Irwan, 071188830015. The ACE Cycle Application Using the Concept Map to Improve the Proving Capacity
Education currently is facing the goals of progressively sophisticated objectives, of increasingly diversity, and more of its quality. On the other hand, be based on the results of evaluation of curriculum 2006 which is competency-based was found that the students were not achieved their optimal competency yet. So far the author experience and observation, the teaching pattern which is engaged of the educators in the Study Program of Mathematical Education, STKIP Budidaya Binjai, in approach to teaching, there was not the pattern and variation compatibility. It is clear that their activities were not the learning process that was applied the cycle ACE using the concept map in study of mathematics so that the proving capacity students have are still low. The educators were lack of knowledge and experience in developing the learning instruments, and they have less knowledge to apply the ACE cycle using the concept map.
The objectives of this research are to study: (1) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity among the three learning; (2) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity between the students that was received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map and that of the learning of concept map; (3) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity between the students that was received the learning of concept map and that of the regular of learning; (4) What is the performance and response pattern the students showed in the proving capacity for each of the learning.
This present paper is the experimental study in STKIP Budidaya Binjai in which the subject population is all students in semester IV of Study Program of Mathematical Education, STKIP Budidaya Binjai. The randomized sampling was carried out from the IVA, IVB, and IVC classes. To the students of IVA class then the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map was administered, IV B class that of the concept map, and IVC that of the regular of learning. The research data was collected by two types of tools, i.e. test and non-test involving a set of pretests and posttests concerning the proving capacity that was given in each of learning in which the objective of research were subtopic of cluster points and open sets. In order to see a difference between the proving capacities of the three learning methods the one-way ANOVA test was used, whereas the Scheffe was used to determine whether a difference exits among the averages of Z1, Z2 and Z3.
The results of research were suggest that: (1) A difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity among the three learning; (2) The students that were received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map have higher increase in the proving capacity than that of using concept map; (3) The students that were received the learning of concept map have higher increase in the proving capacity than that of the regular of learning; (4) The students that were received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map were showed higher performance and response pattern in the proving capacity than that both of concept map and regular of learning.
The author is suggests that it is helpful if lectures are create the learning atmosphere giving the students more opportunities to express mathematical model into language and in their own ways, such that in learning mathematics the students will be better in suggesting their arguments, more self-confident, creatively, and systematically. Similarly, the lectures will be able learn from ACE cycle using concept map, where they are likely to develop the learning methods based on ACE cycle using concept map. It is important that these methods universities socialize hoping that they improve the proving capacity of students learning results, particularly the mathematical proving capacity. The present study should be confirmed by the other researchers through carefully research in the other pure mathematics area which not yet been reached by panelists, for example, proving capacity of algebra structures, geometry, topology, and functional analysis.
Education currently is facing the goals of progressively sophisticated objectives, of increasingly diversity, and more of its quality. On the other hand, be based on the results of evaluation of curriculum 2006 which is competency-based was found that the students were not achieved their optimal competency yet. So far the author experience and observation, the teaching pattern which is engaged of the educators in the Study Program of Mathematical Education, STKIP Budidaya Binjai, in approach to teaching, there was not the pattern and variation compatibility. It is clear that their activities were not the learning process that was applied the cycle ACE using the concept map in study of mathematics so that the proving capacity students have are still low. The educators were lack of knowledge and experience in developing the learning instruments, and they have less knowledge to apply the ACE cycle using the concept map.
The objectives of this research are to study: (1) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity among the three learning; (2) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity between the students that was received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map and that of the learning of concept map; (3) Whether a difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity between the students that was received the learning of concept map and that of the regular of learning; (4) What is the performance and response pattern the students showed in the proving capacity for each of the learning.
This present paper is the experimental study in STKIP Budidaya Binjai in which the subject population is all students in semester IV of Study Program of Mathematical Education, STKIP Budidaya Binjai. The randomized sampling was carried out from the IVA, IVB, and IVC classes. To the students of IVA class then the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map was administered, IV B class that of the concept map, and IVC that of the regular of learning. The research data was collected by two types of tools, i.e. test and non-test involving a set of pretests and posttests concerning the proving capacity that was given in each of learning in which the objective of research were subtopic of cluster points and open sets. In order to see a difference between the proving capacities of the three learning methods the one-way ANOVA test was used, whereas the Scheffe was used to determine whether a difference exits among the averages of Z1, Z2 and Z3.
The results of research were suggest that: (1) A difference exist in improvement of the proving capacity among the three learning; (2) The students that were received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map have higher increase in the proving capacity than that of using concept map; (3) The students that were received the learning of concept map have higher increase in the proving capacity than that of the regular of learning; (4) The students that were received the learning of ACE cycle using the concept map were showed higher performance and response pattern in the proving capacity than that both of concept map and regular of learning.
The author is suggests that it is helpful if lectures are create the learning atmosphere giving the students more opportunities to express mathematical model into language and in their own ways, such that in learning mathematics the students will be better in suggesting their arguments, more self-confident, creatively, and systematically. Similarly, the lectures will be able learn from ACE cycle using concept map, where they are likely to develop the learning methods based on ACE cycle using concept map. It is important that these methods universities socialize hoping that they improve the proving capacity of students learning results, particularly the mathematical proving capacity. The present study should be confirmed by the other researchers through carefully research in the other pure mathematics area which not yet been reached by panelists, for example, proving capacity of algebra structures, geometry, topology, and functional analysis.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar