Accepted Manuscript

Title: Students’ creative thinking process stages:

implementation of realistic mathematics education

Authors: Jonni Sitorus Doctoral program student, Researcher

Masrayati Doctoral program student, Teacher

PII: S1871-1871(16)30118-3
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007
Reference: TSC 376

To appear in: Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: 10-11-2015

Revised date: 16-9-2016
Accepted date: 16-9-2016

Please cite this article as: Sitorus, Jonni., & Masrayati, ., Students’ creative thinking
process stages: implementation of realistic mathematics education.Thinking Skills and
Creativity http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
1 
 

Title page 
 
Students’ creative thinking process stages: 
implementation of realistic mathematics education 
Jonni Sitorus*, Masrayati**

* Doctoral program student, State University of Medan, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia
Researcher, Research & Development Department of North Sumatra Province, Indonesia
email: sitorus_jonni@yahoo.co.id
**Doctoral program student, State University of Medan, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia
Teacher, Padangsidimpuan City, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia
 

Highlights
Student’s math cognitive knowledge at every creative thinking process stage
- Reading, understanding, searching information
- Collecting information; representing/manipulating problems; formulating model/strategies
- Recalling prior knowledge; imagining math connection; bringing rudimentary mathematics ideas
- Analyzing and synthesizing part of mathematic ideas; finding, connecting main mathematics ideas; solving
the math problem
- verifying mathematics solutions; revising invalid mathematics idea, and finding innovative mathematics

Abstract

The study aims at finding the students’ cognitive knowledge in each creative thinking process stage by
implementing Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) based on the perspective theory. This type of research is
qualitative with grounded theory approach, which is conducted in several steps, namely research initiation; data
collection; data analysis; synthesis and research generation; and theory validation. The result shows that the
creative thinking process by implementing RME occur within 5 stages: orientation, preparation, incubation,
illumination, and verification. Students’ cognitive knowledge at orientation stage are reading and understanding
the contextual problem and searching information from contextual problems. At the preparation stage, the
students do activities such as collecting data and information; representing/manipulating contextual problems
into mathematics objects; and formulating model/strategies. At the incubation stage, the students obtain
cognitive knowledge by rereading and understanding preparation stage process; recalling prior knowledge and
learning experiences; imagining the connection of each mathematic objects, and bringing out rudimentary
mathematics ideas. At the illumination stage, students analyze part of mathematic ideas and synthesize them;
finding the main mathematics ideas; connecting mathematics ideas with others, and solving the contextual
problems. At verification stage, students verify mathematics solutions; revise invalid mathematics idea, and find
innovative mathematics solutions. 

Keywords: Orientation, Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, Verification 

1 Background

According to the perspective of Wallas’s theory in his book "The Art of Thought", Wallas (1926) develops
a four-stage-model of creativity, namely: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. However, it

 
 
2 
 
contrasts to Osborn (1953), in the decade of the 1950s, who developed a seven-stage-model of creativity,
namely: orientation, preparation, analysis, ideation, incubation, synthesis, and evaluation. Osborn’s theory is the
improvement and modification of Wallas’, for example Osborn develops preparation stage into 3 parts, namely:
preparation, analysis, and ideation, which are the fractions of the preparatory stage raised by Wallas. Indeed,
these stages have the same meaning and purpose as Wallas’ perspective. Furthermore, Osborn classified
illumination into incubation stage, whereas, according to Wallas’s perspective, both of creative thinking process
stages are different. Thus, Osborn uses synthesis between incubation and evaluation stages.
Mace & Ward, (2002) develops a four-stage-model of student’s creative thinking process in their research,
namely: first, students try to understand the creativity concept; second, develop ideas by rearranging their
creative ideas, identify their various ideas to develop as possible as their feelings, then evaluate ideas by
questioning and doing metaphor and analogies; third, realize ideas by transforming ideas into a physical entity;
fourth, finalize and do resolution the creativity. The students evaluate their creative products by choosing and
determining the best ones. This process occurs in the concept of trial and error, which means that students will
change and destroy the wrong products and expose the satisfied results.
Taylor, (1975) states that the creative process is a transformation process between an individual and his/her
environment by going through phases: (1) exposure, individual openness and sensitivity to the environment;
assimilate and accommodate information; classify (homogenization), differentiate and integrate information; (2)
pra divergent, characterized by the natural interaction of data, unconscious incubation, induction, and perhaps an
experience of abundant information; (3) conversion, characterized by a new awareness (insight) or perceptual
transaction, also called the phase of "Eureka"; or reformulating by reversing, lateral thinking, analogies, and
metaphors can occur when the new ideas flashes or emerges suddenly (flash of new idea); (4) pass divergent,
forming emerged new ideas by deduction, inference, verification or extrapolation ideas; and (5) expression,
implement and communicate creative ideas.
In contrast, Cheung (2007), in his research states that Modern American Society can think out of the box to
find creative ideas without going through thinking process stage. It is uncommonly done by many people.
Meanwhile, Wallas, Osborn, Mace, and Taylor did not find such an uncommon individual thing.
Then, the above-mentioned theories stress the social environment greatly affects someone's role in
managing the information to provide and generate creative ideas. In the context of the instructional learning
process, the social environment that can influence creativity comes from teachers or colleagues who have the
level of higher knowledge or competence. On the other hand, Piaget's theory as one of the cognitive theories
stressed and focused on students' prior knowledge to create ideas and reduce the influence of the social
environment (Schunk, 2012).
According to Hill, Gratch, Marsella, Rickel, Swartout, & Traum (2003), students can obtain information
through their internal and external factors. Internal factor means that students have prior knowledge obtained
through previous learning, and the spontaneous knowledge is obtained through their experiences (Sinaga, B.,
Harahap, Sinambela, & Sinaga, 2015), which both of the two knowledge comes from students’ cognitive
abilities. While external factor means that students can also collect data and information from other people, both
teacher and colleagues and students can also obtain data and information from other references. This is what
Wallas, Osborn, Wace, and Taylor cannot define in their researches.
As many as 2/3 of someone’s creative abilities is gained through education, 1/3 of the remainder comes
from genetic. The converse is true for intelligence capability, which is 1/3 of education, the remaining 2/3 of the
genetic (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011). Craff (2001) states that education can influence and encourage
creativity. Weisberg (2006) states that to stimulate creativity, someone needs to prepare his/her creative thinking
through domain-specific training before generating creative ideas as knowledge acquisition phases. After
training knowledge, someone who masters in special creativity becomes an expert to have a greater opportunity
to make significant creative ideas in subject matters. Training the creativity by implementing a realistic
mathematics education (RME) approach can cultivate logical as well as critical and creative thinking.
(Ruseffendi, 1990; Usdiyana, Purniati, Yulianti, & Harningsih, 2009; Saefudin, 2012; Fauziah, Usodo, & Ekana,
2013; Sembiring, Hadi, & Dolk, 2008; Soedjadi, 2007; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2003; Budi, 2008).
RME can construct student’s mathematics cognitive knowledge at every stage of creative thinking process
that students traverse. In various literatures, the creative process research is actually more oriented and
concentrated on cognitive functions and intellectual individuals, in particular to creative problem solving
(Osborn, 1953; Guilford, 1968;Almeida, Prieto, Ferrando, Oliveira, & Ferrándiz, 2008; Isaksen & Treffinger,
2004; Parnes, 1967; Parnes & Noller, 1972). Guilford, (1967) researched the structure of intellectual abilities
systematically and has been considered to give a great impetus for creative thinking process research.
Anderson states that cognitive taxonomy as a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy that refers to: (1)
memorizing, refers to recognizing and recalling; (2) understanding, refers to interpreting, exemplifying,
classifying, summarizing, comparing and explaining; (3) applying, refers to executing and implementing; (4)
analyzing, refers to differentiating, organizing, and attributing; (5) evaluating, refers to checking (assessing the

