Budiono. CS & Wardono. (2014). “Pbm Berorientasi Pisa Berpendekatan Pmri Bermedia Lkpd Meningkatkan Literasi Matematika Siswa Smp”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education., 3(3): 210–219.
Dwijayani, N. M. (2017). “Pengembangan Media Pembelajaran ICARE”. Kreano, Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 8(2): 126–132.
Handayani, P., Agoestanto, A., & Masrukan (2013). “Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah dengan Asesmen Kinerja Terhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Msalah”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(1): 70–76.
Hasanah, U., Wardono, & Kartono. (2016). “Keefektifan Pembelajaran Murder Berpendekatan Pmri Dengan Asesmen Kinerja Pada Pencapaian Kemampuan Literasi Matematika Siswa Smp Serupa Pisa”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education., 5(2): 101–108.
Janah, S. R., Suyitno, H., & Rosyida, I. (2019). “Pentingnya Literasi Matematika dan Berpikir Kritis Matematis dalam Menghadapi Abad ke-21”. PRISMA, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika, 2: 905–910.
Jayanti, D.E., Waluya, St. B., & Rusilowati, A. (2014). “Analisis Pembelajaran Dan Literasi Matematika Serta Karakter Siswa Materi Geometri Dan Pengukuran”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 3(2): 79 – 83.
Kemendikbud. 2014a. Permendikbud Republik Indonesia nomor 58 tahun 2014 tentang Kurikulum 2013 Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah Lampiran I.
Kemendikbud. 2016. Silabus Mata Pelajaran Matematika SMP/MTs
Masrukan. (2017). Asesmen Otentik Pembelajaran Matematika Mencakup Asesmen Afektif dan Karakter. Semarang: CV. Swadaya Manunggal.
Masrukan, & Mufidah, N. A. (2017). “Geometry Problem Solving Ability and Tolerance Character of Students 8th Grade with Assessment Project”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 824: (012046).
Murdaningsih, S., & Murtiyasa, B. (2016). “An Analysis on Eight Grade Mathematics Textbook of New Indonesian Curriculum (K-13) Based on Pisa’s Framework”. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), 1(1): 14–27.
OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 Insights and Interpretations. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf. (Diunduh 17 Agustus 2021)
Putra, Y. Y., Zulkardi, Z., & Hartono, Y. (2016). “Pengembangan soal matematika model PISA konten bilangan untuk mengetahui kemampuan literasi matematika siswa”. Jurnal Elemen, 2(1), 14-26.
Rumiati, S. W. (2011). “Instrumen Penilaian Hasil Belajar Matematika SMP: Belajar dari PISA dan TIMSS”. Yogyakarta: Pusat Pengembangan Dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik Dan Tenaga Kependidikan (PPPPTK) Matematika.
Salyers, V., Carter, L., Barrett, P., & Williams, L. (2010). “Evaluating Student and Faculty Satisfaction with a Pedagogical Framework”. The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l’Éducation à Distance, 24(3): 1–15
Sukestiyarno. (2020). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Semarang: UNNES Press.
Sugiyono. (2020). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan Kombinasi (Mixed Methods). Bandung: Alfa Beta
Suryati, Masrukan, & Wardono. (2013). “Pengaruh Asesmen Kinerja dalam Model Pembelajaran. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education. 2(3): 7–13.
Undang-Undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional Nomor 20 Tahun 2013.
Utami, N., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., & Hidayah, I. (2020). Kemampuan Literasi dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Cerita Siswa Kelas IX A. Prisma, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika, 3: 626–633.
Wardono & Kurniasih, A. W. (2015). “Peningkatan Literasi Matematika Mahasiswa Melalui Pembelajaran Inovatif Realistik E-Learning Edmodo Bermuatan Karakter Cerdas Kreatif Mandiri”. Kreano: Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 6(1): 93– 100.
Wardono & Mariani, S. (2014). “The Realistic Learning Model with Character Education and PISA Assessment To Improve Mathematics”. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(7): 361–372.
Wardono, Waluya, St. B., Kartono, Mulyono, Mariani, S (2018). “Literasi Matematika Siswa SMP Pada Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning Realistik Edmodo Schoology”. Prisma, Prosiding Seminar Nasional matematika. (1) 477–498. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/prisma
Wahyudin, D. & Susilana, R. (2012). Kurikulum & Pembelajaran: Inovasi Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Rajawali Pers.
Wisudawati, N., Kuntarto, E., & Kurniawan, A. R. (2020). “Persepsi Guru Terhadap Aplikasi Edmodo Sebagai Alat Bantu Kegiatan Belajar Di Sekolah Dasar”. JRPD (Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Dasar), 3(1): 87-96.
Yumiati, & Wahyuningrum, E. (2015). “Pembelajaran Icare (Introduction, Connect, Apply, Reflect, Extend) Dalam Tutorial Online Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Mahasiswa UT”. Infinity Journal, 4(2): 182–189.
- Abstract viewed - 182 times
- PDF downloaded - 167 times
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright
© Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 2022
Affiliations
Rodhi Rodhi .
SMP 1 Jekulo
Kartono Kartono
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Iwan Junaedi
Universitas Negeri Semarang
How to Cite
Mathematical Literacy Pattern Considered by Students’ Interests in ICARE Learning Through Smart Apps Creator with Performance Assessment
Vol 11 No 1 (2022): June 2022
Submitted: May 14, 2022
Published: Jun 30, 2022
Abstract
This study aims to find patterns of mathematical literacy in terms of student interest in ICARE learning through smart apps creators with performance assessments. This type of research is a mixed-method explanatory type, with a quasi-experimental type of nonequivalent control group design. The research subjects were students of class IXF SMP 1 Jekulo. Methods of collecting data are obtained by observation, literacy tests, and interviews. Data analysis was based on 7 components of mathematical literacy, namely communication, mathematization, representation, reasoning, and argumentation, planning strategies, using symbolic, formal, and technical language as well as arithmetic operations, and using mathematical tools. The results of the study there were 3 different literacy patterns for high, medium, and low interest. The pattern of students' interest in learning is high, the average mastery of the minimum components is good: very good all components and good representation; four components are excellent and good for mathematization, representation and using tools; four components are very good and good for mathematizing, planning strategies, and representation. The average pattern of mastery of the components is minimal enough: good for all components except for sufficient mathematization; the second and third patterns are almost the same, namely all are good except that they use sufficient tools. Meanwhile, for the low-average pattern, there are less-criteria: all components are good except for using symbols and category tools enough; all components are minimal enough except for lack of mathematization; everything is minimal enough and less to use symbols.