i
PROCEEDINGS
The 1st Sriwijaya University Learning
and Education International
Conference (SULE-IC) 2014 held by
FKIP Unsri in Collaboration with
Communication Forum for Indonesian
State FKIP Deans, 16—18 May, 2014
Held by:
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University and
in Collaboration with Communication Forum for Indonesian State FKIP Deans
Published by:
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University
Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia, 2014
Chief Editor: Hartono
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sriwijaya University, 2014
The proceeding can be accessed at: http: //eprint. unsri.ac.id./
Process editing of all the articles in proceeding was conducted by the editor board of the
1st
Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference.
ii
PROCEEDINGS
The 1st Sriwijaya University Learning
and Education International
Conference (SULE-IC) 2014 held by
FKIP Unsri in Collaboration with
Communication Forum for Indonesian
State FKIP Deans, 16—18 May, 2014
This Paper has been presented at
The 1st
Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference
“Improving the Quality of Education to Strengthen the Global Competitiveness:
A Respond to the Current Curriculum”
Editor Board:
1. Hartono (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
2. Bruce Waldrip (Tasmania University)
3. Maarten Dolk (Utrecht University, The Netherland)
4. Mahzan B. Arshad (Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia)
5. Eran M. Williams (RELO, United Stated of America)
6. Nurhayati (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
7. Ratu Ilma Indra Putri (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
8. Ismail Petrus (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
9. MachdalenaVianty (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
10. Rita Hayati (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
11. Zainal A. Naning (Sriwijaya University, Indonesia)
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University
Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia
2014
iii
Preface
Assalaamu'alaikum Warahmatullaahi Wabarakatuh.
First of all, we would like to say alhamdulillah, thank to Allah SWT, the most
gracious and merciful, that the proceedings of the First Sriwijaya University Learning
Education International Conference (SULE-IC) can successfully be completed. The
conference was held on May 16-18, 2014 by the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University in collaboration with the Communication Forum (FORKOM) for
Indonesian Deans of State Teacher Training and Education Faculties. lt is an honor for us to
be entrusted by the Communication Forum to organize the meeting of FORKOM and the First
Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference (SULE-IC). The
theme of the conference was "Improving the Quality of Education to Strengthen the Global
Competitiveness: A Respond to the Current Curriculum".
We are very happy and proud because we have seventh keynote speakers in their
expertise and five invited speakers from five continents such as H. Alex Noerdin, Sofendi,
M.A., Ph.D. from Indonesia; Prof. Dr. Maarten Dolk from the Netherlands; Prof. Dr. Bruce
Waldrip from Australia; Prof. Dr. Mahzan B, Arshad from Malaysia; Mr. Eran M. Williams
from the United State of America; Moses Phahlane from Republic of South Africa. We are
also very happy since we have numerous participants from lndonesia, Oman, Shanghai,
Malaysia, and Australia. Alhamdulillah, there were 131 papers related to language education,
mathematics education, science education, early childhood and elementary education,
vocational and technology education, and social studies that have been presented on the
conference parallel sessions.
We are very grateful to all editors who have been dedicated to editing the articles of
the proceedings. The editors are: Hartono (Sriwijaya University), Maarten Dolk (Utrecht
University), Bruce Waldrip (Tasmania University), Mahzan B, Arshad (University
Pendidikan Sultan Idris), Mr. Eran M. Williams (RELO, United State of America), Nurhayati,
(Sriwijaya University), Ratu Ilma Indra Putri (Sriwijaya University), Ismail Petrus (Sriwijaya
University), Machdalena Vianty (Sriwijaya University), Rita Hayati (Sriwijaya University),
Zainal A. Naning (Sriwijaya University).
The proceedings contain as many as 131 articles. The authors of the articles came
from several institutions. We hope that the proceedings would be useful not only for the
authors but also the readers to get creative and innovative ideas that can improve the quality
of education to strengthen the global competitiveness especially in Indonesia.
Palembang, May 2014
Chairman of the Committee,
Prof. Dr. Zulkardi, M.I.Kom., M.Sc.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Front Page i
Editor Board ii
Preface iii
Table of Contents iv
Keynote Speakers
1 Improving International Rankings through Enhanced Learning
through Representational Reasoning
Bruce Waldrip, Tasmania University-Australia
A-1 1
2 Principles of Literacy Teaching in A Multiethnic Society
Mahzan Arshad, Sultan Idris Education University-Malaysia A-2 9
3 Facts and Hopes About the Students’ English Mastery at
Mathematics and Natural Sciences Department, Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University
Palembang, Indonesia
Sofendi, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya
University-Indonesia
A-3 18
4 Improving Mathematics and Science Education: a Dutch
Example
Maarten Dolk, Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics
Education, Utrecht University-Netherlands
A-4 24
Language Education
1 Improving Students’ Descriptive Writing Skill by Using Peer
Response Technique
Amalia Hasanah, IAIN Raden Fatah
B-1 30
2 Using High 5 Strategies to Improve Reading Comprehension
Achievement and Reading Interest of the Eleventh Grade
Students of SMA N 10 Palembang
