Identifikasi Kedalaman Berpikir Reflektif Calon Guru Matematika dalam Pemecahan Masalah Matematika melalui Taksonomi Berpikir Reflektif Berdasarkan Gaya Kognitif

Agustan Syamsuddin

Abstract


Reflective thinking in solving mathematical problems allows students to carry out a reinterpretation process in which cognitive activity involves analytical and decision-making activities on what has been done before. Thus students can realize and think about what he has done and use these skills in subsequent problem-solving. The purpose of this study was to identify the depth of reflective thinking of prospective teachers in solving mathematical problems in terms of differences in cognitive styles. To identify the depth of reflective thinking in problem-solving, using the taxonomic level of reflective thinking consists of six levels, namely (1) remembering, (2) understanding, (3) applying, (4) analyzing, (5) evaluating and (6) creating. This research is a descriptive study with a qualitative approach involving two prospective mathematics teacher students who have a field-dependent cognitive style (SFD) and an independent field (SFI). The results showed that SFD could only reach at three levels, namely remembering, understanding, and applying. While SFI fulfilled the six characteristics of the taxonomic level of reflective thinking, namely remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

Keywords


a taxonomy of reflective thinking; cognitive style; mathematical problem solving

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agustan, S., Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. (2017). Profile of male-field dependent (FD) prospective teacher's reflective thinking in solving contextual mathematical problem. American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1867(2), 020034-1-020034-7.

Aiken, L. (1997). Psychological testing and assessment (9th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kaser, Mark Graphic on Multiple Intelligences.

Ambrose, R. (2004). Initiating change in prospective elementary school teachers' orientations to mathematics teaching by building on beliefs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(2), 91-119. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000021879.74957.63.

Betne, P. (2009). Reflection as a learning tool in mathematics. Transit: The LaGuardia Journal on Teaching and Learning, 4, 93-101.

Choy, S. C., & Oo, P. S. (2012). Reflective thinking and teaching practices: a precursor for incorporating critical thinking into the classrom? International Journal of Instructuon, 5(1), 167-182.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). The descipline and practice of qualitative resarch. In Norman Handbook of Qualitative Research. (3rd ed.). Thousan Oaks: Sage Publication.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C., Heath and Company.

Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon. Reflective practice, 4(3), 337-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394032000112237.

Gurol, A. (2011). Determining the reflective thinking skills of pre-service teachers in learning and teaching process. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3(3), 387-402.

Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical-thinking at any age: Its nature and its development. Mathematical thinking and learning, 7(1), 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0701_3.

Jacob, S. M., & Sam, H. K. (2008). Critical thinking skills in online mathematics discussion forums and mathematical achievement. 13th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM 2008), (pp. 15-19). Thailand.

Kepner, M. D., & Neimark, E. D. (1984). Test–retest reliability and differential patterns of score change on the group embedded figures test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1405.

King, F. J., Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (2013). Higher order thinking skills. Miami: Cala Press.

Koszalka, T. (2001). KaAMS: A PBL environment facilitating reflective thinking. Learning and Instruction Section. NY.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.

Lee, H. J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and teacher education, 21(6), 699-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.007.

Meissner, H. (2006). Creativity and mathematics education. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 65-72.

Muin, A. (2011). The Situations that can bering reflective thinking process in mathematics learning. International Seminar and the Fourth National Conference on Mathematics Education (pp. 231-238). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Department of Mathematics Education, Yogyakarta State University.

Pappas, P. (2010). A taxonomy of reflection: Critical thinking for students, teachers, and principals. Copy/Paste.

Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2016). Peraturan menteri pendidikan dan kebudayaan ri nomor 21 tahun 2016 tentang standar isi pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Sezer, R. (2008). Integration of critical thinking skills into elementary school teacher education courses in mathematics. Education, 128(3), 349-363.

Slameto. (2010). Belajar dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Stiff, L. V., & Curcio, F. R. (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12. 1999 Yearbook. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191-1593.

Syamsuddin, A. (2019). Analysis of prospective teacher’s mathematical problem solving based on taxonomy of reflective thinking. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(3), 032078. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032078.

Tennant, M. (2007). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965474.

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A Manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto.: CA: Consulting Psycologists Press.

Woolfolk, H. A. (2000). Educational psychology in teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_04.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v6i1.1743

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Elemen

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

 Creative Commons License
Jurnal Elemen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View My Stats