Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | December 5, 2011

Contoh Pembelajaran Abad 21

Contoh Pembelajaran Abad 21

Moch. Lutfianto; Shohibul Ahyan; Novita Sari

Pembelajaran di Abad ke-21 sekarang ini hendaknya disesuaikan dengan kemajuan dan tuntutan zaman. Salah satu pembelajaran yang mungkin dapat dilakukan adalah pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa. Pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa berbeda dengan cara tradisional yaitu pembelajaran yang berpusat pada guru. Berikut karakter belajar abad ke-21 yang sering disebut sebagai 4C, yaitu:
1. Communication
Pada karakter ini, siswa dituntut untuk memahami, mengelola, dan menciptakan komunikasi yang efektif dalam berbagai bentuk dan isi secara lisan, tulisan, dan multimedia. Siswa diberikan kesempatan menggunakan kemampuannya untuk mengutarakan ide-idenya, baik itu pada saat berdiskusi dengan teman-temannya maupun ketika menyelesaikan masalah dari gurunya.
2. Collaboration
Pada karakter ini, siswa menunjukkan kemampuannya dalam kerjasama berkelompok dan kepemimpinan; beradaptasi dalam berbagai peran dan tanggungjawab; bekerja secara produktif dengan yang lain; menempatkan empati pada tempatnya; menghormati perspektif berbeda. Siswa juga menjalankan tanggungjawab pribadi dan fleksibitas secara pribadi, pada tempat kerja, dan hubungan masyarakat; menetapkan dan mencapai standar dan tujuan yang tinggi untuk diri sendiri dan orang lain; memaklumi kerancuan. Read More…

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | November 29, 2011

TRIKS MENGETAHUI PEMBAGI SUATU BILANGAN “Divisibility Number Theory”

TRIKS MENGETAHUI PEMBAGI SUATU BILANGAN

(Moch. Lutfianto)

  1. 1.       Bilangan yang habis dibagi 2

Untuk melihat apakan bilangan itu habis dibagi 2 cukup melihat angka satuan dari bilangan tersebut. Suatu bilangan dikatakan bisa atau habis dibagi 2 jika bilangan tersebut adalah bilangan genap atau berlaku sebaliknya. Misal, 1234. Karena 4 adalah angka satuan dari bilangan tersebut dan merupakan bilangan genap maka bilangan 1234 habis dibagi 2.

  1. 2.       Bilangan yang habis dibagi 3

Suatu bilangan dikatakan bisa atau habis dibagi 3 jika jumlah tiap-tiap digit dalam bilangan tersebut habis dibagi 3. Misal 12234, jika kita jumlahkan tiap digitnya maka akan didapat 1+2+2+3+4=12, sedangkan kita mengetahui bahwa 12 adalah habis dibagi 3. Sehingga bilangan 12234 akan habis dibagi 3.

  1. 3.       Bilangan yang habis di bagi 4

Suatu bilangan dikatakan bisa atau habis dibagi 4 jika dua digit terakhir dapat dibagi 4. Kita dengan mudah bisa mengitung apakah bilangan puluhan itu habis di bagi empat atau tidak. Misal 92564, jika kita menghitung dua digit terakhirnya yakni 64 maka akan didapat di bagi 4 menghasilkan 16. Sehingga bilangan 92564 akan habis dibagi 4. Read More…

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | November 9, 2011

Euclid and Non Euclid Geometry “Geometri Euclid dan Non Euclid”

Geometri Euclid

(Moch. Lutfianto)

Geometri Euclid  adalah pembelajaran geometri yang didasarkan pada definisi, teorema/aksioma (titik, garis dan bidang) dan asumsi-asumsi dari seorang matematikawan yunani (330 B.C) yakni Euclid.

Buku Euclid yang berjudul “Element” adalah buku pertama yang membahas tentang geometri secara sistemetis. Banyak penemuan-penemuan Euclid telah didahului oleh matematikawan Yunani, tatapi penemuan itu tidak terstruktur dengan rapi seperti yang dilakukan Euclid. Euclid membuat pola deduktif secara komprehensif untuk membentuk geometri. Pendekatan dari Euclid terdiri dari pembuktian semua teorema dari aksioma-aksiomanya.