Desi Surayatika, Rita Inderawati, Dian Ekawati, Sriwijaya
University
B-2 43
3 The Application of Scaffolded Writing to Improve Students’
Attitude toward Exposition Writing and Writing Achievement
Dian Kusumaningrum, State Senior High School 1 South
Inderalaya
B-3 51
4 Increasing X.1 Students’ Reading Skills in Narrative Text
Through Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) in Senior High
School 1 Gelumbang
Fitri Yetti Oktariza, State Senior High School 1 Gelumbang
B-4 56
v
5 Investigated Students’ Perspectives toward the Uses of
Computer-based Testing in Learning Grammar
Utri Fitria, Anggun, Sriwijaya University
B-5 66
6 Developing Students' Writing Ability by Using Effective Peer
Response Model
Indrawati, STAIN Syaikh Abdurrahman Siddik
B-6 74
7 Language Planning: English Language Status and Acquisition
in Indonesia
Ismail Petrus, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University
B-7 87
8 Improving Reading Comprehension through Think Aloud
Strategy
Ngaliah, State University of Jakarta
B-8 94
9
Improving Students Writing Ability in Descriptive Text using
Posters Strategy
Nur Asiah, STKIP Muhammadiyah Pagar Alam
B-9 99
10 Vocabulary in EFL Teaching Situation
Saleh M. Abdo, Language Center, Middle East College-Sultanate of
Oman
B-10 105
11 Learning Cycle: an Alternative Model to TEFL in Indonesia
With The 2013 Curriculum
Ida Rosmalina, Department of Language Education and Arts,
Sriwijaya University
B-11 116
12 The Teachers’ Strategies in Teaching English to Visually-
Impaired Students in SLB Prof.Dr.Sri Soedewi Mascjun
Sofwan, SH, MH
Akhmad Habibi and Asih Jamila, University of Jambi
B-12
122
13 Improving Reading Comprehension Achievement Using
Foltales through Herringbone Technique
Nurfisi Arriyani and Nurul Aryanti, Unversity of Tamansiswa and
Polytechnic of Sriwijaya
B-13 129
14 Designing an Innovative Bilingual Elementary School for
Future Leaders of Indonesia
Ni Nyoman Padmadewi, Ganesha Education University
B-14 140
15 Learners’ Feedback on the Effectiveness of Teaching English
has a Second and as a Foreign Language Using a Learning
Management System (Comparison Between Swaziland and
China)
K. Ferreira-Meyers and Du Yongxin, University of Swaziland-
Swaziland and Shanghai Open University- Shanghai
B-15 155
16 The Influence of English Learning Experience and language
Learning Strategies toward English Proficiency of Sriwijaya
University Students
Ridha Ilma, Tridinanti University
B-16 180
17 Understanding Indonesian Directive Intonation by Praat
Software: Utilizing the Educational Technologies in Learning
Susi Herti Afriani, IAIN Raden Fatah
B-17 191
vi
18 Increasing Students’ Competence in Translation and Social
Awareness through Peer Group Correction in Teaching
Learning Process
Thathit Manon Andini, University of Muhammadiyah Malang
B-18 203
19 The Role of Students’ Speech Behavior for the Progress of
Language Lost of BASO Palembang Alus (BEBASO)
Houtman and M. Zahir, University of PGRI Palembang
B-19 210
20 The Effectiveness of Modified Reciprocal Teaching on Reading
Comprehension Attainment : the Quasi-Experimental Study
Welly Ardiansyah and Muwarni Ujihanti, Sriwijaya State
Polytechnic
B-20 223
21 Certified EFL Teachers’ Performances in Conducting
Teaching/Learning Activities in Classrooms
Margaretha Dinar Sitinjak, English at Faculty of Teacher Training
and Education of Sriwijaya University
B-21 232
22 Advertisement as a One of Media to Learn Language (A Case
Study on "My Tea" Television Commercial Break and "Citra
Grand City" Bilboard)
Anita Trisiah, IAIN Raden Fattah Palembang
B-22 241
23 The Use of Instagram to Promote Reading Interest and Build
Student Characters
Machdalena Vianty and Rasilia Palmi, English Education Study
Program Sriwijaya University
B-23 247
24 Technology Based Learning: A Strategy to Upgrade English
Language Learners’ Proficiency Level
Maria PS, English First Palembang
B-24 254
25 Integrating ICT to EFL Classroom Septi Lelia, Merie Agustiani
and Lina Maryani,
Sriwijaya
University and University of Baturaja
B-25 258
26 Problem Based Learning in Teaching Writing through
Learning Cycle Technique
Teti Sobari, STKIP Siliwangi Bandung
B-26 265
27 Nursing Care Reporting”: an Implemented Contextual
Learning to Enhance Nursing Students’ Writing Skill and
Attitudes toward English
Yohanes Heri Pranoto, Health Science Higher Education Perdhaki
Charitas Palembang
B-27 269
28 Building Students’ Positive Characters Using Children
Literature and Drama at Elementary School
Yuyun Hendrety and Lingga Agustina Suganda, Department of
English Education, University of Tridinanti Palembang and
Politechnics of Sriwijaya Palembang
B-28 277
29 Using Livemocha for Independent Language Learning: A Study
of Students’ Perception
Gita Andriani and Yorina An’guna Bansa, English Education
Department of Sriwijaya University
B-29 286
vii
30 Authenticating Materials for Listening Comprehension:
Reflecting Personal Experience
Hariswan Putera Jaya, Department of English Education of
Sriwijaya University
B-30 296
31 The Influence of Mind Mapping Techniques and Verbal Ability
to Poetry Writing Capability to the Eight Years Students of
SMPN 43 Palembang
Ida Rohana, State Junior High School 43 Palembang
B-31 302
32 Technogeek Teachers’ Competence in Applying Scientific
Approach through in House Training at SMP Pusri Palembang
Rita Inderawati, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sriwijaya University
B-32 309
33 Vocational School: Valuable Type of Education for Competence
Manpower
Cita Hikmah Yanti, University of Bina Darma Palembang
B-33 314
34 Self Assessment and Its Application in Indonesian Language
Learning Instructions of Metacognitive Strategy-Base for
Implementing Curriculum 2013
Ika Mustika, STKIP Siliwangi, Bandung
B-34 321
35 Involving Students with Poetry
Subadiyono Tjokropratama, Sriwijaya University B-35 329
36 Locus of Control and Academic Achievement of Junior High
School Students in Palembang: Where do we go from here?
