the 1 sriwijaya university learning and education ...eprints.umm.ac.id/36920/24/baiduri taufik -...

i

PROCEEDINGS

The 1st Sriwijaya University Learning

and Education International

Conference (SULE-IC) 2014 held by

FKIP Unsri in Collaboration with

Communication Forum for Indonesian

State FKIP Deans, 16—18 May, 2014

Held by:

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University and

in Collaboration with Communication Forum for Indonesian State FKIP Deans

Published by:

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University

Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia, 2014

Chief Editor: Hartono

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Sriwijaya University, 2014

The proceeding can be accessed at: http: //eprint. unsri.ac.id./

Process editing of all the articles in proceeding was conducted by the editor board of the

1st

Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference.

ii

PROCEEDINGS

The 1st Sriwijaya University Learning

and Education International

Conference (SULE-IC) 2014 held by

FKIP Unsri in Collaboration with

Communication Forum for Indonesian

State FKIP Deans, 16—18 May, 2014

This Paper has been presented at

The 1st

Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference

“Improving the Quality of Education to Strengthen the Global Competitiveness:

A Respond to the Current Curriculum”

Editor Board:

1. Hartono (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

2. Bruce Waldrip (Tasmania University)

3. Maarten Dolk (Utrecht University, The Netherland)

4. Mahzan B. Arshad (Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia)

5. Eran M. Williams (RELO, United Stated of America)

6. Nurhayati (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

7. Ratu Ilma Indra Putri (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

8. Ismail Petrus (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

9. MachdalenaVianty (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

10. Rita Hayati (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

11. Zainal A. Naning (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Sriwijaya University

Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia

2014

iii

Preface

Assalaamu'alaikum Warahmatullaahi Wabarakatuh.

First of all, we would like to say alhamdulillah, thank to Allah SWT, the most

gracious and merciful, that the proceedings of the First Sriwijaya University Learning

Education International Conference (SULE-IC) can successfully be completed. The

conference was held on May 16-18, 2014 by the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Sriwijaya University in collaboration with the Communication Forum (FORKOM) for

Indonesian Deans of State Teacher Training and Education Faculties. lt is an honor for us to

be entrusted by the Communication Forum to organize the meeting of FORKOM and the First

Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference (SULE-IC). The

theme of the conference was "Improving the Quality of Education to Strengthen the Global

Competitiveness: A Respond to the Current Curriculum".

We are very happy and proud because we have seventh keynote speakers in their

expertise and five invited speakers from five continents such as H. Alex Noerdin, Sofendi,

M.A., Ph.D. from Indonesia; Prof. Dr. Maarten Dolk from the Netherlands; Prof. Dr. Bruce

Waldrip from Australia; Prof. Dr. Mahzan B, Arshad from Malaysia; Mr. Eran M. Williams

from the United State of America; Moses Phahlane from Republic of South Africa. We are

also very happy since we have numerous participants from lndonesia, Oman, Shanghai,

Malaysia, and Australia. Alhamdulillah, there were 131 papers related to language education,

mathematics education, science education, early childhood and elementary education,

vocational and technology education, and social studies that have been presented on the

conference parallel sessions.

We are very grateful to all editors who have been dedicated to editing the articles of

the proceedings. The editors are: Hartono (Sriwijaya University), Maarten Dolk (Utrecht

University), Bruce Waldrip (Tasmania University), Mahzan B, Arshad (University

Pendidikan Sultan Idris), Mr. Eran M. Williams (RELO, United State of America), Nurhayati,

(Sriwijaya University), Ratu Ilma Indra Putri (Sriwijaya University), Ismail Petrus (Sriwijaya

University), Machdalena Vianty (Sriwijaya University), Rita Hayati (Sriwijaya University),

Zainal A. Naning (Sriwijaya University).

The proceedings contain as many as 131 articles. The authors of the articles came

from several institutions. We hope that the proceedings would be useful not only for the

authors but also the readers to get creative and innovative ideas that can improve the quality

of education to strengthen the global competitiveness especially in Indonesia.

Palembang, May 2014

Chairman of the Committee,

Prof. Dr. Zulkardi, M.I.Kom., M.Sc.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Front Page i

Editor Board ii

Preface iii

Table of Contents iv

Keynote Speakers

1 Improving International Rankings through Enhanced Learning

through Representational Reasoning

Bruce Waldrip, Tasmania University-Australia

A-1 1

2 Principles of Literacy Teaching in A Multiethnic Society

Mahzan Arshad, Sultan Idris Education University-Malaysia A-2 9

3 Facts and Hopes About the Students’ English Mastery at

Mathematics and Natural Sciences Department, Faculty of

Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University

Palembang, Indonesia

Sofendi, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya

University-Indonesia

A-3 18

4 Improving Mathematics and Science Education: a Dutch

Example

Maarten Dolk, Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics

Education, Utrecht University-Netherlands

A-4 24

Language Education

1 Improving Students’ Descriptive Writing Skill by Using Peer

Response Technique

Amalia Hasanah, IAIN Raden Fatah

B-1 30

2 Using High 5 Strategies to Improve Reading Comprehension

Achievement and Reading Interest of the Eleventh Grade

Students of SMA N 10 Palembang

Desi Surayatika, Rita Inderawati, Dian Ekawati, Sriwijaya

University

B-2 43

3 The Application of Scaffolded Writing to Improve Students’

Attitude toward Exposition Writing and Writing Achievement

Dian Kusumaningrum, State Senior High School 1 South

Inderalaya

B-3 51

4 Increasing X.1 Students’ Reading Skills in Narrative Text

Through Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) in Senior High

School 1 Gelumbang

Fitri Yetti Oktariza, State Senior High School 1 Gelumbang

B-4 56

v

5 Investigated Students’ Perspectives toward the Uses of

Computer-based Testing in Learning Grammar

Utri Fitria, Anggun, Sriwijaya University

B-5 66

6 Developing Students' Writing Ability by Using Effective Peer

Response Model

Indrawati, STAIN Syaikh Abdurrahman Siddik

B-6 74

7 Language Planning: English Language Status and Acquisition

in Indonesia

Ismail Petrus, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education


B-7 87

8 Improving Reading Comprehension through Think Aloud

Strategy

Ngaliah, State University of Jakarta

B-8 94

9

Improving Students Writing Ability in Descriptive Text using

Posters Strategy

Nur Asiah, STKIP Muhammadiyah Pagar Alam

B-9 99

10 Vocabulary in EFL Teaching Situation

Saleh M. Abdo, Language Center, Middle East College-Sultanate of

Oman

B-10 105

11 Learning Cycle: an Alternative Model to TEFL in Indonesia

With The 2013 Curriculum

Ida Rosmalina, Department of Language Education and Arts,


B-11 116

12 The Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching English to Visually-

Impaired Students in SLB Prof.Dr.Sri Soedewi Mascjun

Sofwan, SH, MH

Akhmad Habibi and Asih Jamila, University of Jambi

B-12

122

13 Improving Reading Comprehension Achievement Using

Foltales through Herringbone Technique

Nurfisi Arriyani and Nurul Aryanti, Unversity of Tamansiswa and

Polytechnic of Sriwijaya

B-13 129

14 Designing an Innovative Bilingual Elementary School for

Future Leaders of Indonesia

Ni Nyoman Padmadewi, Ganesha Education University

B-14 140

15 Learners’ Feedback on the Effectiveness of Teaching English

has a Second and as a Foreign Language Using a Learning

Management System (Comparison Between Swaziland and

China)