Geometri Euclid mempelajari bidang datar. Kita dapat dengan mudah menggambarkannya dalam bidang datar. Kita bisa menggunakan buku atau kertas untuk mengetahui konsep-konsep dari geometri Euclid. Dalam bidang datar kita tahu bahwa: .

1. Jarak terpendek dari dua titik adalah sebuah garis (dari dua buah titik bisa tepat dibuat satu garis).

2. Jumlah sudut dalam segitiga adalah 180 derajat

3. Konsep dari jarak antar garis dapat diilustrasikan seperti pada gambar ini.

untuk melanjutkan anda bisa clik di sini

(Moch. Lutfianto)

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | November 2, 2011

Introducing educational design research

Introducing educational design research

Jan van den Akker, Koeno Gravemeijer,

Susan McKenney and Nienke Nieveen

Introducing educational design research

Design research has been gaining momentum in recent years, particularly in

the field of educational studies. This has been evidenced by prominent

journal articles (Burkhardt and Schoenfeld 2003), book chapters (Richey et

al. 2004), as well as books (van den Akker et al. 1999) and special issues of

journals dedicated specifically to the topic (Educational Researcher 32(1),

2003; Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(1), 2004), or to the more general

need to revisit research approaches, including design research (Journal of

Computing in Higher Education 16(2), 2005).

Definition of the approach is now beginning to solidify, but also to differentiate.

As methodological guidelines and promising examples begin to

surface with abundance, pruning becomes necessary (Kelly 2004). Dede

(2004) as well as Gorard et al. (2004) call for the educational research

community to seriously reflect on setting standards that improve the quality

of this approach.

This book offers such a reflection. Most of its chapters are revised,

updated, and elaborated versions of presentations given at a seminar held in

Amsterdam, organized by the Dutch Program Council for Educational

Research from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/

PROO). As a funding agency, NWO/PROO is interested in the clarification

of what design research entails as well as articulation of quality standards

and criteria to judge proposals and evaluate the outcomes of such research.

The presentations and discussions during the seminar were very fruitful and

stimulating. They provided the impetus to produce this book, which makes

the findings available to a wider audience.

Motives for design research

The first and most compelling argument for initiating design research stems

from the desire to increase the relevance of research for educational policy

and practice. Educational research has long been criticized for its weak linkwith practice.

Those who view educational research as a vehicle to inform

improvement tend to take such criticism more seriously than those who

argue that studies in the field of education should strive for knowledge in

and of itself. Design research can contribute to more practical relevance. By

carefully studying progressive approximations of ideal interventions in their

target settings, researchers and practitioners construct increasingly workable

and effective interventions, with improved articulation of principles

that underpin their impact (Collins et al. 2004; van den Akker 1999). If

successful in generating findings that are more widely perceived to be relevant

and usable, the chances for improving policy are also increased.

A second motive for design research relates to scientific ambitions. Alongside

directly practical applications and policy implications, design research

aims at developing empirically grounded theories through combined study of

both the process of learning and the means that support that process (diSessa

and Cobb 2004; Gravemeijer 1994, 1998). Much of the current debate on

design research concerns the question of how to justify such theories on the

basis of design experiments. As the thrust to better understand learning and

instruction in context grows, research must move from simulated or highly

favorable settings toward more naturally occurring test beds (Barab and

Squire 2004; Brown 1992).

A third motive relates to the aspiration of increasing the robustness of

design practice. Many educational designers energetically approach the

construction of innovative solutions to emerging educational problems, yet

their understanding oftentimes remains implicit in the decisions made and

the resulting design. From this perspective, there is a need to extract more

explicit learning that can advance subsequent design efforts (Richey and

Nelson 1996; Richey et al. 2004; Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson 2004).

About design research

In this book, we use Design research as a common label for a family of

related research approaches with internal variations in aims and characteristics.

It should be noted, however, that there are also many other labels to

be found in literature, including (but not limited to) the following:

Design studies, Design experiments

Development/Developmental research

Formative research, Formative evaluation

Engineering research.

Clearly, we are dealing with an emerging trend, characterized by a proliferation

of terminology and a lack of consensus on definitions (see van den

Akker (1999) for a more elaborate overview). While the terminology has yet

to become established, it is possible to outline a number of characteristics                                       that apply to most design studies. Building on previous works (Cobb et al.