Ida Rosmalina and Zainal A. Naning, Department of Language
Education and Arts Sriwijaya University
B-36 333
37 Bengkel Sastra Learning Model as an Innovative Effort to
Develop Students’ Writting Creativity
Sakdiah Wati, Refson, and Mustafa, Faculty of Teacher Training
and Education of Muhammadiyah University Palembang
B-37 341
38 The Correlation between the Theory and the Practice in
writing Business Letters at the Management Department of the
Faculty of Economics, UTP Palembang
Rusman Roni, Tridinanti Palembang University
B-38 352
39 The Demands of 21st Century Glocal Workforce vis a vis
Secondary Vocational School 2013 Curriculum Schools and
Industries’ Voices
Akhyar Rido, School of Foreign Language (STBA) Teknokrat,
Lampung
B-39 359
40 Learning Literature Appreciative Perspective in Curriculum
2013: Case Studies of Learning Poetry in Secondary School
Didi Suhendi,Indonesian Language and Literature Study Program
B-40 366
41 Increasing the Competence of English Language Education in
Global Contexts: from Communicative Competence to
Intercultural Competence
Indawan Syahri, Muhammadiyah University of Palembang
B-41 372
viii
42 Establishing Rich Language Learning Environment at Schools:
Preparing Children to Become Autonomous EFL Learners
Luh Putu Artini, English Education Department Ganesha
University of Education
B-42 378
43 Oral Presentation in Teaching: Attract or Distract?
Zaitun and Herwina Bahar, Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta B-43
387
44 Stories from the Frontlines: Female English Teachers and the
National Standardized Exam Policy
Nunung Fajaryani, Failasofah and Masbirorotni, Faculty of
Education Jambi University
B-44 391
45 The Teaching of Language Arts in ELT
Ida Machdarifah, Hazairin University, Bengkulu B-45 406
46 Learning Folk Tale Batu Dara Muning through Cooperative
Learning Model Type Jigsaw
Martono, Faculty of Teaching and Training Education
Tanjungpura University, Pontianak
B-46 415
47 Grammar Conciousness Raising: Revisited
Akhyar Burhan, Sriwijaya University
B-47 421
48 The National Character Education Paradigm in the Indonesian
Language Instructions of Cultural-Based Elementary School
(The Analysis and Map of Basic and Standard Competences
and Teachers’ Behaviour of Values in Developing and
Implementing the Indonesian Language Instructions)
Isah Cahyani and Yeti Mulyati, Education University of Indonesia
B-48 428
49 The Analysis of Translation Methods and Meaning of
Lampung Tourism Brochures
Flora , Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Lampung
University
B-49 440
50 Effectiveness VAK Model (Visualization Auditory Kinestetic) in
Descriptive Learning
Alfa Mitri Suhara, STKIP Siliwangi Bandung
B-50 448
51 English Cultural Elements Found in High-School English
Textbooks for TEFL in Palembang
Annisa Astrid, Tarbiyah Faculty of IAIN Raden Fatah Palembang
B-51 457
52 How Students Make Meaning in Literature Class: Students’
Ideological Stance in Their Written Responses
Fiftinova, English Education Program Sriwijaya University
B-52 472
53 Lampung Language Teaching in Multiethnic Areas
(The Study of Contextual Learning)
Eka Sofia Agustina, University of Lampung
B-53 482
54 Syntactic Errors in the Theses Written by Undergraduate
Students Agus Saripudin, Sriwijaya University
B-54 488
ix
Science Education
1 The Difference of Learning Results between Students Taught
with Experiment- and Demonstration-Based Problem
Solving Methods in Class VII SMPN 5 City of Bengkulu
Dedy Hamdani, Prisma Gita Azwar and Eko Swistoro
Physics Eduation Study Program, Departement of Mathematics
and Sciences Education , Faculty of Teacher Training and
Educations, Bengkulu University
C-1 501
2 Implementation of Education Improvement Model for
Biology in Aceh Province
Djufri, Mukhlis Hidayat, and Melvina, FKIP Unsyiah, Banda
Aceh
C-2 509
3 The Development of Instructional Animation-Media of the
Electrochemical Cell with Based Powerpoint
Effendi, Department of Chemistry Education
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya
University
C-3 516
4 The Effect of Active Knowledge Sharing Strategies for
Learning Outcomes Biology Subject of Eight Grade Students
of SMP Negeri 5 Samarinda 2013/2014
Evie Palenewen, and Edy Jumadil, Biology Education FKIP
Mulawarman University
C-4 533
5 Analysis of Physics Teaching Material for Grade XI in the
District of North Indralaya Based on Scientific Literacy
Themes
Feni Kurni, Zulherman, and Apit Fathurohman, Physics
Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and
Education, Sriwijaya University
C-5 540
6 Characteristics of Multiple Representations-Based Mechanics
Learning (PMPB-MR)
Ismet, Physics Education, Sriwijaya University
C-6 545
7 Increased Mastery of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge
through Problem Solving Application of Learning Strategies
in Wave Subjects
Iwan Setiawan and Eko Swistoro, Department of Physics
Education, University Of Bengkulu
C-7 552
8 Improving the Activity and the Students’ Chemistry
Learning Output on the Twelfth Grade Science Class at
SMAN 1 Indralaya Utara by Using BAJAPRETA Model
K. Anom W, Jejem Mujamil Sufhiatna, F. Eka Safitri
Chemistry Education of FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya
C-8 559
9
Profile of Student Learning Styles and Media Needs ICT-
Based Learning Course in Modern Physics
Ketang Wiyono, Physics Education, Sriwijaya University
C-9 567
x
10 The Effects of the Instructional Strategies (Problem Solving,
Direct Instruction) and Achievement Motivation on the
Biology Learning Outcome of Grade Ten Students
Lidia Susanti, Punadji Setyosari, I Wayan Ardhana and Dedi
Kuswandi, State University ofMalang
C-10 575
11 Effectiveness of Problem Solving Learning Model on
Students’ Critical Thinking Skill
Mariati Purnama Simanjuntak, Physics Education Study
Program, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, State University
of Medan
C-11 587
12 The Socialization of Lesson Study Activities to Improve
Biology Teacher Professionalism at SMAN 3 Unggulan
Martapura OKU Timur
Riyanto, Biology Education Department of Mathematics and
Natural Science Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University
C-12 593
13 The Implementation of Scientific Approach in Science
Education: Challenges and Opportunities
Rodi Edi,Chemistry Education Department of Mathematics and
Natural Science Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University
C-13 600
14 Development of Teaching Materials of Basic Chemistry
Course in Subject Thermochemical with Topics Bio-Coal
Briket Form Sanjaya, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of
Sriwijaya University
C-14 607
15 The Effect of Articulation Learning Model by Using
Mnemonic Method for the Results of Entomology Learning
Outcomes of Fifth Grade College Students of Biology
Educational Faculty of Teacher Training and Educational
Mulawarman University 2012/2013 Learning Year
Sonja V. T Lumowa, Department of Biology Education,
Mulawarman University
C-15 615
16 Analysis of Physics Education Department Students’
Misconceptions on other Influnces on Motion
Syuhendri, Rosly Jaafar, and Razak Abdul Samad bin Yahya
Sriwijaya University- Indonesia and Sultan Idris Education
University-Malaysia
C-16 622
17 Developing Pisa Model Instrumen for Integrated Natural
Sciences Subject Physics Content to Asses Reasoning Grade IX
Junior High School
Tarida N Sinaga, Sardianto S, Waspodo,Sriwijaya University
C-17 631
18 The Application of Learning Models Number Head Together to
Improve Biology Learning Outcomes in Subject of
Photosynthesis
Vandalita Maria Magdalena Rambitan, Departement of Biology
Education University of Mulawarman
C-18 644
xi
19 Effect of Learning Cycle 7E towards Science Process Skills
of Eleventh Science Graders in State Senior High School 4 in
Palembang
Yuni Wijayanti, Hartono, and A. Rachman Ibrahim FKIP,
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya
University
C-19 655
Mathematics Education
1 Investigating Students’ Difficulties in Completing Mathematical
Literacy Processes: A Case of Indonesian 15-Year-Old Students
on Pisa-Like Math Problems
Ahmad Wachidul Kohar, Zulkardi, and Darmawijoyo
Magister of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University
D-1 662
2 The Ability of Students to Use Mathematical Writings
Communication Using PMRI Approach in SMP YSP Pusri
Palembang
Ahsani Takwim, Darmawijoyo, and Yusuf Hartono,
Department of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University
D-2 676
3 Student's Strategy in Answering Mathematical Problem-
Solving Question at SMA Negeri 1 Indralaya Utara
Asia Kurniasari and Cecil Hiltrimartin, Department of
Mathematics Education Sriwijaya University
D-3 685
4 Characteristics of Thinking Processes of Elementary School
