Rembug Pendidikan

Inkuiri Induktif-Konstruktivis

2011-03-18T02:08:00.000-07:00

Pembelajaran Matematika secara Inquiry Induktif

ditinjau dari Perspektif Konstruktivis

Oleh

I Nengah Parta

Jurusan Matematika FMIPA Universitas Negeri Malang

Jl.Gombong No. 3 Malang Telp. (341)552182, (0341)831083

E_mail: nengahparta@yahoo.com

Abstrak: Dalam pendekatan Inkuiri Induktif, pebelajar diajak berpikir kritis dalam membangun pengetahuannya sendiri melalui kegiatan Inquiry; yang meliputi observasi, pengajuan pertanyaan, pendugaan, membuat definisi operasional, eksperimen, interpretasi data, dan penyimpulan. Tujuan utama dari inkuiri induktif adalah untuk membangun kemampuan pebelajar berpikir kritis. Dalam pandangan konstruktivis, pebelajar harus mengkonstruksi pengetahuannya sendiri. Dalam konstruktivis model BIG, proses konstruksi pebelajar dibantu informasi dari pengajar. Sedangkan dalam model WIG pebelajar harus melakukan konstruksi secara internal. Dari dua model kontruktivis ini pendekatan Inkuiri induktif dapat dipandang sebagai implementasi dari konstruktivis model WIG.

Kata Kunci: Pembelajaran Matematika, Inquiry Induktif, Perspektif Konstruktivis

Abstrak Disertasi

2011-03-04T01:15:00.000-08:00

ABSTRACT

Parta, I Nengah. 2009. Developing Inquiry Teaching Model for Refining Mathematics Knowledge Pre-service Mathematics Teacher via Posing Question. Dissertation. Promotor: Prof. R. Soedjadi, Co-Promotor: Prof. I Ketut Budayasa, Ph.D

Key Words: Developing, Inquiry Teaching Model, Refining Knowledge, Posing Question

The reasearch question is “How the developing and the developing result of the Inquiry Teaching Model that are valid, practical, and efective to refine mathematics knowledge pre-service mathematics teacher via posing questions”? Based on the research question, the aim of this research is to obtain valid, practical, and effective Inquiry Teaching Model.

The development is based on the “General Model of Educational Problem Solving”: Plomp, but the implementation phase is not under taken. In order to identify the criteria has been fulfiled, then validation and field trial are done.

To support for developing the model, learning devices and instruments are developed. Learning devices consist of students worksheet (abbreviated as LKM) and lesson plan (abbreviated as RP) and instruments consist of ; (1) Validation Sheet of Model and Learning Device, (2) Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility, (3) Observation Sheet of Students Activities, (4) Questionnaire of Students Response, and (5) Test of Subject Matter Comprehension (abbreviated as TPBA).

Prototype of validation sheets are validated by two validators and the result show that the prototype satisfy the validity criterion. The reliability of validation sheet of Model and Learning Device are tested based on the validation result. The test result show that validation sheet of Model and Learning Device has high reliability, since the score differences of each indicator from both validator no exceed than 1. Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility and Observation Sheet of Students Activities were not validated, and only discussed with colleagues who have done development research.

TPBA is validated by two validators and also discussed with Calculus lecturer. Validation result shows that the test satisfy the validity criterion but some terms need to be revised.

The Teaching Model is developped for pre-service mathematics teacher and the main issue that characterized this model is “possing questions with argument” by students. The syntax of the model contains of six phases and all of these phases are devided into three groups, i.e; preliminary, core activity, and conclusion activity. In core activity students build knowledge, refine knowledge, and internalize the knowledge. This core activity is devided into four phase, these are; (1) Displaying Information and Inquiry Activity, (2) Posing Questions, (3) Doing Group Discussion, and (4) Internalizing Exercise.

Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device are validated by five validators and the result shows that the prototype satisfies the validity criterion.

Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device that has been validated are tested via field trial. The objective of the field trial is to measure the practicality and effectiveness. In first trial, model feasibility has high category, so it satisfies the practicality criterion. Although practicality criterion attained, core phase in this model, i.e “Questioning” and Group Discussion and Internalizing Exercise are executed is only in the middle category. Furthermore, students persentage that did not make question is high, i.e 44%, the written question was not completed by argument, and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentences. Based on this result, then the model need to be revised and retrial.

