Article Sidebar

Published
Feb 17, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1777 Download : 1528

Main Article Content

Abstract

To make students actively involved in learning to grasp mathematical higher-order thinking skills (MHOTS) is not easy. Meanwhile, the ability is so important for students to master for it takes place when students continue their studies to a higher level as well as work within a variety of professions, especially in the era of the industrial revolution such nowadays. Many factors affect students' thinking abilities, including learning factors. This study, which implemented constructivism-based learning, aims to investigate the role and contribution of constructivism-based learning approaches as well as mathematical prior knowledge (MPK) to the achievement of MHOTS of middle secondary school students. The data tested through Multivariate Analysis at the 0.05 significance level. In general, this study found that: (1) In the experimental class, the learning approach plays an important role in the way it increased students' MHOTS significantly. (2) The average contribution of constructivism-based learning to MHOTS was at the range of 18% to 57%. (3) Student activity in learning increased significantly. (4) In some cases, there is an effect of interaction between learning factors and MPK towards the achievement of MHOTS. The study recommended the teachers to have courageous in implementing constructivism-based teaching and learning to improve students’ MHOTS.

Keywords

Constructivism-based learning MHOTS MPK

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Ani Minarni, Universitas Negeri Medan

Jurusan Matematika

E. Elvis Napitupulu, Universitas Negeri Medan

Jurusan Matematika

References

  1. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. (2011). ICT use in the teaching of mathematics: Implications for professional development of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Education and information technologies, 16(4), 423-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-010-9141-9
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., & Raths, R. (2001). M. C Wittrock. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. New York: David McKay Company.
  3. Arends, R. I. (2012). Learning to teach. McGraw-Hill Companies.
  4. Arslan, Ç., & Altun, M. (2007). Learning to solve non-routine mathematical problems. Elementary Education Online, 6(1), 50-61.
  5. Becker, J. P., & Shimada, S. (1997). The Open-Ended Approach: A New Proposal for Teaching Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191-1593.
  6. Brown, A. L. (1990). Domain‐specific principles affect learning and transfer in children. Cognitive science, 14(1), 107-133.
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review, 31, 21-32.
  8. Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. De Lange, J. (1996). Using and applying mathematics in education. In International handbook of mathematics education, 49-97. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_3
  10. Freudenthal, H. (2006). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.
  11. Formaggia, L. (2017). Mathematics and Industry 4.0. International CAE Conference, Vicenza, November 6-7, 2017.
  12. Glass, G., & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Psyccritiques, 41(12).
  13. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing Realistic Mathematics Education. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
  14. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational studies in mathematics, 39(1-3), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003749919816
  15. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational psychology review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  16. Jensen, I., R. (1976). Five-point Progress for the Gifted. Poster Presentation. International Congress on Mathematical Education, Karlsruhe, Germany.
  17. Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: What it is and why it's here to stay. California: Corwin Press.
  18. Kulm, G. (1990). Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Mathematics. American Association for the Advancement of Science Books.
  19. Maharani, H. R. (2014). Creative thinking in mathematics: Are we able to solve mathematical problems in a variety of way. In International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education, 120-125.
  20. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
  21. Minarni, A. (2013). Pengaruh pembelajaran berbasis masalah terhadap kemampuan pemahaman matematis dan keterampilan sosial siswa SMP Negeri di Kota Bandung. Jurnal Paradikma, 6(02), 162-174.
  22. Minarni, A., Napitupulu, E., & Husein, R. (2016). Mathematical understanding and representation ability of public junior high school in north sumatra. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.1.2816.43-56
  23. Minarni, A. (2017). On Eight Grade Students Understanding in Solving Mathematical Problems. Asian Social Science, 13(12), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n12p86
  24. Minarni, A., Napitupulu, E. E., Lubis, S. D., & Annajmi (2018). Kemampuan Berpikir Matematis dan Aspek Afektif Siswa. Medan: Harapan Cerdas Publisher.
  25. NCTM (2000). Principle and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston: VA.
  26. Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3(2), 151-194.
  27. Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (No. 246). Princeton university press.
  28. Reid, G. (2007). Motivating learners in the classroom: ideas and strategies. Sage.
  29. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington DC: National Academies.
  30. Ronis, D. L. (2008). Problem-based learning for math & science: Integrating inquiry and the internet. Corwin Press.
  31. Ross, J. A., & Smyth, E. (1995). Differentiating cooperative learning to meet the needs of gifted learners: A case for transformational leadership. Talents and Gifts, 19(1), 63-82.
  32. Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  33. Sawada, T. (1997). Developing Lesson Plans. In: J. Becker, & S. Shimada (Eds.). The Open-Ended Approach: A New Proposal for Teaching Mathematics (pp. 1-9). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  34. Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking. In 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer.
  35. Sheffield, L. J. (2013). Creativity and school mathematics: Some modest observations. ZDM, 45(2), 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0484-8
  36. Silver, E. A. (2013). Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives. Routledge.
  37. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
  38. Torrance, E., P. (1960). Educational Achievement of the Highly Intelligent and Highly Creative: Eight Partial Replications of the Getzels and Jackson Study. Research Memorandum. BER 60-68, Bureau of Educational Research: University of Minnesota.
  39. Treffers, A. (1991). Realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands 1980-1990. Realistic mathematics education in primary school, 11-20.
  40. Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist oriented lessons: The learning environments and the teaching sequences. Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH.
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.