Articles
Published: 2023-11-30

# Student’s ways of thinking and ways of understanding analysis in solving mathematics problems in term of adversity quotient

UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya Indonesia
UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
##plugins.generic.jatsParser.article.authorBio##
×

#### Fitria Anis Kurlillah

Mathematics Education

UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya
##plugins.generic.jatsParser.article.authorBio##
×

#### Kusaeri

Mathematics Education

Ways of thinking Ways of understanding Adversity quotient

## Abstract

[English]: There are two categories of thinking skills that influence each other in mathematical knowledge, namely a thinking process called ways of thinking (WoT) and ways of understanding (WoU). This study aims to describe students' WoT and WoU in solving mathematics problems in terms of adversity quotient (AQ). This research is descriptive and qualitative. The participants of this study were students at MTs Muhammadiyah 1 Taman Sidoarjo. The subjects were selected based on the results of the adversity response profile test using a purposive sampling technique, so there were 3 climbers, 3 campers, and 2 quitter. The written test and interview data were analyzed according to the WoT and WoU indicators. The results of this study indicate that the WoT climber students tend to have one strategy in solving mathematical problems that leads to the correct solution, an empirical WoT, and a very good belief in mathematical concepts. Meanwhile, the WoT campers and quitters tend to have one strategy that leads to wrong solutions, and beyond belief WoT. The camper students have good confidence, while quitter students have less confidence in mathematical concepts. The WoU climber students are in the very good category, camper students are enough, and quitter students are in the less category. The WoT and WoU of climber students are better than those of camper and quitter students.

[Bahasa]Terdapat dua kategori keterampilan berpikir yang saling mempengaruhi dalam pengetahuan matematika yaitu proses berpikir yang disebut ways of thinking (WoT), dan cara pemahaman siswa yang disebut dengan ways of understanding (WoU). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan WoT dan WoU siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah matematika ditinjau dari adversity quotient (AQ). Penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini merupakan siswa di MTs Muhammadiyah 1 Taman Sidoarjo. Subjek dipilih berdasarkan hasil tes adversity respons profile menggunakan teknik purposive sampling, sehingga didapatkan 3 siswa climbers, 3 campers dan 2 quitters. Data tes tulis dan wawancara dianalisis sesuai indikator WoT dan WoU. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa WoT siswa climber dalam menyelesaikan masalah matematika cenderung memiliki satu strategi yang mengarah pada solusi benar, cara berpikir empiris, dan memiliki keyakinan yang sangat baik terhadap konsep matematika. Sedangkan WoT siswa camper dan quitter cenderung memiliki satu strategi yang mengarah pada solusi salah, dan cara berpikir luar keyakinan. Siswa camper memiliki keyakinan yang baik, sedangkan siswa quitter memiliki keyakinan yang kurang terhadap konsep matematika. WoU siswa climber berkategori sangat baik, siswa camper berkategori cukup. dan siswa quitter berkategori kurang. WoT dan WoU siswa climber lebih baik dibandingkan siswa camper dan quitter.