In the second trial, model feasibility has high category, but “mean feasibility” of questioning phase is 2.89. This result indicate that the feasibility level of this phase is still do not support the model practicality. Therefore, the revision based on this trial is centered on “questioning” phase.

In the third trial, “mean feasibility”, of all phase more than three, i.e , so model feasibility has high category. Therefore all phases feasibility support the model practicality.

Model effectiveness is measured based on four indicators, i.e; (1) comprehending subject matter, involving inquiry result and comprehension subject matter test result; (2) refining knowledge involving posing written question with argument and investigating of solution in group discussion, (3) students activities, and (4) students respon.

The result of the first trial shows that the model is not yet effective, since only ˝subject matter comprehension˝ indicator is achieved. In the second trial, ˝refining knowledge˝ indicator is still do not support model effectiveness, since the persentage of logic question completed by argument is 42,65% (less than 50%, the minimum limit for depth examination) and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentence. In the third trial was obtained that model and the learning device are effective since all the effectiveness indicators achieve effectiveness criterion.

Lesson Plan Matakuliah "Bahasa Inggris untuk Matematika"

2011-02-25T16:42:00.000-08:00

LESSON PLAN

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCES FACULTY

STATE UNIVERSTIY OF MALANG

EVEN SEMESTER 2010/2011

A. COURSE DESCRIPTION

1. Name : English For Mathematics

2. Code : MAU491

3. Credit/hour semester : 3/3

4. Level/Semester : S1/II

5. Group :

6. Pre-quested course : -

7. Lecturer : I Nengah Parta

B. STANDARD COMPETENCY: Students have knowledge and insight about specific English term in mathematic, are able to use the term in mathematics work, and also have skill in using it for articulating mathematics idea or in wider mathematics activities.

C. BASIC COMPTENCES:

1. Elucidate English term in Number, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics and Probability, Calculus, and Trigonometry.

2. Articulating (verbal or literal) in English the symbol, sign, expression, or some situation.

3. Extracting small english paragraph into Indonesian

4. Describing some mathematics situation (pattern of number, algorithm, in accuracies, Position of two or more Geometric Objects, ...) in English

D. DETAIL ACTIVITIES

Ses.	BC	Material	Activities	Task/HW/Comment
1		Introduction	Conveying contract of course (3C)	Prepare several kinds Mathematics Textbook
2-9		Translating English Term in some mathematics topics	1. Translating and elucidating simple mathematics English term (in Number, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics and Probability, Calculus, and Trigonometry) 2. Finding the analog term that are frequently use for each mathematics topic 3. Introduce same advance mathematics term (instance: convergent, increasing, injective/surjective function, partition, proposition, ....)	Elucidating is done by Number Pattern, Graph, Picture, or verbal explanation
10		1^stmiddle test
11-16		Identifying English term for some mathematics object	4. Assert mathematics symbols, sign, or other object in English 5. Making mathematics glosary for term and symbols in mathematics	Assertion is completely by short description
17-22			6. Finding the key terms/words in small paragraph 7. Translating short english paragraph into indonesian # 8. Presenting the translating result to the class 9. Revise and to complete the initial translation based on class discussion	#. The requested translation is free translation.
23		2^ndMiddle test
24-25		Recognizing Elementary Mathematics Education term	1. Studying elementary mathematics eduction text book. 2. Recognize elementary mathematics education term via free translation 3. Listing specific term and their meaning
26-31		Recognizing Advance Mathematics Education term	1. Studying mathematics eduction text book. 2. Translating small paragraph about matematics education 3. Summerize concept of mathematics education and their use/field
32		3^rdMiddle test

E. ASSESSMENT

X1 := Home work/independent assignment

X2 := Middle test average

X3 := attendance score

X4 := activities/participation score

X5 := Final test score

F. REFERENCE

1. International Series Mathematics text book (Elementary, Secondary, Senior High School)

2. Mathematics Education text book

3. Suggested refference

The Beauty of "MATEMATIKA"

