Article Sidebar

Published
Sep 12, 2017
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1430 Download : 998

Main Article Content

Abstract

The research aims is (1) to obtain learning quality of CTL model to students mathematical literacy, (2) to obtain mathematical literacy description based on logical reasoning, (3) to obtain mathematical literacy description based on numerical reasoning and (4) to obtain mathematical literacy description based on logical and numerical reasoning. The research type is descriptive study. The subject is XI AK SMK NU Lasem were taken 6 students high, medium and low logical reasoning, 6 students high, medium, and low numerical reasoning, 6 students high, medium, and low logical and numerical reasoning, 2 students high logical and medium numerical reasoning, 2 students medium logical and high numerical reasoning. The research result is (1) CTL models learning quality for mathematical literacy is good, (2) student mathematical literacy based on high logical reasoning level 4 and 5, medium level 3, low level 1 and 2, (3) student mathematical literacy based on high numerical reasoning level 5, medium level 4, low level 2 and 3, (4) student mathematical literacy based on high logical and numerical reasoning level 5, medium level 3 and 4, high logical and medium numerical reasoning or medium logical and high numerical reasoning level 4 and 5, low level 1 and 2.

Keywords

Mathematics Education

Article Details

References

  1. Adonis, A. (2006). Primary Framework for Literacy and Mathematics. United Kingdom: Department Education and Skills.
  2. Bokar, A. J. (2013). Solving ang Reflecting on Real-World Problems: Their Influences on Mathematical Literacy and Engagement in the Eight Mathematical Practises. Thesis: Ohio University.
  3. Diezmann, C. M., Watters, J. J., & English, L. D. (2001). Implementing Mathematical Investigation with Young Children. Proceedings 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research. Sydney: Group of Australia.
  4. Dowden, B. H. (2011). Logical Reasoning. California: California State University Sacramento.
  5. Durrant-Law, G. (2013). Logical Thinking. Canberra: University of Canberra.
  6. Kariadinata, R. (2012). Menumbuhkan Daya Nalar (Power Of Reason) Siswa Melalui Pembelajaran Analogi Matematik. Infinity, 1(1), 10-18.
  7. Kasihani, E. S. (2002). Contextual Learning and Teaching (CTL) (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Kontekstual). Prosiding Seminar Akademik, 2, pp. 1-6.
  8. Krause, J., Dias, L. P., & Schedler, C. (2015). Krause, J., Dias, L.P., dan Schedler, C. Competency-Based Education: A Framework for Measuring Quality Courses. Online journal of Distance Learning administration Spring, 18(1), 1-9.
  9. MacGregor, R. R. (2007). The Essential Practices of High Quality teaching and Learning. The Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc.
  10. Melville, W., & Yaxley, B. (2009). Contextual Opportunities for Teacher Professional Learning: The Experience of One Science Department. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 357-368.
  11. Mulyatiningsih, E. (2010). Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Inovatif dan Menyenangkan (PAIKEM). Jakarta: Direktorat Jendral Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan.
  12. Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-First Century: Introducing the Issue. The Future of Children, 22(2), 3-15.
  13. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing.
  14. Ojose, B. (2011). Mathematics Literacy: Are We Able to Put The Mathematics We Learn Into Everyday Use? Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 89-100.
  15. Riyanto, B., & Siroj, R. A. (2011). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Penalaran dan Prestasi Matematika dengan Pendekatan Konstruktivisme pada Siswa Sekolah Menengah Atas. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 111-127.
  16. Rusmining, Waluya, S. B., & Sugianto. (2014). Analysis of Mathematics Literacy, Learning Constructivism and Character Education (Case Studies on XI Class of SMK Roudlotus Saidiyyah Semarang, Indonesia). International Journal of Education and Research, 2(8), 331 – 340.
  17. Sandstorm, M., Nilsson, L., & Lilja, J. (2013). Displaying Mathematical Literacy-Pupils’ Talk about Mathematical Activities. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(2), 55 – 61.
  18. Shadiq, F. (2004). Pemecahan Masalah, Penalaran dan Komunikasi. Yogyakarta: PPPG Matematika Yogyakarta.
  19. Stacey, K. (2012). The International Assessment of Mathematical Literacy: PISA 20112 Framework and Items. 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Seoul, Korea: Coex.
  20. Suyono. (2009). Pembelajaran Efektif dan Produktif Berbasis Literasi: Analisis Konteks, Prinsip, dan Wujud Alternatif Sebagai Implementasinya di Sekolah. Bahasa dan Seni, 37(2), 203-217.
  21. Turner, R. (2011). Exploring Mathematical Competencies. Research Development, 24(5), 1-6.
  22. Venkat, H., Graven, M., Lampen, E., & Nalube, P. (2009). Critiquing the mathematical literacy assessment taxonomy: Where is the reasoning and the problem solving? Pythagoras, 0(70), 43-56.
  23. Wardhani, S., & Rumiati. (2011). Modul Matematika SMP Program Bermutu Instrumen Penilaian Hasil Belajar Matematika SMP: Belajar dari PISA dan TIMSS. Jakarta: Kemendiknas dan PPPPTK.