2003; Kelly 2003; Design-Based Research Collective 2003; Reeves et al.

2005; van den Akker 1999) design research may be characterized as:

• Interventionist: the research aims at designing an intervention in the real

world;

• Iterative: the research incorporates a cyclic approach of design, evaluation,

and revision;

• Process oriented: a black box model of input–output measurement is

avoided, the focus is on understanding and improving interventions;

• Utility oriented: the merit of a design is measured, in part, by its practicality

for users in real contexts; and

• Theory oriented: the design is (at least partly) based upon theoretical

propositions, and field testing of the design contributes to theory

building.

The following broad definition of Barab and Squire (2004) seems to be a

generic one that encompasses most variations of educational design research:

“a series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts,

and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching

in naturalistic settings.”

Further clarification of the nature of design research may be helped by a

specification of what it is not. The most noteworthy aspect is probably

that design researchers do not emphasize isolated variables. While design

researchers do focus on specific objects and processes in specific contexts,

they try to study those as integral and meaningful phenomena. The contextbound

nature of much design research also explains why it usually does not

strive toward context-free generalizations.

Inside this book

This book was created to appeal to the rapidly growing international audience

of educational researchers who situate their studies in practice. The

publication contains four main parts, plus supplemental materials available

on the publisher’s website. First, a mixture of substantive information is

presented for those interested in learning about the essence of design

research. This includes: its origins, applications for this approach, and

discussion of benefits and risks associated with studies of this nature. The

second part of the book features domain-specific perspectives on design

research. Here, examples are given in terms of how this approach can serve

the design of learning environments, educational technology, and curriculum.

The third part of the book speaks to the issue of quality assurance.

Three researchers express their thoughts on how to guard academic rigor

while conducting design studies. In the last part of the book, policy

implications are offered in broad terms, and specifically in terms of understanding

and evaluating design research work. While the book’s supplemental

website contains additional information, its primary goal is to

provide in-depth examples of high-quality design research. Together, the

four book components and website provide an informative and instructive

platform for considering the domain of design research in education.

References

Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges

in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 2(22), 141–78.

Burkhardt, H. and Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward

a more useful, more influential and better-funded enterprise. Educational

Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments

in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

Collins, A., Joseph, D., and Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and

methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–14.

Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm

for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

diSessa, A. A. and Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in

design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.

Gorard, S., Roberts, K., and Taylor, C. (2004). What kind of creature is a design

experiment? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 577–90.

Gravemeijer, K. (1994) Developing Realistic Mathematics Education. Utrecht: Cdß

Press.

Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In J. Kilpatrick

and A. Sierpinska (eds), Mathematics Education as a Research Domain: A

Search for Identity (pp. 277–95). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kelly, A. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.

Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal

of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–28.

Reeves, T., Herrington, J., and Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible

approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of

Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.

Richey, R. and Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (ed.),

Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.

1213–45). London: Macmillan.

Richey, R., Klein, J., and Nelson, W. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of

instructional design and development. In D. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of Research

for Educational Communications and Technology (second edition) (pp. 1099–130).

Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | October 17, 2011

The 2011 ISDDE Prize for Design in Education

The 2011 ISDDE Prize
for Design in Education

Jan de Lange

The 2011 Prize of $10,000 was offered for a substantial body of work, by an individual or a team, over a period of years that shows excellence in design for education in Science or Mathematics. At the 2011 ISDDE conference in Boston, it was announced that the winner was Professor Jan de Lange.

Professor Jan de Lange is truly an international figure in Mathematics Education. He has been working at the University of Utrecht for 35 years and as Director of the Freudenthal Institute for 16 years, where he became full professor in 1991. In 2003 he founded a Freudenthal Institute in the US at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He started out as a mathematician and was more interested in upper secondary education. Gradually he worked down the grade levels, and more recently he has been working as director of the CuriousMinds project, investigating the scientific and mathematical reasoning of very young children.

Jan has made an outstanding contribution to educational design in, assessment, curriculum and leadership.

Assessment

Jan has worked on the theoretical basis of assessment design, carrying it through to practical impact in the Netherlands and, internationally, as chair of the PISA Expert Group in Mathematics.