2010-11-10T03:57:00.000-08:00

Matematika

Mungkinkah harapan masih Ku gantungkan

Ataukah aku hanya diam termangu

Tetapi gemericik bilangan, fungsi, dan limit

terus mengganggu

Engkau menghiasi setiap langkah dan mimpiku

Mengapa engkau buat mereka duduk termangu, mengerutkan dahi, menerawang

Akankah semakin banyak dari mereka yang memandang bulatan kosong di titik diskontinu

Tidak-tidak

Itu semua adalah proses metakognisi

Karena dengan proses metakognisi

Akan menjadikan ilmu itu bermakna, berguna, dan

memuliakan hidup serta kehidupan

Seminar Manado

2010-11-10T02:50:00.001-08:00

DEKONSEPTUALISASI PENGETAHUAN MATEMATIKA PADA GURU MATEMATIKA SEKOLAH LANJUTAN PERTAMA

DAN LANGKAH-LANGKAH ALTERNATIF PEMECAHANNYA

Oleh

I Nengah Parta

Staf pengajar pada Jurusan Matematika FMIPA UM

E_mail: nengahparta@yahoo.com

Abstrak:

Dalam pembelajaran yang bercirikan students centered tugas guru dalam mengelola pembelajaran ringan sekaligus berat. Dikatakan ringan karena guru tidak lagi dituntut untuk merancang uraian materi yang lengkap, runtut, dan menyeluruh. Dikatakan berat, karena guru perlu membuat berbagai alternatif untuk mengakomodasi produk pemikiran siswa yang mungkin akan sangat bervariasi. Faktanya, saat ini masih banyak guru matematika tidak memiliki pengetahuan matematika yang memadai. Dalam mengajar, yang disampaikan kepada siswa hanya teknik penyelesaian soal rutin tanpa penjelasan yang cukup. Pada beberapa guru juga ditemukan adanya beberapa kesalahan, yaitu; kesalahan persepsi, kesalahan pemahaman konsep, dan kesalahan kesemestaan. Beberapa contoh kesalahan itu berturut-turut adalah sebagai berikut; (1) tabung hanya dipersepsikan sebagai tabung lingkaran tegak, (2) tabung dipandang sebagai prisma dan disebut prisma lingkaran, (3) jumlah dan hasil kali akar-akar suatu persamaan kuadrat berturu-turut adalah -(b/a) dan c/a, apapun kondisinya. Pada makalah ini dibahas fenomena-fenomena itu dan juga diajukan gagasan alternatif untuk pemecahannya.

Kata Kunci: dekonseptualisasi, pengetahuan matematika, guru matematika

alternatif pemecahannya

2010-07-21T18:19:00.000-07:00

Pendidikan Karakter
Suatu Terminologi "Baru" dalam Dunia Pendidikan

Saat ini muncul isu hangat di dunia pendidikan, yaitu pendidikan karakter. Beberapa tahun silam mungkin juga pembaca masih ingat tentang isu life skill yang dituntut untuk memberi warna pendidikan kita. Isu life skill itu hilang begitu saja bak ditelan bumi.
Berbeda dengan isu life skill, isu pendidikan karakter itu membuka wacana baru, yaitu; (1) Bagaimana Rumusan Indikatornya, (2) Apa Tagihannya, (3) Bagaimana perancangan bahan ajarnya. Ini bisa menjadi wacana berkepanjangan atau mungkin polemik, yaitu bagaimana bentuk aktivitas, bagaimana instrumennya, buku pegangan siswa seperti apa, siapa yang berwenang menyusun indikator itu, siap yang berwenang menilai, dan seterusnya. Lebih berbahaya lagi kalau masalah karakter ini diukur menggunakan pendekatan kognitif. Selain pertanyaan-pertanyaan itu, satu pertanyaan mendasar yang perlu disadari dan dijawab dengan jujur adalah, "sudahkan para pendidik mempersiapkan diri untuk menjadi contoh?"
Sepanjang pelaksanaan tugas mengajar itu hanya dipandang sebagai pemenuhan tugas 24 jam karena status telah "tersertifikasi" atau alasan sejenis lainnya, maka sangat mungkin nasib dari pendidikan karakter itu tidak akan berbeda jauh dengan isu life skill beberapa tahun silam. Karena itu, harus ada komitmen yang kuat dari PEMERINTAH, GURU, DAN TENTUNYA JUGA PARA ORANG TUA, untuk merealisasikan pendidikan karakter itu sehingga terbentuk warga masyarakat yang JUJUR, SANTUN, BERBUDI LUHUR, PEDULI, dan seterunya sesuai dengan aspek-aspek karakter itu.