## References

1. Aiyub, A. (2023). Ways of thinking siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah pola bilangan non rutin: Suatu penelitian fenomenologi hermeneutik. Journal of Didactic Mathematics, 4(2), 65–76. Doi: 10.34007/jdm.v4i2.1851
2. Alabdulaziz, M. S., Aldossary, S. M., Alyahya, S. A., & Althubiti, H. M. (2021). The effectiveness of the GeoGebra Programme in the development of academic achievement and survival of the learning impact of the mathematics among secondary stage students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2685–2713. Doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10371-5
3. Arifendi, R. F., & Wijaya, E. M. S. (2018). Diagnosis Kesulitan Peserta Didik dan Upaya Pemberian Scaffolding dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Geometri. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Ilmu Pengetahuan, 18(1).
4. Basri, H., Purwanto, As’ari, A. R., & Sisworo. (2019). Investigating critical thinking skill of junior high school in solving mathematical problem. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 745–758. Doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12345a
5. Chabibah, L. N., Siswanah, E., & Tsani, D. F. (2019). Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal cerita barisan ditinjau dari adversity quotient. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(2), 199–210. Doi: 10.21831/pg.v14i2.29024
6. Chusni, M. M., Saputro, S., Rahardjo, S. B., & Suranto. (2021). Student’s Critical Thinking Skills Through Discovery Learning Model Using E-Learning on Environmental Change Subject Matter. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1123–1135. Doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1123
7. Damayanti, R., Sunardi, Yuliati, N., Karimah, R., & Albab, A. U. (2020). Students’ metacognitive ability in solving quadrilateral problem based on adversity quotient. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1538(012077), 1–11. Doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1538/1/012077
8. Fauzi, I., & Arisetyawan, A. (2020). Analisis Kesulitan Belajar Siswa pada Materi Geometri Di Sekolah Dasar. Kreano, Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 11(1), 27–35. Doi: 10.15294/kreano.v11i1.20726
9. Fauziansyah, Y. A., Maryani, E., & Ningrum, E. (2013). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Sains teknologi Masyarakat Terhadap Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis. Jurnal Pendidikan Geografi Gea, 13(2), 159–166.
10. Harel, G. (2008a). A DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction. Part II: With reference to teacher’s knowledge base. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(5), 893–907. Doi: 10.1007/s11858-008-0146-4
11. Harel, G. (2008b). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction, Part I: Focus on proving. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 487–500. Doi: 10.1007/s11858-008-0104-1
12. Harel, G. (2021). The learning and teaching of multivariable calculus: a DNR perspective. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 53(3), 709–721. Doi: 10.1007/s11858-021-01223-8
13. Hasanuddin, M., & Lutfianto, M. (2018). Ketrampilan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa Sma Berdasarkan Tahapan Wallas Dalam Memecahkan Masalah Program Linear Ditinjau Dari Adversity Quotient (AQ). JIPMat, 3(1), 37–43. Doi: 10.26877/jipmat.v3i1.2123
14. Husain, D. S., Darhim, D., & Kusnandi, K. (2022). Kemampuan Representasi Matematis Ditinjau Dari Adversity Quotient Dan Self-Efficacy. Aksioma Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(4), 3684–3694.
15. Indrawati, D. (2019). Profil Berpikir Kreatif Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Cerita Materi Luas dan Keliling Bangun Datar Ditinjau dari Adversity Quotient (AQ). Universitas Jember.
16. Indrayany, E. S., & Lestari, F. (2019). Analisis kesulitan siswa SMP dalam memecahkan masalah geometri dan faktor penyebab kesulitan siswa ditinjau dari teori van hiele. Jurnal Math Educator Nusantara: Wahana Publikasi Karya Tulis Ilmiah Di Bidang Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 109–123.Doi: 10.29407/jmen.v5i2.13729
17. Junining, E., Perdhani, W. C., Isnaini, M. H., & Setiarini, N. (2022). Critical Thinking Levels of EFL Undergraduate Students of Universitas Brawijaya. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 12(3), 1269–1281. Doi: 10.23960/jpp.v12.i3.202221
18. Kilicman, A., Hassan, M. A., & Husain, S. K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning using mathematics software “the new challenge.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 613–619. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.085
19. Koichu, B., Harel, G., & Manaster, A. (2013). Ways of thinking associated with mathematics teachers’ problem posing in the context of division of fractions. Instructional Science, 41(4), 681–698. Doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9254-1
20. Krulick, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1996). The new sourcebook for teaching reasoning and problem solving in junior and senior high school. Allyn and Bacon.
21. Kurniati, D., Harimukti, R., & Jamil, N. A. (2016). Kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi siswa SMP di Kabupaten Jember dalam menyelesaikan soal berstandar PISA. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 20(2), 142–155. Doi: 10.21831/pep.v20i2.8058
22. Kusaeri, & Aditomo, A. (2019). Pedagogical beliefs about Critical Thinking among Indonesian mathematics pre-service teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 573–590. Doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12137a
23. Kusaeri, K., Lailiyah, S., & Indayati, T. (2022). PHET and PBL: Do They Work Well Together in Improving Mathematical Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Ability? Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 12(2), 591–607. Doi: 10.23960/jpp.v12.i2.202215
24. Kusdinar, U., Sukestiyarno, S., Isnarto, I., & Istiandaru, A. (2017). Krulik and Rudnik Model Heuristic Strategy in Mathematics Problem Solving. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 1(2), 205. Doi: 10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5708
25. Kusumawardani, L. (2018). Proses Berpikir Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Open-Ended Model PISA Konten Space and Shape Berdasarkan Adversity Quotient (AQ). Universitas Jember.
26. Lingefjärd, T., Ghosh, J., & Kanhere, A. (2012). Students Solving Investigatory Problems in a Dynamic Geometry Environment - a Study of Students ’ Work in in Dia and Sweden. 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, 3878–3887.
27. Ma’rifah, N., Junaedi, I., & Mulyono. (2019). Tingkat Kemampuan Berpikir Geometri Siswa Kelas VIII. Seminar Nasional Pascasarjana UNNES 2019, 251–254. https://proceeding.unnes.ac.id/index.php/snpasca/article/download/283/252/
28. Marques, J. (2012). Moving From Trance To Think: Why We Need To Polish Our Critical Thinking Skills. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(1), 87–95.
29. Maryanih, Rohaeti, E. E., & Afrilianto, M. (2018). Analisis Kesulitan Siswa SMP Dalam Memahami Konsep Kubus Balok. JPMI (Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Inovatif), 1(4), 751. Doi: 10.22460/jpmi.v1i4.p751-758
30. Mefiana, S. A., & Herman, T. (2023). Karakteristik Ways of Thinking dan Ways of Understanding Siswa Kelas VII dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Bilangan Bulat dan Pecahan. Journal on Mathematics Education Research, 04(02), 56–65.
31. Megawati, Wardani, A. K., & Hartatiana. (2019). Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Siswa Smp Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Matematika Model PISA. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(1), 15–24. Doi: 10.22342/jpm.14.1.6815.15-24
32. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook Volume 14. SAGE Publications.
33. Muhtarom, Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2017). Consistency and inconsistency of prospective teachers’ beliefs in mathematics, teaching, learning and problem solving. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(August). Doi: 10.1063/1.4995141
34. Mujib. (2015). Membangun Kreativitas Siswa Dengan Teori Schoenfeld pada Pembelajaran Matematika Melalui Lesson Study. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1), 53–61.
35. Murawski, L. M. (2014). Critical Thinking in The Classroom ... and Beyond. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 25–30.
36. Musa, L. A. D. (2016). Level Berpikir Geometri Menurut Teori Van Hiele Berdasarkan Kemampuan Geometri dan Perbedaan Gender Siswa Kelas VII SMPN 8 Pare-Pare. Al-Khwarizmi: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, 4(2), 103–116. Doi: 10.24256/jpmipa.v4i2.255
37. Mustika, R., Yurniwati, & Hakim, L. El. (2018). Hubungan Self Confidence dan Adversity Quotient Terhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematik Siswa. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan, 18(2), 220–230.
38. Nirawati, R., Darhim, D., Fatimah, S., & Juandi, D. (2022). Students’ Ways of Thinking on Geometry. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 9(1), 59–77. Doi: 10.24815/jdm.v9i1.23338
39. Nurhasanah. (2019). Ways Of Thinking (WoT) Dan Ways Of Understanding (WoU) Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Pada Vektor Ditinjau Dari Teori Harel. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
40. Nurhasanah, H., Turmudi, & Jupri, A. (2021). Karakteristik Ways of Thinking (WoT) dan Ways of Understanding (WoU) siswa berdasarkan teori Harel. Journal of Authentic Research on Mathematics Education (JARME), 3(1), 105–113.
41. Rabu, S. N. A., & Badlishah, N. S. (2020). Levels of Students’ Reflective Thinking Skills in a Collaborative Learning Environment Using Google Docs. TechTrends, 64(3), 533–541. Doi: 10.1007/s11528-020-00504-5
42. Samosir, C. M., & Herman, T. (2023). Students’ Ways Of Understanding And Thinking Based On Harel’s Theory In Solving Set Problems. JOHME: Journal Of Holistic Mathematics Education, 7(2), 169–179.
43. Sanabria, J. C., & Arámburo-Lizárraga, J. (2017). Enhancing 21st century skills with AR: Using the gradual immersion method to develop collaborative creativity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 487–501. Doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00627a
44. Sandy, W. R., Inganah, S., & Jamil, A. F. (2019). The analysis of students’ mathematical reasoning ability in completing mathematical problems on geometry. Mathematics Education Journals, 3(1), 72–79.
45. Sholihah, S. Z., & Afriansyah, E. A. (2017). Analisis Kesulitan Siswa dalam Proses Pemecahan Masalah Geometri Berdasarkan Tahapan Berpikir Van Hiele. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(2), 287–298. Doi: 10.31980/mosharafa.v6i2.317
46. Stoltz, P. G. (2005). Adversity quotient mengubah hambatan menjadi peluang. Grasindo.
47. Toker, S., & Baturay, M. H. (2021). Developing disposition to critical thinking and problem ‑ solving perception in instructional design projects for producing digital materials. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(4), 267–1292. Doi: 10.1007/s10798-020-09646-2
48. Widyastuti, R. (2015). Proses Berpikir Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Matematika berdasarkan Teori Polya ditinjau dari Adversity Quotient Tipe Climber. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan, 6(2), 183–193.
49. Widyatiningtyas, R., Kusumah, Y. S., Sumarmo, U., & Sabandar, J. (2015). The impact of problem-based learning approach tosenior high school students’ mathematics critical thinking ability. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 30–38. Doi: 10.22342/jme.6.2.2165.107-116
50. Wu, Z. (2017). Effects of using problem of the week in teaching on teacher learning and change in algebraic thinking and algebra. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 49(2), 203–221. Doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0844-x
51. Yani, M., Ikhsan, M., & Marwan. (2016). Proses Berpikir Siswa Sekolah Menengah Pertama Dalam Memecahkan Masalah Matematika Berdasarkan langkah-Langkah Polya. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 43–58. Doi: 10.22342/jpm.10.1.3278.42-57
52. Zhao, Y., Sang, B., & Ding, C. (2021). The roles of emotional intelligence and adversity quotient in life satisfaction. Current Psychology. Doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01398-z

### How to Cite

Lailiyah, S., Fitria Anis Kurlillah, & Kusaeri. (2023). Student’s ways of thinking and ways of understanding analysis in solving mathematics problems in term of adversity quotient. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 16(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v16i2.567