Pemahaman Siswa Tentang Equal Sign dalam Menyelesaikan Tugas Matematika

Setiawan Budi Sartati; Subanji Subanji; Sisworo Sisworo

doi:10.36312/e-saintika.v2i1.80

Authors

Setiawan Budi Sartati Universitas Negeri Malang
Subanji Subanji Universitas Negeri Malang
Sisworo Sisworo Universitas Negeri Malang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36312/e-saintika.v2i1.80

Keywords:

equal sign, operational, basic relational, substitution, mathematics, arithmetic, algebra

Abstract

[Title: The Students' Understanding of Equal Sign in Completing Mathematics Tasks]. This study aims to describe the student's understanding of the equal sign to solve mathematical tasks. This study was included in the qualitative descriptive study. In this study, the data collected is the data of student’s work and verbal data (the interview). The subjects were six students of 7th class of MTs Attariqie Malang 2014/2015 (Junior High School), with details of two high-ability students, two students capable of being, and two low-ability students. Students' understanding of the equal sign examined further by providing tests and interviews in six research subjects. Interviews were conducted individually after the students work on the problems individually. The mathematical task load arithmetic and algebra problems. Based on the results of the study, all subjects were able to understand the equal sign as operational and the equal sign as a substitution. For equal sign as the basic relational, only high-ability students were able to understand it. Understanding of medium and low student capable entrenched in the operational pattern that is an equal sign as operational cause confusion to understanding equal sign as the basic relational, eg, 14+11=25+8 where students only pay attention to the results of operations that 14 plus 11 is 25 without notice relation of the addition of 8.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in the elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Filloy, E., Rojano, T., & Solares, A. (2010). Problems dealing with unknown quantities and two different levels of representing unknowns. Journal forResearch in Mathematics Education, 41(1), 52–80.

Freiman, V & Lee, L. (2004). Tracking Primary Students’s Understanding Of The Equality Sign. Proceedings of rhe 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 415-422.

Hewitt, D. (2001). On learning to adopt formal algebraic notation. Proceedings of the 12th Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction: The future of the teaching and learning of algebra, 1, 305–312. University of Melbourne, Australia: ICMI.

Jones, I. (2008). A diagrammatic view of the equals sign: Arithmetical equivalence as a means, not an end. Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 151–165.

Jones, I & Pratt, D. (2012). A Substituting Meaning for the Equals Signin Arithmetic Notating. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 2–33.

Jones, I, Inglis, M, Gillmore, C, & Dowens, M. 2012. Substitution and Sameness: Two Components of a Relational Conception of the Equal Sign. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 166-176.

Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 297–312. (http://www.nctm.org/publications/jrme.aspx), diakses tanggal 20 Oktober 2014.

Li, X., Ding, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Sources of differences in children’s understandings of mathematical equality: Comparative analysis of teacher guides and student texts in China and the United States. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 195–217.

McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899.

Molina, M., Castro, E., & Mason, J. (2008). Elementary school students’ approaches to solving true/false number sentences. PNA, 2, 75–86.

Prediger. (2010). How to develop mathematics-for-teaching and for understanding: the case of meanings of the equal sign. J Math Teacher Educ, 13, 73–93. (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22309893/1941435042/name/How+to+develop+mathematics-for-teaching+and+for+understanding.pdf), diakses tanggal 20 Oktober 2014.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Matthews, P. G., Taylor, R. S., & McEldoon, K. L. (2011). Assessing knowledge of mathematical equivalence: A construct-modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 85–104.

Sumardoyo. (2004). Karakteristik Matematika dan Implikasinya terhadap Pembelajaran Matematika. Pusat Pengembangan Penataran Guru Matematika: Yogyakarta.

Warren, E. (2003). Young children’s understanding of equals: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 379–386.