 
 
3 
 
internal consistency) and critiquing (assessing external consistency); and (6) creating, refers to generating,
planning, and producing, (Krathwohl, 2002).

1.1. Creativity concept

Brain hemisphere theory states that the human brain by the function is actually divided into two
hemispheres, namely: left and right hemispheres, (Watson & Clark, 1988;Guilford, 1967). The left brain
hemisphere leads to a way of convergent thinking, while the right brain hemisphere leads to a way of divergent
thinking. Guilford stated that both of brain hemispheres have differences. Intelligence on the left brain
hemisphere tends to convergent thinking, a centered thinking process by giving emphasis on achieving the most
appropriate single response. Creativity on the right brain hemisphere tends to divergent thinking, a spread
thinking process by giving emphasis on suitability. Creativity is built on four basic aspects of creativity, namely:
creative people, creative ideas, creative process, and creative environment, (Guilford, 1967; Wadaani, 2015;
Welsch, 1973;MacKinnon, 1975;Munandar, 1977). Creativity is the act of conscious and unconscious thinking
process that underlies scientific discovery, artistic originality, and inspiration, that has four standard indicators,
namely: fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration, (Koestler, 1964; Wallas, 1926; Guilford, 1967;
Siswono, 2004). Fluent thinking encourages the generation of many ideas, possibilities, and solutions. While
fluency helps students generate many ideas, original thinking helps students combine existing ideas and create
new and unusual ideas. We usually express many ordinary ideas before more novel responses occur to them.
Once a variety of ideas have been brainstormed, flexible thinking looks for connections between ideas and helps
students go beyond the obvious to devise alternative situations or solutions. Flexibility leads to the production of
different ideas and the consideration of alternatives. Unique ideas may not be readily recognized. Sometimes
clarifying questions may be necessary to help students articulate and elaborate their reasoning. Elaboration is
the process of embellishing an idea by adding details. It helps create new meanings and better understandings of
things. Elaboration encourages students to expand their ideas and organize their thinking, as well as helping
students clarify and articulate their thoughts.
Developing creative ideas always relates to what someone has accepted from his/her social environment by
interacting with others. This concept emerges from the researchers’ analysis related to the influence of social and
cultural environment for oneself creativity (Sawyer, 2008;Stenberg, R. & Sternberg, 2012;Silvia & Beaty, 2012).
Someone’s creative thinking process by interacting with environment produces various creativities, depending
on her/his social and cultural level, network; as well as the involved interaction team. The most interesting
consequence is that someone’s condition (Walton & Kemmelmeier, 2012) that supports or hinders the creative
process can vary. For example, we can set a very creative team in a company to produce a creative product,
depending on the particular position in the networking field, which has an impact on the success or failure
(Cattani, Colucci, Ferriani., 2015). In the context of the instructional learning process, “networking” refers to the
relationships among students or between students and teacher. So, teacher and other students are information
sources in the instructional learning environment to influence oneself creativity. The involved interaction team is
creative students in the study group interaction.

1.2. Creative thinking process

During preparation stage, someone prepares him/herself to solve the problem by learning to think,
searching answers, asking other people to collect relevant information and data as well as finding solution
approach. In the context of instructional learning process, ideas come and arise from various possibilities, and
they can come from teachers through explaining subject material or submitting relevant information or they can
come from students who had been previously assigned by the teacher to find ideas related to subject material, as
well as reading relevant books or other references, (Oakley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004;Christmas, Kudzai, &
Josiah, 2013;Schunk, 2012).
For realizing their creative potential, students need encouragement or support from their social
environment. Therefore, the teacher must be able to facilitate a creative learning process that can help students to
think creatively, including instructional media and books as well as other references. Oakley, Felder, Brent, &
Elhajj(2004) recommend that teacher, as a more intelligent people, provides assistance by scaffolding in real
facts or juxtaposing students to actual reality, so they can reach potential development level. The scaffolding
intends to make students able to perform the higher complexity tasks or issues than student’s actual cognitive
development level.
The incubation stage is the stage where someone seems to divert for a while from the problem, in the sense
that someone does not think the problem consciously, but incubate it unconsciously. During the incubation
period, the brain works to find problem solution continuously. In the context of the instructional learning
process, students do not have problem-solving strategies or tricks, and they cannot traverse their creative
thinking process very possibly to the next stage, so the problem is incubated in unconscious mind for unlimited