Students with High-Capability in Understanding
Mathematics Problems
Baiduri and Marhan Taufik,
Mathematics Education
Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang
D-4
691
5 Student Responses to Online Mathematical Problems
I Ketut Kertayasa, Department of Mathematics Education
Sriwijaya University Palembang
D-5 702
6 Designing of the Intuitive Material in Real Analysis 1
Indaryanti and Purwoko, Department of Mathematics Education,
Sriwijaya University
D-6 712
7 Model Application of Learning in Science Teaching Children
to Learn Math at the Students of SMP State 53 Palembang
Marhamah Fajriyah Nasution, Faculty of Teacher Training and
Education of Sriwijaya University
D-7 720
8 Practice Cooperative Learning Type of Group Investigation
at Lessons Mathematic in Class VIII SMPN 39 Palembang
Nafsiah, Indaryanti, and Cecil Hiltrimartin, Department of
Mathematics Education Sriwijaya University
D-8 729
9
Values Designed by Teachers in Mathematics Teaching in
Secondary School
Nyimas Aisyah and Mohd. Uzi Dolla, Sriwijaya University and
University of Sultan Idris Perak-Malaysia
D-9 735
xii
10 Implementation of Cooperative Learning Model Teams
Games Tournament (TGT) on Learning Mathematics in
SMPN 12 Palembang
Rahayu Apriani, Indaryanti, Cecil Hiltrimartin, Mathematics
Education of Sriwijaya University
D-10 743
11 The Implementation of Contextual Mini Laboratory
Approach to Improve the Mathematical Understanding of
Students in Marginal School Palm Plantation Area Koto
Gasibsubdistric, Siak Regency
Sehatta Saragih, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
UR Pekanbaru-Riau
D-11 750
12 Stage of Critical Thinking Abilities in Solving Mathematical
Problems for Prospective Teachers Departement of
Mathematics FMIPA UM Malang
Slamet, Department of Mathematics FMIPA UM Malang
D-12 759
13 Learning Mathematics for Social Program Students of Senior
High School
Somakim, Mathematics Education in Faculty of Teacher Training
Sriwijaya University
D-13 765
14 Electronic Games Improve the Student Response in
Mathematical Learning
Sundari, Department of Educational Technology, Jambi University
D-14
771
15 A Study About Teaching Learning Mathematics
Using Student-Centered Learning (SCL) Approach
by High School Teachers in Palembang
Trimurti Saleh, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of
Sriwijaya University
D-15 779
16 Ethnomathematics in Shifting Cultivation of Adonara
Society and Integration within Mathematics Curriculum of
Primary Schools Wara Sabon Dominikus, Toto Nusantara, Subanji and Makbul
Muksar, Department of Mathematics Education, University of
Nusa Cendana and Department of Mathematics and Education,
State University of Malang
D-16 786
17 Implementation of Auditory Intellectually Repetition (AIR)
Model in Mathematics Learning Student Class X SMAN 13
Palembang
Yosi Tria Elfa, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University
D-18 794
Vocational and Technology Education
1 The Implementation of Landslide Mitigation Teaching Using
Learning Cycle Model for Junior High School Students
Agus Suyatna, Abdurahman and Agung Bayu Putranto, Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education, University of Lampung
E-1 801
xiii
2 Improving Accuracy of Educational Research Conclusions by
Using Lisrel
Awaluddin Tjalla, Department of Guidance and Counseling
Faculty of Education, State University of Jakarta
E-2 812
3 Partial Least Square Robust Regression Approach in
Multiresponse Calibration Model
Ismah and Iswan, Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta
E-3 823
4 Smash Skill in Volleyball (A Correlation Study among Torso
Flexibility, Arm Muscles Power, and Students’ Smash Skill in
Volleyball of SMP Srijaya Negara Palembang)
Sukirno, Physical Education in FKIP Sriwijaya University
E-4 832
5 Sport Management in the Development of Achievement
Meirizal Usra, FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang
E-5 840
6 Curriculum Training 2013 Islamic Religious Education
Teachers Nurlena Rifai, Yayah Nurmaliah, Siti Khodijah and Jejen Musfah,
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training Syarif Hidayatullah
State Islamic University Jakarta
E-6 846
7 Met Cognition Role of Teachers in Improving the Quality of
Education
Theresia Laurens, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Pattimura University
E-7 860
8 Supervision Model Development Learning in Primary School of
Physical Education
Hartati, Sriwijaya University
E-8 866
9 How Well Does the 2013 Curriculum of Indonesia Role in
Preparing Students as Education for Sustainaible Development
(ESD)?
Eny S. Rosyidatun, Department of Natural Science Education
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
E-9
874
10 Physical Education Learning Model with Game Approach to
Increase Physical Freshness Elementary School Students
Iyakrus, Physical Education Sriwijaya University
E-10 880
11 Development Learning Model of E-Learning Web-Based with
Applications Cloud Computing and Moodle CMS(Course
Management System) in Subjects Education Fine Arts in
FPGSD Sriwijaya University
Makmum Raharjo, Department of Science Education Sriwijaya
University
E-11 887
12 The Readiness of Certified Elementary School Teachers in
Bandar Lampung for the Implementation of the 2013
Curriculum
Rini Riswanti and Herpratiwi, FKIP University of Lampung
E-12 900
13 A Case Study : Bad Impact of Playing Game Online for High
School Students in SMA Negeri 5 Palembang
Nelly Apriani, Education, Youth and Sports Department,
Palembang City
E-13 905
xiv
14 Infectious Disease Factors as Determinants Nutritional Status
Marsiyem, Sriwijaya University E-14 915
15 Role of Physical Education and Sports Development in Motion
Child Health Primary School
Supriyono, LPMP SUM-SEL
E-15 921
16 Learning Application Using Multimedia for 5th
Graders
Elementary School Student about “Photosynthesis in Plants”
Diana Effendi, Information System, UNIKOM Bandung
E-16 927
Social Studies
1 Raden Soelaiman Hasanoesi, the Disseminator of Islam in
Kaimana Papua: A Review of the Role of the Descents of Sultan
Mahmud Badaruddin II in the Isolation Area
Rosmaida Sinaga and Farida, History Education Study Program of
the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Cenderawasih
University of Jayapura and History Education Study Program of
the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sriwijaya University
of Palembang
F-1 935
2 Role of Human Resources in Developing Quality of Education
Arie Supriati
F-2 942
3 Gender Equality in Curriculum Implementation
Ikhsan Othman Al-Haj, Faculty of Education and Human
Development Sultan Idris Education University Malaysia
F-3 948
4 Learning Problems Faced by Certified Educators in Geography
Teacher High School West Lampung Regency of Lampung
Province
Buchori Asyik and Trisnaningsih, University of Lampung
F-4 957
5 Packaging Effective and Efficient Materials and Learning
Model for Improving Quality Process and Learning Result
Dewi Koryati, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Sriwijaya University Palembang
F-5 965
6 Teaching Materials Model of Directive Politeness Act Primary
Education which Has Powerful, Oriented, and Strategic
Positive Politeness in with Javanese Cultural Background
Harun Joko Prayitno, Muhammadiyah University Surakarta
F-6 973
7 Teachers’ and Students’ Perception on Free Education
Program Implemented at Public Senior High Schools
in Palembang
Bambang A. Loeneto, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sriwijaya University
F-7 982
8 Development of Lesson Plan that Integrate Pancasila Values
And Its Influence Toward Students’ Motivation Academic
Achievement and Values Internalization Umi Chotimah ,Department of Pancasila and Citizenship
Education, Sriwijaya University
F-8 992
xv
9
Preservation Efforts through the Local Culture Model Study
Documents1015
Isputaminingsih and Hudaidah, Department of History Education,
Sriwijaya University
F-9 1005
10 Project Citizen Model for Effective Student Engagement and
Democratic Citizenship in Civic Education Best Practices
Muhammad Mona Adha and Hermi Yanzi,University of Lampung
(UNILA)
F-10 1015
11 The Influence of Counseling Teachers’ Performance in
Implementing Counseling Guidance and Emotional Intelligence
to the Students’ Achievement of SMA III Musi Banyuasin
Aisyah. AR, Teacher Training and Education of Sriwijaya
University
F-11 1028
12 Lecturers’ Ethical Behaviors
Rais Hidayat and Yuyun Elizabeth Patras, State University of
Jakarta and Pakuan University
F-12 1034
13 The Implementation Gender Analysis Pathway (GAP) of
Gender Oriented School at SMA in Kabupaten Penajam Paser
Utara
Widyatmike Gede Mulawarman, Faculty of Teacher Training and
Education, Mulawarman University
F-13 1042