Jan had the brilliant idea of having a Mathematics A-lympiad (Students are assessed in small groups over a weekend) and later a national Mathematics B-day (over one day) both of which gather more popularity internationally. The problems (designed at FI) are very open and very challenging indeed.

As a colleague notes: We would say: “It takes Jan 5 minutes to come up with something very new and original and afterwards we work for 5 hours to mould it into the format of an open question that is fit for the experimental examinations.”

Curriculum

Jan made substantial contributions to the development of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) – the quality of the curriculum materials that are based on this approach is recognized internationally, notably through the US NSF-funding of the Mathematics in Context middle school curriculum based on them.

Leadership

Perhaps most importantly is the part he has played in his strategic design and leadership of the Freudenthal Institute over 30 years, from 1990-2006 as Director. Jan is a team builder. The large team of designers he has created at the Freudenthal Institute is unprecedented and this Institute is now one of the most prestigious in the world.

Jan is an exceptional designer. He has a flair for finding fresh, beautiful, original, contexts for students and shows humour in communicating them. He emphasises the importance of visualization and ‘slow” step by step progression in designs.
Jan is primarily a leader and a visionary. As a colleague notes:

With regard to the award criteria, Jan has clearly moved the field of assessment and curriculum design forward, both nationally and internationally. He has led a phenomenal research team to create a theory of educational design: Realistic Mathematics, and has seen this realized internationally. This includes the supervision of curriculum projects in such diverse places as the USA, Bolivia, South Africa, and Indonesia.

It is therefore with great pleasure that we award the 2011 prize for excellence in design for education in Science or Mathematics to Professor Jan de Lange.

Malcolm Swan, on behalf of the 2011 ISDDE Prize Committee

source: http://www.isdde.org/isdde/prize11_call.htm

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | September 15, 2011

KONTES LITERASI MATEMATIKA (KLM)

LOMBA MATEMATIKA


NAMA  LOMBA :

KONTES LITERASI MATEMATIKA dan SEMILOKA tentang PISA

PENYELENGGARA :

  1. Pendidikan Matematika,  Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sriwijaya
  2. Panitia Lokal Padang
  3. Panitia Lokal Jogjakarta
  4. Panitia Lokal Bandung
  5. Panitia Lokal Surabaya
  6. Panitia Lokal Banjarmasin
  7. Panitia Lokal Makasar

WAKTU PELAKSANAAN

19 November 2011 (Babak Penyisian tiap rayon)

28 November 2011 (Babak Grand Final di Jakarta)

PESERTA

  • Seminar diikuti oleh para guru dan kepala TK, SD/MI, SMP/MTS, SMA/MA, SMK baik negeri maupun swasta, pengawas sekolah, pejabat Diknas, dosen, mahasiswa dan umum. (untuk rayon Sumsel)
  • KLM diikuti oleh siswa SMP/MTs di tiap-tiap Rayon

BENTUK KEGIATAN

  1. Kontes literasi matematika diikuti oleh perseorangan
  2. Semiloka (untuk rayon Sumsel)

BIAYA PENDAFTARAN

  • Seminar (untuk rayon Sumsel)
  1. Peserta umum : Rp. 120.000
  2. Peserta guru/mahasiswa : Rp. 100.000
  • Kontes Literasi matematika (untuk rayon Sumsel)

Perorangan : Rp. 75.000 (termasuk buku puisi matematika)

FASILITAS

  • Untuk Semiloka
  1. Seminar kit
  2. Sertifikat
  3. Makan siang
  4. Snack
  • Untuk KLM
  1. Juara 1 dan 2 : piala, uang pembinaan, sertifikat, dan akan diikutsertakan dalam Grand Final tingkat nasional di Jakarta
  2. Asal sekolah juara 1, 2, dan 3 diberi sertifikat
  3. Juara 3: piala, uang pembinaan, dan sertifikat
  4. Snack dan makan siang
  5. Sertifikat bagi 1 guru pendamping tiap sekolah

SEKRETARIAT

Panitia KLM ke-2 dan Semiloka PISA

Pendidikan Matematika,  Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sriwijaya

Jln padang selasa no. 544 bukit besar Palembang 30139

PENDAFTARAN

Pembayaran biaya pendaftaran dapat dilakukan langsung ke panitia atau melalui rekening:

Bank SUMSEL BABEL a/n DINA RENITA Nomor Rekening: 171-01-04452

CONTAK PERSON

  1. Haris Kurniawan         (081367794456)
  2. Dina Renita                 (085273371156)
Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | August 26, 2011

DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH REVISITED

Koeno Gravemeijer

(rewritten by Moch. Lutfianto)

Introduction

In recent years design has again begun to attract interest. It is no longer a direct attempt to find prescriptive models for improving the quality of design process but has become design as a research method. More researchers are setting out along the path of constructional research. One of them is developmental research. It should be able to provide more direct foundation. If developmental research is to fulfill this function, then both the substance and product of research must be clear.

