Article Sidebar

Published
Sep 30, 2018
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 3764 Download : 1550

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research was a descriptive research. Description of research result was presented quantitatively and qualitatively. Subjects of the research were 30 (thirty) 8th graders of SMPN 10 (State Junior High School) in Semarang, Indonesia. Data were collected through tests, documentation, observations, and interview. Student answers documents were observed and analyzed with SOLO Taxonomy guidance. The objective of the study was to analyze and provide an interpretation of students abstract reasoning level in cognitive development based on intended learning outcomes. The result of findings from students’ answers basically showed that students' abstract reasoning on the lower, middle and upper level, was alike to stages of structure complexity improvement. There were two main changes from concrete thinking to abstract thinking: quantitative stage (uni-structural and multi-structural) occurred first, as the number of details in student responses increased and then changed qualitatively (relational and extended abstract) because the detail was integrated into a structural pattern.

Keywords

Abstract Thinking Abstract Reasoning Problem Solving Mathematical Power SOLO Taxonomy

Article Details

Author Biographies

Imam Kusmaryono, Sultan Agung Islamic University

Mathematics Education Department

Hardi Suyitno, Semarang State University

Mathematics EducationDepartment

Dwijanto Dwijanto, Semarang State University

Mathematics Education Department

Nurkaromah Dwidayati, Semarang State University

Mathematics Education Department

References

  1. Adegoke, B. A. (2013). Modelling the Relationship between Mathematical Reasoning Ability and Mathematics Attainment. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(17), 54–61.
  2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching For Quality Learning At University. Fourth Edition. The Society for Research into Higher Education (Fourth Edi). Berkshire: McGraw Hill and Open University Press.
  3. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9210-4
  4. BSNP (2013). Salinan Permendikbud R.I. Nomor 64 Tahun 2013.Tentang Standar Isi Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah., Pub. L. No. 1–114, 1 (2013). Kemendikbud RI. Retrieved from https://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/atur/bsnp/Permendikbud64-2013StandarIsi.pdf
  5. Chalmers, D. (2011). Review of Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Society for research into Higher Education. Aishe J the All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/20497840/Review_of_Biggs_J._and_Tang_C._2011_
  6. Chang, J. Y. T., Wang, E. T. G., & Chao, R. (2009). Using Constructivism and Scaffolding Theories to Explore Learning Style and Effect in Blog System Environment. MIS Review, 15(1), 29–61.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320.
  8. Darwish, A. H. (2014). The abstract thinking levels of the science-education students in gaza universities. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 1–24.
  9. Datta, S., & Roy, D. D. (2015). Abstract reasoning and Spatial Visualization in Formal. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(10), 1–6.
  10. Gilead, M., Liberman, N., & Maril, A. (2014). From mind to matter: Neural correlates of abstract and concrete mindsets. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(5), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst031
  11. Goff, L., Potter, K. M., & Pierre, E. (2014). Learning Outcomes Assessment : A Practitioner's Handbook. In Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Handbook.pdf (pp. 1–64). Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
  12. Joubish, M. F., & Khurram, M. A. (2011). Cognitive Development in Jean Piaget’s Work and its Implications for Teachers. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(8), 1260–1265. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d5b/346602122c634fba7bb9535cd1db18018b48.pdf
  13. Komala, E. (2018). Analysis of Students ’ Mathematical Abstraction Ability By Using Discursive Approach Integrated Peer Instruction of Structure Algebra Ii. Infinity Journal, 7(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v7i1.p25-34
  14. Korkmaz, F., & Unsal, S. (2017). Analysis of Attainments and Evaluation Questions in Sociology Curriculum according to the SOLO Taxonomy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(69), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.69.5
  15. Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Sachs, R., Raue, M., & Frey, D. (2016). The Effect of Abstract and Concrete Thinking on Risk-Taking Behavior in Women and Men. SAGE Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016666127
  16. Lukum, A., Laliyo, L. A. R., & Sukamto, K. (2015). Metakognisi Mahasiswa Dalam Pembelajaran Kesetimbangan Kimia. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 21(1), 9–18.
  17. Markovits, H., Thompson, V. A., & Brisson, J. (2015). Metacognition and abstract reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 43(4), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0488-9
  18. Mascolo, M. F., & F., M. (2015). Neo-Piagetian Theories of Cognitive Development. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 501–510). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23097-3
  19. Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget ’ s Theory of Cognitive Development to Mathematics Instruction. Journal The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26–30.
  20. Özdemir, A. Ş., & Yıldırz, S. G. (2015). The Analysis of Elementary Mathematics Preservice Teachers’ Spatial Orientation Skills with SOLO Model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 15(61), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.12
  21. Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
  22. Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. (2012). A Primer on Learning Outcomes and the SOLO Taxonomy. Course Design for Constructive Alignment, (Winter 2012), 1–22.
  23. Qohar, A., & Sumarmo, U. (2013). Improving Mathematical Communication Ability and Self Regulation Learning Of Yunior High Students by Using Reciprocal Teaching. IndoMS.Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 59–74.
  24. Simanjuntak, M. V., Abdullah, A. G., & Maulana, I. (2018). Promoting middle school students ’ abstract- thinking ability through cognitive apprenticeship instruction in mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 948(12051), 0–4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012051
  25. Simatwa, E. M. W. (2010). Piaget ’ s theory of intellectual development and its implication for instructional management at pre- secondary school level. Education Research Andd Reviews, 5(July), 366–371.
  26. Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005
  27. Susac, A., Bubic, A., Vrbanc, A., & Planinic, M. (2014). Development of abstract mathematical reasoning: the case of algebra. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(September), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00679
  28. Widodo, A. (2017). Development of Students ’ Informal Reasoning across School Level. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(3), 273–282.
  29. Yilmaz, R., Argun, Z., & Role, Z. (2018). Role of Visualization in Mathematical Abstraction : The Case of Congruence Concept. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.328337
  30. Yumiati, & Noviyanti, M. (2017). Abilities of Reasoning and Mathematics Representation on Guided Inquiry Learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(3), 283–290.