Understanding Concept Profile Distance Line to Line on space of Geometry High School Students Level IQ Normal in terms of Gender differences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/picecrs.v1i2.1440

Author (s)


(1) * Suprianto Suprianto   (Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo)  
        Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Geometry in particular the concept of distance is part of the metamatic science that is widely applied in the real world. The purpose of this research is to know the profile of distance understanding especially students high school student with normal IQ level in terms of gender difference. The research method used is explorative qualitative method, where the researcher as the main subject in the research. To describe the concept of distance, a study of four aspects, namely: 1) understanding aspect, 2) representation aspect, 3) non sample aspect, 4)  application aspect to calculate distance. The results obtained from the study, female students in terms of understanding the concept of distance from line to line better than male students, while for the other three aspects, there is no significant difference between male students and female students. The results of this study differ from the results of previous research, which states that male students are better than female students in understanding the mathematical concepts. This result can give implication about opinion and treatment  learning process for matemathics theacer’s, that nothing diferences for capacity mathematics as specially about distance concept line to line between male and female  students.


Keywords

profile; distance concept; geometry; IQ; gender



Full Text: PDF



References


Al Krismanto, M.Sc. 2004. Dimensi tiga pembelajaran jarak. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.Direktorat Jendrl Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.Pusat Pengembangan dan Penataran Guru Matematika, Yogyakarta .

As’adi Muhammad.2010 Deteksi bakat dan minat anak sejak dini. Gerai Ilmu. Yogyakarta.

Barmby, P., Harries, T., Higgins, S., and Suggate J., 2007. How Can we Assess Mathematical Understanding? In Proceedings of The 31st Conference of The International Group for The Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp 41-48. Seoul: PME .

Brooks, J. G. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The case for Constructivist Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Bunda, Lucy. 2010. Mendidik sesuai dengan minat dan bakat anak.PT. Tangga Pustaka. Jakarta Selatan.

Carr At all. 1999. Elementray school children’s strategy preference on mathematic education. . copyright 2007. by Edward Omolewa, Nicola D.

Fraenkel, J. R., and Wallen, N. E. 2009.How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education.Seventh Edition. San Fancisco: The McGrow Hill Companies.

Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. P, (1992) Learning and Teaching with Understanding. In D. Grouws, (Ed), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 65-97). New York: MacMillan

John W. Santrock. 1996. Education psychology. 2nd edition.

Lexy J. Moleong, 2007. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Rahardjo Ismail. 2010. Metode kreatif mengajar matemtika. Diakses dari http://zhoney.blogspot.com/ 2010/ 11/ metode-kreatif-mengajar-matematika.html. 17 Juli 2012.

Skemp, R. R. 1976. Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding.In MathematicsTeaching, 77, pp. 20-26.

Skemp, R. R. 1982. The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. New York: Penguin Books.


Article View

Abstract views : 18 times | PDF files viewed : 10 times

Dimensions, PlumX, and Google Scholar Metrics

10.21070/picecrs.v1i2.1440


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Proceedings of the ICECRS

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