Developmental research is not after all, a strict regulated methodology but, rather a manner of working that has grown through being put into practice. Only by reflecting on such practice can take a shape of method. Furthermore theory-guided bricolage was used to characterize developmental research in practice. In the end, the basic of philosophy of mathematics as human activity also has its roots in actual practice.

  1. 1.      Evaluation research

Two decades of developmental research whose guideline was the principle or realistic mathematics education have eventually led to the development of a domain specific theory for realistic mathematics education. The realistic instruction theory can be evaluated by examining the results achieved using realistic mathematics textbooks. The results give rise to some debate. When the theory behind the mathematics textbook series is at issues, the discussion becomes even more complex. However, with some of argument and example of researchers, it is clear that the textbook can play an important role.

Evaluation research repeatedly reveals a lag between the intentions and implementation of realistic mathematics education (RME). The RME theory will lose much of its practical significance. Evaluation research may well offer an indirect assessment of the instructional theory, but this does not make the results any less important.

 

  1. 2.      Internal legitimization

Being a combination of development and research, developmental research has a dual function that would like to refer to as production and justification. The emphasis is the legitimization aspect. The result of developmental work is a prototypical course. The result is a description of the source on meta-level (a local instruction theory) and a justification.

How is the educational theory legitimized? In the first place, through the collected developmental research, Prototypes are based or generalization of choice. In addition, the communal learning process of the realistic community provides a second legitimization.

 

  1. 3.      Developmental research clarified

In principle, developmental research offers the potential for more direct manner of evaluation. There is a room within the broad concept of educational development for different types of research: developmental research, implementation research and curriculum evaluation. Each can have its own function and its own research design and method.

 

-          Heuristic and design principles

Developmental research is a creative process in which implicit knowledge plays an important role. Before researchers dive into cyclical process on invention, experimentation and reflection, they will make an analysis of situation. Along this analysis, a general concept of a course must develop before the actual experiment can begin.  They can use the theory of RME by applying the central principle namely: the reinvention principle, the didactic phenomenology and the mediating models.

-          Theory-guided bricolage

Theory-guided bricolage was used to describe developmental research. The goal of it is to develop domain-specific instruction theory, but without deadline involved. Theory development is seen as ‘a never ending story’.

Theory-guided bricolage was also as the basis for theoretically based preliminary design. The theory as a means of guiding assumes more significance, particularly for developmental research. It plays important rule in early phase of textbook development. Now, it is the overall design of course that acquires a pronounced constructional character in developmental research.

Theory-guided bricolage on micro-level. Although the experiment does start with overall preliminary design, this is expanded an adapted in cyclical process of inventing, testing, and reflecting on educational activities. One might call this a small-scale empirical cycle. Freudenthal (1988) speaks in this context of ‘thought-experiment’ and ‘educational-experiment’

-          Criteria

Criteria used by researchers to make assessments and to carry out adjustment are taken from theory for RME. In practice, they flow from the heuristics outlined above. Related criterion is that the reinvention path not only be traveled upward but also downward. This is the summary of the criteria:

  1. Reflection of learning path in student’ solution
  2. Longitudinal and transversal dispersion of solutions
  3. Bottom-up problem solving
  4. Use of footholds offered by the context
  5. Situation-specific solutions with vertical perspective
  6. Applicability
  7. Naturalness, vertical power and breadth of application of models
  8. Spontaneous abbreviations
  9. Shift from context-bound to solution-focused
  10. flexibility

-          Evaluation

The realistic core is translated into criteria. During the development of prototype, the findings are evaluated against these criteria.

