Mindsponge framework: Tracing students’ proactive interference
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58524/jasme.v6i1.988Keywords:
Mindsponge framework, Proactive interference, Proportion problemAbstract
Background: Many students have difficulty distinguishing between direct and inverse proportion problems. This difficulty can cause interference during problem solving. One form of interference is proactive interference, which occurs when previously learned information disrupts the understanding of new information. In proportion problems, students’ prior knowledge of direct proportion often influences how they approach inverse proportion tasks, leading them to apply incorrect strategies.
Aim: This study aims to describe the process of proactive interference experienced by students when solving proportion problems using the Mindsponge framework.
Method: This study used a qualitative descriptive approach. The participants were 32 eighth-grade students from Junior High School 3 Malang. The selected subjects were students who could correctly solve direct proportion problems but applied the direct proportion concept when solving inverse proportion problems. Data were collected through proportion problem tests and interviews. Students’ written work was analyzed using indicators from the Mindsponge framework, and the findings were triangulated by comparing students’ work with interview results.
Results: The results show that proactive interference occurred at three stages of the Mindsponge framework: environmental, filtering, and mindset. At the environmental stage, students made errors in observing and understanding the problem. In the filtering stage, students incorrectly determined the quantitative relationship between variables. At the mindset stage, students relied on their prior knowledge of direct proportion and frequently used the cross-multiplication strategy.
Conclusion: The study indicates that proactive interference occurs when previously learned concepts dominate students’ thinking processes. The Mindsponge framework helps explain how prior knowledge influences the way students interpret and apply new information when solving proportion problems.
References
Anderson, J. R. (2020). Cognitive psychology and its implications (9th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Andini, W., & Jupri, A. (2017). Student obstacles in ratio and proportion learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 812(1), 012048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/812/1/012048
Avcu, R., & Doğan, M. (2014). What are the strategies used by seventh grade students while solving proportional reasoning problems? International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(2), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.17278/ijesim.2014.02.003
Ayan, R., & Isiksal-Bostan, M. (2019). Middle school students’ proportional reasoning in real life contexts in the domain of geometry and measurement. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1501829
Babai, R., & Lahav, O. (2020). Interference in geometry among people who are blind. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 96, 103517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103517
Çalışıcı, H. (2018). Middle school students’ learning difficulties in the ratio-proportion topic and a suggested solution: Envelope technique. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(8), 1761–1767. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060813
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
De Visscher, A., Szmalec, A., Van der Linden, L., & Noël, M. P. (2015). Serial-order learning impairment and hypersensitivity-to-interference in dyscalculia. Cognition, 144, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.007
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Evers, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Students’ overuse of proportionality on missing-value problems: How numbers may change solutions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 187–211.
Doyle, K. M., Dias, O., Kennis, J. R., Czarnocha, B., & Baker, W. (2016). The rational number sub-constructs as a foundation for problem solving. Adults Learning Mathematics, 11(1), 21–42.
Edo, S. I., & Tasik, W. F. (2022). Investigation of students’ algebraic conceptual understanding and the ability to solve PISA-like mathematics problems in a modeling task. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 14(2), 44–60.
Georgiou, A., Katkov, M., & Tsodyks, M. (2021). Retroactive interference model of forgetting. Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience, 11(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13408-021-00105-3
Hidayanto, E., & Budiono, E. (2019). Students’ thinking interference in understanding functions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1227(1), 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1227/1/012015
Im, S., & Jitendra, A. K. (2020). Analysis of proportional reasoning and misconceptions among students with mathematical learning disabilities. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 57, 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.100753
Irfan, M., Nusantara, T., Subanji, S., & Sisworo, S. (2019). Direct proportion or inverse proportion? The occurrence of student thinking interference. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8, 587–590.
Irfan, M., Sa’dijah, C., Ishartono, N., Widodo, S., Rahman, A., & Hudha, M. (2019). Interference in solving mathematical problems. Complexity, 2019, Article 8970513. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8970513
Jayanti, W. E., Usodo, B., & Subanti, S. (2018). Interference thinking in constructing students’ knowledge to solve mathematical problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1008(1), 012069. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1008/1/012069
Lamon, S. J. (2020). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008057
Maulyda, M. A., Rahmatih, A. N., Gunawan, G., Hidayati, V. R., & Erfan, M. (2020). Retroactive thinking interference of grade VI students: A study on the topics of PISA literacy lessons. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1471(1), 012037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1471/1/012037
McBride, D. M., & Cutting, J. C. (2018). Cognitive psychology: Theory, process, and methodology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mercer, T. (2015). Wakeful rest alleviates interference-based forgetting. Memory, 23(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.872279
Nguyen, M. H., La, V. P., Le, T. T., & Vuong, Q. H. (2022). Introduction to Bayesian Mindsponge Framework analytics: An innovative method for social and psychological research. MethodsX, 9, 101808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2022.101808
Ormrod, J. E. (2020). Human learning (8th ed.). Pearson.
Öztürk, M., Demir, Ü., & Akkan, Y. (2021). Investigation of proportional reasoning problem solving processes of seventh grade students: A mixed method research. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.146
Parameswari, P., Purwanto, P., Sudirman, S., & Susiswo, S. (2023). Correct-incorrect proportional reasoning strategies on proportional problems and SOLO taxonomy. Acta Scientiae, 25(5), 86–117.
Parameswari, P. (2024). Students' proactive interference in solving proportion problems: How was the met-before?. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(6), 93-115.
Pelen, M. S., & Artut, P. D. (2016). Seventh grade students’ problem solving success rates on proportional reasoning problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.13936
Redick, T. S., Wiemers, E. A., & Engle, R. W. (2020). The role of proactive interference in working memory training and transfer. Psychological Research, 84(6), 1635–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01177-2
Slavin, R. E. (2017). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). Pearson.
Solso, R. L., MacLin, O. H., & MacLin, M. K. (2014). Cognitive psychology (8th ed.). Pearson.
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Nelson Education.
Stricker, J., Vogel, S. E., Schöneburg-Lehnert, S., Krohn, T., Dögnitz, S., Jud, N., Spirk, M., Windhaber, M. C., Schneider, M., & Grabner, R. H. (2021). Interference between naïve and scientific theories occurs in mathematics and is related to mathematical achievement. Cognition, 214, 104789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104789
Sukoriyanto, S., Nusantara, T., Subanji, S., & Daniel, T. (2016). Students’ thinking interference of real global type in solving permutation and combination problems. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(4), 1–6.
Tunç, M. P. (2020). Investigation of middle school students’ solution strategies in solving proportional and non-proportional problems. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.647091
Vanluydt, E., Supply, A. S., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2021). The importance of specific mathematical language for early proportional reasoning. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.12.003
Vuong, Q. H., Nguyen, M. H., & La, V. P. (2022). The mindsponge and BMF analytics for innovative thinking in social sciences and humanities. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.2478/9788367405119
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pradina Parameswari, Ulumul Umah, Nurul Rafiqah Nasution, Susana Labuem, Analisa Fitria, Jihan Hidayah Putri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