 
 
4 
 
time continuously. The teacher's role is to create and finalize students’ creative ideas, so the incubation
phenomenon can be solved by the student and does not take place for a long time to avoid inefficient time to
incubate.
Someone has a new thinking energy as his/her take advantage from incubation period to solve a
mathematical problem after diverting attention to other more relaxed issues for a moment or unlimited time
(Sternberg, 2006). A main mathematics teacher’s role is to consider the incubation effect in classroom activities
that can develop mathematical creativity (Nadjafikhah, Yaftian, & Bakhshalizadeh, 2012).
The Incubation phenomenon is caused by deadlocked thinking mind. The deadlock is caused by the lack of
someone’s knowledge or experience in the real world. To unlock the deadlocked thinking mind, someone needs
other people’s assistance from their social environment. In the context of instructional learning process,
teacher’s role or colleagues as adult who has more competence and knowledge is to give scaffolding for students
to resuscitate or provide full awareness to generate exploration as their deliberate knowledge which will bring
problems, solutions, or implementation to consciousness (Seifert, Meyer, Davidson, Patalano, & Yaniv,
1995).The most important thing to be considered by the teacher is to let students have incubation experience
before providing scaffolding. It means, when students meet the deadlocked thinking mind, the teacher does not
provide scaffolding directly, but he/she must wait for a moment to let them have incubation experience.
Poincare states that incubation process involves complicated conscious thinking mind. When someone
does not think about the problem, forget the stored previous prejudices to find the solution. The own creative
breakthrough forgets the fixation, and does not take place in the unconsciously complex thinking mind (Cao &
Schweber, 1993).Gilhooly (1982) states that the incubation process which is affective or not will depend on
other undertaken activities, such as relaxed work combined by breaking mental thinking process, and it will
contribute to solving the problem, while doing a custom by reading books or other references in the rest of the
time is a disruptive incubation process.
Illumination stage is an initial step for the psychological process to emerge insight, inspiration, and new
ideas. The emergence process of inspiration is a starting point of an invention or new creations from the
preconscious or unconscious mind. This stage is also characterized by "happy thought" or another term "happy
idea". At this stage, the emerged ideas are not sometimes perfect solutions to solve the problems, but they may
be only key ideas to give direction to solve the problem.
Students need teacher’s assistance in a little scaffolding at the illumination period process. The student’s
imperfect ideas can be directed by the teacher by not only explaining the facts, but also concepts, or procedures
that relates to the mathematics material being taught.
Illumination stage is a knowledge accumulation during at the preparation process because all answers at
the inspiration stage are problem solutions attempted at the preparation stage. Someone’s experience, starting
from preparation to incubation period is accumulated into a knowledge collection towards illumination period to
generate new methods to solve the problem. This experience has an auxiliary and transformative effect on
student’s beliefs and attitudes on their mathematics ability to engage the mathematics problem solving (Yuan &
Sriraman, 2011).
Verification or evaluation stage is the stage of examining ideas or new creations for reality. At this stage,
the emerged inspiration is developed and examined critically in the laboratory, or confront the results with the
reality. The unconscious mind in the incubation stage changes into conscious mind in the verification stage. The
critical and rational study is a fundamental characteristic feature of this stage and divergent thinking changes
into convergent thinking, so the best creative ideas from the examination result emerge rationally. The critical
study can be also interpreted that someone who has been in the verification phase will review her/his creative
ideas obtained from the previous creative thinking step to examine the generated creative ideas. Someone will do
metacognition at this stage, thinking about what he/she had thought.
In the context of the instructional learning process, students need to communicate their generated creative
ideas to others (teachers or colleagues) who have higher knowledge or competence to see the value of
novelty/uniqueness and usefulness (Christensen & Schunn, 2005). This stage is the second awareness stage after
illumination that the process involves in examining, verifying, assessing, validating, writing creative ideas,
supervising, and issuing a new idea (Haylock, 1987). In other words, it is necessary to consider the required
characteristics for new insights to be verified by the public, one of them is mathematics learning community by
providing the mathematics learning innovations.
Students examine the novelty of their creative ideas and its necessity by discussing them with teachers.
Teachers do not only provide assistance in scaffolding but also help students examine them. According to
Semiawan (1998), examining new ideas is a student’s responsibility as an ending result of their creative thinking
process to be forwarded to the wider public after revising and perfecting ideas. Revising ideas is the final stage
of this process to consummate the dimension of the creative idea.

1.3. Realistic mathematic education (RME)

 
 
5 
 
Heuvel-Panhuizen & Drijvers (2014), RME reflects a view of mathematics as a subject matter, how
students learn mathematics and how mathematics should be taught. This view is decomposed into characteristics
of RME and its principles which will be described below.
Reality concept is a context of known children’s knowledge in their lives, and then becomes components
of thinking scheme. The scheme components connect various mathematical contexts and concepts. Related to
this situation, creative thinking can involve various dimensions of the knowledge in every stage of the creative
thinking process. Thus, the reality and intertwinement as RME principles can be used to encourage someone’s
creative thinking process.
For constructing student’s creativity, they have to know the real fact, starting from the early learning
process. Based on the “reality” RME principle, the learning process must be started from contextual issues to
build its creativity. Students will use problem-solving strategies to change the contextual issues into
mathematical problems. The representation is called “RME modeling” divided into 2 models, namely: situation
and mathematics models. Students will develop both of the two models (self-developed model) as their
knowledge connection tools from the real to abstract situation or from informal to formal mathematics. Students
construct their own model to solve the mathematics problem. Students must be close to the real word as called
“situation model” RME. The models of generalization and formalization will be transformed into “models- of”.
The concept of “model of” will change into a ‘model for” concept for the similar problems. It will be formal
mathematical models (models for) ultimately through mathematical reasoning.
Providing assistance in scaffolding such as facts, concepts, or procedures in almost every stage of the
creative thinking process, starting from preparation, incubation and illumination stage is one of the keys of RME
principles (guided-discovery principle) submitted by Freudenthal in RME, so the students are able to rediscover
mathematical concepts. The implication of this view is the process of how students acquire knowledge.
Verification is the end of the stage of the creative thinking process. In this stage, students do
metacognition. Students think about what they have thought to verify or evaluate their creative ideas by
discussing it with teacher or colleagues. This concept is relevant to the implementation of “interactivity” RME
principle. Doing interaction between students as a context of mathematical activity by discussing, arguing, or
justifying may encourage the reflection on the achieved student’s results or stage.
The reflection process on the result of student’s creative thinking in individual or group study will bring
opportunity to increase each student’s understanding. Then, the increasing of understanding will possibly
encourage the creative thinking process. Thus, the “understanding stage” RME principle is basically an effort to
encourage the increasing of student’s creative thinking process gradually, so students can reach the optimal
potential level as suitable or their abilities.
Based on the explanation above, the implementation of RME has a relevance to the creative thinking
process. For proving it scientifically or something falsified truth, refers to (Popper, 1979) phrase “doubting
something” is the first step to understanding in more depth problem by reviewing it scientifically through a
research process. The research questions are:

Q1: How many stages of creative thinking process do the elementary school students do by implementing
RME?
Q2: How do elementary school students construct their mathematics cognitive knowledge at every stage of
creative thinking process by implementing RME?

For addressing the two questions above, the research goal is to find the students’ mathematics cognitive
knowledge at every stage of creative thinking process by implementing RME based on perspective theory.
 
2. Research method

The research is a qualitative type with grounded theory approach, which aims at finding a theory from
understanding a phenomenon that occurs in the creative thinking process stages of elementary school students by
implementing RME. Operationally, the research was conducted with some steps, namely: research initiation;
data collection; data analysis; synthesis and research generation; and theory validation.
In the early research step (research initiation), the researcher did some preparations, namely: determining
the study location; designing instructional tools; preparing research instruments, and then implementing RME.
For determining the study location, researcher searched some data and information from schools that have
conducted or implemented RME, for example: visiting some elementary schools that have allegedly
implemented RME; searching the school database from previous relevant researches; as well as asking some
information from colleagues. Based on the search result, Hikmatul Fadillah Elementary school in Medan was
chosen as the location of the study because it has been conducting RME in Indonesian version.
Then, researcher designed instructional tools based on the principles and characteristics of RME that were
integrated with creativity in education, such as lesson plan, guidance handbook for teacher and students; and

 
 
6 
 
students’ activity sheet. The research instruments are creative thinking test, and interview and observation
guides. The test is a set of open-ended questions based on “geometry” mathematics materials in class V of
elementary school. The total of the test is 2 items that are used to measure the level of students' mathematics
creative thinking. Three of all students who took a test were the key informants in this research. Grouping the
student’s creative thinking level uses descriptive statistics to classify relatively. The guideline of value
classification by using “scale 5” based on the relative reference. 

The research was conducted in September 2015. The research subjects are students who have creative
individuals based on creative thinking levels, namely: "very high; high, and moderate”. The observed object is
students’ creative process.
The data was collected in three ways, namely: in-depth interviews, observation, and documentation. The
researcher interviewed the three students as the key informants, colleagues, and teacher; observed student’s
creative process during the being learning process, and examined student’s answer sheets as their creative
products. The researcher used the three ways of collecting data to complete them each other when the data was
analyzed.
Data was analyzed qualitatively with a grounded theory approach. According to Glaser(2010), data was
analyzed in 3 phases, namely: (1) data reduction, (2) data presentation, (3) conclusion or verification. The
researcher did synthesis to generate the theory by finding or refining the core category of all data, defining the
relationships and properties of data, and writing a note/memo in theory. Theory generation is done through
constant comparison of theoretical construction. Theory generation is directed into the relationship of each data.
The researcher examined the data validity by examining the data credibility, in some ways, such as
observation extension, triangulation, and/or analysis of negative cases. Researcher returned to the study field to
collect data by doing observation and interviews to ensure the obtained data credibility. The implementation
process is same within the early step of data collection. Should the obtained data from the "observation
extension" step not be contradictory with the data collection in the early step, data is credible. Should it be
contradictory, especially regarding the study substance, it is necessary to do the data triangulation as the next
step of the data credibility process. Data is retrieved from various informants as information sources, including
students, teacher, and colleagues. Searching data is also performed on various techniques of data collection. In
this study, the techniques of data collection are done in 3 ways, namely: interviews, observations, and
documents. Should it not be contradictory, data is credible. Should it be contradictory, especially regarding the
study substance, it is necessary to do the analysis of negative cases as the last step of the data credibility process.
To decide whether the data is valid or not, researcher searches various relevant references, which is supported by
recorded interviews, photographs, videos or movies.

3. Results

The results of the study are begun with the exposure of RME implementation. The learning process was
begun with the posing-problem which is designed in the context form in order to be imagined by students or in
the contextual problem close to students’ daily lives. Furthermore, students changed the contextual problems
into the real situation or manipulate problems into mathematical objects assisted by using the hard paper
(cartoon) cartoon as an instructional media to sketch the problem into geometry pictures. This process goal is to
simplify the contexts for solving the problem, hereinafter called a real model or referential level. This
mathematical process produces creative mathematics ideas as a mathematics model to be validated. The
mathematics model is the first step to solving the problem mathematically to find mathematics solutions
formally. Referring to the creativity concept as a boundless imagination, the mathematic solutions from one
contextual problem given by students varied very much. Of the creative mathematics solutions, students
analyzed them to find innovative mathematics solutions, such as flexible, unique, and novelty value, written on
students’ answer sheets, hereinafter called innovation model) or innovative level.
The correction of mathematics answer sheets for the three students as key informants is based on four
components of creative thinking as shown in Table 2 below.

Based on Table 2, The students’ answer sheets indicate that the students gave various responses. For
example Student (S1) gives 5 correct answers to the question 1. The five answers identified that Students (S1)
has 3 no strict rules answers to question 1. Student (S1) has 2 unique answers if they are compared with his other
friends’ responses in one classroom that consist of 35 students. Four of the five answers are written in coherent,
logical, clear, and responsible responses, and so on.
The same way was done by other students, who have unique and detail answers. This illustrates that some
students did creative thinking process to solve mathematics problems. But in this research, the number of
students as research subjects and key informants is 3 students based on the level of their creative thinking,

 
 
7 
 
namely: Student (S1) has a “very high” creative thinking level; Students (S2) has a “high” creative thinking
level, and Students (S3) has a “moderate” creative thinking level.
The three selected students as key informants were treated in-depth interview related to their creative
thinking process stages based on answer sheets and their cognitive knowledge they already obtained.
At the initial stage, based on interview result, Student (S1) tried to read and understand all the problems; a
desire to get ideas; discover and search the information or part of information from the context (e.g. the size and
volume formula of geometry). All matter is transformed into a possible positions to solve mathematics problems,
where all the transformed matter can be seen alternately and complexly. All process is still going on his mind,
without writing them down. The three students almost did the same activities at the initial stages, but they
needed relatively different time to understand the matter. Based on the interview result with their other friends, it
is said that Student (S1) and Student (S2) understood the problem more quickly than Student (S3). Their teachers
said that the time duration to solve the mathematics problem is relatively different. It is caused by the level of
their different creative thinking for each other.
At the second stage, to bring all problems to be simpler, students did some activities, namely: (1) collecting
data/information. Student (S1) did preparation by collecting all mathematics materials from books and student’s
answer sheet. Student (S1) borrowed his friends’ books and discussed them with his other friends to provide the
answer alternatives. The same way was done by Student (S2) and Student (S3). They were trying to understand
the problem, and then try to collect mathematics materials as their references to provide the various answer
possibilities, and they even borrowed the relevant mathematics books from the library with various different
references; (2) representing or manipulating the contextual problem into mathematical objects to simplify the
problem solving; and (3) formulating models/strategies for problem-solving. The students communicated
information they received with their own language by writing whatever information known and asked from the
contextual problems. Students always tried the new things in the math instruction. Students solved the problems
enthusiastically although they never studied them before.
At the third stage, students did two phenomenal thinking activities, such as self-quieting or self-reflecting
and deadlocked thinking process. Self-quieting or self-reflecting is caused by thinking saturation, so students
must take the time to rest their brain to think or divert attention to other issues then, inspiration emerges
suddenly. Students generally did brooding activities. Based on the observation result, the three students did
irrelevant work to learn, for example: getting dreamy, talking with other friends, calming down, feeling restless,
and even doing no activities, which looked like stopping thinking. Student (S1) seemed to divert the being
problems to other activities. Student (S2) seemed to be bothered with big problems, but she did not do anything.
When she was interviewed, she was thinking the alternative answers to write. Student (S3) only sat and tried to
calm himself down. Students’ self-reflections are in a various period of time, but no more than minutes. By
doing different activities, the individual can gradually find him/herself to think an idea for the best solution.
To which the incubation phenomenon caused by deadlocked thinking, students reread and understand the
preparation stage process; recall knowledge; imagine the connection of each mathematical object, and try to
reclaim rudimentary math ideas. The three students considered whatever geometrical shapes to become an idea.
On question 1, they thought various shapes, such as ball, cube, block, pyramid, and prism. Then, they thought
how to implement them in their lives. On question 2, they considered the shapes of “cube and pyramid”
geometry.
At the fourth stage, based on interviewed results; the students did three thinking activities, namely: (1)
analyzing parts of mathematics ideas to find the main mathematics ideas; (2) connecting mathematics ideas with
others, and (3) solving the contextual problems. Students did some activities in the analysis process, such as (a)
analyzing the characteristics and components of mathematics ideas; (b) analyzing the connection and pattern of
mathematics ideas, and (c) synthesizing part of mathematics ideas to find the main mathematics ideas. Here are
students’ activities in connection process: (a) connecting inter-mathematics ideas by connecting mathematics
solutions to various and different geometries in the problem solving; sketching pictures, math operating,
numeric, algebraic, and verbal representations; applying the concepts, procedures, and principles of
mathematics; (b) connecting mathematics ideas to the reality by using mathematics pattern (formula) to calculate
the area of a region in various ways; and (c) synergizing mathematics ideas with other subjects. At the problem-
solving process, students got ideas and determine what ideas to be realized. The solutions of creative ideas from
question 1 and 2 are interconnected. They tried to connect the abstract mathematics problems to the real objects
which they often found them in their everyday lives, then change them to other geometry forms and combine
some different geometry shapes into one by using pieces of cartoon/cardboard as instructional media.
At the fifth stage, students verified mathematics solutions by doing 2 activities, namely: (1) verifying the
creative mathematics ideas by discussing them with teachers or peers for the correct process; exploring the data
and information; re-checking the mathematics ideas in forming process, from preparation stage to finding
mathematics ideas; and revising invalid mathematics ideas. The three students eagerly tried to determine the size
of geometry by trial and error. Their teacher and friends justified their endeavor. The three students have an
eager and discouraged attitude when they got difficulties. Students did not give up and orally try to replace their

 
 
8 
 
new right ideas when they made a mistake in determining the size of geometry. Students tried to prove their
creative ideas. They would like to think the answer alternatives when they found wrong ideas. The students have
some reasons why they did the “trial and error” work. They examined or verified their creative ideas for the
correctness and feasibility by experimentation. They revised or changed their incorrect ideas as correct as
possible; and (2) solving the contextual problem and finding innovative mathematics solutions which are unique,
novel, and connected to reality and other subjects.
As the conclusion of the above research result, the stages of creative thinking process by implementing
RME are orientation, preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Students’ cognitive knowledge at
orientation stage are: reading and understanding the contextual problem; and searching information from
contextual problems. At the preparation stage, students did activities: collecting data and information;
representing/manipulating contextual problems into mathematics objects, and formulating model/strategies. To
which students obtained cognitive knowledge at incubation stage is: rereading and understanding preparation
stage process; recalling prior knowledge and learning experiences; imagining the connection of each mathematic
objects; and bringing out rudimentary mathematics ideas. At the illumination stage, students analyzed part of
mathematic ideas and synthesize them; finding the main mathematics ideas; connecting mathematics ideas with
others, and solving the contextual problems. At verification stage, students verified mathematics solutions;
revising invalid mathematics idea, and finding innovative mathematics solutions.
For validating the obtained data, the researcher examines the credibility of data through an "observation
extension” process as the first step, as above-mentioned in the "research methods". Researcher returned to
collect data as in the early stage of collecting data. Based on the result of collecting data through an "observation
extension” process, the result showed that the obtained initial data does not have much difference from the
obtained results through "observation extension" process. Some creative thinking processes in each stage have
any difference in using less time to solve the mathematics problem than the before process. Students have been
used to doing the open-ended questions based creativity. However, this difference is not too significant
regarding substantive matters, so the data is valid.