K. Ferreira-Meyers and Du Yongxin, University of Swaziland-

Swaziland and Shanghai Open University- Shanghai

B-15 155

16 The Influence of English Learning Experience and language

Learning Strategies toward English Proficiency of Sriwijaya

University Students

Ridha Ilma, Tridinanti University

B-16 180

17 Understanding Indonesian Directive Intonation by Praat

Software: Utilizing the Educational Technologies in Learning

Susi Herti Afriani, IAIN Raden Fatah

B-17 191

vi

18 Increasing Students’ Competence in Translation and Social

Awareness through Peer Group Correction in Teaching

Learning Process

Thathit Manon Andini, University of Muhammadiyah Malang

B-18 203

19 The Role of Students’ Speech Behavior for the Progress of

Language Lost of BASO Palembang Alus (BEBASO)

Houtman and M. Zahir, University of PGRI Palembang

B-19 210

20 The Effectiveness of Modified Reciprocal Teaching on Reading

Comprehension Attainment : the Quasi-Experimental Study

Welly Ardiansyah and Muwarni Ujihanti, Sriwijaya State

Polytechnic

B-20 223

21 Certified EFL Teachers’ Performances in Conducting

Teaching/Learning Activities in Classrooms

Margaretha Dinar Sitinjak, English at Faculty of Teacher Training

and Education of Sriwijaya University

B-21 232

22 Advertisement as a One of Media to Learn Language (A Case

Study on "My Tea" Television Commercial Break and "Citra

Grand City" Bilboard)

Anita Trisiah, IAIN Raden Fattah Palembang

B-22 241

23 The Use of Instagram to Promote Reading Interest and Build

Student Characters

Machdalena Vianty and Rasilia Palmi, English Education Study

Program Sriwijaya University

B-23 247

24 Technology Based Learning: A Strategy to Upgrade English

Language Learners’ Proficiency Level

Maria PS, English First Palembang

B-24 254

25 Integrating ICT to EFL Classroom Septi Lelia, Merie Agustiani

and Lina Maryani,

Sriwijaya

University and University of Baturaja

B-25 258

26 Problem Based Learning in Teaching Writing through

Learning Cycle Technique

Teti Sobari, STKIP Siliwangi Bandung

B-26 265

27 Nursing Care Reporting”: an Implemented Contextual

Learning to Enhance Nursing Students’ Writing Skill and

Attitudes toward English

Yohanes Heri Pranoto, Health Science Higher Education Perdhaki

Charitas Palembang

B-27 269

28 Building Students’ Positive Characters Using Children

Literature and Drama at Elementary School

Yuyun Hendrety and Lingga Agustina Suganda, Department of

English Education, University of Tridinanti Palembang and

Politechnics of Sriwijaya Palembang

B-28 277

29 Using Livemocha for Independent Language Learning: A Study

of Students’ Perception

Gita Andriani and Yorina An’guna Bansa, English Education

Department of Sriwijaya University

B-29 286

vii

30 Authenticating Materials for Listening Comprehension:

Reflecting Personal Experience

Hariswan Putera Jaya, Department of English Education of


B-30 296

31 The Influence of Mind Mapping Techniques and Verbal Ability

to Poetry Writing Capability to the Eight Years Students of

SMPN 43 Palembang

Ida Rohana, State Junior High School 43 Palembang

B-31 302

32 Technogeek Teachers’ Competence in Applying Scientific

Approach through in House Training at SMP Pusri Palembang

Rita Inderawati, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,


B-32 309

33 Vocational School: Valuable Type of Education for Competence

Manpower

Cita Hikmah Yanti, University of Bina Darma Palembang

B-33 314

34 Self Assessment and Its Application in Indonesian Language

Learning Instructions of Metacognitive Strategy-Base for

Implementing Curriculum 2013

Ika Mustika, STKIP Siliwangi, Bandung

B-34 321

35 Involving Students with Poetry

Subadiyono Tjokropratama, Sriwijaya University B-35 329

36 Locus of Control and Academic Achievement of Junior High

School Students in Palembang: Where do we go from here?

Ida Rosmalina and Zainal A. Naning, Department of Language

Education and Arts Sriwijaya University

B-36 333

37 Bengkel Sastra Learning Model as an Innovative Effort to

Develop Students’ Writting Creativity

Sakdiah Wati, Refson, and Mustafa, Faculty of Teacher Training

and Education of Muhammadiyah University Palembang

B-37 341

38 The Correlation between the Theory and the Practice in

writing Business Letters at the Management Department of the

Faculty of Economics, UTP Palembang

Rusman Roni, Tridinanti Palembang University

B-38 352

39 The Demands of 21st Century Glocal Workforce vis a vis

Secondary Vocational School 2013 Curriculum Schools and

Industries’ Voices

Akhyar Rido, School of Foreign Language (STBA) Teknokrat,

Lampung

B-39 359

40 Learning Literature Appreciative Perspective in Curriculum

2013: Case Studies of Learning Poetry in Secondary School

Didi Suhendi,Indonesian Language and Literature Study Program

B-40 366

41 Increasing the Competence of English Language Education in

Global Contexts: from Communicative Competence to

Intercultural Competence

Indawan Syahri, Muhammadiyah University of Palembang

B-41 372

viii

42 Establishing Rich Language Learning Environment at Schools:

Preparing Children to Become Autonomous EFL Learners

Luh Putu Artini, English Education Department Ganesha

University of Education

B-42 378

43 Oral Presentation in Teaching: Attract or Distract?

Zaitun and Herwina Bahar, Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta B-43

387

44 Stories from the Frontlines: Female English Teachers and the

National Standardized Exam Policy

Nunung Fajaryani, Failasofah and Masbirorotni, Faculty of

Education Jambi University

B-44 391

45 The Teaching of Language Arts in ELT

Ida Machdarifah, Hazairin University, Bengkulu B-45 406

46 Learning Folk Tale Batu Dara Muning through Cooperative

Learning Model Type Jigsaw

Martono, Faculty of Teaching and Training Education

Tanjungpura University, Pontianak

B-46 415

47 Grammar Conciousness Raising: Revisited

Akhyar Burhan, Sriwijaya University

B-47 421

48 The National Character Education Paradigm in the Indonesian

Language Instructions of Cultural-Based Elementary School

(The Analysis and Map of Basic and Standard Competences

and Teachers’ Behaviour of Values in Developing and

Implementing the Indonesian Language Instructions)

