STUDENTS’ LEARNING STYLES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS LEARNING

Authors

  • Kamelia Boleng universitas flores
  • Afika Mone universitas flores
  • Anjani Amir universitas flores
  • Resa Djawa universitas flores
  • Agustinus Gilang universitas flores
  • Celivia Mbu universitas flores
  • Joems Sare universitas flores
  • Hilaria Mbagho universitas flores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62388/prisma.v5i2.627

Keywords:

Learning Styles, VAK Model, Mathematics, Fractions, Differentiated Instruction

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the learning style tendencies of Grade IV students at SDK Ursula Ende and analyze their implications for mathematics learning. Each individual has unique preferences for receiving and processing information, known as learning styles. Understanding students’ learning styles provides an important basis for designing effective mathematics learning strategies. This study used a qualitative descriptive approach involving direct observation, a learning-style questionnaire based on the VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic) model, and structured interviews. The participants were 30 Grade IV students studying fractions, the least common multiple (LCM), and the greatest common divisor (GCD) in mathematics class taught by Ms. Maria Erlina. The results showed that 46.4% of students had a visual learning style, 32.1% a kinesthetic style, and 21.4% an auditory style. The observation findings revealed that some students had difficulty finding common denominators for fractions and distinguishing between the LCM and GCD, which was closely associated with the predominance of a visual learning style that had not been fully accommodated. The study indicates that teachers need to implement differentiated learning strategies by integrating visual media, concrete teaching aids, and verbal discussion. Aligning teaching methods with students’ learning styles was found to increase active engagement and optimize understanding of mathematical concepts.

References

Alkhasawneh, R,;Mrayyan,M.; Docherty,C,;Alashram,S.;Youshef, H. (2022). The effect visual learning modalities on mathematics achievement:Evidence from elementary schools. Journal Educational Research, 115(3), 210–224.

Creswell, j. w;Creswell, J. d. (2022). Research design:Qualitative,quantitative,andmixed methods approachers.

DePorter,B.;Hearnacki, M. (2020). Quantum learning:Membiasakan belajar nyaman dan menyenangkan.

Dunn,R.;Dunn, K. (2021). Teaching students through their individual learning styles:A practical apporoach for grades.

Fleming, N. D. (2020). Teaching and learning atyles: VARK strategies.

Gardner, H. (2021). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.

Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning.

Miles, M. B.; Huberman,A. M.;Saldana, J. (2021). Qualitative data analysis:A menthods sourcebook.

Nasution, S. (2020). Bagaimana pendekatan dalam proses belajar dan mengajar.

Pashler, H.; McDaniel, M.;Bjork, R. (2021). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.

Rahmawati, D. ;Purnawanto;Sudirma. (2023). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Siswa SD dalam memahami konsep KPK dan FPB ditinjau dari gaya belajar. Jurnal Pendididkan Matematika Indonesia, 8(1), 45–58.

Santrock, J. W. (2021). Educational psychology.

Slavin, R. E. (2021). Cooperative learning: Theory,research,andpractive.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2022). The differentiated clasrom: Responding to the needs of alllearners.

Utami, R. D.; Surya, E. (2023). Identifikasi gaya belajar siswa sekolah dasar dan hubungannya dengan presentasi belajar matematika. Jurnal Ilmiah Penddidikan Dasar, 10(2), 112–128.

Widoddo, S. A.;Darhim;Ikhwanudin, T. (2022). Exploring mathematics problems-solving proces on student learning styles. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(1), 103–118.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-15

How to Cite

Boleng, K., Mone, A., Amir, A., Djawa, R., Gilang, A., Mbu, C., Sare, J., & Mbagho, H. (2026). STUDENTS’ LEARNING STYLES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS LEARNING. Jurnal Penalaran Dan Riset Matematika, 5(2), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.62388/prisma.v5i2.627