4. Discussion

The result of students’ mathematics creative thinking that was achieved through a mathematics creative
thinking test is relevant to the opinions of (Guilford, 1968;Oslon, 1980; Torrance, 1965).They state that the
creative thinking is the ability to see the various possibilities in problem solving which is indicated by fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Saefudin, (2012), Ruseffendi, (2006), and Usdiyana et al., (2013), in their
research, found that the implementation of RME approach can develop creative thinking abilities. The guided
reinvention as RME principle enables students to themselves-rediscovery mathematics concept. Mathematics
modeling in problem-solving as RME characteristic enables students to develop their creative thinking abilities.
Fluency in problem solving is based on the students’ ability to solve or resolve problems by providing a variety
of correct responses. Some of the correct responses are different and have no strict rules pattern, called
flexibility. Novelty in problem solving is based on the student's novel and unique answers.
Orientation as an initial stage of creative thinking process which is undertaken by elementary students in
RME as a research finding is relevant to the opinion of Osborn (1953) who stated that someone conducts the
orientation for the problem at the first stage of creative thinking process as a “recognizing the problems” stage.
Osborn also stated that someone could not solve the encountered problems before understanding it. Should
someone understand the problem, then the next stage of a creative thinking process is to do preparing for
problem-solving, incubation, illumination, and verification.
Wulantina, Kusmayadi, & Riyadi, (2015) stated that at the preparation stage, the students identify math
problem well which is being asked, the students select the information recursively by comprehending the
assignment. They also still need the stimulus from their math teacher in the concept and principle of geometry
they have learnt before; at incubation stage, the students memorize the appropriate pattern to solve geometrical
issue but sometimes they hesitate so they ask the problem not only to teacher but also to the researcher; at
illumination stage, the students solve the problem from what they already learnt from the previous way, the
students focus on the relevant information and avoid the complex information so that the student could not
explore math idea to find out another idea, they solve the problem with one idea; and at verification stage, the
students recheck the result before taking conclusion but there are many corrections in the final math solution.
Furthermore, students communicate with other people by discussing with their friends to provide
alternative responses. This research finding is relevant to the opinion of (Duncker & Krechevsky, 1939) stated
that discussing with colleagues or teacher to acquire the creative solutions is one of someone’s preparations
process, however, it is limited in incapacious space and content. This means, the teacher only gives the problem-
solving strategies or a way how to solve the students’ being encountered problems as a stimulus on student’s
question, while other students as their colleagues only give their limited knowledge. Teacher and colleagues do
not give complete and concrete answers. Based on the principle and characteristic of RME, students themselves

 
 
9 
 
must construct and find knowledge through mathematical activities, whilst the teacher is only a learning process
facilitator when students meet in a dead-end due to a lack of their knowledge and experience in the real world.
Although students meet the more extensive preparation process, but they do not get enough solution to
produce their creative ideas for mathematics problem solving. Someone who has the ability to combine and
implement his/her previous creative experiences and prior knowledge by recycling or recalling ideas is a
thinker’s characteristics. Their experiences and prior knowledge or taking a little scaffolding from the teacher
are intentional preparation processes to invent and combine new effect. On the other hand, someone can also
meet unintentional preparation processes by collecting the varied and relevant literature for creative products. It
is relevant to the opinion of (Woodworth, 1938)stated that both of prominent thinkers, Helmholtz and Poincare
collect all available information to achieve a quick solution.It would be sometimes successful, but often getting
experience failure before getting inspiration.
Referring to Woodworth’s aforementioned opinion, the students also conducted the similar concept at the
preparation stage. Should students be given mathematics problems (open-ended questions), they try to solve
problems by using their own approach by recalling and recycling ideas from their experiences in this life and
prior knowledge that is obtained in their previous class. However, both of the knowledge and experience are
insufficient to address mathematics creativity problems, and they could not possibly emerge the creative ideas.
Students should also search various relevant and varied literature for problem solving, or ask the teacher or their
friends whom they have more competence.
The students required various time at the preparation stage, depending on the levels of the student’s
creativity and the difficulty of the questions. It is relevant to the opinion of Wallas, (1926) and (Feibleman,
1945) stated that someone can take several seconds or several hours or a longer period of time. Thinkers would
spend hours to read books and articles on the same general topics and establish a main memorandum. Someone
would also spend hours of reading to gain a different point of view.
This research result is in line with Fauziah et al., (2013), Saefudin, (2011),Munandar, (2012). They stated
that students understood the contextual problem given by the teacher. Students would communicate information
from the contextual problem by writing it on their answer sheets, but need more different time to solve the math
problem for each other.
The students performed irrelevant instructional activities by diverting their attention to other relax activities
or they did not think their encountered problem for a moment or unlimited time. The experience of a talented
mathematician,(Singer, Toader, & Voica, 2015), Poincare spent much time doing work or activities to divert
attention to other issues. Facts and principles accidentally emerge in such a way to address the basic problem
solving after ceasing to think for awhile to get the relaxed situation at the incubation stage. (Platt & Baker, 1931)
stated that someone’s mind will be full of facts during a break, but someone will try to divert the encountered
important problems for a while. Carr (1925) mentioned that no attempting, ignorance, and open-mindedness,
determine how ideas will emerge from passive minds, and then pondering it. The activity at the incubation stage
is very varied from the different individual, or the same individual will probably show a different behavior
during a period and occasion.
The similar impression was also expressed by Oray & Uringhetti (2003) who conducted an investigation
upon several scientists on how they work and achieve their findings during the incubation stage. The result of
the investigation revealed that only 75% of the scientists produced creative ideas when they diverted their
problems to other different problems by being involved in an unfamiliar lesson which is not their subject of
research at that time, whilst 90% of them often feel to temporarily leave their important work, thus the problem
solving is formed itself during the incubation stage.
Shaffer, Von, Ilmer, & Schoen (1940) also said that the characteristics of a person’s behavior during the
incubation stage is varied according to the condition. One incubation variety emerges the anxiety and lack of
coordination. Incubation process is not necessarily in a lucid form. This sometimes occurs when the scientists
wake up by getting an inspiration as a solution that leads to an assumption that incubation happens during the
time they were dormant. In another example, the thinkers perhaps shift to another task and suddenly receive an
answer to the previous problem. The incubation period creates an anecdote about an absent-minded creative
thinker. A chemist once reported that during one morning, the chemist bathed, shaved, and even bathed again. At
that time, the chemist suddenly realized that he has given much concentration to the initial problem that was
being thought about for some time automatically.
Someone can also emerge his/her creative ideas in minutes, hours, months or even years after a little
incubation process. This varies from one person to another, and even for the same individual in a number of
different time, (Rossman, 1931). The time difference during the incubation period is caused by a number of
factors. A few of those factors are a person’s situation in stimulating his/her creative idea; the difficulty level of
encountered problems for problem solving; the intensity of his/her emotional reaction; and his/her habit and way
of life, which all contributes to the incubation period. Should the problem be very complex, the incubation
period can take longer time.