Isah Cahyani and Yeti Mulyati, Education University of Indonesia

B-48 428

49 The Analysis of Translation Methods and Meaning of

Lampung Tourism Brochures

Flora , Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Lampung

University

B-49 440

50 Effectiveness VAK Model (Visualization Auditory Kinestetic) in

Descriptive Learning

Alfa Mitri Suhara, STKIP Siliwangi Bandung

B-50 448

51 English Cultural Elements Found in High-School English

Textbooks for TEFL in Palembang

Annisa Astrid, Tarbiyah Faculty of IAIN Raden Fatah Palembang

B-51 457

52 How Students Make Meaning in Literature Class: Students’

Ideological Stance in Their Written Responses

Fiftinova, English Education Program Sriwijaya University

B-52 472

53 Lampung Language Teaching in Multiethnic Areas

(The Study of Contextual Learning)

Eka Sofia Agustina, University of Lampung

B-53 482

54 Syntactic Errors in the Theses Written by Undergraduate

Students Agus Saripudin, Sriwijaya University

B-54 488

ix

Science Education

1 The Difference of Learning Results between Students Taught

with Experiment- and Demonstration-Based Problem

Solving Methods in Class VII SMPN 5 City of Bengkulu

Dedy Hamdani, Prisma Gita Azwar and Eko Swistoro

Physics Eduation Study Program, Departement of Mathematics

and Sciences Education , Faculty of Teacher Training and

Educations, Bengkulu University

C-1 501

2 Implementation of Education Improvement Model for

Biology in Aceh Province

Djufri, Mukhlis Hidayat, and Melvina, FKIP Unsyiah, Banda

Aceh

C-2 509

3 The Development of Instructional Animation-Media of the

Electrochemical Cell with Based Powerpoint

Effendi, Department of Chemistry Education

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya

University

C-3 516

4 The Effect of Active Knowledge Sharing Strategies for

Learning Outcomes Biology Subject of Eight Grade Students

of SMP Negeri 5 Samarinda 2013/2014

Evie Palenewen, and Edy Jumadil, Biology Education FKIP

Mulawarman University

C-4 533

5 Analysis of Physics Teaching Material for Grade XI in the

District of North Indralaya Based on Scientific Literacy

Themes

Feni Kurni, Zulherman, and Apit Fathurohman, Physics

Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and

Education, Sriwijaya University

C-5 540

6 Characteristics of Multiple Representations-Based Mechanics

Learning (PMPB-MR)

