Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2020 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

How are students’ reflective thinking for problem solving?

Pages
1135–1146
Publication Date
2020-09-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, the students need to get the treatments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Mathematics students with a reflective thinking tend to have self-confidence in solving mathematics easily.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The amounts of the subjects were 21 out of 140 students who used their reflective thinking for solving questions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the students need to get the treatments.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:analytic geometry · non-routine questions · reflective thinking

Abstract

Mathematics students with a reflective thinking tend to have self-confidence in solving mathematics easily. In recent years, however, there have not been the results of the researches that classify students’ reflective thinking for solving non-routine questions of Analytical Geometry questions, in particular. The present research paper reveals the new classification of the students’ reflective thinking for solving the problems. These are solving Analytical Geometry which can cause the students’ confusion to apply their reflective thinking. The classification of the study comprises four components. It employed a descriptive-qualitative approach. The amounts of the subjects were 21 out of 140 students who used their reflective thinking for solving questions. The data collection consisted of test, observation, and in-depth interview. The data validation employed a method triangulation technique. The results of the study show there are three classification of reflective thinking, namely: assumptive, virtual, and connective. The three classifications differ in the way they deal with confusion. Meanwhile, the three classifications have similarities. The students tended to use all of the reflective thinking components although there were a few indicators that were not realized maximally. These were making a plan before solving the problems, using an efficient way, and relating among concepts. The factor is students play an inactive role or low active in reflective thinking. Moreover, they think that the most important thing is answering the questions correctly and they do not understand the purposes of the problem. Therefore, the students need to get the treatments.

🔖

Cite This Article

KHOLİD, M., SA'DIJAH, C., HİDAYANTO, E., PERMADİ, H. (2020). How are students’ reflective thinking for problem solving?. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 1135–1146. https://ajindex.com/articles/262506

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Agustan, J. D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2017). Profile of Male-Field Dependent (FD) Prospective Teacher’s Reflective Thinking in Solving Contextual Mathematical Problem. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1867, 020034–1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4994437
  2. Agustan, S., Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2017). Profile of male-field dependent (FD) prospective teacher’s reflective thinking in solving contextual mathematical problem. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1867(March 2018). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4994437
  3. Ambrose, L. J., & Ker, J. S. (2014). Levels of Reflective Thinking and Patient Safety: an Investigation of The Mechanisms That Impact on Student Learning in a Single Cohort Over a 5 Year Curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9470-8
  4. Aytekin, C., Baltaci, S., Aktunkaya, B., Kiymaz, B., & Yildiz, A. (2016). A Scale to Determine Parents’ Expectation from Mathematics Education (Peme): Development, Reliability and Validity. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 17(3), 397–411.
  5. Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2019). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. CQPress.
  6. Basol, G., & Gencel, I. E. (2013). Reflective Thinking Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study. In Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri (Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 941–946).
  7. Chee, Y. S., & Mehrotra, S. (2012). Reflective, reflexive guided appropriation: Facilitating teacher adoption of game based learning in classrooms. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Games Based Learning: ECGBL, 109. Dervent, F. (2015). The Effect of Reflective Thinking on The Teaching Practices of Preservice Physical Education Teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3), 260–275. http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/dervent.pdf
  8. Dündar, S., & Yaman, H. (2015). How do Prospective Teachers Solve Routine and Non-Routine Trigonometry Problems? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 41–57.
  9. Eccles, D. W., & Arsal, G. (2017). The Think Aloud Method: What is It and How Do I Use It? Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(4), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1331501
  10. Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Data Integration With New Research Technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101
  11. Gencel, I. E., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2018). The Effect of Layered Curriculum on Reflective Thinking and on Self-Dire