 
 
10 
 
The accomplishment of student’s creative ideas is a process of the mathematical activity. This is in
accordance with the opinion of (Riedesel, Schwartz, & Clements, 1996) state that mathematics is an activity
(doing mathematics). Doing mathematics does not only focus on the end solution but also how the process takes
place, such as: search the patterns and rapport, conjecture testing as well as result estimation. Someone is
required to use and adapt his/her gained knowledge in the activity process to create a new understanding. Apart
from the developed activities in mathematics itself, the process of developing new knowledge can be also started
from the activities at the outside of mathematics to solve the contextual problems. This process can enhance the
student’s adaptive reasoning ability, particularly in overcoming problems at outside of mathematics matter
which can be possibly solved mathematically.
The constructed mathematics activities with the concrete matters and link to the idea objects that are found
in the daily life is relevant to the principles and characteristics of RME. According to Heuvel-Panhuizen, (2007),
the mathematical idea process closely links to the view of mathematics as a human activity, therefore the best
way to learn mathematics is by doing or undertaking the designed specially problems. Furthermore, RME has a
reality principle as a mathematic learning approach in general.The main objective of RME is to enable students
to apply mathematics. In RME, the reality principle is not always developed during the last stage of a lesson
process, but also a source to learn mathematics. Mathematics is developed from the reality of mathematics, thus
learning mathematics should be also begun by a realistic mathematics process.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their invaluable comments and
suggestions on the manuscript.

References

Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., Ferrando, M., Oliveira, E., & Ferrándiz, C. (2008). Torrance test of creative
thinking: The question of its construct validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 53–58.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.003
Budi, R. R. S. (2008). Penerapan pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia melalui penggunaan alat peraga
praktik miniatur Tandon Air terhadap hasil belajar siswa di kelas X SMA Negeri 3 Kota Manna. Jurnal
Penddidikan Matematika, 2(1), 63–80.
Cao, T. Y., & Schweber, S. S. (1993). The conceptual foundation and the philosophical aspects of
renormalization theory. In Synthesa (Vol. 97, pp. 33–108). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Carr, H. A. (1925). Psychology, a study of mental activity. N.Y: Longmans, Green.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13432-000
Cattani, G., Colucci, M., & Ferriani, S. (2015). Chanel’s creative trajectory in the field of fashion: The optimal
network structuration strategy. In G. E. Corazza & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the
science of creative thinking. Singapore: Springer.
Cheung, B. (2007). Creative processes used by modern American citizens, (2).
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Spontaneous access and analogical incubation effects. Creativity
Research Journal, 17(2-3), 207–220. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2005.9651480
Christmas, D., Kudzai, C., & Josiah, M. (2013). Vygotsky ’ s zone of proximal development theory: What are its
implications for mathematical teaching ? Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 3(7), 371–377.
Conny R. Semiawan. (1998). Dimensi kreatif dalam filsafat ilmu. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Craff, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education, 1(March), 1–37.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Duncker, K., & Krechevsky, I. (1939). On solution achievement. Psych. Rev, 46, 176–185.
Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills of
disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review, 87(12), 304. http://doi.org/samsung/academico/material
didatico/inovação
Fauziah, I. N. L., Usodo, B., & Ekana, H. (2013). Proses berpikir kreatif siswa kelas X dalam memecahkan
masalah geometri berdasarkan tahapan wallas ditinjau dari Adversity Quotient (AQ) siswa. Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika Solusi, 1(1), 75–89.
Feibleman, J. K. (1945). The psychology of the artist. Psych, 19, 165–89.
Gilhooly, K. J. (1982). Thinking: directed, undirected and creative. English: Elsevier Science & Technology
Books.
Glaser, B. G., Astr, T., Gynnild, A., Jamieson, L., Taylor, P. J., Sci, M., & Gibson, B. (2010). The Grounded
theory review. Qualitative Health Research, 9(2).
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

 
 
