathematical logic intelligence and students with spatial intelligence
taught with direct learning model.
H0:µA2B1 = µA2B2
H1 : µA2B1>µA2B2
The results of descriptive analysis (table 3) showed that the average of students with
mathematical logic intelligence taught with direct learning model (A2B1) 70.33 was
higher than the average of students with spatial intelligence taught with direct learning

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

296 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

model (A2B2) 60.28. The results of t-test (Table 8) showed that t-count (A2B1 vs A2B2) =
2.9030 was greater than t-table= 1.6973, with α = 0.05; The t-test results showed that the
average of students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with direct learning
model was significantly higher than that of students with spatial intelligence taught with
direct learning model. These results indicated that hypotheses 5 were accepted.
Table 8
Summary of Further Tests A2B1 vs A2B2
Compared Groups df t-count t-table
A2B1 with A2B2 29 2.9030 1.6973
Research question 6: Is the mathematics achievement of the student with spatial
intelligence taught with the PBL model higher than the student taught with direct
learning model?
Hypothesis 6: Mathematics achievement of students with spatial intelligence taught
with PBL model higher than student taught with direct learning model.
H0:µA1B2 = µA2B2
H1 : µA1B2>µA2B2
The results of descriptive analysis (Table 3) showed that the average of students with
spatial intelligence taught with the PBL model (A1B2) 77.61 was higher than the
average of students with spatial intelligence taught with direct learning model (A2B2)
60.28. The results of the t-test (Table 9) showed that t-count (A1B2 vs A2B2) = 5.0267
was greater than t-table= 2.0369, with α = 0.05. The t-test results showed that the
average of students with spatial intelligence taught with the PBL model was significantly
higher than that of students with spatial intelligence taught with direct learning model.
These results indicated that hypothesis 6 was accepted.
Table 9
Summary of Further Tests A1B2 vs A2B2
Compared Groups df t-count t-table
A1B2 with A2B2 31 5.0267 2.0369
Research question 7: Are there significant differences in mathematics achievement
between students with mathematical logic intelligence and students with spatial
intelligence taught with the PBL model?
Hypothesis 7: There were significant differences in mathematics achievement between
students with mathematical logic intelligence and students with spatial intelligence
taught with the PBL model.
H0:µA1B1 = µA1B2
H1 : µA1B1 ≠ µA1B2
The results of descriptive analysis (table 3) showed that the average of students with
mathematical logic intelligence taught with the PBL model (A1B1) 79.49 was higher

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 297

than that of students with spatial intelligence taught with PBL model (A1B2) 77. 61. The
results of t-test (Table 10) showed that t-count (A1B1 vs A1B2) = -0.9244 was between t-
table = -1.6973 dan t-table = 1.6973, with α = 0.05. The t-test results showed that the
average of students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with the PBL model did
not differ significantly from that of with spatial intelligence taught with the PBL model.
These results indicated that hypothesis 7 was rejected.
Table 10
Summary of Further Tests A1B1 vs A1B2
Compared Groups Df t-count t-table
A1B1 with A1B2 29 -0.9244 1.6973
DISCUSSION
This study revealed the effect of learning models and multiple intelligences on the
mathematics achievement of students of SMPN 5 Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi,
Indonesia. The findings of this study were that there was a significant effect of
interaction between learning models and multiple intelligences on mathematics
achievement. This finding was in line with Roediyanto’s study (2014) who concluded
that there was effect of interaction between models of learning and multiple intelligences
on physical education achievement on elements of creativity development. Ratnasari et
al. (2018) found that there was an interaction between multiple intelligences and
learning models on improving scientific attitudes and student achievement in the field of
science. Arismayani, Yusuf, and Latuconcina (2015) concluded that there was effect of
interaction between learning strategies and mathematical logic intelligence on student
mathematics achievement.
One of the objectives of developing learning models is to make it easier for students to
learn optimally, both independently and in groups that can eventually develop their
abilities in constructing new knowledge based on ideas or knowledge they have. The
PBL model using the PMR approach is one of the innovations in learning that is
designed to optimize students' thinking skills, to solve problems through systematic
independent work processes, so that students can empower, sharpen, test, and develop
their ability to think continuously, through real-world and environment used as a starting
point in learning and developing mathematical concepts. Students are given the widest
opportunity to build mathematical knowledge that they have through teacher guidance
(Sumiratta, Makanong, Thipkong, 2017).
Therefore, the PBL model is designed with the aim at developing independent learning
skills (Kilbane, and Miman, 2013), developing the knowledge that students have in an
organized and systematic manner that simultaneously trains critical thinking skills
(Eggen, and Kauchak, 2012).
The findings of a study conducted by Hussain et al. (2019) revealed that the introduction
of the PBL model in training courses on drug administration can improve academic
performance, critical thinking skills, and time management abilities.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

