KEMAMPUAN BERHIPOTESIS MAHASISWA FPMIPA IKIP BANDUNG DALAM KAITAN DENGAN POLA DAN TINGKAT BERPIKIRNYA

Nuryani Rustaman, Yusuf Hilmi Adisenjadja, Taufik Rachman, Kantika Subekti, Bambang Supriatno

Abstract


Penelitian ini ingin mengungkapkan profil kemampuan berhipotesis mahasiswa FPMIPA sebagai suatu ketrampilan proses terpadu; serta kaitannya dengan pola berpikir (deduktif-induktif), dan dengan tingkat berpikir (formal, formal awal, transisi, konkret). Menggunakan Tes Kemampuan Perumusan Hipotesis Format Uraian <TKPH-U> dan Format Pilihan <TKPH-P>, serta Tes Kemampuan Penalaran <TKP> yang  sudah divalidasi, dijaring kemampuan berhipotesis dan kemampuan penalaran mahasiswa FPMIPA IKIP Bandung angkatan 1987 <n= 85 >. Disimpulkan bahwa kemampuan berhipotesis mahasiswa kurang berkembang, walaupun tingkat berpikir sebagian besar mahasiswa sudah formal. Adanya temuan tentang kemampuan nalar dan berhipotesis calon guru matematika dan calon guru sains yang tidak berbeda memperkuat temuan keseluruhan bahwa ada korelasi positif antara kemampuan berpikir operasi formal dengan kemampuan berbahasa.

Abstract

The study on hipothesizig skills was carried out to provide some description  student teacher's  competency as one of the integrated process skills, and also its  relationship to reasoning abilities and to their level of thinking sets of validated instruments (TKPH-Uand TKPH-P;TKP)  and was applying them to 85 fourth year students of  FPMIPA-IKIPBandung, The result shoWithat while most student were in  formal operational  stage, their  hypothesizing skills had not been developed. Maths student ability  was not significantly different from  sciencestudents'. The findings strong relationship between languageand formal operational thinking abilities.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Blake, A.J.D. (1977). The case for science in the primary curriculum: Will the true pro• gressivism please stand up. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 23 (3): 13-18.

Cahn, S.M. (1970). Philosophicalfoundationsof education. New York: Harper & Row.

Chalmers, A. F. ( 1 980). What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes: The Open Univer• sity Press.

Dahar, R.W. (1985). Kesiapan guru mengajar• kan sains di sekolah dasar ditinjau dari segi pengembangan keterampilan proses sains. Disertasi.

Finley, F.N. (1983). Scienceprocesses.Journal of Researchin ScienceTeaching20(1): 47-

Hanson, N.R. (1971 ). Observationand Explana•

tion. New York: Harper and Row.

Hempel, C.G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Kohlberg, LE. and Mayer, R. (1972). Develop• ment as the aim of education. Harvard Edu• cational Review, 42(4): 449-496.

Langer, J. (1969). Theoriesof Development.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Losee, J. (1980). A Historical Introduction to The Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford Uneversity Press

Piaget,J. (1970). Scienceof Educationand the Psychology of the child. New York: Viking Press.

RakaJoni, T. (1980). CaraBe/ajarSiswa Aktip. lmplikasinya terhadap sistem pengajaran. Jakarta: Proyek PengembanganPendidikan Guru. Dep. Dikbud. ·

Wellington, J. (1989). Skills and Approachers in Science Education, A Critical analysis. New York: Routledge.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18269/jpmipa.v1i1.34886

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

JPMIPA http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/jpmipa/index is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Jurnal Pengajaran Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (JPMIPA) or Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching 

All rights reserverd. pISSN 1412-0917 eISSN 2443-3616

Copyright © Faculty of Mathematics and Science Education (FPMIPA) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)

 

View JPMIPA Stats