Students' degenerative thinking disposition on non-relational aspects in solving quadrilateral problems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25273/pe.v13i1.19126Keywords:
Degenerative, Quadrilateral, Non-relationship thinking dispositionAbstract
The urgency of this research is to see the tendency for non-generative thinking in students to solve rectangular problems, which defined as a degenerative thinking disposition. A degenerative thinking disposition is a person's tendency to take action that ignores information excessively without considering analytical and genetic characteristics in generalizing a problem. The results of the preliminary study show that there are indications of non-generative thinking when students solve problems regarding the perimeter of a rectangle. Many students point out the incompleteness of the solution to the problem of the perimeter of a quadrilateral and tend to be hasty in assuming that the quadrilateral in question is a rectangle. This included in the symptoms that do not give rise to relational aspects. This type of research is qualitative with an exploratory, descriptive approach to three subjects. The data analysis technique uses thematic analysis steps. The results of the study show that students who experience degenerative thinking dispositions from non-relationship aspects ignore information excessively. Students with non-relationship aspects tend to experience excessive information neglect when relating information to definitions and analytical and genetic properties. Students overgeneralize the problem of rectangular properties without considering the existence of other esufficient elements. The concepts used in concluding problem solutions are based on still partial concepts. So the generalizations that are used as the basis for solving other problems end up being wrong.
Downloads
References
Alexander, D. C., & Koeberlein, G. M. (2020). Elementary Geometry for College Students. In Cengage Learning, Inc. Unless.
Ashlock, R. B. (2006). Error patterns in computation : using error patterns to improve instruction (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
Axworthy, A. (2021). Motion and Genetic Definitions in the Sixteenth-Century Euclidean Tradition. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Boyd, Cummins, Malloy, Carter, & Flores. (2008). California geometry: Concept, skills, and problem solving. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may252004/1355.pdf
Brown, J., Skow, K., & Center, T. I. (2016). Mathematics : Identifying and Addressing Student Errors. In Vandaerbilt Peabody College. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdf_case_ studies/ics_matherr.pdf
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students ’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00142-6
Clarke, V. ., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research a practical guide for beginners (Braun, VirginiaClarke, Victoria) (z-lib.org). In Successful qualitative research.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. In Educational Research (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Dreyfus, T. (2002). Advanced Mathematical Thinking Processes. Advanced Mathematical Thinking, 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_2
Ellis, A. B. (2007a). A taxonomy for categorizing generalizations: Generalizing actions and reflection generalizations. In The Journal of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 16, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701193705
Ellis, A. B. (2007b). The Influence of Reasoning with Emergent Quantities on Students’ Generalizations. Cognition and Intruction, 25(4), 439–478.
Ellis, A. B. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: How classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(4), 308–345. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.4.0308
Ellis, A., Tillema, E., Lockwood, E., & Moore, K. (2017). Generalization across Domains The Relating-Forming-Extending Generalization Framework. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education., 677–684.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2378
Esteley, C. B., Villarreal, M. E., & Alagia, H. R. (2010). The Overgeneralization of Linear Models among University Students’ Mathematical Productions: A Long-Term Study. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903465988
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1)(January), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506342733.n2
Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, December, 719–743.
Haryoko, S., Bahartiar, & Arwadi, F. (2020). Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif (Konsep,Teknik, & Prosedur Analisis). Badan Penerbit Universitas Negeri Makassar.
Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions as Dispositions as Educational Goals . ERIC Digest . ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 1–5.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Bradford, F. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. DC: National Academy Press. ftp://129.132.148.131/EMIS/journals/ZDM/zdm026r1.pdf
Lannin, J. K., Barker, D. D., & Townsend, B. E. (2006). Algebraic generalisation strategies: Factors influencing student strategy selection. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217440
Low, J., & Hollis, S. (2003). The eyes have it: Development of children’s generative thinking. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/0165025024400047
Moore, K. D., &, & Hansen, J. (2012). Effective Strategies for Teaching in K-8 Classrooms. Chapter 2 Teaching Diverse Students. In SAGE Publications (CA). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327892mcp0202_6
Mushoriwa, T. D., Sibanda, J., & Nkambule, H. Z. (2010). Testing Generative Thinking among Swazi Children. EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Testing, 2(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.4314/njgc.v14i1.47641
Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. In Studies in Science Education (Vol. 12, Issue 1).
Tarchi, C., & Villalón, R. (2021). The influence of thinking dispositions on integration and recall of multiple texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1498–1516. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12432
Tong, D. H., & Loc, N. P. (2017). Students’ errors in solving mathematical word problems and their ability in identifying errors in wrong solutions. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(6), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.581482
Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning process of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Premiere Educandum by E-JOURNAL UNIVERSITAS PGRI MADIUN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Holder: (Premiere Educandum : Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar dan Pembelajaran)