298 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

Active, creative, and explorative students with certain multiple intelligences taught by
using direct learning model will turn out to be students who are apathetic, bored, lazy,
and lack of creativity in learning. Such conditions tend to affect their achievement
because of the indirect learning model where the teacher tends to dominate the process
of learning activities. The teacher is the only source of information in learning who takes
control of the learning process actively, while students pay attention, listen, accept and
follow what is conveyed by teachers. Students tend to have a lack of direct experience in
terms of finding facts, concepts, and mathematical procedures and finding relationships
between facts and mathematical concepts.
The results of research conducted by Ramirez, and Jones, (2012) concluded that the
direct learning model made students feel dependent on the teacher in acquiring their
knowledge. In this case, students are unable to connect the mathematical concepts that
they have with the new concepts that they are learning. From the description above, it
can be concluded that the PBL model using the PMR approach can improve students'
mathematics achievement.
The research findings showed that the average of mathematics achievement of students
with mathematical logic intelligence was higher and significant than that of with spatial
intelligence. The results of research conducted by Pehlivan, and Durgut, (2017) showed
that there was a positive correlation between mathematical logic intelligence and
students’ achievement in Financial Accounting class which means that the higher the
mathematical logic intelligence score, the higher the student achievement.
Students with mathematical logic intelligence generally have certain characteristics and
skills in terms of processing numbers and/or have skills in using logic or common sense,
have the ability to do calculations, make measurements, analyze problems, build
hypotheses, and solve problems by considering prepositions in drawing conclusions.
Those characteristics are used to build models and theories in an operating system.
Therefore, the mathematical logic intelligence possessed by students is not only limited
to the field of mathematics but also includes scientific abilities in other fields. This is
because through mathematical logic intelligence, students are able to solve problems by
concocting hypothetical abilities and making conclusions. Students with such abilities
indicate that they are able to think systemically.
Students with the ability to think systems in solving problems try to solve problems by
examining parts of the problem, the interrelationship between problems so that they are
able to solve a larger problem.
Students with spatial intelligence generally have higher achievement if the material is
related to images, especially geometry material, as explained by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (2004) in (Zhang, 2017) that geometry and spatial intelligence
are the most basic component of mathematics learning.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings and discussion, it can be concluded as follows:

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 299

(a) by using descriptive statistical analysis results.

