Rizki Nurhana Friantini
@stkippamanetalino.ac.id
Mathematics Education Department
STKIP Pamane Talino
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Mathematics Education
Scopus Publications
Scholar Citations
Scholar h-index
Scholar i10-index
Scopus Publications
Pradipta Annurwanda, Rizki Nurhana Friantini, Siti Suprihatiningsih, and Sary Oktalita Simatupang
AIP Publishing
Rizki Nurhana Friantini, Rahmat Winata, Pradipta Annurwanda, and Rosa
AIP Publishing
R. Winata, R. N. Friantini, P. Annurwanda, M. F. Annur, and J. I. Permata
AIP Publishing
This study aims to describe the types of arguments in solving proof problems for the students of Mathematic Education Study Program in Pamane Talino College of Education who obtained high, medium, and low academic achievement. This research was qualitative research. The subject was 9 students in the second semester by 3 students for each category. The subject was selected by purposive sampling. Data was gained by test and interview; also data validity used triangulation method. The technique in analyzing data was by: 1) grouping data in 4 steps by Polya; they are a) understanding the problem, b) devising a plan, c) carrying out the plan and d) looking back, then reducing data which not include into those 4 steps; 2) presenting data narratively ; 3) concluding types of argument gained from the steps of solving problem. The result of high academic achievement students shows that the students understand the problem and plan the solution well, the process of proofing is correct and the result is also as proven since they review the process of proofing, yet they haven't provided the conclusion. Type of argument for high academic achievement students is P1 which is the last part of the proof is missing. For the medium academic achievement students is that they understand the problem given, plan the solution well based on the concept, but they still make mistake in mechanics in process of proofing so that they review their answers. Type of argument for medium academic achievement students is P5 in which the solution follows a correct deductive argument but some mistakes in the calculations occur. Then for the low academic achievement students, they couldn't understand the problem; they plan the solution, but they don't understand the concept, so the solving is still wrong; they haven't been able to do the process of proofing and review the answers. Type of argument for low academic achievement students is M5 in which some mathematical statement is presented but this is unrelated to the proof requested.