Article Sidebar

Published
Feb 28, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 2737 Download : 1641

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to examine the achievement and improvement of mathematical creative thinking skills of students whose learning uses a problem-solving approach compared to those using ordinary learning and the implementation of learning steps using a problem-solving approach in the field. The method used in this study is a quasi-experimental method, because there is manipulation of treatment, where the experimental class uses learning with a problem-solving approach, and the control class uses ordinary learning. The population in this study were all seventh-grade students of SMP Negeri 1 Cilamaya Wetan. With the subject of the sample are two classes VII, while the sample was chosen 2 classes randomly where the experimental class obtained learning with a problem-solving approach, and the control class gained regular learning. Class VII L as the experimental class and class VII I as the control class. The instrument in this study is a set of test questions in the form of a description consisting of eight questions. Based on the results of research and analysis of pretest, posttest, and n-gain data, it was found that the achievement and improvement of students' creative mathematical thinking skills using problem-solving approaches compared to those using ordinary learning, and implementation of learning steps with problem-solving approaches in the field showed that the learning process is more effective and creative in mathematical problems solving.

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Choridah, D. T. (2013). Peran Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Komunikasi Dan Berpikir Kreatif Serta Disposisi Matematis Siswa SMA. Infinity Journal, 2(2), 194–202.
  2. Darusman, R. (2014). Penerapan Metode Mind Mapping (Peta Pikiran) untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematik Siswa SMP. Infinity Journal, 3(2), 164–173.
  3. Dilla, S. C., Hidayat, W., & Rohaeti, E. E. (2018). Faktor Gender dan Resiliensi dalam Pencapaian Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematis Siswa SMA. Journal of Medives: Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 2(1), 129-136.
  4. Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM, 39(1-2), 127-135.
  5. Hendriana, H. (2017). Teachers’ hard and soft skills in innovative teaching of mathematics. World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ, 15, 145-50.
  6. 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.
  7. Hidayat, W., Wahyudin, W., & Prabawanto, S.(2018). Improving students’ creative mathematical reasoning ability students through adversity quotient and argument driven inquiry learning. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 948(1).
  8. Istianah, E. (2013). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis dan Kreatif Matematik dengan Pendekatan Model Eliciting Activities (MEAs) pada Siswa SMA. Infinity Journal, 2(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v2i1.23
  9. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2015). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning, 7-41.
  10. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. Zdm, 38(3), 302-310.
  11. Karatas, I., & Baki, A. (2017). The effect of learning environments based on problem solving on students’ achievements of problem solving. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 5(3), 249-268.
  12. Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693-715.
  13. Nuriadin, I. (2015). Pembelajaran Kontekstual Berbantuan Program Geometer’s Sketchpad dalam Meningkatkan Kemampuan Koneksi dan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa SMP. Infinity Journal, 4(2), 168–181.
  14. Özsoy, G., & Ataman, A. (2017). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82.
  15. Rahman, R. (2012). Hubungan Antara Self-Concept terhadap Matematika dengan Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematik Siswa. Infinity Journal, 1(1), 19–30.
  16. Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235-252.
  17. Sugilar, H. (2013). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif dan Disposisi Matematik Siswa Madrasah Tsanawiyah melalui Pembelajaran Generatif. Infinity Journal, 2(2), 156–168.
  18. Sumarmo, U., Hidayat, W., Zukarnaen, R., Hamidah, M., & Sariningsih, R. (2012). Kemampuan dan Disposisi Berpikir Logis, Kritis, dan Kreatif Matematik (Eksperimen terhadap Siswa SMA Menggunakan Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah dan Strategi Think-Talk-Write). Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 17(1), 17-33.
  19. Surya, E., Sabandar, J., Kusumah, Y. S., & Darhim, D. (2013). Improving of junior high school visual thinking representation ability in mathematical problem solving by CTL. Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 113-126.
  20. Widyatiningtyas, R., Kusumah, Y. S., Sumarmo, U., & Sabandar, J. (2015). The impact of problem-based learning approach to senior high school students’mathematics critical thinking ability. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 107-116.
  21. Yenni, & Putri, S. E. (2017). Optimalisasi Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif Matematis Siswa SMP melalui Pembelajaran Everyone is A Teacher Here. JNPM (Jurnal Nasional Pendidikan Matematika), 1(2), 334–348.
  22. Zan, R., Brown, L., Evans, J., & Hannula, M. S. (2006). Affect in mathematics education: An introduction. Educational studies in mathematics, 63(2), 113-121.