Interaksi Default-Intervionist (DI) Siswa Sekolah Dasar dalam Memecahkan Masalah Geometri

Puguh Darmawan

doi:10.51574/kognitif.v3i1.657

Authors

Puguh Darmawan Universitas Negeri Malang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51574/kognitif.v3i1.657

Keywords:

Teori Dual-Proses, Geometri, Pemecahan Masalah, Interaksi Default-Intervionist

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengkaji interaksi default-intervionist (DI) siswa sekolah dasar. Interaksi DI adalah interaksi berpikir yang melibatkan sistem 1 dan sistem 2. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan jenis studi kasus. Instrumen penelitian ini terdiri dari peneliti sebagai instrumen utama, rubrik indikator interaksi DI, masalah geometri, pedoman wawancara semi-terstruktur, catatan peneliti, dan alat rekam video. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ada tiga jenis interaksi DI. Jenis 1 melibatkan proses otomatis, proses subjektif-empiris, dan proses menyadari. jenis 2 melibatkan proses otomatis dan proses menyadari. Jenis 3 melibatkan proses otomatis, proses tanpa menyadari dan proses menyadari. Pada interaksi DI jenis 1 proses otomatis terjadi ketika subjek menggambar sketsa segitiga siku-siku tanpa mengukur secara cermat, proses subjektif-empiris terjadi ketika subjek menganggap telah mengahsilkan sudut siku-siku segitiga siku-siku melalui kesan visual, dan proses menyadari terjadi ketika subjek mencermati gambar sketsa segitiga siku-siku dan menghasilkan anggapan bahwa gambar sketsa yang dihasilkan memenuhi sebagai gambar segitiga siku-siku. Pada interaksi DI jenis 2, proses otomatis terjadi ketika subjek memilih bilangan bulat sebagai ukuran sisi dan proses menyadari terjadi ketika subjek memutuskan untuk menghitung bilangan yang dipilih melalui cara bersusun karena tidak hafal hasil operasinya. Pada interaksi DI jenis 3, proses tanpa menyadari dan proses otomatis terjadi ketika subjek menggambar sketsa segitiga siku-siku tanpa mencermati ukurannya dan proses menyadari terjadi ketika subjek mengitung persegi satuan di daerah dalam gambar sketsa segitiga siku-siku yang dihasilkan

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Balashov, E., Pasicichnyk, I., & Kalamazh, R. (2021). Metacognitive awareness and academic self-regulation of hei students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 9(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-2-161-172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-2-161-172

Bellini-leite, S. C. (2017). Dual Process Theory : Systems , Types , Minds , Modes , Kinds or Metaphors ? A Critical Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0376-x

Borodin, A. (2016). The Need for an Application of Dual-Process Theory to Mathematics Education. Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal, 3, 1–31.

Bringula, R., Reguyal, J. J., Tan, D. D., & Ulfa, S. (2021). Mathematics self-concept and challenges of learners in an online learning environment during COVID-19 pandemic. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00168-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00168-5

Darmawan, P. (2017). Berpikir Analitik Mahasiswa Dalam Mengonstruksi Bukti Secara Sintaksis. JPM : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.33474/jpm.v2i2.196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33474/jpm.v2i2.196

Darmawan, P. (2020). Students Analytical Thinking in Solving Problems of Polygon Areas. Kontinu: Jurnal Penelitian Didaktik Matematika, 4(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.30659/kontinu.4.1.17-32 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30659/kontinu.4.1.17-32

Darmawan, P., Purwanto, P., Parta, I. N., & Susiswo, S. (2020a). Interaksi Dual Proses dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Segibanyak Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Universitas Negeri Malang.

Darmawan, P., Purwanto, P., Parta, I. N., & Susiswo, S. (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

Darmawan, P., Purwanto, Parta, I. N., & Susiswo. (2020b). 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

Darmawan, P., & Yusuf, F. I. (2022). Teori Kognitivisme dan Penerapannya dalam Penelitian Pendidikan Matematika (P. Darmawan (ed.); 1st ed.). Insan Cendekia. https://www.ptonline.com/articles/how-to-get-better-mfi-results

Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory. Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8580-4_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8580-4_9

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(4), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780601008825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780601008825

Gawronski, B. (2013). ScienceDirect What should we expect from a dual-process theory of preference construction in choice ? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 556–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.04.007

Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual Process Theories. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 282–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730018.013.0014

Giardino, V., & Wöpking, J. (2019). Aspect seeing and mathematical representations. Avant, 10(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.26913/AVANT.2019.02.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26913/avant.2019.02.27

Giiven, Y. (2010). teacher views about intuition and estimation as ways of informal mathematics. Gifted Education Intemational, 26, 74–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600110

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

Kemendikbud. (2013). Kurikulum 2013 Kompetensi Dasar Sekolah Dasar (SD)/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI).

Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Only One ? The Default Interventionist Perspective as a Unimodel — Commentary on Evans & Stanovich ( 2013 ). Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483477 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483477

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis, A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Musser, G. L., Burger, W. F., & Peterson, B. E. (2011). Mathematics For Elementary Teachers A Contemporary Approach (Ninth Edit). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

Nurfitri, R. A., & Jusra, H. (2021). Analisis Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Peserta Didik Ditinjau dari Resiliensi Matematis dan Gender. Jurnal Cendekia : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 1943–1954. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v5i2.723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v5i2.723

Pennycook, G., & Thompson, V. A. (2012). Reasoning with base rates is routine , relatively effortless , and context dependent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0249-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0249-3

Reyna, V. F. (2015). How People Make Decisions That Involve Risk. Current Directions in Psuchological Science, 13(2), 60–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x

Riswanto, A. (2016). Kemiskinan: faktor penyebab dan analisis pemecah masalah poverty: causes and troubleshooting analysis. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora, 7(1), 59–72.

Stanovich, K. E., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2014). Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing: Reply to Comments. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613483774

Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition , reason , and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.001

Thompson, V. L., & McDowell, Y. L. (2019). A case study comparing student experiences and success in an undergraduate mathematics course offered through online, blended, and face-to-face instruction. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.552411 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.552411

Trippas, D., Thompson, V. A., & Handley, S. J. (2016). When fast logic meets slow belief : Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1