2010-05-06T01:22:00.000-07:00

ABSTRACT

Parta, I Nengah. 2009. Developing Inquiry Teaching Model for Refining Mathematics Knowledge Pre-service Mathematics Teacher via Posing Question. Dissertation. Promotor: Prof. R. Soedjadi, Co-Promotor: Prof. I Ketut Budayasa, Ph.D

Key Words: Developing, Inquiry Teaching Model, Refining Knowledge, Posing
Question

The reasearch question is “How the developing and the developing result of the Inquiry Teaching Model that are valid, practical, and efective to refine mathematics knowledge pre-service mathematics teacher via posing questions”? Based on the research question, the aim of this research is to obtain valid, practical, and effective Inquiry Teaching Model.
The development is based on the “General Model of Educational Problem Solving”: Plomp, but the implementation phase is not under taken. In order to identify the criteria has been fulfiled, then validation and field trial are done.
To support for developing the model, learning devices and instruments are developed. Learning devices consist of students worksheet (abbreviated as LKM) and lesson plan (abbreviated as RP) and instruments consist of ; (1) Validation Sheet of Model and Learning Device, (2) Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility, (3) Observation Sheet of Students Activities, (4) Questionnaire of Students Response, and (5) Test of Subject Matter Comprehension (abbreviated as TPBA).
Prototype of validation sheets are validated by two validators and the result show that the prototype satisfy the validity criterion. The reliability of validation sheet of Model and Learning Device are tested based on the validation result. The test result show that validation sheet of Model and Learning Device has high reliability, since the score differences of each indicator from both validator no exceed than 1. Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility and Observation Sheet of Students Activities were not validated, and only discussed with colleagues who have done development research.
TPBA is validated by two validators and also discussed with Calculus lecturer. Validation result shows that the test satisfy the validity criterion but some terms need to be revised.
The Teaching Model is developped for pre-service mathematics teacher and the main issue that characterized this model is “possing questions with argument” by students. The syntax of the model contains of six phases and all of these phases are devided into three groups, i.e; preliminary, core activity, and conclusion activity. In core activity students build knowledge, refine knowledge, and internalize the knowledge. This core activity is devided into four phase, these are; (1) Displaying Information and Inquiry Activity, (2) Posing Questions, (3) Doing Group Discussion, and (4) Internalizing Exercise.
Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device are validated by five validators and the result shows that the prototype satisfies the validity criterion.
Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device that has been validated are tested via field trial. The objective of the field trial is to measure the practicality and effectiveness. In first trial, model feasibility has high category, so it satisfies the practicality criterion. Although practicality criterion attained, core phase in this model, i.e “Questioning” and Group Discussion and Internalizing Exercise are executed is only in the middle category. Furthermore, students persentage that did not make question is high, i.e 44%, the written question was not completed by argument, and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentences. Based on this result, then the model need to be revised and retrial.
In the second trial, model feasibility has high category, but “mean feasibility” of questioning phase is 2.89. This result indicate that the feasibility level of this phase is still do not support the model practicality. Therefore, the revision based on this trial is centered on “questioning” phase.
In the third trial, “mean feasibility”, of all phase more than three, i.e , so model feasibility has high category. Therefore all phases feasibility support the model practicality.
Model effectiveness is measured based on four indicators, i.e; (1) comprehending subject matter, involving inquiry result and comprehension subject matter test result; (2) refining knowledge involving posing written question with argument and investigating of solution in group discussion, (3) students activities, and (4) students respon.
The result of the first trial shows that the model is not yet effective, since only ˝subject matter comprehension˝ indicator is achieved. In the second trial, ˝refining knowledge˝ indicator is still do not support model effectiveness, since the persentage of logic question completed by argument is 42,65% (less than 50%, the minimum limit for depth examination) and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentence. In the third trial was obtained that model and the learning device are effective since all the effectiveness indicators achieve effectiveness criterion.

2010-05-06T01:17:00.000-07:00

Kemampuan Pre-Service Mathematics Teacher
Menginvestigasi Obyek Matematika dalam Benda-Benda Nyata
Dalam Pembelajaran Secara Inquiry

Oleh I Nengah Parta
Jurusan Matematika FMIPA UM
E_mail: nengah_parta@telkom.net

Abstrak:
Paradigma Pembelajaran Matematika Realistik membawa angin segar kepada iklim pembelajaran matematika di Indonesia, karena pembelajaran dirancang menjadi bagian dari aktivitas anak sehari-hari. Tatag menemukan bahwa PMRI salah satu pendekatan pembelajaran yang memanusiakan manusia. Annie Makink mengatakan bahwa Pendidikan Matematika Realistik is a movement to reform mathematics education in Indonesia. Tetapi Marpaung melaporkan bahwa dalam menjawab soal pilihan ganda, siswa di sekolah non PMRI lebih unggul dibandingkan siswa di sekolah PMRI, sedangkan dalam menjawab soal “pemecahan masalah” dan soal non rutin siswa sekolah PMRI lebih unggul daripada siswa sekolah non PMRI. Soal “pemecahan masalah” atau soal non rutin umumnya memiliki tingkat kesulitan lebih tinggi daripada soal pilihan ganda. Karena itu, jika siswa mampu menyelesaikan soal pemecahan masalah, maka semestinya ia mampu mengerjakan soal “standar”. Namun fakta ini menunjukkan bahwa ada aspek yang masih perlu dibenahi dalam pembelajaran yang menggunakan pendekatan realistik. Dalam makalah ini diusulkan suatu langkah alternatif untuk mengatasi kesenjangan itu.

Kata Kunci: investigasi konsep, benda nyata, pembelajaran inquiry

Sebuah Puisi Tentang Logika

2010-05-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

Pelajaran logika merupakan pelajaran sulit diantara materi-materi sulit dalam matematika. Tetapi setelah dicermati, ternyata tiap-tiap huruf pada kata "LOGIKA" merupakan huruf yang mempunyai kandungan makna yang sangat dalam. Puisi tentang logika di bawah ini menjadi bukti bahwa "logika" merupakan suatu istilah yang memiliki "magic power"

LOGIKA

Lantunan suara-suara merdu menyeruak keheningan malam
Orkestra dimainkan sekelompok anak
Gambelan ditabuh memberikan suara padu
Instrumen musik melengkapi semaraknya suasana indah
Katakanlah kepada mereka semua
Akulah yang akan memberikan makna semua itu

Adakah yang lebih indah dari keindahan itu sendiri?

Abstrak Makalah

2010-05-06T00:21:00.000-07:00

Penghalusan Pertanyaan Mahasiswa
Dalam Pembelajaran Limit
Melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah

Oleh I Nengah Parta
Jurusan Matematika FMIPA UM
Email: nengah_parta@telkom.net

Abstrak: Menurut Callahan and Clarke (1988), dalam pembelajaran pertanyaan dapat berfungsi antara lain to stimulate thinking, assess student progress, emphasize key points. Gagnon, G.W (2001: 65) mengatakan usually, the best question are those that learner ask themselves, those that are evaluative thinking. Jadi dalam pembelajaran sebaiknya pertanyaan itu dari siswa karena dapat menjadi indikator keterlibatan siswa secara kognitif. Elder, dkk mengatakan a mind with no questions is a mind that is not intellectually alive. Agar dapat berfungsi seperti disebutkan di atas, maka pertanyaan itu perlu memiliki kriteria tertentu. Dalam makalah ini diuraikan penghalusan pertanyaan melalui pembelajaran berbasis masalah.

Kata Kunci: Penghalusan, Pertanyaan, Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah

*Rembug Pendidikan*