The Impact of Differentiated Learning, Adversity Intelligence, and Peer Tutoring on Student Learning Outcomes

  • Nur Hidayat Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Banten,  Indonesia
  • Yayat Ruhiat Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Banten,  Indonesia
  • Nurul Anriani Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Banten,  Indonesia
  • Suryadi Suryadi STKIP Situs Banten,  Indonesia
Keywords: Differentiated Learning, Adversity Intelligence, Peer Tutoring, Learning Outcomes


Objective: Differentiation is a well-recognized strategy that assists teachers in addressing the needs of students with varying abilities in a classroom of students with different characteristics. The research investigates the impact of differentiation learning, adversity intelligence, and peer tutoring on student learning outcomes. Method: This research employs a statistical survey approach to guarantee outcome accuracy. The researchers employed a partial least squares-structural equation model (PLS-SEM) to determine the values of latent variables to make predictions. The questionnaire was used as the data-gathering tool in this study. The investigation occurred at a vocational high school in Serang Regency in Banten Province, Indonesia. Were 250 students in the vocational high school in Serang Regency, Indonesia. The sampling procedure was conducted using a random approach. Results:  The statistical study of the structural model indicates a considerable positive link between differentiated learning and adversity intelligence. Adversity intelligence and peer tutoring were positively correlated. Differentiated learning is positively correlated with learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are positively correlated with peer tutoring. Novelty: This research presents novelty research that combines differentiated learning, adversity intelligence, and peer tutoring to examine their impact on student learning outcomes. This research is novel in its attempt to incorporate multiple variables into a single unit for investigation and exploration. This research is intriguing due to variations in emphasis, research participants, and incorporation of research factors compared to earlier studies.

Abstract View: 52 PDF Download: 58 Similarity Check Download: 11
Download data is not yet available.


Abrahamson, D., Nathan, M. J., Williams-Pierce, C., Walkington, C., Ottmar, E. R., Soto, H., & Alibali, M. W. (2020). The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–29.

Adeniji, S. M., Baker, P., & Schmude, M. (2022). Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) model: A mixed-method systematic review of research in mathematics education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(6), 1-10.

Agustyaningrum, N., Sari, R. N., Abadi, A. M., & Mahmudi, A. (2020). Dominant factors that cause students’ difficulties in learning abstract algebra: A case study at a university in indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 847–866.

Al Maani, D., & Shanti, Z. (2023). Technology-enhanced learning in light of bloom’s taxonomy: A student-experience study of the history of architecture course. Sustainability, 15(3), 1-23.

Andrade, R. R., & Pasia, A. E. (2020). Mathematical creativity of pre-service teachers in solving non-routine problems in state university in laguna. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4555–4567.

Apawu, J., Owusu-Ansah, A. N., & Peter, P. (2018). A study on the algebraic working processes of senior high school students in ghana. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 62-68.

Augusto, C., Suarez, H., Rodrigo, W., Castro, A., Aloiso, A., & Suárez, G. (2022). Development of variational thinking based on non-routine problem-solving in elementary school students. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(2), 1133–1142.

Azid, N., Ali, R. M., El Khuluqo, I., Purwanto, S. E., & Susanti, E. N. (2022). Higher order thinking skills, school-based assessment and students’ mathematics achievement: Understanding teachers’ thoughts. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(1), 290–302.

Banda, S., Phiri, F., Kaale, J., Banda, A. M., Mpolomoka, D. L., & Chikopela, R. (2023). Application of bloom’s taxonomy in categorization of cognitive process development in colleges. Journal of Education and Practice, 14(4), 6-14.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.

Bosse, M. J., Bayaga, A., Lynch-Davis, K., & DeMarte, A. (2021). Assessing analytic geometry understanding: Van hiele, SOLO, and beyond. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 22(1), 1–23.

Bounou, A., Lavidas, K., Komis, V., Papadakis, S., & Manoli, P. (2023). Correlation between high school students’ computational thinking and their performance in STEM and language courses. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1-10.

Caniglia, J. Meadows, M (2018). An application of the solo taxonomy to classify strategies used by pre-service Teachers to solve "one Question problems. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(9), 75-89.

