Elementary School Student Creativity in Solving Geometry Contextual Problems based on Adversity Quotient

Authors

  • Dyen Erni Lakapu Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
  • Neni Mariana Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30738/indomath.v3i2.7833

Keywords:

creativity, contextual problems, geometry, adversity quotient

Abstract

Creativity is an ability that is needed in solving a problem. A person's creativity in solving problems can be assessed using three components namely fluency, flexibility, and novelty. Someone in solving problems can be influenced by the adversity quotient they have. There are three categories of adversity quotient namely quitter, camper, and climber. This type of research is a qualitative research method descriptive. This study aims to describe the creativity of elementary school students in solving contextual geometry problems based on adversity quotient. The subjects in this study were three people consisting of quitter subjects, camper subjects, and climber subjects. Data is collected through adversity Response Profile (ARP) tests, Problem Solving Tests (TPM) and interviews. The results showed that the creativity of subjects with the quitter category in solving contextual geometry problems was not able to achieve fluency, flexibility, and novelty. The creativity of subjects with camper categories in solving contextual geometry problems only achieves fluency and flexibility. Whereas the creativity of subjects with climber types in solving contextual geometry problems is able to achieve fluency, flexibility, and novelty.

References

Afri, L. D. (2018). Hubungan AQ dengan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Siswa SMP pada Pembelajaran Matematika. Jurnal Pendidikan & Matematika, VII(2) 47-53.

Akgul & Kahveci. (2016). A Study on the Development of a Mathematics Creativity Scale. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 57-76.

Aminarti, D., Bistari & Nursangaji, A. (2017). Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Ditinjau dari Adversity Quotient pada Materi Bangun Datar di SMP. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 6(2), 1-12.

Ayllon & Ballesta-Claver. (2016). Mathematical Thinking and Creativity through Matheatical Problem Posing and Solving. PropÏŒsitos y Representaciones, 169-218.

Edgar et al,. (2008). Creative Thinking: Opening Up a World of Thought. Diakses tanggal 30 November 2019 dari https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242314209CreativeThinkingOpening_UpaWorldofThought .

Gie. (2003). Teknik Berpikir Kreatif. Yogyakarta: Sabda Persada Yogyakarta.

Giyono. (2019). Model Pembelajaran Identification of Problems, Collecting Data, Analyze Problems Solving, Reflection and Follow-up (ICAR) untuk Membelajarkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Fisika SMA. (Disertasi tidak dipublikasikan). Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya.

Jagom. (2015). Kreativitas Siswa SMP dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Geometri berdasarkan Gaya Belajar Visual-Spatial dan Auditory-Sequential. Math Didactic: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 1(3), 179-190.

Karkockiene. (2005). Creativity: Can it be Trained? A Scientific Educology of Creativity. cd-International Journal of Educology, 51-58.

Lakapu. (2018). Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Mahasiswa dalam Pemecahan Masalah Matematika pada Materi Trigonometri. Seminar Nasional Matematika. Bandung: Fakultas Teknologi Informasi dan Sains, Universitas Parahyangan Bandung. (pp. 12-18).

Lutfianto et al. (2013). Unfinished Student Answer In Pisa Mathematics Contextual Problem. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(2), 188-193.

Mulyadi & Mufita. (2006). Pengaruh AQ dan EQ terhadap Kecemasan Persaingan Kerja. Jurnal Psikologi dan Keislaman, 3(1).

Mursalin. (2016). Pembelajaran Geometri Bidang Datar di Sekolah Dasar Berorientasi Teori Belajar Piaget. Jurnal Dikma, 4(2), 250-258.

Nakin. (2003). Creativity and Divergent Thinking in Geometry Education . Africa: Disertasi doktoral, University of South Africa. Diperoleh dari https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43164736.pdf.

Plucker et al. (2004). Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83-96.

Putri et al. (2019). Creative Thinking Skill with Adversity Quotient Based on Lesson Study for Learning Community. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1211, 012110.

Siswono. (2004). Mendorong Berpikir Kreatif Siswa melalui Pengajuan Masalah (Problem Posing). Konferensi Nasional Matematika XII. Bali: Universitas Udayana. 74-87.

Siswono. (2018). Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis Pengajuan dan Pemecahan Masalah. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Soedjadi. (2007). Masalah Kontekstual sebagai Batu Sendi Matematika Sekolah. Surabaya: Pusat Sains dan Matematika Sekolah Unesa.

Stoltz. (2000). Adversity Quotient: Mengubah Hambatan Menjadi Peluang. Jakarta: PT Grasindo.

Susanah & Hartono. (2004). Geometri. Surabaya: Unesa University Press.

Wale et al,. (2013). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics:Teaching Developmentally. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Wallace. (1986). Creativity: Some Definitions: The Creative Personality; The Creative Process; The Creative Classroom. Gifted Education International, 4(2), 68-73.

Weisberg. (2006). Expertise and Reason in Creative Thinking: Evidence from Case Studies and the Laboratory. In Kaufman, J.C. and Baer, J. (Eds). Creativity and Reason in Cognitive Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-07-28

Issue

Section

Artikel

Citation Check