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
1 Improving the Development of Qualified Preschool until 1st
Grade Primary Education through the Involvement of Parents
Avanti Vera Risti P, Early Childhood Program, Faculty of Teacher
Training and Education, University of Ahmad Dahlan
G-1 1050
2 Improving Early Childhood Program Quality Involving
Parents Empowerment
Iyan Sofyan, Department of Early Chilhood Education of Ahmad
Dahlan University, Yogyakarta
G-2 1057
3 Strengthening of Character Education through Learning
Model "Berkat Anang" in Surakarta and Surrounding
Muhroji, Fitri Puji Rahmawati and Ratnasari Diah Utami,
PGSD FKIP UMS
G-3 1063
4 Multicultural Indonesian Learning in Primary School
Muhammad Fuad and Edi Suyanto , Faculty of Teacher Training
and Education, Universitas Lampung
G-4 1070
xvi
Teacher Professional Development
1 Teacher Education in Indonesia (An Account on the
Development and Programs to Improve the Professional
Qualification and the Competence of Indonesia Teaching
Personnel)
Fahriany, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
H-1 1075
2 Teacher Profession Education (PPG) for A Better Quality of
Teachers in Indonesia
Puspita Devi ,Budi Robintas and Hendri Firmansyah, Department
of English Education, Sriwijaya University
H-2 1085
3 Application Three Models of Professional Development:
Mentoring, Peer Coaching and Action Research at State
Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) Raden Fatah Palembang
Manalullaili, Dakwah and Communication Faculty,
State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN)
H-3 1092
4 Review Activity of “in House Training” on Lesson Study Based
Teacher Organization and Action Research Program Sardianto Markos Siahaan,Rahmi Susanti, Somakim, Faculty of
Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University
H-4 1100
5 The National Actions for Teachers’ Professional Development
Program Universitas Terbuka
Tuti Purwoningsih and Udan Kusmawan, FKIP Terbuka University
H-5 1106
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-691
CHARACTERISTICS OF THINKING PROCESSES OF
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH HIGH-CAPABILITY
IN UNDERSTANDING MATHEMATICS PROBLEMS
Baiduri1 and Marhan Taufik
2
1,2 Mathematics Education Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang
1E-mail: [email protected]
2 E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This paper is aimed at analyzing characteristics of thinking processes of the elementary schools students
with high capability in mathematics in understanding mathematics problems. Two fifth year elementary
school students, male and female, with good capability were chosen as the subject. Data were collected
through in-depth interviews and task analysis based on the task of mathematical solution. Data credibility
were made by continuous and consistent observations and perseverance improvement, time triangulation
and member check. Data were analyzed using a flow model covering data reduction, data presentation
and conclusion drawing. The results showed that there is a similarity in the thinking process of female
and male students in understanding problems, namely constructing relation in and among elements of
what is known, what is asked, giving meaning to important words and phrases, and the use of symbol. For
female students, relation is also constructed using contraction, although there is difference of the relation
constructed in and among the elements. The relation the female students constructed is richer than that of
male students. Characteristics of their thinking processes are grouped into situation and established
models.
Key words: Thinking process, Mathematics problem, Understanding mathematics problems, Capability
in mathematics
INTRODUCTION
Mathematical thinking capability and using it to solve problems are important objectives of
schools. Problem solving is one of objectives from learning mathematics at schools (Depdiknas, 2006)
and is the heart of learning mathematics (Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009) due to the fact
that by problem solvings, students obtain ways to think, habits to be perseverance, great curiousity and
self-confidence in any situation (NCTM, 2000) and methods of developing good thinking skills
(Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009). It means that skills and capability are concentration,
solving mathematical problems need to be taught to students from basic level. Through mathematical
problem solving, students may apply their knowledge and skills to solve more general problems in
their lives.
Problem solving is not a uniform and monotonous activity. Problems are not always the same,
depending on contents, forms and their processes. This shows that capability in solving problems
depends on many factors. Factors influencing problem solving are internal and external, where the
former are related to the problems, while latter deals with problem solving. Concerning with
individuals serving as problems solvers, factors influencing students’ capability in solving
mathematical problems are concentration, which directly or indirectly give influences, attitudes
towards mathematics materials, self- respect, teachers’ attitudes and those without direct influence are
motivation to achieve and self-help (Pimta, Tayruakham, Nuangchalerm, 2009).
Polya (1973) and Posamentier, Jaye and Krulik (2007) state that the first step in solving
mathematical problems is to understand or read the problem. It means that understanding problems
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-692
has an effect on the next steps in solving them. To be able to understand problems correctly,
understanding of the reading content is also important.
Some researches related to this matter are among others Pape (2004) that studied attitudes in
solving mathematical problems among secondary school students using consistent and inconsistent
language. Österholm (2006a) studied theoretically the relationship between reading comprehension
and problem solving and Oserholm (2006b) characterizes reading comprehension of mathematical
texts related to ”group” materials at university level. Both Pape (2004) and Osterhom(2006b)
employed quantitative statistical tests in their analysis. Moreover, students’ thinking style is really
influenced by the capability students have (Albaili, 1997). Gender and capability differences also
influence the ways of thinking to solve mathematics problems (Zhu, 2007), meanwhile male and
female students’ capability in mathematics is also different (Jensen, 2008; Beaton et al, 1999).
The students with high capability were chosen in order to become one of refferences by those
with low-average capability and may be a model for teachers in facilitating their students in
understanding especially mathematics problems and in solving any problems in general.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Understanding Mathematics Problems
Experts in mathematics education state that in the world of mathematics education, a problem
is a question or mathematical problem to answer or to respond. But it is also stated that not all
mathematical questions are automatically will become problems. A question will become a problem if
the question shows a challenge that cannot be solved by routine procedure known to the solver. A
Mathematical problem is problem if it is not routine (Hudoyo, 2005) or not standardized one (McNeil
dkk, 2006).
Posamentier and Krulik (1998) and Polya (1973) states that ”a problem is a situation that
confronts a person, that requires resolution, and for which the path to the solution is not immediately
known”. then Polya (1973) says that there are two types of problems in mathematics, namely problem
to find dan problem to prove.
Problem to find is a type of problem which is necessary to be given to students in order to
train them about the process of how a concept or principle is found out. Then, Polya (1973) states that
problem to find is more important in elementary mathematics, whereas problem to prove is more
important in advanced mathematics. From their structures, problem to find and problem to prove may
be grouped into well-structure (Jonassen danTessmer, 1997). This problem is mostly found out at
schools and universities. They are usually at the end of chapters that need an application of concepts,
rules, and principles that have been learned in limited problem situations. These problems have been
well defined, the objectives have been known, they are limited or logical operators, and their answers
are convergent. The problem of this paper is a type of the problem to find dealing with arithmetics in
elementary schools and should be solved.