Chan, C. C., Chui, M. S., & Chan, M. Y. C. (2002). Applying the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy on student’s learning outcomes: an empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 511-527.

Chirove, M., & Ogbonnaya, U. I. (2021). The relationship between grade 11 learners’ procedural and conceptual knowledge of algebra. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), 6(4), 368–387.

Egodawatte, G. (2023). A taxonomy of high school students’ levels of understanding in solving algebraic problems. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 42(1), 30–51.

Elazzabi, A. & Kaçar, A. (2020). Investigation of libyan and turkish students' thinking levels in solving quadratic word problems based on SOLO Taxonomy. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi, 10(1), 283-316.

Feldman-Maggor, Y., Tuvi-Arad, I., & Blonder, R. (2022). Development and evaluation of an online course on nanotechnology for the professional development of chemistry teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 44(16), 2465–2484.

Gözde, A. (2020). Non-routine problem-solving performances of mathematics teacher candidates. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(5), 214–224.

Hamdan, H., Majdouba, M., & Nour, N. (2018). The effect of using the flipped classroom strategy and Solo mock maps on the learning and achievement of seventh grade students in mathematics. The Seventh International Conference of the College of Arts: Future Prospects for Education in a Changing World, 1-8.

Hook, P. (2015). First Steps with SOLO Taxonomy Applying the model in your classroom. Essential Resources Educational Publishers Limited.

Jaiswal, P., & Al-Hattami, A. A. (2020). Enhancing learners’ academic performances using student centered approaches. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(16), 4–16.

Karanja, E., & Malone, L. C. (2021). Improving project management curriculum by aligning course learning outcomes with Bloom’s taxonomy framework. Journal of International Education in Business, 14(2), 197–218.

Kilicoglu, E., & Kaplan, A. (2022). Predicting the mathematical abstraction processes using the revised bloom’s taxonomy: Secondary school 7th graders. Athens Journal of Education, 9(2), 237–256.

Koyunlu, U. Z., & Dökme, İ. (2022). A systematic review of 5E model in science education: proposing a skill-based STEM instructional model within the 21-st century skills. International Journal of Science Education, 44(13), 2110–2130.

Ladias, A., Karvounidis, T., & Ladias, D. (2021). Classification of the programming styles in scratch using the SOLO taxonomy. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 114-123.

Ladias, A., Karvounidis, T., & Ladias, D. (2022). Forms of communications in scratch and the SOLO taxonomy. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(1), 234-245.

Leow, S. H., & Kaur, B. (2024). A study of grade two students solving a non-routine problem with access to manipulatives. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-23.

Mehmet I,. & Yilmaz. G. (2021). An investigation of the geometric thinking levels of middle school mathematics preservice teachers according to SOLO taxonomy: "Social distance problems". Participatory Educational Research, 8(3), 188-209.

Muhayimana, T., Kwizera, L., & Nyirahabimana, M. R. (2022). Using bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of primary leaving english exam questions in rwandan schools. Curriculum Perspectives, 42(1), 51–63.

Mulbar, U., Rahman, A., & Ahmar, A. (2018). Analysis of the ability in mathematical problem-solving based on SOLO taxonomy and cognitive style. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 15(1), 68-73.

Parissi, M., Komis, V., Dumouchel, G., Lavidas, K., & Papadakis, S. (2023). How does students' knowledge about information-seeking improve their behavior in solving information problems? Educational Process: International Journal, 12(1), 113-137.

Singh, G., Singh, G., Tuli, N., & Mantri, A. (2023). Hyperspace AR: An augmented reality application to enhance spatial skills and conceptual knowledge of students in trigonometry. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1-20.

Ukobizaba, F., Nizeyimana, G., & Mukuka, A. (2021). Assessment strategies for enhancing students’ mathematical problem-solving skills: A review of literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(3), 1–10.

How to Cite
Hidayat, N., Ruhiat, Y., Anriani, N., & Suryadi, S. (2024). The Impact of Differentiated Learning, Adversity Intelligence, and Peer Tutoring on Student Learning Outcomes. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 5(3), 537-548.
Abstract viewed = 52 times
PDF downloaded = 58 times Similarity Check downloaded = 11 times