11 
 
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence, and their educational implications. San Diego: CA:
EDITS/Robert Knapp.
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 18, 59–74.
Heuvel-Panhuizen, V. D. M. (2007). Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Teaching Incorporating
Micromath, (November 2001), 34–38. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8
Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. Van den, & Drijvers, P. (2014). Realistic mathematics education. Encyclopedia of
Mathematics Education, 521–525. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8
Hill, R. W., Gratch, J., Marsella, S., Rickel, J., Swartout, W., & Traum, D. (2003). Virtual humans in the mission
rehearsal exercise system. Ki, 17(4), 5.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative
problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-
6057.2004.tb01234.x
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom ’ s taxonomy : An overview, 41(4).
Mace, M., & Ward, T. (2002). Modeling the creative process: A grounded theory analysis of creativity in the
domain of art making. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 179–192.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR’s Contribution to the conceptualization and study of creativity. Chicago:
Aldine.
Munandar, S. C. U. (1977). Creativity and education. Jakarta: Fakultas Psikologi UI.
Munandar, U. (2012). Pengembangan kreativitas anak berbakat. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions and
characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(DECEMBER), 285–291.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.056
Nurkancana, W., & Sumartana. (1986). Evaluasi pendidikan. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.
Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of
Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.
Oray, D. C., & Uringhetti, F. F. (2003). One hundred years of L ’ enseignement math ´ ematique moments of
mathematics education in the twentieth century. October. Geneva.
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. New York: Charles Scribner.
Oslon, R. W. (1980). The art of creative thinking. New York: Bames & Noble Books.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behaviour guidebook. New York: Charles Scribners’s.
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1972). Applied creativity: The creative studies project, part II – Results of the
two-year program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 164–186.
Platt, W., & Baker, R. A. (1931). Relation of the scientific "hunch to research. Chem. Educ, 8(9), 1969–2002.
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Popper, K. R. (1979). The growth of scientific knowledge. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.
Riedesel, C. A., Schwartz, J. E., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Teaching elementary school mathematics. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Rossman, J. (1931). The psychology of the inventor. Washington: Inventor Pub. Co.
Ruseffendi, E. T. (1990). Pengajaran matematika modern dan masa kini untuk guru dan PGSD D2 , Seri
Pertama. Bandung: Penerbit Tarsito.
Ruseffendi, E. T. (2006). Pengantar kepada Guru Mengembangkan Kompetensinya dalam Pengajaran
Matematika untuk Meningkatkan CBSA., 5.
Saefudin, A. A. (2011). Proses berpikir kreatif siswa Sekolah Dasar ( SD ) berkemampuan matematika tinggi
dalam pemecahan masalah matematika terbuka.
Saefudin, A. A. (2012). Pengembangan kemampuan berpikir kreatif siswa dalam pembelajaran matematika
dengan pendekatan pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia (PMRI). Al-Bidayah, 4(1).
Sawyer, R. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences research. OECD/CERI International
Conference, 45–65. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264047983-4-en
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An education perspective. New York: The University of North
Carolina at Greensboro.
Seifert, C. M., Meyer, D. E., Davidson, N., Patalano, A. L., & Yaniv, I. (1995). Demystification of cognitive
insight: Opportunistic assimilation and the prepared-mind perspective. In The nature of insight (pp. 65–
124). http://doi.org/10.1080/01619566109536989
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian classrooms
through RME. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(6), 927–939.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0125-9
Shaffer, L. F., Von, B., Ilmer, H., & Schoen, M. (1940). Psychology. N.Y: Harper.
Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2012). Making creative metaphors: The importance of fluid intelligence for creative

 
 
12 
 
thought. Intelligence, 40(4), 343–351. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.02.005
Sinaga, B., Harahap, M., Sinambela, P. N. J. M., & Sinaga, L. (2015). Pengembangan model pembelajaran
matematika dan asesmen otentik berbasis kurikulum 2013 untuk meningkatkan kualitas sikap, kemampuan
berpikir kreatif dan koneksi matematik. Medan: Universitas Negeri Medan.
Singer, F. M., Toader, F., & Voica, C. (2015). MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY AND.
Siswono, T. T. (2004). Pendekatan pembelajaran matematika. jakarta: Depdiknas.
Soedjadi, R. (2007). Inti dasar – dasar pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia. Jurnal Penddidikan
Matematika, 1(2), 1–10.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology. Pomona: California State University.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(14)00060-7
Taylor, C. M. (1975). Perspective in creativity. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Torrance. (1965). Rewarding creative behaviour. United State of America: Prentice Hall. Inc.
Usdiyana, D., Purniati, T., Yulianti, K., & Harningsih, E. (2013). Meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir logis siswa
SMP melalui pembelajaran matematika realistik. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 13(1).
http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). the didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An
example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9–35.
http://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000005212.03219.dc
Wadaani, M. R. (2015). Teaching for creativity as human development toward self-actualization : The essence of
authentic learning and optimal growth for all students. Creative Education, 6(May), 669–679.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.67067
Wallas, G. (1926). Art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Walton, A. P., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2012). Creativity in its social context: The interplay of organizational
norms, situational threat, and gender. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 208–219.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.677345
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect
- the Panas Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the
arts. PsycCRITIQUES, 52(17), 3.
Welsch, G. S. (1973). Perspectives in the study of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(4), 231–246.
Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. N.Y: Holt.
Wulantina, E., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Riyadi. (2015). Proses berpikir kreatif siswa dalam pemecahan matematika
pada siswa kelas X MIA SMA 6 Surakarta, 3(6), 671–682.
Yuan, X., & Sriraman, B. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’ creativity and
mathematical problem-posing abilities. The Elements of Creativity and Giftedness in Mathematics, 5–28.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-439-3_2

   

 
 
13 
 
Table 1
Guideline of value classification “scale 5”.
Value classification Value standard
Very high 90 -100
high 80 - 89
moderate 65 - 79
low 55 - 64
very low 0 – 54
Source: Nurkancana & Sumartana(1986)

Table 2
The result of student’s mathematics answers based on a four-creativity components
Open-ended items
Initial Total
No. 1 2 Conversion Classification
student score
Flue. Flex. Orig. Elab. Flue. Flex. Orig. Elab.
1 Student (S1) 5 3 2 4 5 4 3 4 30 93,75 very high
2 Student (S2) 4 3 2 3 4 4 2 4 26 81,25 high
3 Student (S3) 3 3 1 3 4 2 2 3 21 65,63 Moderate