For students to compete with the rapid advancement in science, technology, and the arts, creativity must be more than just a necessary skill. This study of levels of creativity performed when addressing statistical issues is a follow-up to earlier studies. To create a distinctive model, a controversial aspect was used. The study revealed that there were five levels of creative models, in addition to the three levels of the earlier research: pre-imitation, imitation, modification, combination, and construction. The pre-imitation stage is defined by the subject's limited capacity for imitation. The level of imitation is determined by the act of copying methods even when one does not actually understand them. The modification level is essentially defined by the process of altering a procedure so that it can be applied to solve an issue. The process for merging several settings or problem-solving strategies also serves to define the level of combination. The construction level is determined by the process of developing new methods to handle problems.

No abstract

Misinterpretations in learning mathematics are often encountered. That is part of the educational process that needs to be controlled. So the direction and steps of the mathematical thinking process can be realized according to the goals. This research utilizes a qualitative approach as a thinking paradigm. This study explores the ins and outs of students' misinterpretations when faced with controversial algebraic problems. The importance of knowing the misinterpretations raised by students can be a reflection signal of the extent to which students understand algebraic concepts. The subjects of this research were 17 students of MTs Surya Buana Malang City. In this study, the use of controversial mathematical problems in algebraic material. The results showed that four subjects representing each group of students' controversial reasoning were known to misinterpret. Based on the commognitive lens, conceptual errors were experienced by all the subjects of this study with various error variants. However, only two subjects experienced procedural errors when incorrectly applying the calculation operations.