Ismet, Physics Education, Sriwijaya University

C-6 545

7 Increased Mastery of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge

through Problem Solving Application of Learning Strategies

in Wave Subjects

Iwan Setiawan and Eko Swistoro, Department of Physics

Education, University Of Bengkulu

C-7 552

8 Improving the Activity and the Students’ Chemistry

Learning Output on the Twelfth Grade Science Class at

SMAN 1 Indralaya Utara by Using BAJAPRETA Model

K. Anom W, Jejem Mujamil Sufhiatna, F. Eka Safitri

Chemistry Education of FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya

C-8 559

9

Profile of Student Learning Styles and Media Needs ICT-

Based Learning Course in Modern Physics

Ketang Wiyono, Physics Education, Sriwijaya University

C-9 567

x

10 The Effects of the Instructional Strategies (Problem Solving,

Direct Instruction) and Achievement Motivation on the

Biology Learning Outcome of Grade Ten Students

Lidia Susanti, Punadji Setyosari, I Wayan Ardhana and Dedi

Kuswandi, State University ofMalang

C-10 575

11 Effectiveness of Problem Solving Learning Model on

Students’ Critical Thinking Skill

Mariati Purnama Simanjuntak, Physics Education Study

Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, State University

of Medan

C-11 587

12 The Socialization of Lesson Study Activities to Improve

Biology Teacher Professionalism at SMAN 3 Unggulan

Martapura OKU Timur

Riyanto, Biology Education Department of Mathematics and

Natural Science Faculty of Teacher Training and Education


C-12 593

13 The Implementation of Scientific Approach in Science

Education: Challenges and Opportunities

Rodi Edi,Chemistry Education Department of Mathematics and

Natural Science Faculty of Teacher Training and Education


C-13 600

14 Development of Teaching Materials of Basic Chemistry

Course in Subject Thermochemical with Topics Bio-Coal

Briket Form Sanjaya, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of


C-14 607

15 The Effect of Articulation Learning Model by Using

Mnemonic Method for the Results of Entomology Learning

Outcomes of Fifth Grade College Students of Biology

Educational Faculty of Teacher Training and Educational

Mulawarman University 2012/2013 Learning Year

Sonja V. T Lumowa, Department of Biology Education,

Mulawarman University

C-15 615

16 Analysis of Physics Education Department Students’

Misconceptions on other Influnces on Motion

Syuhendri, Rosly Jaafar, and Razak Abdul Samad bin Yahya

Sriwijaya University- Indonesia and Sultan Idris Education

University-Malaysia

C-16 622

17 Developing Pisa Model Instrumen for Integrated Natural

Sciences Subject Physics Content to Asses Reasoning Grade IX

Junior High School

Tarida N Sinaga, Sardianto S, Waspodo,Sriwijaya University

C-17 631

18 The Application of Learning Models Number Head Together to

Improve Biology Learning Outcomes in Subject of

Photosynthesis

Vandalita Maria Magdalena Rambitan, Departement of Biology

Education University of Mulawarman

C-18 644

xi

19 Effect of Learning Cycle 7E towards Science Process Skills

of Eleventh Science Graders in State Senior High School 4 in

Palembang

Yuni Wijayanti, Hartono, and A. Rachman Ibrahim FKIP,

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya

University

C-19 655

Mathematics Education

1 Investigating Students’ Difficulties in Completing Mathematical

Literacy Processes: A Case of Indonesian 15-Year-Old Students

on Pisa-Like Math Problems

Ahmad Wachidul Kohar, Zulkardi, and Darmawijoyo

Magister of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University

D-1 662

2 The Ability of Students to Use Mathematical Writings

Communication Using PMRI Approach in SMP YSP Pusri

Palembang

Ahsani Takwim, Darmawijoyo, and Yusuf Hartono,

Department of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University

D-2 676

3 Student's Strategy in Answering Mathematical Problem-

Solving Question at SMA Negeri 1 Indralaya Utara

Asia Kurniasari and Cecil Hiltrimartin, Department of

Mathematics Education Sriwijaya University

D-3 685

4 Characteristics of Thinking Processes of Elementary School

Students with High-Capability in Understanding

Mathematics Problems

Baiduri and Marhan Taufik,

Mathematics Education

Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang

D-4

691

5 Student Responses to Online Mathematical Problems

I Ketut Kertayasa, Department of Mathematics Education

Sriwijaya University Palembang

D-5 702

6 Designing of the Intuitive Material in Real Analysis 1

Indaryanti and Purwoko, Department of Mathematics Education,


D-6 712

7 Model Application of Learning in Science Teaching Children

to Learn Math at the Students of SMP State 53 Palembang

Marhamah Fajriyah Nasution, Faculty of Teacher Training and

Education of Sriwijaya University

D-7 720

8 Practice Cooperative Learning Type of Group Investigation

at Lessons Mathematic in Class VIII SMPN 39 Palembang

Nafsiah, Indaryanti, and Cecil Hiltrimartin, Department of

Mathematics Education Sriwijaya University

D-8 729

9

Values Designed by Teachers in Mathematics Teaching in

Secondary School

Nyimas Aisyah and Mohd. Uzi Dolla, Sriwijaya University and

University of Sultan Idris Perak-Malaysia

D-9 735

xii

10 Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Teams

Games Tournament (TGT) on Learning Mathematics in

SMPN 12 Palembang

Rahayu Apriani, Indaryanti, Cecil Hiltrimartin, Mathematics

Education of Sriwijaya University

D-10 743

11 The Implementation of Contextual Mini Laboratory

Approach to Improve the Mathematical Understanding of

Students in Marginal School Palm Plantation Area Koto

Gasibsubdistric, Siak Regency

Sehatta Saragih, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

UR Pekanbaru-Riau

D-11 750

12 Stage of Critical Thinking Abilities in Solving Mathematical

Problems for Prospective Teachers Departement of

Mathematics FMIPA UM Malang

Slamet, Department of Mathematics FMIPA UM Malang

D-12 759

13 Learning Mathematics for Social Program Students of Senior

High School

Somakim, Mathematics Education in Faculty of Teacher Training


D-13 765

14 Electronic Games Improve the Student Response in

Mathematical Learning

Sundari, Department of Educational Technology, Jambi University

D-14

771

15 A Study About Teaching Learning Mathematics

Using Student-Centered Learning (SCL) Approach

by High School Teachers in Palembang

Trimurti Saleh, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of


D-15 779

16 Ethnomathematics in Shifting Cultivation of Adonara

Society and Integration within Mathematics Curriculum of

Primary Schools Wara Sabon Dominikus, Toto Nusantara, Subanji and Makbul

Muksar, Department of Mathematics Education, University of

Nusa Cendana and Department of Mathematics and Education,

State University of Malang

D-16 786

17 Implementation of Auditory Intellectually Repetition (AIR)

Model in Mathematics Learning Student Class X SMAN 13

Palembang

Yosi Tria Elfa, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education


D-18 794

Vocational and Technology Education

1 The Implementation of Landslide Mitigation Teaching Using

Learning Cycle Model for Junior High School Students

Agus Suyatna, Abdurahman and Agung Bayu Putranto, Faculty of

Teacher Training and Education, University of Lampung

E-1 801

xiii

2 Improving Accuracy of Educational Research Conclusions by

Using Lisrel

Awaluddin Tjalla, Department of Guidance and Counseling

Faculty of Education, State University of Jakarta

E-2 812

3 Partial Least Square Robust Regression Approach in

Multiresponse Calibration Model

Ismah and Iswan, Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta

E-3 823

4 Smash Skill in Volleyball (A Correlation Study among Torso

Flexibility, Arm Muscles Power, and Students’ Smash Skill in

Volleyball of SMP Srijaya Negara Palembang)

Sukirno, Physical Education in FKIP Sriwijaya University

E-4 832

5 Sport Management in the Development of Achievement

Meirizal Usra, FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang

E-5 840

6 Curriculum Training 2013 Islamic Religious Education

Teachers Nurlena Rifai, Yayah Nurmaliah, Siti Khodijah and Jejen Musfah,

Faculty of Education and Teacher Training Syarif Hidayatullah

State Islamic University Jakarta

E-6 846

7 Met Cognition Role of Teachers in Improving the Quality of

Education

Theresia Laurens, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Pattimura University

E-7 860

8 Supervision Model Development Learning in Primary School of

Physical Education

Hartati, Sriwijaya University

E-8 866

9 How Well Does the 2013 Curriculum of Indonesia Role in

Preparing Students as Education for Sustainaible Development

(ESD)?

Eny S. Rosyidatun, Department of Natural Science Education

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta

E-9

874

10 Physical Education Learning Model with Game Approach to

Increase Physical Freshness Elementary School Students

Iyakrus, Physical Education Sriwijaya University

E-10 880

11 Development Learning Model of E-Learning Web-Based with

Applications Cloud Computing and Moodle CMS(Course

Management System) in Subjects Education Fine Arts in

FPGSD Sriwijaya University

Makmum Raharjo, Department of Science Education Sriwijaya

University

E-11 887

12 The Readiness of Certified Elementary School Teachers in

Bandar Lampung for the Implementation of the 2013

Curriculum

Rini Riswanti and Herpratiwi, FKIP University of Lampung

E-12 900

13 A Case Study : Bad Impact of Playing Game Online for High

School Students in SMA Negeri 5 Palembang

Nelly Apriani, Education, Youth and Sports Department,

Palembang City

E-13 905

xiv

14 Infectious Disease Factors as Determinants Nutritional Status

Marsiyem, Sriwijaya University E-14 915

15 Role of Physical Education and Sports Development in Motion

Child Health Primary School

Supriyono, LPMP SUM-SEL

E-15 921

16 Learning Application Using Multimedia for 5th

Graders

Elementary School Student about “Photosynthesis in Plants”

Diana Effendi, Information System, UNIKOM Bandung

E-16 927

Social Studies

1 Raden Soelaiman Hasanoesi, the Disseminator of Islam in

Kaimana Papua: A Review of the Role of the Descents of Sultan

Mahmud Badaruddin II in the Isolation Area

Rosmaida Sinaga and Farida, History Education Study Program of

the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Cenderawasih

University of Jayapura and History Education Study Program of

the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sriwijaya University

of Palembang

F-1 935

2 Role of Human Resources in Developing Quality of Education

Arie Supriati

F-2 942

3 Gender Equality in Curriculum Implementation

Ikhsan Othman Al-Haj, Faculty of Education and Human

Development Sultan Idris Education University Malaysia

F-3 948

4 Learning Problems Faced by Certified Educators in Geography

Teacher High School West Lampung Regency of Lampung

Province

Buchori Asyik and Trisnaningsih, University of Lampung

F-4 957

5 Packaging Effective and Efficient Materials and Learning

Model for Improving Quality Process and Learning Result

Dewi Koryati, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Sriwijaya University Palembang

F-5 965

6 Teaching Materials Model of Directive Politeness Act Primary

Education which Has Powerful, Oriented, and Strategic

Positive Politeness in with Javanese Cultural Background

Harun Joko Prayitno, Muhammadiyah University Surakarta

F-6 973

7 Teachers’ and Students’ Perception on Free Education

Program Implemented at Public Senior High Schools

in Palembang

Bambang A. Loeneto, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,


F-7 982

8 Development of Lesson Plan that Integrate Pancasila Values

And Its Influence Toward Students’ Motivation Academic

Achievement and Values Internalization Umi Chotimah ,Department of Pancasila and Citizenship

Education, Sriwijaya University

F-8 992

xv

9

Preservation Efforts through the Local Culture Model Study

Documents1015

Isputaminingsih and Hudaidah, Department of History Education,


F-9 1005

10 Project Citizen Model for Effective Student Engagement and

Democratic Citizenship in Civic Education Best Practices

Muhammad Mona Adha and Hermi Yanzi,University of Lampung

(UNILA)

