Developing Polyhedral Geometry Assessment Based on Polya’s Problem-Solving Stages
Abstract
information, connecting spatial elements, selecting strategies, carrying out procedures, and
evaluating their answers. This condition indicates the need for a summative assessment that
measures not only final outcomes but reveals students’ problem-solving processes. This study
aimed to develop a valid and practical summative assessment based on Polya’s problem-solving
stages and to describe its potential to elicit students’ mathematical problem-solving processes.
The study employed development research using Tessmer’s formative evaluation procedure,
which included preliminary analysis, self-evaluation, expert review, one-to-one evaluation, small-
group evaluation, and field testing. The participants were eighth-grade students from a junior high
school in Palembang who had studied polyhedral geometry. Data were collected through
validation sheets, students’ written responses, response questionnaires, and interviews. The data
were analyzed descriptively to determine content, construct, and language validity, assess
practicality, and identify students’ problem-solving stages. The expert review results showed that
the developed assessment met the validity criteria after revisions were made to its content,
construct, and language aspects. The small-group evaluation yielded a practicality score of 85%,
categorized as highly practical. Written responses and interviews showed that the assessment was
able to elicit the stages of understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and
looking back, although students still required support in planning and answer verification. The
assessment can be used by teachers to evaluate students’ problem-solving ability after instruction.
The originality of this study lies in integrating Polya’s problem-solving stages, polyhedral geometry,
and summative assessment.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Age, T. J. (2025). Performance-based assessment: A transformative approach to enhancing mathematics learning in Ubuntu
classrooms across Sub-Saharan Africa. European Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 4.
https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/16420
Al-Hawamdeh, B. O. S., Hussen, N., & Abdelrasheed, N. S. G. (2023). Portfolio vs. summative assessment: Impacts on EFL learners’
writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF); self-efficacy; learning anxiety; and autonomy. Language Testing in Asia, 13,
Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00225-5
Battista, M. T., Winer, M. L., & Frazee, L. M. (2017). How spatial reasoning and numerical reasoning are related in geometric
measurement. In E. Galindo & J. Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 355–362). Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher
Educators.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,
(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.
Cahyadi, M. R., Maryanto, B. P. A., Syaifuddin, M., & Darmayanti, R. (2023). Development of essay test assessment rubric for Polya
theory-based mathematical problem-solving. JNPM (Jurnal Nasional Pendidikan Matematika), 7(1), 167–178.
https://doi.org/10.33603/jnpm.v7i1.7724
Chiphambo, S. M., & Mtsi, N. (2021). Exploring Grade 8 students’ errors when learning about the surface area of prisms. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(8), Article em1985. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10994
Demosthenous, E., Christou, C., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2021). Mathematics classroom assessment: A framework for designing assessment
tasks and interpreting students’ responses. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(3),
–1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11030081
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry
for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37–52). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5226-6
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Gao, R., Merzdorf, H. E., Anwar, S., Hipwell, M. C., & Srinivasa, A. (2024). Automatic assessment of text-based responses in post-
secondary education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 100206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100206
He, P., Krajcik, J., & Schneider, B. (2023). Transforming standards into classrooms for knowledge-in-use: An effective and coherent
project-based learning system. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5, Article 22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00088-z
Helm, C., Warwas, J., & Schirmer, H. (2022). Cognitive diagnosis models of students’ skill profiles as a basis for adaptive teaching: An
example from introductory accounting classes. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 14, Article 9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-022-00137-3
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Ismail, S. M., Rahul, D. R., Patra, I., & Rezvani, E. (2022). Formative vs. summative assessment: Impacts on academic motivation, attitude
toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12, Article 40.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00191-4
Jones, K., & Tzekaki, M. (2016). Research on the teaching and learning of geometry. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, & P. Boero (Eds.), The
second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: The journey continues (pp. 109–149). Sense
Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-561-6_4
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
Kramarenko, T. H., Pylypenko, O. S., & Moiseienko, M. V. (2024). Enhancing mathematics education with GeoGebra and augmented
reality. In S. O. Semerikov & A. M. Striuk (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Augmented Reality in
Education (AREdu 2023) (pp. 117–126). CEUR-WS.org.
