Research Article
Commognitive Conflict of Critical Thinkers in Solving a Controversial Mathematical Problem
@INPROCEEDINGS{10.4108/eai.29-10-2022.2334009, author={Satriya Adika Arif Atmaja and Toto Nusantara and Subanji Subanji and Sukoriyanto Sukoriyanto}, title={Commognitive Conflict of Critical Thinkers in Solving a Controversial Mathematical Problem}, proceedings={Proceedings of the 2nd Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2022, 29 October 2022, Malang, East Java, Indonesia}, publisher={EAI}, proceedings_a={LEPALISSHE}, year={2023}, month={7}, keywords={misinterpretation controversial problems critical thinking commognitive understanding conceptual procedural}, doi={10.4108/eai.29-10-2022.2334009} }- Satriya Adika Arif Atmaja
Toto Nusantara
Subanji Subanji
Sukoriyanto Sukoriyanto
Year: 2023
Commognitive Conflict of Critical Thinkers in Solving a Controversial Mathematical Problem
LEPALISSHE
EAI
DOI: 10.4108/eai.29-10-2022.2334009
Abstract
Misinterpretations in learning mathematics are often encountered. That is part of the educational process that needs to be controlled. So the direction and steps of the mathematical thinking process can be realized according to the goals. This research utilizes a qualitative approach as a thinking paradigm. This study explores the ins and outs of students' misinterpretations when faced with controversial algebraic problems. The importance of knowing the misinterpretations raised by students can be a reflection signal of the extent to which students understand algebraic concepts. The subjects of this research were 17 students of MTs Surya Buana Malang City. In this study, the use of controversial mathematical problems in algebraic material. The results showed that four subjects representing each group of students' controversial reasoning were known to misinterpret. Based on the commognitive lens, conceptual errors were experienced by all the subjects of this study with various error variants. However, only two subjects experienced procedural errors when incorrectly applying the calculation operations.