F-10 1015

11 The Influence of Counseling Teachers’ Performance in

Implementing Counseling Guidance and Emotional Intelligence

to the Students’ Achievement of SMA III Musi Banyuasin

Aisyah. AR, Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya

University

F-11 1028

12 Lecturers’ Ethical Behaviors

Rais Hidayat and Yuyun Elizabeth Patras, State University of

Jakarta and Pakuan University

F-12 1034

13 The Implementation Gender Analysis Pathway (GAP) of

Gender Oriented School at SMA in Kabupaten Penajam Paser

Utara

Widyatmike Gede Mulawarman, Faculty of Teacher Training and

Education, Mulawarman University

F-13 1042

Early Childhood and Elementary Education

1 Improving the Development of Qualified Preschool until 1st

Grade Primary Education through the Involvement of Parents

Avanti Vera Risti P, Early Childhood Program, Faculty of Teacher

Training and Education, University of Ahmad Dahlan

G-1 1050

2 Improving Early Childhood Program Quality Involving

Parents Empowerment

Iyan Sofyan, Department of Early Chilhood Education of Ahmad

Dahlan University, Yogyakarta

G-2 1057

3 Strengthening of Character Education through Learning

Model "Berkat Anang" in Surakarta and Surrounding

Muhroji, Fitri Puji Rahmawati and Ratnasari Diah Utami,

PGSD FKIP UMS

G-3 1063

4 Multicultural Indonesian Learning in Primary School

Muhammad Fuad and Edi Suyanto , Faculty of Teacher Training

and Education, Universitas Lampung

G-4 1070

xvi

Teacher Professional Development

1 Teacher Education in Indonesia (An Account on the

Development and Programs to Improve the Professional

Qualification and the Competence of Indonesia Teaching

Personnel)

Fahriany, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta

H-1 1075

2 Teacher Profession Education (PPG) for A Better Quality of

Teachers in Indonesia

Puspita Devi ,Budi Robintas and Hendri Firmansyah, Department

of English Education, Sriwijaya University

H-2 1085

3 Application Three Models of Professional Development:

Mentoring, Peer Coaching and Action Research at State

Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Raden Fatah Palembang

Manalullaili, Dakwah and Communication Faculty,

State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN)

H-3 1092

4 Review Activity of “in House Training” on Lesson Study Based

Teacher Organization and Action Research Program Sardianto Markos Siahaan,Rahmi Susanti, Somakim, Faculty of

Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University

H-4 1100

5 The National Actions for Teachers’ Professional Development

Program Universitas Terbuka

Tuti Purwoningsih and Udan Kusmawan, FKIP Terbuka University

H-5 1106

PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9

This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference

2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.

D4-691

CHARACTERISTICS OF THINKING PROCESSES OF

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH HIGH-CAPABILITY

IN UNDERSTANDING MATHEMATICS PROBLEMS

Baiduri1 and Marhan Taufik

2

1,2 Mathematics Education Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang

1E-mail: [email protected]

2 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper is aimed at analyzing characteristics of thinking processes of the elementary schools students

with high capability in mathematics in understanding mathematics problems. Two fifth year elementary

school students, male and female, with good capability were chosen as the subject. Data were collected

through in-depth interviews and task analysis based on the task of mathematical solution. Data credibility

were made by continuous and consistent observations and perseverance improvement, time triangulation

and member check. Data were analyzed using a flow model covering data reduction, data presentation

and conclusion drawing. The results showed that there is a similarity in the thinking process of female

and male students in understanding problems, namely constructing relation in and among elements of

what is known, what is asked, giving meaning to important words and phrases, and the use of symbol. For

female students, relation is also constructed using contraction, although there is difference of the relation

constructed in and among the elements. The relation the female students constructed is richer than that of

male students. Characteristics of their thinking processes are grouped into situation and established

models.

Key words: Thinking process, Mathematics problem, Understanding mathematics problems, Capability

in mathematics

INTRODUCTION

Mathematical thinking capability and using it to solve problems are important objectives of

schools. Problem solving is one of objectives from learning mathematics at schools (Depdiknas, 2006)

and is the heart of learning mathematics (Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009) due to the fact

that by problem solvings, students obtain ways to think, habits to be perseverance, great curiousity and

self-confidence in any situation (NCTM, 2000) and methods of developing good thinking skills

(Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009). It means that skills and capability are concentration,

solving mathematical problems need to be taught to students from basic level. Through mathematical

problem solving, students may apply their knowledge and skills to solve more general problems in

their lives.

Problem solving is not a uniform and monotonous activity. Problems are not always the same,

depending on contents, forms and their processes. This shows that capability in solving problems

depends on many factors. Factors influencing problem solving are internal and external, where the

former are related to the problems, while latter deals with problem solving. Concerning with

individuals serving as problems solvers, factors influencing students’ capability in solving

mathematical problems are concentration, which directly or indirectly give influences, attitudes

towards mathematics materials, self- respect, teachers’ attitudes and those without direct influence are

motivation to achieve and self-help (Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009).

Polya (1973) and Posamentier, Jaye and Krulik (2007) state that the first step in solving

mathematical problems is to understand or read the problem. It means that understanding problems

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




D4-692

has an effect on the next steps in solving them. To be able to understand problems correctly,

understanding of the reading content is also important.

Some researches related to this matter are among others Pape (2004) that studied attitudes in

solving mathematical problems among secondary school students using consistent and inconsistent

language. Österholm (2006a) studied theoretically the relationship between reading comprehension

and problem solving and Oserholm (2006b) characterizes reading comprehension of mathematical

texts related to ”group” materials at university level. Both Pape (2004) and Osterhom(2006b)

employed quantitative statistical tests in their analysis. Moreover, students’ thinking style is really

influenced by the capability students have (Albaili, 1997). Gender and capability differences also

influence the ways of thinking to solve mathematics problems (Zhu, 2007), meanwhile male and

female students’ capability in mathematics is also different (Jensen, 2008; Beaton et al, 1999).

The students with high capability were chosen in order to become one of refferences by those

with low-average capability and may be a model for teachers in facilitating their students in

understanding especially mathematics problems and in solving any problems in general.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Understanding Mathematics Problems

Experts in mathematics education state that in the world of mathematics education, a problem

is a question or mathematical problem to answer or to respond. But it is also stated that not all

mathematical questions are automatically will become problems. A question will become a problem if

the question shows a challenge that cannot be solved by routine procedure known to the solver. A

Mathematical problem is problem if it is not routine (Hudoyo, 2005) or not standardized one (McNeil

dkk, 2006).

Posamentier and Krulik (1998) and Polya (1973) states that ”a problem is a situation that

confronts a person, that requires resolution, and for which the path to the solution is not immediately

known”. then Polya (1973) says that there are two types of problems in mathematics, namely problem

to find dan problem to prove.

Problem to find is a type of problem which is necessary to be given to students in order to

train them about the process of how a concept or principle is found out. Then, Polya (1973) states that

problem to find is more important in elementary mathematics, whereas problem to prove is more

important in advanced mathematics. From their structures, problem to find and problem to prove may

be grouped into well-structure (Jonassen danTessmer, 1997). This problem is mostly found out at

schools and universities. They are usually at the end of chapters that need an application of concepts,

rules, and principles that have been learned in limited problem situations. These problems have been

well defined, the objectives have been known, they are limited or logical operators, and their answers

are convergent. The problem of this paper is a type of the problem to find dealing with arithmetics in

elementary schools and should be solved.

