Tingkat Berpikir Geometri Berdasarkan Level Van Hiele Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar Taruna D1 STPN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30983/lattice.v4i1.8362Keywords:
Berpikir Geometri, Level berpikir Van Hiele, Gaya BelajarAbstract
Geometry skills are an important component not only for students majoring in mathematics, but also for non-mathematics students, including students at the National Land College. This is because the science of geometry plays an important role in everyday life, such as measurement. This research is quantitative descriptive. The instrument used in this research was the VHGT test with 25 questions. The subjects in this research were 53 first semester D1 students majoring in cadastral measurement and mapping. The research results show that the highest level of geometric thinking that can be achieved is level 3 at 7.5%. The dominant geometric thinking level of students is at level 1 at 34%, followed by level 2 at 22.6%. The percentage of students who are at level 0 and not fit is 35.9%. Apart from that, the distribution of learning styles possessed by students is kinesthetic at 45% and is able to reach the highest level of geometric thinking, informal deduction level. Furthermore, visual was 37.7% and was able to reach the highest level of informal deduction and auditory was 5.6% which reached the highest level of thinking at the analytical level. In other words, the existence of students who are still at level 0 and not fit shows that their geometry skills still need to be improved.
Kemampuan geometri menjadi komponen penting tidak hanya bagi taruna yang mengambil jurusan matematika, namun juga bagi taruna non matematika termasuk taruna di Sekolah Tinggi Pertanahan Nasional. Hal ini dikarenakan ilmu geometri yang berperan penting dalam kehidupan sehari-hari seperti pengukuran. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kuantitatif. Instrumen yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah tes VHGT sebanyak 25 soal. Subjek dalam penelitian ini adalah 53 taruna D1 semester satu jurusan pengukuran dan pemetaan kadastral. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tingkat berpikir geometri tertinggi yang mampu dicapai adalah level 3 sebanyak 7,5 %. Tingkat berpikir dominan taruna berada pada level 1 sebanyak 34 %, disusul level 2 sebanyak 22,6 %. Persentase taruna yang berada pada level 0 dan not fit sebanyak 35,9%. Selain itu, distribusi gaya belajar yang dimiliki oleh taruna adalah kinestetik sebesar 45 % dan mampu mencapai tingkat berpikir geometri tertinggi level deduksi informal. Selanjutnya, visual sebesar 37,7 % dan mampu mencapai level tertinggi pada deduksi informal serta auditori sebesar 5,6 % yang mencapai tingkat berpikir tertinggi pada level analisis. Dengan kata lain, adanya taruna yang masih berada pada level 0 dan not fit menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan geometri masih perlu ditingkatkan.
References
M. Muslimin and S. Sunardi, “Analisis Kemampuan Penalaran Matematika Siswa SMA Pada Materi Geometri Ruang,” Kreano, J. Mat. Kreat., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 2019, doi: 10.15294/kreano.v10i2.18323.
P. Firmanti, “Student’s Cognitive Conflict in Geometry Learning,” AL-ISHLAH J. Pendidik., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 4713–4722, 2022, doi: 10.35445/alishlah.v14i3.2236.
K. T. Utaminingtyas, R. E. Herdianti, I. H. Fitria, and A. Prayitno, “Small Groups: Student Productive Interactions in Learning Cooperative (Case Study of Mathematics Learning at Junior High School in Pakis, Malang),” Educ. Process Int. J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 37–42, 2017, doi: 10.22521/edupij.2017.62.3.
A. I. Alfaruqi and M. Lutfianto, “Perbandingan Kemampuan Spasial Siswa SMA Pada Materi Geometri Ditinjau dari Gaya Belajar Siswa,” Semin. Nas. Pendidik. Mat. Ahmad Dahlan, vol. 1, pp. 13–17, 2016.
A. Bosman and S. Schulze, “Learning style preferences and mathematics achievement of secondary school learners,” South African J. Educ., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018, doi: 10.15700/saje.v38n1a1440.
A. B. Wicaksono, A. N. Chasanah, and H. Sukoco, “Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Geometri Berbasis Budaya Ditinjau Dari Gender Dan Gaya Belajar,” AKSIOMA J. Progr. Stud. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 240, 2021, doi: 10.24127/ajpm.v10i1.3256.
N. D. S. Chetty et al., “Learning styles and teaching styles determine students’ academic performances,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 610–615, 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v8i3. 20345.
R. Ramadoni and H. Dimas, “Hubungan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika dengan Gaya Belajar Siswa,” Lattice J. J. Math. Educ. Appl., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 25, 2023, doi: 10.30983/lattice.v3i1.6327.
D. Ramadhani, U. Rahmi, T. Rahmat, and G. H. Medika, “Pengaruh Minat dan Gaya Belajar terhadap Prestasi Belajar Matematika Siswa di Kelas X SMAN 1 Kecamatan Gunuang Omeh,” J. Pendidik. Tambusai, vol. 8, pp. 11511–11520, 2024.
M. M. Zagoto, N. Yarni, and O. Dakhi, “Perbedaan Individu Dari Gaya Belajarnya Serta Implikasinya Dalam Pembelajaran,” J. Rev. Pendidik. dan Pengajaran, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 259–265, 2019, doi: 10.31004/jrpp.v2i2.481.
S. Şener and A. Çokçalışkan, “An Investigation between Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles,” J. Educ. Train. Stud., vol. 6, no. 2, p. 125, 2018, doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i2.2643.
J. P. Zales and R. S. Vasquez, “Learning styles and achievement in geometry,” South Florida J. Dev., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 5542–5548, 2022, doi: 10.46932/sfjdv3n4-117.
& D. S. . Khayroiyah, “Analisis Kemampuan Spasial Visualization Siswa Pada Materi Geometri Transformasi Menggunakan Aplikasi Zoom Di Sma Persiapan Stabat T.P.2020/2021,” Maju, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 389–398, 2021.
A. B. Wicaksono and D. Juniati, “Level Berpikir Geometris Mahasiswa Calon Guru Matematika Berdasarkan Teori Van Hiele,” AKSIOMA J. Progr. Stud. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 11, no. 3, p. 2479, 2022, doi: 10.24127/ajpm.v11i3.5491.
STPN, “Materi Kurikulum Studi Diploma 1 Pengukuran dan Pemetaan Kadastral Sekolah Tinggi Pertanahan Nasional.”
T. A. Wulandari and N. Ishartono, “Analisis Kemampuan Representasi Matematika Siswa SMA Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Geometri Berdasarkan Level Berpikir Van Hiele,” JNPM (Jurnal Nas. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 97, 2022, doi: 10.33603/jnpm.v6i1.5330.
F. D. Widiyanti, “The Importance of Knowing Student Learning Styles in Classroom Learning Activities,” Erud. J. Educ. Innov., vol. 2, no. 1, 2013.
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Fauzi Yuberta, Pipit Firmanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Lattice Journal : Journal of Mathematics Education and Applied agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the Lattice Journal : Journal of Mathematics Education and Applied right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in Lattice Journal : Journal of Mathematics Education and Applied. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Lattice Journal : Journal of Mathematics Education and Applied. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
