Intuisi Logis Mahasiswa Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG) dalam Menyelesaikan Situational Judgement Test (SJT)

Imam Rofiki 1 Indonesia , Puguh Darmawan 1 Indonesia , Sri Rahayuningsih 1 Indonesia , Tasya Maulidiawati 1 Indonesia , Sri Wahyuni 1 Indonesia , Syekha Vivi Alaiya 1 Indonesia , Mutiara Sani 1 Indonesia
1 Program Pendidikan Profesi Guru, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Malang
Link Copied!
Published 2024-09-26
Vol. 4 No. 3 (2024) PAGES 1071 - 1085
DOI 10.51574/kognitif.v4i3.1936
Views / Downloads 670 218

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menghasilkan berpikir intuitif yang logis mahasiswa pendidikan profesi guru (PPG) sedemikian hingga jawabannya yang benar dalam situational judgement test (SJT). Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memformulasikan bentuk intuisi logis mahasiswa PPG. Pendekatan kualitatif dengan jenis studi kasus digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Sebanyak empat mahasiswa PPG Universitas Negeri Malang menjadi subjek penelitian ini. Instrumen penelitian terdiri atas satu soal SJT, rubrik indikator intuisi logis, pedoman wawancara semi-terstruktur, dan alat rekam audio-visual. Prosedur pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan memberikan kesempatan kepada subjek untuk menjawab soal SJT pilihan ganda beserta alasannya. Jawaban subjek dielaborasi melalui wawancara. Data yang terkumpul tersebut dianalisis dengan kondensasi data, penyajian data, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Intuisi logis dalam penelitian ini terjadi dalam tiga bentuk modus ponens, yaitu MP1, MP2, MP3. Seluruh bentuk intuisi logis tersebut melibatkan proses menyadari dan proses otomatis. Proses menyadari terjadi pada premis 1. Proses otomatis terjadi pada premis 2. Kesimpulan pada intuisi logis penelitian ini merupakan hasil dari interaksi system 2 triggers system 1. Dengan kata lain, pernyataan majemuk konjungsi yang berbentuk premis 1 dan premis 2 merupakan interaksi system 2 triggers system 1 tersebut yang menghasilkan kesimpulan. Hasil penelitian ini dapat digunakan dosen atau tutor pendalam materi SJT untuk membentuk berpikir intuitif yang logis mahasiswa PPG. Rekomendasi penelitian lanjutan adalah syarat cukup terjadinya intuisi logis pada mahasiswa.