Polya (1973) and Posamentier and Krulik (1998) define problem solving as follows "... finding

a way out of difficulty, a way around an obstacle, attaining an aim that was not immediately

understandable”. Moreover, Polya explains that problem solving is a psychological process that does

not merely involve applications of theorems or propositions learned. According to Polya (1973) and

Posamentir, Jaye and Krulik (2007), problem solving in mathematics consists of four main steps,

namely (1) understand the problem/ read the problem; (2) devise a plan/ select a strategy; (3) carry

out a plan/ solve the problem; and (4) look back.




D4-693

Based on the stages of problem solving, the first step in problem solving in mathematics is to

understand or read the problem. It means that understanding the problem has effects on the next steps

in problem solving. In order to be able to understand the problem correctly, understanding of reading

content is very important. Questions that may be used by students to understand the problems are as

follows:

What is known/asked? Which one is the data? What is the condition? How is to understand?

How is to know what is to be known? How is to know the conditions ?

1.1 Thinking Process in Understanding Problems

When we imagine something or try to solve a problem, we call it thinking. Thinking is needed

in decision making and problem solving. Thinking is the highest mental activity existing in human

beings. Thinking is defined as a process of producing a new mental representation through the

transformation of information that involves complex interactions among mental attributes such as

evaluation, abstraction, reasoning, imagination, and problem solving (Glass dan Holyoak, 1986; Solso,

1995). It is in line with Mayer’s opinion (in Solso, 1995) that thinking covers three main components,

namely (1) thinking is a cognitive activity that happens in one’s mind, which cannot be seen, but

which can be concluded based on the visible behaviors, (2) thinking is a process that involves some

manipulations of knowledge in the cognitive system. Knowledge stored in memory is combined with

present information so that it changes one’s knowledge about the situation he is facing, and (3)

thinking activities are led to produce problem solving.

Based on some opinions above, thinking in this present study is all mental activities that may

be observed from visible behaviors in the forms of statements and writings in understanding

mathematical problems.

Based on the term of thinking, in order to explore individual mind, there are some ways to do,

namely using think out loud method or think aloud and task analysis (van Someren et al, 1994; Calder

& Sarah, 2002). The think aloud method is done by asking students pronouncing aloud when they are

solving a problem and what is pronounced may be repeated if necessary during the process of problem

solving. It is intended to make the subjects may tell what they are thinking.

Besides think aloud method, in order to see ideas in one’s mind, task analysis may be

employed (van Someren dkk, 1994). The work the student did is a form of visualization or

verbalization of knowledge he possesses in responding each information or problem he faces. One’s

thinking to understand a problem may be seen from his visible behaviors, either his expressions or

writings when he understands the problem.

When understanding a problem, it is of course not merely to read, but also to digest the

materials presented and to understand what is happening. Understanding/reading a problem is an

activity of identifying what is to be asked to be solved and the facts presented.

Reading as an active process where the reader interacts with the reading pasaage to construct

meaning. Understanding is a matter to activate or to build a scheme as a coherent explanation of

objecs or events mentioned in the reading passage (Anderson, 1984). This means that reading a

passage, the mental representation of the reading material is constructed or built by the reader,

depicting how the reader understands the reading passage. Some studies on reading comprehension

show or support a conlusion that there are levels of mental representation when read a reading

passage (Österholm, 2006b; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983). The levels of the mental representation

are: surface component, textbase, and model of situation. The mental representation at the surface




D4-694

level always exists when one is reading, since it generally happens and this does not give meanings of

words and phrases. At this level, at least there are some words and phrases to be remembered, even

when one understands the meaning of texts. Textbase represents the meaning or sense of the reading

consisting of elements and relations directly obtained from the reading itself, without any addition

which does not explicitly exist in the reading. Meanwhile a construction integratig textbase and other

relevant aspects of the reader’s knowledge is called a model of situation.

Problem solving hs been studied from various perspectives, such as text processing (Kintsch,

1994; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983), information processing (Silver, 1987; Mayer, 1992) and schemata

theory (Marshall, 1995). All the perspectives agree that understanding problems is very essential for

problem solving. Österholm (2006a) made literature study on he relationship between reading

comprehension and problem solving. The results of his study showed that 1) reading processes may

influence the process of problem solving, but may also serve as a part of solution processes, 2) the

situation of problem solving influences the reading process, depending on the readers’ previous

experiences in the same situation. Österholm (2006b) examined characteristics of reading

comprehension at university level using mathematical text with and without symbols. Pape (2004)

studied behaviors of secondary high schools students in solving mathematical problems by making use

of consistent and inconsistent languages. There are little researches of student thinking processes in

solving mathematical problems in a perspective of reading comprehension (Pape, 2004). This paper is

focused on analyzing the thinking processes of male and female elementary students with high

capability in mathematics in understanding mathematical problems.

METHOD

Subject

The subject of this present research is the fifth year elementary school students with high

capability in mathematics at the age of 10 to 11 years. High capability in mathematics is seen from the

results of scores of mathematical tests. Students are classified as high capability in mathematics if

their scores at least 80 from the range of 0 – 100. The test results showed that there are 5 students

(16.13%) with high capability in mathematics (16, 13%), 2 male and 3 female students from 31

students. Then two students, male and female, with relatively scores were chosen as the subjec of this

present research.

Instrument

Instrument in this research consists of the main instrument, namely the researchers themselves

and supporting instruments including audiovisual recorder, numeracy test (NT), task of mathematical

problem solving (TPS), and interview guide. The NT was constructed by adopting test items of the

final examination for elementary students in the form of multiple choice which were then changed into

story test in line with the content standard of the 2006 mathematics curriculum for fifth year students,

especially the odd semester.

As in the NT, to construct the TPS was preceded by studying the content standard of the 206

mathematics curriculum for fifth year students and test instruments used by previous researchers in

exploring student thinking. The instrument refers to the one developed by Stephens (2008) and

Stephens and Wang (2008). Then the researchers asked for permission to Stephens to use the test he

has developed, but the test was changed into the story form. Based on his permission and

suggestions, the test was furtherly developed either in terms of the data given or the questions. The




D4-695

arranged answer sheets (the NT and the TPS) were validated by elementary mathematics teachers that

had possessed certificate of educators, by experts in mathematics education and experts in evaluation

in terms of the content of the test and of the language used. Based on the results of validation, a

readiblity test was informally done to two fifth year students, male and female. The result was that the

two students were able to mention what is known and what is asked, which are two important matters

in the test of problem to find (Polya, 1973). In this research, two types of equal numeracy test were

developed, each is called NT II and NT II.

Then, interview guide was developed in order to help dig out the subject thinking process.

This guide refers to understanding problems of the first level of Polya’s mathematical problem

solving.