Polya (1973) and Posamentier and Krulik (1998) define problem solving as follows "... finding
a way out of difficulty, a way around an obstacle, attaining an aim that was not immediately
understandable”. Moreover, Polya explains that problem solving is a psychological process that does
not merely involve applications of theorems or propositions learned. According to Polya (1973) and
Posamentir, Jaye and Krulik (2007), problem solving in mathematics consists of four main steps,
namely (1) understand the problem/ read the problem; (2) devise a plan/ select a strategy; (3) carry
out a plan/ solve the problem; and (4) look back.
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-693
Based on the stages of problem solving, the first step in problem solving in mathematics is to
understand or read the problem. It means that understanding the problem has effects on the next steps
in problem solving. In order to be able to understand the problem correctly, understanding of reading
content is very important. Questions that may be used by students to understand the problems are as
follows:
What is known/asked? Which one is the data? What is the condition? How is to understand?
How is to know what is to be known? How is to know the conditions ?
1.1 Thinking Process in Understanding Problems
When we imagine something or try to solve a problem, we call it thinking. Thinking is needed
in decision making and problem solving. Thinking is the highest mental activity existing in human
beings. Thinking is defined as a process of producing a new mental representation through the
transformation of information that involves complex interactions among mental attributes such as
evaluation, abstraction, reasoning, imagination, and problem solving (Glass dan Holyoak, 1986; Solso,
1995). It is in line with Mayer’s opinion (in Solso, 1995) that thinking covers three main components,
namely (1) thinking is a cognitive activity that happens in one’s mind, which cannot be seen, but
which can be concluded based on the visible behaviors, (2) thinking is a process that involves some
manipulations of knowledge in the cognitive system. Knowledge stored in memory is combined with
present information so that it changes one’s knowledge about the situation he is facing, and (3)
thinking activities are led to produce problem solving.
Based on some opinions above, thinking in this present study is all mental activities that may
be observed from visible behaviors in the forms of statements and writings in understanding
mathematical problems.
Based on the term of thinking, in order to explore individual mind, there are some ways to do,
namely using think out loud method or think aloud and task analysis (van Someren et al, 1994; Calder
& Sarah, 2002). The think aloud method is done by asking students pronouncing aloud when they are
solving a problem and what is pronounced may be repeated if necessary during the process of problem
solving. It is intended to make the subjects may tell what they are thinking.
Besides think aloud method, in order to see ideas in one’s mind, task analysis may be
employed (van Someren dkk, 1994). The work the student did is a form of visualization or
verbalization of knowledge he possesses in responding each information or problem he faces. One’s
thinking to understand a problem may be seen from his visible behaviors, either his expressions or
writings when he understands the problem.
When understanding a problem, it is of course not merely to read, but also to digest the
materials presented and to understand what is happening. Understanding/reading a problem is an
activity of identifying what is to be asked to be solved and the facts presented.
Reading as an active process where the reader interacts with the reading pasaage to construct
meaning. Understanding is a matter to activate or to build a scheme as a coherent explanation of
objecs or events mentioned in the reading passage (Anderson, 1984). This means that reading a
passage, the mental representation of the reading material is constructed or built by the reader,
depicting how the reader understands the reading passage. Some studies on reading comprehension
show or support a conlusion that there are levels of mental representation when read a reading
passage (Österholm, 2006b; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983). The levels of the mental representation
are: surface component, textbase, and model of situation. The mental representation at the surface
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-694
level always exists when one is reading, since it generally happens and this does not give meanings of
words and phrases. At this level, at least there are some words and phrases to be remembered, even
when one understands the meaning of texts. Textbase represents the meaning or sense of the reading
consisting of elements and relations directly obtained from the reading itself, without any addition
which does not explicitly exist in the reading. Meanwhile a construction integratig textbase and other
relevant aspects of the reader’s knowledge is called a model of situation.
Problem solving hs been studied from various perspectives, such as text processing (Kintsch,
1994; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983), information processing (Silver, 1987; Mayer, 1992) and schemata
theory (Marshall, 1995). All the perspectives agree that understanding problems is very essential for
problem solving. Österholm (2006a) made literature study on he relationship between reading
comprehension and problem solving. The results of his study showed that 1) reading processes may
influence the process of problem solving, but may also serve as a part of solution processes, 2) the
situation of problem solving influences the reading process, depending on the readers’ previous
experiences in the same situation. Österholm (2006b) examined characteristics of reading
comprehension at university level using mathematical text with and without symbols. Pape (2004)
studied behaviors of secondary high schools students in solving mathematical problems by making use
of consistent and inconsistent languages. There are little researches of student thinking processes in
solving mathematical problems in a perspective of reading comprehension (Pape, 2004). This paper is
focused on analyzing the thinking processes of male and female elementary students with high
capability in mathematics in understanding mathematical problems.
METHOD
Subject
The subject of this present research is the fifth year elementary school students with high
capability in mathematics at the age of 10 to 11 years. High capability in mathematics is seen from the
results of scores of mathematical tests. Students are classified as high capability in mathematics if
their scores at least 80 from the range of 0 – 100. The test results showed that there are 5 students
(16.13%) with high capability in mathematics (16, 13%), 2 male and 3 female students from 31
students. Then two students, male and female, with relatively scores were chosen as the subjec of this
present research.
Instrument
Instrument in this research consists of the main instrument, namely the researchers themselves
and supporting instruments including audiovisual recorder, numeracy test (NT), task of mathematical
problem solving (TPS), and interview guide. The NT was constructed by adopting test items of the
final examination for elementary students in the form of multiple choice which were then changed into
story test in line with the content standard of the 2006 mathematics curriculum for fifth year students,
especially the odd semester.
As in the NT, to construct the TPS was preceded by studying the content standard of the 206
mathematics curriculum for fifth year students and test instruments used by previous researchers in
exploring student thinking. The instrument refers to the one developed by Stephens (2008) and
Stephens and Wang (2008). Then the researchers asked for permission to Stephens to use the test he
has developed, but the test was changed into the story form. Based on his permission and
suggestions, the test was furtherly developed either in terms of the data given or the questions. The
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-695
arranged answer sheets (the NT and the TPS) were validated by elementary mathematics teachers that
had possessed certificate of educators, by experts in mathematics education and experts in evaluation
in terms of the content of the test and of the language used. Based on the results of validation, a
readiblity test was informally done to two fifth year students, male and female. The result was that the
two students were able to mention what is known and what is asked, which are two important matters
in the test of problem to find (Polya, 1973). In this research, two types of equal numeracy test were
developed, each is called NT II and NT II.
Then, interview guide was developed in order to help dig out the subject thinking process.
This guide refers to understanding problems of the first level of Polya’s mathematical problem
solving.