Table 11
Results of Analysis of Descriptive
Statistics A1 A2 B1 B2 A1B1 A1B2 A2B1 A2B2
Average 78.46 65.14 74.75 69.21 79.49 77.32 70.32 60.28
Variance 25.63 44.37 69.75 128.28 21.38 32.38 54.38 32.60
n 31 31 29 33 14 17 15 16
(b) mathematics achievement of students taught with PBL models was higher and
significant than students taught with direct learning model; (c) mathematics achievement
of students with mathematical logic intelligence was higher and significant than students
with spatial intelligence; (d) There was an effect of the interaction between learning
models and multiple intelligences on mathematics achievement; (e) mathematics
achievement of students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with PBL model
was higher than students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with direct learning
model; (f) mathematics achievement of students with mathematical logic intelligence
was higher than students with spatial intelligence taught with direct learning model; (g)
mathematics achievement of students with spatial intelligence taught with PBL model
was higher than students taught with direct learning model; (h) there was no significant
difference in mathematics achievement between students with spatial intelligence and
students with mathematical logic intelligence taught with PBL model.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the research findings, it is recommended that:
a. To improve student mathematics achievement, the PBL model using PMR is more
suitable.
b. In determining the learning model, the teacher must consider the characteristics of
students, especially mathematical logic intelligence and spatial intelligence.
c. Further research is needed to apply the PBL model using PMR by considering
mathematical logic intelligence, spatial intelligence, gender, and student learning
environments in teaching mathematics to all levels of education with different materials
to improve student mathematics achievement.
REFERENCES
Adeniji, S. M., Ameen, S. K., Dambatta, B. U., & Orilonise, R. (2018). Effect of
mastery learning approach on senior school students' academic performance and
retention in circle geometry. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 951-962.
Arends, R. (2012). Learning to teach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barnes, H. (2004). Realistic mathematics education: Eliciting alternative mathematical
conceptions of learners. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 8(1), 53-64.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

300 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

Bremigan, E. G., Bremigan, R. J., & Lorch, J. D. (2011). Mathematics for secondary
school teachers. American Mathematical Society.
DeMelo, R. L. (2007). The general principles of reality a. Unification of physics.
Ontario: GPOFR.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2012). Strategies and models for teachers: Teaching content
and thinking skills. Boston: Pearson.
Estes, T. H., & Mintz, S. L. (2016). Instruction: A model approach. New York: Pearson.
Firdaus, F. M. (2017). Improving primary students' mathematical literacy through
problem based learning and direct instruction. Educational Research and
Reviews, 12(4), 212-219.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Book.
Hidayah, I. (2015). Model of independent working group of teachers and its
effectiveness towards the elementary school teacher's ability in conducting mathematics
learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 43-50.
Hussain, M., Sahudin, S., Samah, N. H. A., & Anuar, N. K. (2019). Students perception
of an industry-based approach problem-based learning (PBL) and their performance in
drug delivery courses. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 27(2), 274-282.
Ibrahim, M. E., Al-Shahrani, A. M., Abdalla, M. E., Abubaker, I. M., & Mohamed, M.
E. (2018). The effectiveness of problem-based learning in the Acquisition of
Knowledge, soft skills during basic and preclinical sciences: medical Students’ points of
view. Acta Informatica Medica, 26(2), 119.
Jesseph, D. M. (2010). Berkeley's philosophy of mathematics. University of Chicago
Press.
Kemendikbud R. I. (2011). Survey International PISA (Programme for International
Student Assessment, Kemendikbud, Jakarta.
Kilbane, C. R., & Milman, N. B. (2013). Teaching models: Designing instruction for
21st- century learners. Pearson.
Kirkland, K. (2010). Physical sciences: Notable research and discoveries. New York:
Facts on File.
Korn, G. A., & Korn, T. M. (2000). Mathematical handbook for scientists and
engineers: Definitions, theorems, and formulas for reference and review. Dover
Publication.
Lai, Y., Zhu, X., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2015). Effects of mathematics anxiety and
mathematical metacognition on word problem solving in children with and without
mathematical learning difficulties. PlosOne, 10(6), 0130570.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