Kristantini, R., Sumardi, H., & Zamzaili. (2022). Analisis kesulitan menyelesaikan soal pemecahan masalah materi bangun ruang sisi
datar berbasis etnomatematika Bengkulu Selatan. Sepren: Journal of Mathematics Education and Applied, 4(1), 34–45.
https://doi.org/10.36655/sepren.v4i01.803
Krismona, R., Afgani, M. W., & Septy, L. (2023). Analisis kesulitan siswa SMP kelas VIII dalam menyelesaikan soal matematika materi
bangun ruang sisi datar. Lentera Sriwijaya: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.36706/jls.v5i1.19162
Kusuma, A. P., Aslamia, A. S., Sintiya, H., Rahayu, R. G., & Rahmawati, N. K. (2023). Analysis of students’ difficulties in solving problems
related to solid geometry. Brillo Journal, 2(2), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.56773/bj.v2i2.37
Lopera-Oquendo, C., Lipnevich, A. A., & Máñez, I. (2024). Rating writing: Comparison of holistic and analytic grading approaches in
pre-service teachers. Learning and Instruction, 94, Article 101992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101992
Makalunsenge, K. I. P., Tumalun, N. K., & Wenas, J. R. (2023). Analisis kesalahan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal cerita materi bangun
ruang sisi datar menurut prosedur Newman di kelas VIII SMP Negeri 2 Langowan. Dharmas Education Journal, 4(2), 691–697.
https://doi.org/10.56667/dejournal.v4i2.1129
McFeetors, P. J., Marynowski, R., & Candler, A. (2021). Generative unit assessment: Authenticity in mathematics classroom assessment
practices. Education Sciences, 11(7), Article 366. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070366
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Nindiasari, H., Pranata, M. F., Sukirwan, S., Sugiman, S., Fathurrohman, M., Ruhimat, A., & Yuhana, Y. (2024). The use of augmented
reality to improve students’ geometry concept problem-solving skills through the STEAM approach. Infinity Journal, 13(1), 119–
https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i1.p119-138
Nitko, A. J., & Hsu, T.-C. (1984). Item analysis appropriate for domain-referenced classroom testing. Learning Research and Development
Center, University of Pittsburgh.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Pals, F. F. B., Tolboom, J. L. J., & Suhre, C. J. M. (2023). Development of a formative assessment instrument to determine students’ need
for corrective actions in physics: Identifying students’ functional level of understanding. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, Article
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101387
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Romero, I., Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., & Rodríguez, J. L. (2023). Optimizing the surface of orthohedra with virtual reality in primary
school. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(9), Article em2325.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13508
Saffanah, S. O., & Ruli, R. M. (2022). Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa SMP dalam menyelesaikan materi bangun ruang
sisi datar. Jurnal Didactical Mathematics, 4(1), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.31949/dm.v4i1.2068
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). Macmillan.
Simarmata, R. H., & Buchari, M. A. (2026). Students’ problem-solving skills in polyhedral geometry with GeoGebra augmented reality
support. Edumatika: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.32939/ejrpm.v9i1.6903
Simarmata, R. H., Buchari, M. A., & Esterina, E. (2026). Pengembangan asesmen formatif pada materi barisan dan deret aritmetika
untuk mendukung kemampuan pemecahan masalah. In Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika (SNPM) (Vol. 1, pp. 255–
.
Sudirman, S., Kusumah, Y. S., Martadiputra, B. A. P., & Runisah, R. (2023). Epistemological obstacle in 3D geometry thinking:
Representation, spatial structuring, and measurement. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(4), 292–301.
https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.04.34
Szetela, W., & Nicol, C. (1992). Evaluating problem solving in mathematics. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 42–45.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research
in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tashtoush, M. A., Shirawia, N., & Rasheed, N. M. (2025). Scoring rubrics method in performance assessment and its effect of
mathematical achievement. Athens Journal of Education, 12(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.12-1-3
Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations: Improving the quality of education and training. Kogan Page.
Tessema, G., Michael, K., & Areaya, S. (2024). Realist hands-on learning approach and its contributions to learners’ conceptual
understanding and problem-solving skills on solid geometry. Pedagogical Research, 9(1), Article em0186.
https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14096
Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from learning theory and measurement theory. WestEd.
Wijaya, T. T., Hidayat, W., Hermita, N., Alim, J. A., & Talib, C. A. (2024). Exploring contributing factors to PISA 2022 mathematics
achievement: Insights from Indonesian teachers. Infinity Journal, 13(1), 139–156.
https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i1.p139-156
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This proceeding series is indexed by:
