“Make A Match Model” for Improving the Understanding of Concepts and Student Learning Results

Ana Juliani(1*), Ali Mustadi(2), Intan Lisnawati(3)

(1) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
(2) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
(3) National Central University
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study applies the “Make A Match model” to mathematics subjects, in increasing the ability to understand concepts and student learning outcomes in mathematics. This type of research is Classroom Action Research (CAR) and uses a Kemmis and Taggart model design with four stages, namely 1) Planning, 2) Action, 3) Observation, and 4) Reflection with a qualitative approach. This study uses 3 cycles, namely pre-cycle, cycle I and cycle II. Each cycle consists of four stages, namely: planning, action, observation, and reflection. This research was conducted at Yogyakarta PGRI University. The research subjects are second-semester students majoring in Elementary education (Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, hereafter called “PGSD”). The instrument used was a test that contained questions in the form of essays.  Analysis of the data used is qualitative descriptive analysis. The results were obtained based on indicators of concept understanding, namely in the second cycle which increased including 1) students who were able to restate the concept from 62.50% in the pre-cycle to 76.38% in the second cycle, 2) students who were able to give examples 72.76% in the pre-cycle to 76.38% in the second cycle, 3) students who are able to present concepts in various representations from 70.86% in the pre-cycle to 85.34% in the second cycle, and 4) students who are able to associate internal or external Make A Match model from 70.69% pre-cycle to 76.38% in cycle II. It was concluded that the “Make A Match learning model” can improve students' understanding of concepts and learning outcomes in mathematics learning.

Keywords

learning results; make a match model; understanding of concepts

Full Text:

PDF

References

Agus, Suprijono. 2012. Cooperative Le-arning: Teori dan Aplikasi Paikem. Yogyakrta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Anderson, Lorin W. & David Krathwohl. (2010). Kerangka landasan untuk pembe-lajaran pengajaran dan asessmen. (Terje-mahan Agung Prihantoro). New York: Company, Inc. (Buku asli diterbitkan ta-hun 1956).

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2011). Taxonomy learning, teaching, and asses-sing. New York: Longman.

Arends, R. I., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for student learning: becoming an ac-complished teacher. New York: Routled-ge.

Brooks, Sara. Et al. (2014). Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspecti-ve. Routladge, Taylor & Francis Group. Vol. 19, No. 6, Hal. 721-733.

Eurika Jansen, V. V., Herzog, M., & Fritz, A. (2018). Meerkat maths – a comprehensi-ve maths learning programme for grade-R. South african journal of childhood education (SAJCE), 8(2).

Hansen, A. (2011), Childrens errors in ma-thematics. Exeter, California: SAGE Pu-blication Inc.

Hunt, J. H., & Little, M. E. (2014). Intensi-fying interventions for students by identi-fying and remediating conceptual unders-tandings in mathematics. Council for Ex-ceptional Children.

Hu, Z. (2014). Students’ experience and per-ceived learning outcomes in international collaborative programs in shanghai, chi-na (Disertasi doctor, University of the pacific stockton, 2014). UMI Dissertation Publishing.

Keshavarz, M. (2011). Measuring course learning outcomes. Journal of learning design, 4, 1-9.

Li, Qi., & Ni, Y. (2013). Debates in the basic education curriculum reform and tea-chers’ challenges in china. Chinese edu-cation & society, 45(4), 9-21.

Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of student. Bos-ton. Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon.

Pederson, J. E. & Digby, A. (2013). Secon-dary school and cooperative learning: theory, models, and strategies. New York: Routledge.

Reys, R., et al. (2012). Helping Children Le-arn Mathematics. Hoboken: John Willey & Son, Inc.

Rootzen, H. (2015). Individualized learning through non-linear use of learning ob-jects: with examples from math and stat. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences In-ternational Limited.

Rusman, 2012. Model-model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Profesionalisme Guru, RajaGrafindo Persada, Jakarta.

Satrio, S. W., & Vahlia, I. (2016). Efektifitas penggunaan metode pembelajaran quan-tum learning terhadap kemampuan pe-mahaman konsep matematis mahasiswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 275-276.

Six Principles for School Mathematics. (2014). National council of teachers of mathematics, 1-6.

Smith, T. (2018). Active learning in the math classroom. Teach & learning, 38(7), 26-28

Suharsimi, Arikunto. (2010). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Suneetha, E., Rao, R. S., & Rao, D. B. (2011). Methods of teaching mathema-tics. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Targated News Service (2015). Allabama teacher recognized for enhancing student learning in math and science. Washing-ton, D.C.

Thruston, A., Karagiannidou, E., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Murray, P., Topping, K. (2010). Enhancing outcomes in school science for pupils during transition from elementary school using cooperative le-arning. Middle grades research journal, 5, 19-32.

Zipper, E. L., Diamant-Cohen, B., & Gol-dsmith, A. Y. (2017). Math counts too!: promoting family engagement in math activities at home. Children & libraries, 15(2), 38-40.

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 1846 time(s)
PDF: 1397 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.