Data and Data Credibility

Based on the NT I and NT II the subjects had developed, data, either from the interviews or

results of the sobjects‘ work in understanding problems, were obtained. The mechanism of collecting

data, either in the task of problem solving II and II began by asking to subjects to read the task of

problem solving which was continued to in-depth interviews, to write what was understood of the

problems and it was then continued to in-depth internviews on the basis of the results of the writing.

The data were video recorded. To assure the credibility of the obtained data, continual/consistent and

perseverant observations (improving perseverance), time trianglation and member check were made

(Moleong, 2011; Sugiyono, 2011).

Data Analysis

On the basis of the credible data, an analysis using a flow model consisting of three flows of

activities that happen simultaneously namely data reduction, data presentation and conclusion

drawing, was made (Miles & Huberman, 1992). In this case is the characteristics of thinking process

of the elementary school students with high capability in mathematics in understanding mathematical

problems.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

Characteristics of female students’ thinking process (FS) in understanding mathematical

problems are to build relations in and among five core elements, namely, what is asked, meanings of

words or phrases, use of symbols and use of contraction. This is delineated from the quotation of the

interviews results as follows:

R After reading the problem, what do you understand of the problem?

FS The number of candies in the container (while paying attention to the

problem using the pencil)

R What else?

FS (paid attention to the problem and pointed to the problem and then said):

“the same direction”

R What direction?

FS (Reading the problem): The number of candies in the red container is

two time more than those in the green container, the number of candies

in the blue container is not more than those in the green container.

R From what you have mentioned, are the number of candies and the




D4-696

instruction known or asked?

FS What is known

R O, yeah. What is meant by “not more than “ in the direction?

FS SO the number of candies in the bluecontainer is not more than the total

number of those in the green container (paying attention to the problem)

R What is meant by not more than?

FS (kept silent and paid attention to the problem and said): the numberis not

more, but may be less

R What is asked ?

FS (Read the problm): How many means the number of candies with milk

taste in the green container? The same number means the number of

candies with melon taste yang might be in the blue container?

Picture 4.1: Results of hand writings on FS’s Problem Understanding

TSPA11005

TSPA11003

TSPA11001

TSPA11002

TSPA11004




D4-697

Information :

TSPA11001 : contractions used by FS

TSPA11002 : symbols used by FS

TSPA11003 : pictures as the substitution of the word container

TSPA11004 : what is known

TSPA11005 : What is asked

Based on the results of the writing, in understanding problems, FS writes using her own

language. When writing what is known, he has been able to identify something to be asked by writing

‘‘rs susu = ?(milk taste) and rs melon = ?’’ (melon taste). This means that she has connected dit with

the knowledge or schemata she has possessed before.

What is known is obtained from the information in the problem dealing with numbers and

instruction in the form of limitations. What is answered is also obtained from information in the

problem concerning with what is not known yet and the sentence of asking. The sentence of asking

relates to the question words and question mark. The use of symbols and making meanings of words

or phrases deal with comprehension of the words or phrases existing in the problem and knowledge

possessed before. Not all important words or phrases are made their meanings by FS. Meanwhile, the

use of contractions relates to previous knowledge and information in the problem. Then, there is a

relation between what is known and what is asked, namely making counting operations to what is

known to answer what is asked and between the use of symbols by aking meanings of words and

phrases in the problem. This is shown from the quotation of the results of interviews below:

R From where do you know that what you have mentioned is what is known?

FS numbers and instruction

R Ok. Where is the question you have mentioned from?

FS from the question

R What do you mean?

FS From the sentence of the problem

R What is the sentence about?

FS Asking

R Where do you known the sentence ‚asking“?

FS From the word how many and question mark

R O, yeah. Is there anything else that makes you know what is asked?

FS (kept silent and paid attention to the problem and then said) “what has not

been kown“.

R What is meant by ‘what is possible? In the question?

FS (Spoke softly of what is possible, kept silent and paid attention to the prolem

and said): “possible number”.

R What is meant by possible?

FS Not understand (while smilling and shaking head). The number of candies in

the blue container is not more than those in the green container, but those in

the blue container may be less than those in the blue one

R Ok, is there any relation between what is known and what is asked?

FS Yes. To answer what is asked needs what is known.




D4-698

The characteristic of male students’ thinking process in understanding mathematical problems

is by constructing a relation in and among four core elements, namely what is known, what is asked,

meaning words or phases and using simbols. This can be seen from the quotation of results of

interviews as follows:

R After reading the problem, what do you understand from the problem?

MS (kept silent, then read the problem): Each container contains two taste-

candies with the same form and size. The red container contains 81 strawberry

candies and 47 lemon candies. The green container contains 23 coffee candies

and the rest, milk candies. The blue container contains 46 pineapple candies

the rest melon ones. The number of candies in the red container is two times

than that of the green container. The number of candies the blue container is

not more than the number of candies in the green container.

R From what you have mentioned, what is known or what is asked?

MS (kept silent and then said): “what is known”.

R What is known?

MS (directly read the problem): The red container contains 81 strawberry candies

and 47 lemon candies. The green container contains 23 coffee candies and the

rest, milk candies. The blue container contains 46 pineapple candies the rest

melon ones. The number of candies in the red container is two times than that

of the green container. The number of candies the blue container is not more

than the number of candies in the green container.

R What is meant by “not more than”?

MS Not more than the number mentioned

R What is meant by not more?

MS Not more than the number mentioned (after kept silent and looked at the

problem)

R Is it allowed if it is the same?

MS Ok

R Then, what is asked?

MS (Read the problem):How many candies with milk taste are in the green

container? And how many candies with melon taste might be in the blue

container?

TSLA11001

TSLA11002

TSLA11003




D4-699

Gambar 4.2: Results of Handwriting of the MS’ Problem Understanding

Information :

TSPA11001 : constraction used by MS

TSPA11002 : what is known

TSPA11003 : what is asked

What is known is obtained from information in the problem that deals with numbers and

direction to do counting operations. His understanding of the problem is identical with what is known,

what is asked is also obtained from information in the problem that is related to the question word and

dan question mark. While the use of symbols and making meaning of words and phrases deal with

understanding of words and phrases in the prblem and knowledge previously possessed. Not all

important words and phrases are understood by the MS. Then, there is a relation between what is

known and what is asked, namely, what is known is used to answer questions and relations between

the use of symbols and making meaning words and phrases in the problem. This is shown in the

quotation of the results of interviews below:

R What information in the problem that states what is known?

MS (Kept silent, and than said): information to add, reduce, multiply or to divide

R O, yeah. Is there any more information stating what is known?

MS (Kept silent and looked at the problems and then said): there are numbers

R Is there anything else to be asked ?

R What is meant by what is possible in the second question?

MS (Kept silent, put the right hand to support the chin and looked at the problem

and said): “not know“

R Where do you know that it is what is asked?

MS From the problem

R What information in the problem sigining that what you mentioned is what is

asked

MS There is question mark, interrogative word how many.

R Is there any relationship between what is known and what is asked?

MS Yes. What is known is used to answer the question.