Ndia, Solihati & Syahrial 301

Lowenstein, A. J., & Bradshaw, M. J. (2004). Fuszard’s innovative teaching strategies

in nursing. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Mckee, L. (2004). The accelerated trainer using accelerated learning techniques to
revolutionize your training. Burlington: Gower Publishing.
Montgomery, D. C. (2017). Design and analysis of experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
Mbugua, Z. K., & Muthomi, M. W. (2014). Effectiveness of differentiated instruction
on secondary school students achievement in mathematics. International Journal of
Applied Science and Technology, 4(1), 116-122.
Nani, A. M. Y., & Latuconsina, N., (2015). Effect of learning and intelligence
approaches to mathematics towards learning outcomes mathematics students of class viii
state middle school 1 Podong North Sumatra District Taralar, MaPan: Journal of
Mathematics and Learning, 3(2).
Ormrod, J., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. (2016). Educational psychology:
Developing learners. Boston: Pearson.
Orton, A., & Frobisher, L. (2004). Insights into teaching mathematics. A&C Black.
Özokcu, O., Akçamete, G., & Özyürek, M. (2017). Examining the effectiveness of
direct instruction on the acquisition of social skills of mentally retarded students in
regular classroom settings. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(4), 214-226.
Pehlivan, A., & Durgut, M. (2017). The effect of logical-mathematical intelligence on
financial accounting achievement according to multiple intelligence theory. Journal of
Education and Social Policy, 4(3), 132 – 139.
Perutz, M. B., & Jenkin. (1989). The virtues of science and scientists. journal New
Scientist, Volume 123(1677).
Phakiti, A. (2014). Experimental research methods in language learning. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Pradnyana, B. P., Marhaeni, A., & Candiana, I. M. (2013). The effect of problem based
learning on learning motivation and mathematics learning outcomes, E-journal of the
University of Education Ganesha Postgraduate Program, Volume 3.
Ramirez, H., & Jones, D. (2012). effects of direct instruction and corrective feedback on
second language acquisition. National Forum of Educational Administration &
Supervision Journal, 30(1), 64-87.
Rasmussen, C. L., & King, K. D. (2000). Locating starting points in differential
equations: A realistic mathematics education approach. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(2), 161-172.
Ratnasari, I. T., Wardani, S., & Nuswowati, M. (2018). The impact of multiple
intelligences approaches through quantum teaching model toward the scientific attitude

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2

302 The Effect of Learning Models and Multiple Intelligences on …

and science learning outcomes in the fourth-grade students. Journal of Primary

Education, 7(2), 146-154.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Eds.). (2009). Instructional-design theories
and models, volume III: Building a common knowledge base. Routledge.
Rohmah N. (2013). Upaya Meningkatkan Kemampuan Menyelesaikan Masaah
Matematika Melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika
STKIP Sidoarjo, 1(1).
Roesdiyanto, (2014), The influence of multiple intelligence approach on the physical
education learning towards for character improvement. Journal Asian Social Science,
10(5), 91-97.
Ross, B. H. (2005). The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research
and theory. San Diego: Academic Press.
Singh, A. D., Raghunathan, S., Robeck, E., & Sharma, B. (2019). Cases on smart
learning environments. IGI Global.
Sumirattana, S., Makanong, A., & Thipkong, S. (2017). Using realistic mathematics
education and the DAPIC problem-solving process to enhance secondary school
students' mathematical literacy. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 307-315.
Taylor, A. (2013) Card magic and my mathematical discoveries. St, Raleigh: Lulu
Publishing.
Widjaja, Y. B., & Heck, A. (2003). How a realistic mathematics education approach and
microcomputer-based laboratory worked in lessons on graphing at an Indonesian junior
high school. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 26(2), 1-
51.
Widyatiningtyas, R., Kusumah, Y. S., Sumarmo, U., & Sabandar, J. (2015). The impact
of problem-based learning approach to senior high school students’ mathematics critical
thinking ability. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 107-116.
Wu, H. (2011). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence:
American Mathematical Society.
Yarmohammadian, A. (2014). The relationship between spatial awareness and
mathematic disorders in elementary school students with learning mathematics
disorder. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 33-40.
Zhang, D. (2017). Effects of visual working memory training and direct instruction on
geometry problem solving in students with geometry difficulties. Learning Disabilities:
A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 117-138.

International Journal of Instruction, April 2020 ● Vol.13, No.2