Data and Data Credibility
Based on the NT I and NT II the subjects had developed, data, either from the interviews or
results of the sobjects‘ work in understanding problems, were obtained. The mechanism of collecting
data, either in the task of problem solving II and II began by asking to subjects to read the task of
problem solving which was continued to in-depth interviews, to write what was understood of the
problems and it was then continued to in-depth internviews on the basis of the results of the writing.
The data were video recorded. To assure the credibility of the obtained data, continual/consistent and
perseverant observations (improving perseverance), time trianglation and member check were made
(Moleong, 2011; Sugiyono, 2011).
Data Analysis
On the basis of the credible data, an analysis using a flow model consisting of three flows of
activities that happen simultaneously namely data reduction, data presentation and conclusion
drawing, was made (Miles & Huberman, 1992). In this case is the characteristics of thinking process
of the elementary school students with high capability in mathematics in understanding mathematical
problems.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
Characteristics of female students’ thinking process (FS) in understanding mathematical
problems are to build relations in and among five core elements, namely, what is asked, meanings of
words or phrases, use of symbols and use of contraction. This is delineated from the quotation of the
interviews results as follows:
R After reading the problem, what do you understand of the problem?
FS The number of candies in the container (while paying attention to the
problem using the pencil)
R What else?
FS (paid attention to the problem and pointed to the problem and then said):
“the same direction”
R What direction?
FS (Reading the problem): The number of candies in the red container is
two time more than those in the green container, the number of candies
in the blue container is not more than those in the green container.
R From what you have mentioned, are the number of candies and the
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-696
instruction known or asked?
FS What is known
R O, yeah. What is meant by “not more than “ in the direction?
FS SO the number of candies in the bluecontainer is not more than the total
number of those in the green container (paying attention to the problem)
R What is meant by not more than?
FS (kept silent and paid attention to the problem and said): the numberis not
more, but may be less
R What is asked ?
FS (Read the problm): How many means the number of candies with milk
taste in the green container? The same number means the number of
candies with melon taste yang might be in the blue container?
Picture 4.1: Results of hand writings on FS’s Problem Understanding
TSPA11005
TSPA11003
TSPA11001
TSPA11002
TSPA11004
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-697
Information :
TSPA11001 : contractions used by FS
TSPA11002 : symbols used by FS
TSPA11003 : pictures as the substitution of the word container
TSPA11004 : what is known
TSPA11005 : What is asked
Based on the results of the writing, in understanding problems, FS writes using her own
language. When writing what is known, he has been able to identify something to be asked by writing
‘‘rs susu = ?(milk taste) and rs melon = ?’’ (melon taste). This means that she has connected dit with
the knowledge or schemata she has possessed before.
What is known is obtained from the information in the problem dealing with numbers and
instruction in the form of limitations. What is answered is also obtained from information in the
problem concerning with what is not known yet and the sentence of asking. The sentence of asking
relates to the question words and question mark. The use of symbols and making meanings of words
or phrases deal with comprehension of the words or phrases existing in the problem and knowledge
possessed before. Not all important words or phrases are made their meanings by FS. Meanwhile, the
use of contractions relates to previous knowledge and information in the problem. Then, there is a
relation between what is known and what is asked, namely making counting operations to what is
known to answer what is asked and between the use of symbols by aking meanings of words and
phrases in the problem. This is shown from the quotation of the results of interviews below:
R From where do you know that what you have mentioned is what is known?
FS numbers and instruction
R Ok. Where is the question you have mentioned from?
FS from the question
R What do you mean?
FS From the sentence of the problem
R What is the sentence about?
FS Asking
R Where do you known the sentence ‚asking“?
FS From the word how many and question mark
R O, yeah. Is there anything else that makes you know what is asked?
FS (kept silent and paid attention to the problem and then said) “what has not
been kown“.
R What is meant by ‘what is possible? In the question?
FS (Spoke softly of what is possible, kept silent and paid attention to the prolem
and said): “possible number”.
R What is meant by possible?
FS Not understand (while smilling and shaking head). The number of candies in
the blue container is not more than those in the green container, but those in
the blue container may be less than those in the blue one
R Ok, is there any relation between what is known and what is asked?
FS Yes. To answer what is asked needs what is known.
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-698
The characteristic of male students’ thinking process in understanding mathematical problems
is by constructing a relation in and among four core elements, namely what is known, what is asked,
meaning words or phases and using simbols. This can be seen from the quotation of results of
interviews as follows:
R After reading the problem, what do you understand from the problem?
MS (kept silent, then read the problem): Each container contains two taste-
candies with the same form and size. The red container contains 81 strawberry
candies and 47 lemon candies. The green container contains 23 coffee candies
and the rest, milk candies. The blue container contains 46 pineapple candies
the rest melon ones. The number of candies in the red container is two times
than that of the green container. The number of candies the blue container is
not more than the number of candies in the green container.
R From what you have mentioned, what is known or what is asked?
MS (kept silent and then said): “what is known”.
R What is known?
MS (directly read the problem): The red container contains 81 strawberry candies
and 47 lemon candies. The green container contains 23 coffee candies and the
rest, milk candies. The blue container contains 46 pineapple candies the rest
melon ones. The number of candies in the red container is two times than that
of the green container. The number of candies the blue container is not more
than the number of candies in the green container.
R What is meant by “not more than”?
MS Not more than the number mentioned
R What is meant by not more?
MS Not more than the number mentioned (after kept silent and looked at the
problem)
R Is it allowed if it is the same?
MS Ok
R Then, what is asked?
MS (Read the problem):How many candies with milk taste are in the green
container? And how many candies with melon taste might be in the blue
container?
TSLA11001
TSLA11002
TSLA11003
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-699
Gambar 4.2: Results of Handwriting of the MS’ Problem Understanding
Information :
TSPA11001 : constraction used by MS
TSPA11002 : what is known
TSPA11003 : what is asked
What is known is obtained from information in the problem that deals with numbers and
direction to do counting operations. His understanding of the problem is identical with what is known,
what is asked is also obtained from information in the problem that is related to the question word and
dan question mark. While the use of symbols and making meaning of words and phrases deal with
understanding of words and phrases in the prblem and knowledge previously possessed. Not all
important words and phrases are understood by the MS. Then, there is a relation between what is
known and what is asked, namely, what is known is used to answer questions and relations between
the use of symbols and making meaning words and phrases in the problem. This is shown in the
quotation of the results of interviews below:
R What information in the problem that states what is known?
MS (Kept silent, and than said): information to add, reduce, multiply or to divide
R O, yeah. Is there any more information stating what is known?
MS (Kept silent and looked at the problems and then said): there are numbers
R Is there anything else to be asked ?
R What is meant by what is possible in the second question?
MS (Kept silent, put the right hand to support the chin and looked at the problem
and said): “not know“
R Where do you know that it is what is asked?
MS From the problem
R What information in the problem sigining that what you mentioned is what is
asked
MS There is question mark, interrogative word how many.
R Is there any relationship between what is known and what is asked?
MS Yes. What is known is used to answer the question.
