Ari Suningsih (2016) Think Of Deaf Students Slb Negeri Pringsewu Viewed From Theory Of Van Hiele

Lembaga Penelitian Um Metro

File Pdf Download


According to Van Hiele theory students will go through five levels of thinking in studying and understanding the geometryare level 1 (visualization), level 2 (analysis), level 3 (a bstract), level 4 (deduction) and level 5 (rigor). Each level of thinking that has certain criteria, thus causing different students in understanding and solving the problems of geometry. Th is study aimed to describe the level of thinking deaf students of class VIII SLB Pringsewu based geometry Van Hiele levels of thinking. The subjects included four people. This study uses tests and interviews, test methods using multiple choice questions of 25 items divided into five subtests. The test results are then us ed to identify the students' level of thinking geometry according to Van Hiele theory. interviews were conducted to explore the students' answers were given when work on the problems of the test. The results of the study can be concluded that the level of class VIII deaf students thinking on SLB N Pringsewu among others that meets Geometry Van Hiele levels of thinking as much as 75% of which 25% are at the first level and 50% at level II. While that does not correspond to the Van Hiele theory as much as 25% .Becauseitcannot by the level of correct answers students basic or less than 3 on each subtest

Keywords : Deaf, Level of Thinking, Van Hiele, Geometry.


[ 1] Haviger, J, Vojkuvkova, I. 2013. The van Hiele Geometry Test at Czech Secondary School. WDS'13 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, Part I. pp.112 - 115. [2] Nur'ainiMuhassaanah. 2014. Analysis of Student Skills in Solving Geometry Geometry Based on Van Hiele Level Thinking. Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education. Vol. 2.No. 1. pp. 54 - 66. [3] Safitri Andayani.2009. Efforts to Improve Learning Achievement Multiplication Operation Count On Math Lesson for Students Using JarimatikaTunarung gu SLB N Purbalingga Class III Academic Year 2008/2009. Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education .Vol.2.No. 1. [4] Ruseffendi. 2006. Introduction To Helping Teachers Develop Competence in Teaching Mathematics to Improve the CBSA. Bandung: Tarsito. [5] NurAzizah. 2008. Model Cooperative Learning Think Pair Share for Student Activities and Learning Outcomes Kids Math Tunarunggu. Journal of Special Education . Vol. 4.No. 1.pp: 1 - 16 [6] EndangMulyana. 2003. Problems Inaccuracy Terminology and Symbols in hi gh school Geometry Class 1 in MULYANA / Psikologi_geometri. Accessed 12 September 2015. [7] Usiskin.1982. Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry. (Final report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in S econdary School Geometry Project). Chicago: Univerity of Chicago. Accessed 12 September 2015 [8] Pitajeng.2006. Learning Math fun . Jakarta: Ministry of National Education. [9] Walle. 1994. Elementary School Mathematics. New York: Longman .