Rofiki, I. ., Darmawan, P., Rahayuningsih , S. ., Maulidiawati, T. ., Wahyuni, S. ., Alaiya , S. V. ., & Sani , M. (2024). Intuisi Logis Mahasiswa Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG) dalam Menyelesaikan Situational Judgement Test (SJT). Kognitif: Jurnal Riset HOTS Pendidikan Matematika, 4(3), 1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.51574/kognitif.v4i3.1936
More Citation Formats
Download Citation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. (2017). Meta-Reasoning : Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617.
  2. Ackerman, Rakefet, & Thompson, V. (2017). Meta-Reasoning : Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning Meta-Reasoning : Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning Acknowledgments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004
  3. Anggadewi, B. E. T. (2017). Scaffolding: How it works for students with learning difficulties. In The 2017 International Conference on Research in Education (pp. 210–218). https://usd.ac.id/seminar/icre/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICRE-2017-Proceedings.pdf
  4. Bago, B., & De Neys, W. (2017). Fast Logic ?: Examining The Time Course Assumption of Dual Process Theory. Cognition, 158, 90–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014
  5. Boissin, E., Caparos, S., & De Neys, W. (2023). No easy fix for belief bias during syllogistic reasoning? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 35(4), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2181734 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2181734
  6. Boissin, E., Caparos, S., Voudouri, A., & De Neys, W. (2022). Debiasing System 1: Training favours logical over stereotypical intuiting. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(4), 646–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500008895 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500008895
  7. Darmawan, P., Purwanto, Parta, I. N., & Susiswo. (2020). The levels of students’ feeling of rightness (FOR) in solving polygon perimeter problems. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13238a DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13238a
  8. Darmawan, P., Husnul, K., Ganis Irma, F., & Mustika Manik, T. candrama. (2023). Bentuk-Bentuk Bias Berpikir dalam Belajar Matematika (1st ed.). Insight Mediatama.
  9. Darmawan, P., Purwanto, Parta, I. N., & Susiswo. (2020). Interaksi Dual Proses dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Segibanyak Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Universitas Negeri Malang.
  10. Darmawan, P., Purwanto, Parta, I. N., & Susiswo. (2021). Teacher Interventions to Induce Students ’ Awareness in Controlling their Intuition. Bolema - Mathematics Education Bulletin, 35(70), 745–765. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v35n70a10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v35n70a10
  11. Darmawan, P., & Yusuf, F. I. (2022). Teori Kognitivisme dan Penerapannya dalam Penelitian Pendidikan Matematika. Insan Cendekia. https://www.ptonline.com/articles/how-to-get-better-mfi-results
  12. Diederich, A. (2023). A Dynamic Dual Process Model for Binary Choices: Serial Versus Parallel Architecture. Computational Brain and Behavior, 16(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-023-00186-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-023-00186-1
  13. Firnanda, G. I., Darmawan, P., & Rofiki, I. (2023). Eksplorasi interaksi parallel-competitive mahasiswa dalam pemecahan masalah program linear. Jurnal Kajian Pembelajaran Matematika, 7(2), 70–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um076v7i22023p70-85 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17977/um076v7i22023p70-85
  14. Ghasemi, O., Handley, S., Howarth, S., Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2022). Logical Intuition Is Not Really About Logic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(9), 2009–2028. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001179
  15. Howarth, S., Handley, S., & Polito, V. (2022). Uncontrolled logic: intuitive sensitivity to logical structure in random responding. Thinking and Reasoning, 28(1), 61–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1934119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1934119
  16. Newman, I. R., & Thompson, V. A. (2023). Not feeling right about uncertainty monitoring. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, 2–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22003089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22003089
  17. Nugroho, P. B., Darmawan, P., & Baidawi, B. (2021). Peran Keyakinan dalam Berpikir Intuitif ketika Memecahkan Masalah Modus Tollens. Jurnal Silogisme : Kajian Ilmu Matematika Dan Pembelajarannya, 6(2), 16–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24269/silogisme.v6i2.4165
  18. Papa, F. J. (2016). A Dual Processing Theory Based Approach to Instruction and Assessment of Diagnostic Competencies. Medical Science Educator, 26, 787-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0326-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0326-8
  19. Pavlova, M. K. (2024). A dual process model of spontaneous conscious thought. Consciousness and Cognition, 118, 103631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2023.103631
  20. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Schuh, J. (2010). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics : How animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instructional Science, 38, 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9114-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9114-9
  21. Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2023). A good architecture for fast and slow thinking, but exclusivity is exclusively in the past. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46(July), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002904
  22. Susiswo, Darmawan, P., Murtafiah, W., & Osman, S. (2024). Exploring default-interventionist interaction of thinking activity types on probability problem-solving. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp295-316 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp295-316
  23. Talat, U., Chang, K., & Nguyen, B. (2017). Decision and Intuition During Organizational Change: Evolutionary Critique Of Dual Process Theory. The Bottom Line, 30, 236–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-08-2017-0016
  24. Thompson, V., & Morsanyi, K. (2012). Analytic thinking: do you feel like it? Mind & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0100-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-012-0100-6
  25. Voudouri, A., Bago, B., Borst, G., & De Neys, W. (2023). Reasoning and cognitive control, fast and slow. Judgment and Decision Making, 18, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.32 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.32

Education and Talent Development Center of Indonesia (ETDC Indonesia)
e-mail: kognitif@etdc.org, website : https://etdc-indonesia.com

Creative Commons License
Kognitif: Jurnal Riset HOTS Pendidikan Matematika dengan Situs: https://etdci.org/journal/kognitif  berlisensi  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

p-ISSN 2776-9984, e-ISSN 2776-9704 

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Dimensions Badge

Downloads

Downloads
Crossmark Badge
Crossmark Badge
Section
Original Research Articles
Keywords
Situational Judgment Test (SJT) Pendidikan Profesi Guru Intuisi Teori Dual Proses Interaksi Berpikir