Discussion

The FS’ thinking process in understanding mathematical problems builds relation in and

among what is known, what is asked and making meanings of words and phrases, use of symbols and

of contractions. Meanwhile the MS’s thinking process in understanding mathematical problems builds

relations in and among what is known, what is asked, making meaning of words and phrases and use

of symbols. It means that the relation constructed by female subject in understanding problems is




D4-700

richer than that of male subject. It is also the case on the relation constructed in understanding what is

asked. It is inline with an opinion that male students perform better than female ones in test items of

multiple choice ad female students perform relatively better than male students in essay/story tests

(Bolger & Kellaghan, 1990). Any reason that there might be differences in sex is a fact that

story/essay test items needs verbal competence, and some multiple test items do not need such a verbal

competence (Murphy, 1982).

Then, what is related to the FS and MS in understanding what is known and what is asked is

limited to information from the problems. Such an understanding in the perspective of reading

comprehension includes into the second level (text base), namely reading comprehension which is

merely based on what is on the reading texts/passages (Österholm, 2006a; Van Dijk and Kintsch,

1983). But the MS and FS’s thinking process in using symbols have integrated information in the

problem (reading texts) and their previousknowledge. Such an understanding in the perspective

reading comprehension (text) is included at the third/highest level (model of situation). (Österholm,

2006a; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983). FS and MS have made various relations in understanding

problems; they may able to specify relations of what is known, what is asked, making meanings of

important words and phrases and the use of symbols, which are important elements in understanding

problems (Polya, 1973; Posamentier, Jaye and Krulik, 2007). The thinking process of this kind is

categorized into an established group (Stephens and Wang, 2008).

CONCLUSION AND REMARK

The characteristic of female and male students’ thinking process in understanding problems is

that they construct a relation in or among core elements of understanding problems, namely what is

known, what is asked, making meanings of important words or phrases and the use of symbols.

Characteristics of their thinking processes in understanding problems may be grouped into a model of

situation, by combining their previous and established understanding of the reading content and

knowledge. However, the relation they both built is different in or among the core elements of

understanding of problems.

Understanding problems is an early stage in mathematical problem solving. Thi stage will

influence the next stages, success or failure in solving problems. As a result, it is important for

mathematics teachers to facilitate their student in understanding problems by among other developing

their thinking processes. The discussion of this paper is limited to problem understanding in the stages

of mathematical problem solving developed by Polya and limited to elementary school students with

high capability in mathematics. Therefore, it is necessary to study the thinking process in other stages

such as making a plan, doing the plan or restudying elementary, secondary or university students with

high, average and low capability in mathematics.

REFERENCES

Albaili, M.A. (1997). Differences in Thinking Styles among Low-Average and High-Achieving

College Students. Educational Psychology, 17(1): 171--177.

Anderson, R.C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, leaning and memory. In R.

Anderson, J. Osborn & R. Tierney (Eds). Learning to read in American schools: Basal

readers and content texts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L. & Smith, T.A. (1999).

Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics

and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R). USA: Boston College.




D4-701

Bolger, N. & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Methods of measurement and gender differences in scholastic

achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31: 275--293.

Calder and Sarah. (2002). Using Think Aloud to Evaluate Deep Understanding. Available:

http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/listsery/remark/calderandcarlson.hml.

Depdiknas. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Kompetensi Dasar Pelajaran Matematika

untuk Sekolah Dasar (SD)/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI), Sekolah Menengah Pertama

(SMP)/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs), Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA)/Madrasah Aliah (MA).

Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum Balitbangdiknas.

Glass, A.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1986). Cognition. 2nd

ed. Singapura: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Hudojo, Herman. (2005). Kapita Selekta Pembelajaran Matematika. Malang: Universitas Negeri

Malang.

Jensen, Eric. (2008). Brain- Based Learning: Pembelajaran Berbasis Kemampuan Otak Cara Baru

Dalam Pengajaran dan Pelatihan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Jonassen, D.H. & Tessmer, M. (1996/1997). “An outcomes-based taxonomy for instructional systems

design, evaluation, and research”. Training Research Journal, 2: 11--46.

Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning, American Psychologist. 49: 294--

303.

Marshall, S.P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving, New York: Cambridge University Press

Mayer, R.E. (Eds.). (1992). Mathematical problem solving: Thinking as based on domain specific

knowledge. Thinking, problem solving and cognition. New York Freeman.

McNeil,N.M., Grandau, L., Knuth, E.J., Alibali, M.W., Stephens, A.C. (2006). Middle-School

Students’ Understanding of the Equal Sign: The Books They Read Can’t Help. Cognition and

Instruction, 24(3): 367--385.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1992). Analisis Data Kualitatif: Buku Sumber Tentang Metode-metode

Baru. Terjemahan oleh: Tjetjep Rohendi Rohedi. Jakarta: UI Press.

Moleong, Lexy. J. (2011). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). Bandung: PT. Remaja

Rosdakarya.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author

Pape, J.S. (2004). Middle School Children’s Problem-Solving Behavior: A Cognitive Analysis from a

Reading Comprehension, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3): 187--219.

Pimta, S., Tayruakham, S., Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Factor Influencing Mathematics Problem

Solving Ability of Sixth Grade Students. Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4): 381--385.

Polya, G. (1973). How to Solve it. 2nd Ed. Princeton University Press.

Posamentier, A.S., Krulik, S. (1998). Problem-solving strategies for efficient and elegant solutions: A

Resource for the Mathematics Teacher. California USA: Corwin Press, Inc. Posamentier, A.S., Jaye, D., Krulik, S. (2007). Exemplary Practices for Secondary Math Teachers.

Virginia USA: Association for Supervision and Curiculum Development. Alexandria.

Silver, E.A. (1987). Foundation of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving

instruction. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed), Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Solso, Robert L. (1995). Cognitive Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stephens, M. (2008). Some key junctures in relational thinking. In M. Goos, R. Brown and K. Makar

(Eds.), Navigating current and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31th annual conference

of the Mathematics Education Group of Australia, 491 – 498). Brisbane: MERGA.

Stephens, M. and Wang, X. (2008). Some key junctures in relational thinking. Journal of Mathematics

Education, 17(5): 36--40 .

Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta.

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New

York: Academic Press, (Online), (http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/ Discourse%20

Comprehension.pdf, retrieved February 12th 2013)

http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/listsery/remark/calderandcarlson.hml.%20Diakses%209%20Agustus%202010

http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/%20Discourse%20%20Comprehension.pdf

http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/%20Discourse%20%20Comprehension.pdf




D4-702

Van Someren, Marteen. W., Barnard, Yvonne. F., Sandberg, Jacobin. A.C. (1994). The Think Aloud

Method. A Practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London. Academic Press.

Österholm, M. (2006). Charactherizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts, Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 63(3): 325--346.

Österholm, M. (2006). A reading comprehension perpective on problem solving : Developing and

Researching Quality in Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of MADIF 5, the

5th Swedish Mathematics Education Research Seminar, Malmö, January 24-25, 2006,

(Online) (Available: http://scholar.google.se/citations?user=ZhagbikAAAAJ&hl=sv).

Zhu, Zheng. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterens: A review of

literature. International Education Journal, 8(2): 187 -- 203.