Article Sidebar

Published
Sep 12, 2017
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 2493 Download : 1869

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research is based on the presence of obstacle in learning mathematics on inverse function. This research aims to analyze the learning obstacle, to know the types of error that is suffered by the students in learning inverse function. Kind of this kualitative research descriptive with data triangulation. The research subjects are high school students which is contained of 74 students and was taken 6 students to be main sample. The data of students’ error is obtained from the writen test result, the students’ false answers are identified into the type of error. Then it was chosen several students to be interviewed. Which the analysis result finding data in this research showed there are 4 types of errors, which are concept error, procedure error, counting error and concluding error. An obstacle which appear in learning inverse function is influenced by two factors, i.e internal factor and eksternal factor. Internal factor is showed by the students’ motivation in following learning and students’ skill in receiving learning material. While the eksternal factor is showed by the curriculum which applied in school with acceleration class caused many narrow learning time, teaching materials that is less complete with the discussion of question sample.

Keywords

Inverse Function Learning Obstacle Learning Process

Article Details

Author Biography

Krisna Satrio Perbowo, University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA

Mathematics Education of University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA

References

  1. Bingolbali, E., Akkoç, H., Ozmantar, M. F., & Demir, S. (2011). Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers‟ Views of the Sources of Students‟ Mathematical Difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(1), 40-59.
  2. Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. (N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield, Eds.) (1st ed., Vol. 19). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2
  3. Cornu, B. (2002). Limits. In D. Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, 153-166. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  4. Euis, S. (2011). Hambatan Epistemologi (Epistemological Obstacles) Dalam Persamaan Kuadrat Pada Siswa Madrasah Aliyah. Proceedings International Seminar and the Fourth National Conference on Mathematics Education. Yogyakarta: Yogyakarta State University
  5. Hidayat, W. (2017). Adversity Quotient dan Penalaran Kreatif Matematis Siswa SMA dalam Pembelajaran Argument Driven Inquiry pada Materi Turunan Fungsi. KALAMATIKA Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(1), 15-28.
  6. Ignacio, N. G., Barona, E. G., & Nieto, L. B. (2006). The affective domain in learning mathematics. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 47-72.
  7. Nuriadin, I., & Perbowo, K. S. (2013). Analisis Korelasi Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematik Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Peserta Didik SMP Negeri 3 Lurangung Kuningan Jawa Barat. Infinity Journal, 2(1), 65-74.
  8. Saija, L. M. (2012). Analyzing The Mathematical Disposition and Its Correlation with Mathematics Achievement of Abstract Senior High School Students. Infinity Journal, 1(2), 148-152.
  9. Schackow, J. B., & Thompson, D. R. (2005). High school students' attitudes toward mathematics. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 12-19.
  10. Suherman, E. (2003). Strategi Pembelajaran Matematika Kontemporer. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
  11. Tall, D. (2002). The Psychology of Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  12. Widdiharto, R. (2008). Diagnosis Kesulitan Belajar Matematika SMP dan Alternatif Proses Remidinya. Paket Pemberdayaan KKG/MGMP Matematika. Yogyakarta: P4TK Matematika