Discussion
The FS’ thinking process in understanding mathematical problems builds relation in and
among what is known, what is asked and making meanings of words and phrases, use of symbols and
of contractions. Meanwhile the MS’s thinking process in understanding mathematical problems builds
relations in and among what is known, what is asked, making meaning of words and phrases and use
of symbols. It means that the relation constructed by female subject in understanding problems is
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-700
richer than that of male subject. It is also the case on the relation constructed in understanding what is
asked. It is inline with an opinion that male students perform better than female ones in test items of
multiple choice ad female students perform relatively better than male students in essay/story tests
(Bolger & Kellaghan, 1990). Any reason that there might be differences in sex is a fact that
story/essay test items needs verbal competence, and some multiple test items do not need such a verbal
competence (Murphy, 1982).
Then, what is related to the FS and MS in understanding what is known and what is asked is
limited to information from the problems. Such an understanding in the perspective of reading
comprehension includes into the second level (text base), namely reading comprehension which is
merely based on what is on the reading texts/passages (Österholm, 2006a; Van Dijk and Kintsch,
1983). But the MS and FS’s thinking process in using symbols have integrated information in the
problem (reading texts) and their previousknowledge. Such an understanding in the perspective
reading comprehension (text) is included at the third/highest level (model of situation). (Österholm,
2006a; Van Dijk dan Kintsch, 1983). FS and MS have made various relations in understanding
problems; they may able to specify relations of what is known, what is asked, making meanings of
important words and phrases and the use of symbols, which are important elements in understanding
problems (Polya, 1973; Posamentier, Jaye and Krulik, 2007). The thinking process of this kind is
categorized into an established group (Stephens and Wang, 2008).
CONCLUSION AND REMARK
The characteristic of female and male students’ thinking process in understanding problems is
that they construct a relation in or among core elements of understanding problems, namely what is
known, what is asked, making meanings of important words or phrases and the use of symbols.
Characteristics of their thinking processes in understanding problems may be grouped into a model of
situation, by combining their previous and established understanding of the reading content and
knowledge. However, the relation they both built is different in or among the core elements of
understanding of problems.
Understanding problems is an early stage in mathematical problem solving. Thi stage will
influence the next stages, success or failure in solving problems. As a result, it is important for
mathematics teachers to facilitate their student in understanding problems by among other developing
their thinking processes. The discussion of this paper is limited to problem understanding in the stages
of mathematical problem solving developed by Polya and limited to elementary school students with
high capability in mathematics. Therefore, it is necessary to study the thinking process in other stages
such as making a plan, doing the plan or restudying elementary, secondary or university students with
high, average and low capability in mathematics.
REFERENCES
Albaili, M.A. (1997). Differences in Thinking Styles among Low-Average and High-Achieving
College Students. Educational Psychology, 17(1): 171--177.
Anderson, R.C. (1984). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, leaning and memory. In R.
Anderson, J. Osborn & R. Tierney (Eds). Learning to read in American schools: Basal
readers and content texts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L. & Smith, T.A. (1999).
Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's Third International Mathematics
and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R). USA: Boston College.
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-701
Bolger, N. & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Methods of measurement and gender differences in scholastic
achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31: 275--293.
Calder and Sarah. (2002). Using Think Aloud to Evaluate Deep Understanding. Available:
http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/listsery/remark/calderandcarlson.hml.
Depdiknas. (2006). Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Kompetensi Dasar Pelajaran Matematika
untuk Sekolah Dasar (SD)/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI), Sekolah Menengah Pertama
(SMP)/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs), Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA)/Madrasah Aliah (MA).
Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum Balitbangdiknas.
Glass, A.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1986). Cognition. 2nd
ed. Singapura: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Hudojo, Herman. (2005). Kapita Selekta Pembelajaran Matematika. Malang: Universitas Negeri
Malang.
Jensen, Eric. (2008). Brain- Based Learning: Pembelajaran Berbasis Kemampuan Otak Cara Baru
Dalam Pengajaran dan Pelatihan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Jonassen, D.H. & Tessmer, M. (1996/1997). “An outcomes-based taxonomy for instructional systems
design, evaluation, and research”. Training Research Journal, 2: 11--46.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning, American Psychologist. 49: 294--
303.
Marshall, S.P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving, New York: Cambridge University Press
Mayer, R.E. (Eds.). (1992). Mathematical problem solving: Thinking as based on domain specific
knowledge. Thinking, problem solving and cognition. New York Freeman.
McNeil,N.M., Grandau, L., Knuth, E.J., Alibali, M.W., Stephens, A.C. (2006). Middle-School
Students’ Understanding of the Equal Sign: The Books They Read Can’t Help. Cognition and
Instruction, 24(3): 367--385.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1992). Analisis Data Kualitatif: Buku Sumber Tentang Metode-metode
Baru. Terjemahan oleh: Tjetjep Rohendi Rohedi. Jakarta: UI Press.
Moleong, Lexy. J. (2011). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). Bandung: PT. Remaja
Rosdakarya.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
Pape, J.S. (2004). Middle School Children’s Problem-Solving Behavior: A Cognitive Analysis from a
Reading Comprehension, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3): 187--219.
Pimta, S., Tayruakham, S., Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Factor Influencing Mathematics Problem
Solving Ability of Sixth Grade Students. Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4): 381--385.
Polya, G. (1973). How to Solve it. 2nd Ed. Princeton University Press.
Posamentier, A.S., Krulik, S. (1998). Problem-solving strategies for efficient and elegant solutions: A
Resource for the Mathematics Teacher. California USA: Corwin Press, Inc. Posamentier, A.S., Jaye, D., Krulik, S. (2007). Exemplary Practices for Secondary Math Teachers.
Virginia USA: Association for Supervision and Curiculum Development. Alexandria.
Silver, E.A. (1987). Foundation of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving
instruction. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed), Cognitive science and mathematics education. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Solso, Robert L. (1995). Cognitive Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stephens, M. (2008). Some key junctures in relational thinking. In M. Goos, R. Brown and K. Makar
(Eds.), Navigating current and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31th annual conference
of the Mathematics Education Group of Australia, 491 – 498). Brisbane: MERGA.
Stephens, M. and Wang, X. (2008). Some key junctures in relational thinking. Journal of Mathematics
Education, 17(5): 36--40 .
Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung : Alfabeta.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New
York: Academic Press, (Online), (http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/ Discourse%20
Comprehension.pdf, retrieved February 12th 2013)
PROCEEDINGS ISBN: 978-602-70378-0-9
This paper has been presented at Sriwijaya University Learning and Education-International Conference
2014. Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Sriwijaya University, Palembang, May 16—18, 2014.
D4-702
Van Someren, Marteen. W., Barnard, Yvonne. F., Sandberg, Jacobin. A.C. (1994). The Think Aloud
Method. A Practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. London. Academic Press.
Österholm, M. (2006). Charactherizing reading comprehension of mathematical texts, Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63(3): 325--346.
Österholm, M. (2006). A reading comprehension perpective on problem solving : Developing and
Researching Quality in Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of MADIF 5, the
5th Swedish Mathematics Education Research Seminar, Malmö, January 24-25, 2006,
(Online) (Available: http://scholar.google.se/citations?user=ZhagbikAAAAJ&hl=sv).
Zhu, Zheng. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterens: A review of
literature. International Education Journal, 8(2): 187 -- 203.