Analysis of Students Action Proof when Making Counter-example on the Relationship between Area and Perimeter
Menganalisis Bukti Tindakan Siswa dalam Membuat Contoh Penyangkal tentang Hubungan Luas dan Keliling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21070/ups.6602Keywords:
Counter-example, Manipulative Proof, Area and Perimeter of a RectangleAbstract
Solving proof problems using manipulative objects is challenging for high ability students and difficult for some low ability students. This study analyzes the stages of action proof through counter-example. The stages of action proof in this study used three stages: proving their primitive conjectures, facing counter-examples, and re-examining conjectures and evidence. The type of research used is qualitative with a case study approach. The subjects of this study were two out of 17 elementary school students of SDN Watesnegoro 1 who were purposively selected. Data collection techniques consisted of tasks, documentation, and interviews. The results of the analysis showed that at the stage of proving their primitive conjectures, the conjectures made by low and high level students were still wrong. At the stage of confronting refuting examples, the conjectures and proofs made by low and high level students have improved. At the stage of re-examining conjectures and proofs, the conjecture.
Downloads
References
W. Widjaja and C. Vale, “Counterexamples: challenges faced by elementary students when testing a conjecture about the relationship between perimeter and area,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 487–506, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.22342/jme.12.3.14526.487-506.
B. Umaya, M. A. Wardhana, and Y. Setia, “Peningkatan Pembelajaran Matematika Materi FPB Melalui Media Sandal FPB dalam Penerapan Model Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) pada Siswa Kelas IV Pembelajaran Secara Daring,” Pros. Semin. Pendidik. Nas. II, 2020.
N. P. U. D. Narayani, “Pengaruh Pendekatan Matematika Realistik Berbasis Pemecahan Masalah Berbantuan Media Konkret Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika,” J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar, vol. 3(2), 220, 2019.
F. Ahmadpour, “Students’ Ways of Understanding a Proof,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 21 (2), 2019.
F. Amir and M. F. Amir, “Action Proof: Analyzing Elementary School Students Informal Proving Stages through Counter-examples,” Int. J. Elem. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, p. 401, 2021, doi: 10.23887/ijee.v5i3.35089.
S. Cecilia and A. Wanner, “Mitigating Misconceptions of Preservice Teachers: The Relationship between Area and Perimeter | Ohio Journal of School Mathematics,” Ohio J. Sch. Math., pp. 36–44, 2019.
F. A. Z. Nasiruudin, “Analisis Kesulitan Menyelesaikan Soal Operasi Hitung Pecahan Pada Siswa Sekolah Dasar DI Makassar,” J. Educ. Lang. Teach. Sci., vol. 1(2), 23–3, 2019.
A. Guez, H. Peyre, and F. Ramus, “Sex Differences in Academic Achievement are Modulated by Evaluation Type,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 83–84(Janu, 2020.
S. Nurajizah and N. Fitriani, “Analisis Kesulitan Peserta Didik Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Cerita Pada Pembelajaran Matematika Kelas VII,” J. Ilm., vol. 7(1), 76;8, 2020.
E. C. Wittmann, “Connecting Mathematics and Mathematics Education.,” Connect. Math. Math. Educ., vol. 223–238, 2021.
M. Miyazaki et al., “Curriculum Development for Explorative Proving in Lower Secondary School Geometry : Focusing on the Levels of Planning and Constructing a Proof,” Front. Educ., 2019.
Y. SHinno and T. Fujita, “Characterizing How and When a Way of Proving Develops in a Primary Mathematics Classroom : a Commognitive Approach,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 2021.
D. A. Yopp, “Eliminating counterexamples: An intervention for improving adolescents’ contrapositive reasoning,” J. Math. Behav., vol. 59, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100794.
Z. Zeybek, “Pre-service Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Counterexamples,” Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 295–316, 2017, doi: 10.18404/ijemst.70986.
D. R. Utari, M. Y. S. Wardana, and A. T. Damayani, “Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Matematika Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Cerita,” J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar, vol. 3(4), 534-, 2019.
J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, 2018. Accessed: Feb. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=335ZDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
F. Amir and M. Faizal Amir, “Action proof: analyzing elementary school students informal proving stages through counter-examples,” Int. J. Elem. Educ., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 401–408, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/IJEE
M. B. Miles, M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th ed. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, 2018, 2018.
A. Ekawati, W. Agustina, and F. Noor, “Analisis Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa Dalam Membuat Diagram,” Lentera J. Pendidik., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–7, 2019, doi: 10.33654/jpl.v14i2.881.
N. Hidayah, M. Budiman, and F. Cahyadi, “Analisis Kesulitan Siswa Kelas V Dalam Memecahkan Masalah Matematika Pada Materi Operasi Hitung Pada Pecahan,” J. TSCJ, vol. 3(1), pp. 46–51, 2020.
Isnaniah and M. Imamuddin, “Students’ understanding of mathematical concepts using manipulative learning media in elementary schools,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1471, no. 1, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1471/1/012050.
P. Peng and R. A. Kievit, “The development of academic achievement and cognitive abilities: a bidirectional perspective,” Child Dev. Perspect., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 15–20, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1111/cdep.12352.
Downloads
Additional Files
Posted
License
Copyright (c) 2024 UMSIDA Preprints Server
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
