Article Sidebar

Published
Sep 25, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 687 Download : 638

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aimed to (1) analyze the role of scaffolding in deconstructing pseudo-thinking structure, and (2) analyze the development of students' thinking structures after receiving scaffolding. The study was framed with a qualitative methodology by involving case study design. This research was conducted at State Junior High School 31 in Semarang City, Indonesia. Data was collected through tests, observation, and interview methods.  Result of the study indicated that (1) scaffolding has changed the pseudo thinking process into a real thought process, and (2) scaffolding could develop students’ thinking structure into a more complex (abstract) level. Their thinking structure was initially on the stage of comparative thinking structure before receiving scaffolding assistance and after receiving scaffolding, to developed into the stage of logical reasoning thinking structure. In other words, scaffolding could become a useful strategy to help students go through different    Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

Keywords

Scaffolding Pseudo Thinking Thinking Structure Zone of Proximal Development

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

Author Biographies

Imam Kusmaryono, Sultan Agung Islamic University

Mathematics Education Department

Nila Ubaidah, Unversitas Islam Sultan Agung

Department of Mathematics Education

Mochamad Abdul Basir, Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Department of Mathematics Education

References

  1. Garner, B. K. (2007). Getting to Got It: Helping Struggling Students Learn How to Learn. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).1703 North Beauregard St. Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
  2. Buli, Z., Basizew, S., & Abdisa, K. (2017). Effects of Teacher’s Scaffolding on Students’ Reading Comprehension: Sire Secondary School Grade Nine Students in Focus. International Journal of Graduate Research and Review, 3(4), 89–95.
  3. Caglayan, G., & Olive, J. (2010). Eighth grade students’ representations of linear equations based on a cups and tiles model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 143–162. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9231-z
  4. Chairani, Z. (2015). Scaffolding dalam pembelajaran matematika 5. Math Didactic: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 1(1), 39–44. doi:10.33654/math.v1i1.93
  5. Choy, S. C., Yim, J. S. C., & Tan, P. L. (2017). Reflective thinking among preservice teachers: A Malaysian perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 27(2), 234–251.
  6. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140. doi:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
  7. Deringöl, Y. (2019). The Relationship between Reflective Thinking Skills and Academic Achievement in Mathematics in Fourth-Grade Primary School Students. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 6(3), 613–622.
  8. Ekawati, R., Kohar, A. W., Imah, E. M., Amin, S. M., & Fiangga, S. (2019). Students’ cognitive processes in solving problem related to the concept of area conservation. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 21–36. doi:10.22342/jme.10.1.6339.21-36
  9. Evans, S., & Swan, M. (2014). Developing students’ strategies for problem solving in mathematics: The role of pre-designed “Sample Student Work”. Educational Designer, 2(7).
  10. Herna, H., Nusantara, T., Subanji, & Mulyati, S. (2016). The characterization of true pseudo construction in understanding concept of limit function. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(5), 77–87.
  11. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational psychology review, 16(3), 235-266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  12. Kalu, F. A., & Bwalya, J. C. (2017). What Makes Qualitative Research Good Research ? An Exploratory Analysis of Critical Elements. International Journal of Social Science Research, 5(2), 43–57. doi:10.5296/ijssr.v5i2.10711
  13. Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6
  14. Kusumadewi, R. F., Kusmaryono, I., Jamallullail, I., & Saputro, B. A. (2019). Analisis Struktur Kognitif Siswa Kelas IV Sekolah Dasar dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Pembagian Bilangan Bulat. Journal of Medives : Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 3(2), 251–259. doi:10.31331/medivesveteran.v3i2.875
  15. Maharani, I. P., & Subanji, S. (2018). Scaffolding Based on Cognitive Conflict in Correcting the Students ’ Algebra Errors. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(2), 67–74. doi:10.12973/iejme/2697
  16. Mascolo, M. F. (2015). Neo-Piagetian Theories of Cognitive Development. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 501–510). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23097-3
  17. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (2016). Analisis Data Kualitatif: Buku Sumber Tentang Metode-Metode Baru. Universitas Indonesia_UI Press (11th ed.). Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press).
  18. Moleong, L. J. (2007). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif edisi revisi. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
  19. Navaneedhan, C. G., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2017). What Is Meant by Cognitive Structures ? How Does It Influence Teaching – Learning of Psychology ? IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies, 7(2), 89–98. doi:10.21013/jems.v7.n2.p5
  20. Novita, T., Widada, W., & Haji, S. (2018). Metakognisi siswa dalam pemecahan masalah matematika siswa SMA dalam pembelajaran matematika berorientasi etnomatematika Rejang Lebong. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Raflesia, 3(2), 67-81.
  21. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
  22. Samsonovich, A. V., Kitsantas, A., O’Brien, E., & De Jong, K. A. (2015). Cognitive Processes in Preparation for Problem Solving. Procedia Computer Science, 71, 235–247. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.218
  23. San Martín, M. G. (2018). Scaffolding the Learning-to-Teach Process: A Study in an EFL Teacher Education Programme in Argentina. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 20(1), 121-134. doi:10.15446/profile.v20n1.63032
  24. Simamora, R. E., Saragih, S., & Hasratuddin, H. (2018). Improving Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving Ability and Self-Efficacy through Guided Discovery Learning in Local Culture Context. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), 61–72. doi:10.12973/iejme/3966
  25. Subanji, S. (2013). Proses Berpikir Pseudo Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Proporsi. J-Teqip, 4(2), 207–226.
  26. Subanji, S., & Nusantara, T. (2016). Thinking Process of Pseudo Construction in Mathematics Concepts. International Education Studies Journal, 9(2), 16–32. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n2p17
  27. Susanti, V. D. (2018). Analisis kemampuan kognitif dalam pemecahan masalah berdasarkan kecerdasan logis - matematis. JMPM: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 3(1), 71–83.
  28. Thanheiser, E. (2010). Investigating further preservice teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole numbers: Refining a framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 241–251. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9252-7
  29. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational psychology review, 22(3), 271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
  30. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97-129. doi:10.1023/A:1002998529016
  31. Wibawa, K. A., Nusantara, T., Subanji, S & Parta, I. N. (2018). Defragmentation of Student’s Thinking Structures in Solving Mathematical Problems based on CRA Framework. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 1028(1), 012150. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012150