PENGEMBANGAN BAHAN AJAR GEOMETRI MODERN DENGAN STRATEGI SYNTACTIC WITH TWO-COLUMN PROOF UNTUK MAHASISWA CALON GURU

Diki Suryanto(1), Nyimas Aisyah(2*), Ely Susanti(3),

(1) Universitas Sriwijaya
(2) Universitas Sriwijaya
(3) Universitas Sriwijaya
(*) Corresponding Author


Abstract


Geometri modern umumnya dibangun melalui pembuktian tersusun secara sistem deduktif aksiomatik. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan bahan ajar geometri modern dengan strategi syntactic with two-column proof. Proses pengembangan bahan ajar dilaksanakan dengan metode design research tipe development study terdiri dari dua tahap yaitu tahapan preliminary dan formative evaluation yang meliputi self evaluation, prototyping (expert review, one to one, dan small group), dan field test. Kualitas bahan ajar ditentukan oleh tiga kriteria yaitu validitas, kepraktisan dan keefektifan. Bahan ajar ini dinyatakan valid berdasarkan aspek konten dengan rata-rata sebesar 76,3%, konstruk 81%, dan bahasa 78,9%. Selain itu modul dinyatakan praktis berdasarkan hasil kuesioner respon mahasiswa, yaitu dengan rata-rata sebesar 87,6% serta bahan ajar yang memiliki efek potensial terhdap penalaran matematis. Berdasarkan hasil tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa bahan ajar geometri modern dengan strategi syntactic with two-column proof valid, praktis, dan efektif.


Keywords


geometri modern; strategi syntactic; two-column proof

References


Adeliza, S., Tulus, & Ramli, M. (2018). Dynamic Models Increase Understanding of Geometry Through Proof. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 300(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/300/1/012046

Budiarto, M. T., & Artiono, R. (2019). Geometri dan Permasalahan dalam Pembelajarannya (Suatu Penelitian Meta Analisis). JUMADIKA: Jurnal Magister Pendidikan Matematika, 1(1), 9–18.

Güler, G. (2016). The Difficulties Experienced in Teaching Proof to Prospective Mathematics Teachers: Academician Views. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p145

Gustiadi, A., Agustyaningrum, N., Hanggara, Y., & Kepulauan, U. R. (2021). Analisis Kemampuan Penalaran Matematis Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Materi Dimensi Tiga. Jurnal BSIS, 4(1), 337–348.

Hanna, G. (2020). Mathematical Proof, Argumentation, and Reasoning. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (Second, pp. 561–566). Springer.

Herbst, P. G. (2002). Establishing a Custom of Proving in American School Geometry: Evolution of The Two-Column Proof in The Early Twentieth Century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 283–312.

Lestari, E. karunia. (2015). Analisis Kemampuan Pembuktian Matematika Mahasiswa Menggunakan Pendekatan Induktif-Dedukstif pada Matakuliah Analisis Real. MENDIDIK: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 1(2), 128–132.

Maarif, S., Perbowo, K. S., Noto, M. S., & Harisman, Y. (2019). Obstacles in Constructing Geometrical Proofs of Mathematics-Teacher-Students Based on Boero’s Proving Model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1315(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1315/1/012043

Otani, H., Reid, D., & Shinno, Y. (2022). How are Proof and Proving Conceptualized in Mathematics Curriculum Documents in The USA and Japan? Proceedingsof the 45th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 267–274.

Scristia, S., Meryansumayeka, M., Safitri, E., Araiku, J., & Aisyah, S. (2022). Development of Teaching Materials Based on Two-Column Proof Strategy on Congruent Triangle Materials. 2nd National Conference on Mathematics Education 2021 (NaCoME 2021), 189–193.

Scristia, S., Yusup, M., & Hiltrimartin, C. (2021). Pengaruh Strategi Flow Proof pada Perkuliahan Struktur Aljabar terhadap Kemampuan Mahasiswa dalam Menganalisis Pembuktian. Jurnal Gantang, 6(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v6i1.2782

Siswono, T. Y. E. (2004). Problem Posing: Melatih Kemampuan Mahasiswa dalam Membangun Teorema. Seminar Nasional Penelitian, Pendidikan Dan Aplikasi MIPA, 104–119.

Suweleh, W., & Ihsan, P. (2018). Modul Two-Column Proofs untuk Pembelajaran Matematika pada Mahasiswa PG PAUD Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya. MUST: Journal of Mathematics Education, Science and Technology, 3(3), 212–222.

Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conduction formative evaluation : Improving the quality of education and training. Philadelphia, PA : Kogan Page.

Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2004). Semantic and Syntactic Proof Productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 209–234.

Webre, B., Smith, S., & Cuevas, G. (2018). Differences in Self-reported Instructional Strategies Using a Dynamic Geometry Approach that Impact Students’ Conjecturing. In International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Geometry in Secondary Schools (pp. 111–126). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77476-3_7

Zhang, D. (2021). Teaching Geometry to Students With Learning Disabilities: Introduction to the Special Series. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720959769

Zhao, H., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Teaching presence in computer conferencing learning environments: Effects on interaction, cognition and learning uptake. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12383

Zulkardi. (2006). Formative evaluation : what, why, when, and how.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v11i4.6162

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.