 

  1. 4.      External persuasiveness

Developmental research can be seen as the researchers’ learning process. That’s why it is so difficult to transfer the yield of developmental research. In answering that problem it may be helpful for developers to describe their ‘starting theory’ from beginning of the research. If it succeeded in objectifying the answer, developmental research could be considerably reinforced. Another way to increase the persuasiveness of developmental research is to broaden the theoretical base.

-          Objectification

At the first glance, the sole point of objectification would appear to be reinforcement of empirical base. At least as important, however, is the objectification of the interpretation (or analysis) of the empirical data. In developmental research we find, namely, crucial moments which the researchers experience as ‘Aha-Erlebniseen’. This Aha-Erlebniseen has a great deal to do with the reference framework of the person involved. Alongside the objectification of the analysis or interpretation of data, I also mentioned the objectification of the empirical observations themselves.

-          theoretical basis

The power of persuasiveness of developmental research will increase as the research results become more embedded in a broad theoretical framework. It means that the researcher demonstrates particularly in the documentation how the research result relates to generally accepted theories. The realistic instruction theory indicates how instruction can be developed that enables the independent construction of knowledge and focuses it as well.

 

  1. 5.      Conclusion

The above is an outline of developmental research and of how it is related to other sorts of research. Developmental research has function as internal legitimization of local and domain-specific instruction theories within the circle of realistic oriented researchers. This extensive analysis of developmental research can be justified by the practical and theoretical significance of such research. Furthermore, the analysis shows the remarkable character of this type of research. In summary, we can say, it evolutionary, stratified and reflexive.

The Dutch developmental research in the area of mathematics education has, after all, resulted in theory forming and instructional materials which have received international attention.

 

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | August 21, 2011

Pendaftaran Beasiswa S-2 Pendidikan Matematika Tahun 2012

Dibuka Pendaftaran BEASISWA S-2 Pendidikan Matematika tahun 2012

Kerjasama Indonesia (Unesa-Unsri) dan Belanda (Utrecht)

(Scholarship for Master program on mathematics education “IMPoME” 2012)

Persyaratan:

1. Mengisi application form dengan lengkap, download di sini: stuned_form_impome_2012

2. Mengisi CV dengan lengkap,  download di sini: cv-form-neso_2012

3. Fotocopy Kartu Tanda Penduduk (KTP)

4. Pas Photo 4 x6 (1 lembar)

5. Ijazah S1

6. Transkrip nilai dengan nilai IPK minimal 3,00

7. Sertifikat TOEFL dengan score minimal 500

8. SK CTAB (Surat Keputusan Calon Tenaga Akademik Baru) dari Rektor

Persyaratan di atas dibuat dengan rangkap 3 ( 1 asli, 2 fotokopi) menggunakan kertas A4 di bundel berdasarkan nomer urut di atas dan di jilid menggunakan plastik mika warna putih (bening).

Mohon tidak melampirkan dokumen yang tidak kami cantumkan di atas.

Semua berkas harap dikirimkan ke:

Martha Metrica, S.E

PMRI – PPPPTK IPA Bandung

Jalan Diponegoro No.12

Bandung

Telp/Fax: 022-4213950/022 -4213949

Paling lambat tanggal 31 Desember 2011, berkas sudah kami terima.

Terima kasih.

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | May 15, 2011

KURIKULUM MATEMATIKA SD

37. Mata Pelajaran Matematika untuk Sekolah Dasar (SD)/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI)

A. Latar Belakang

Matematika merupakan ilmu universal yang mendasari perkembangan teknologi modern, mempunyai peran penting dalam berbagai disiplin dan memajukan daya pikir manusia. Perkembangan pesat di bidang teknologi informasi dan komunikasi dewasa ini dilandasi oleh perkembangan matematika di bidang teori bilangan, aljabar, analisis, teori peluang dan matematika diskrit.  Untuk menguasai dan mencipta teknologi di masa depan diperlukan penguasaan matematika yang kuat sejak dini.

Mata pelajaran Matematika perlu diberikan kepada semua peserta didik mulai dari sekolah dasar untuk membekali peserta didik dengan kemampuan berpikir logis, analitis, sistematis, kritis, dan kreatif, serta kemampuan bekerjasama. Kompetensi tersebut diperlukan agar peserta didik dapat memiliki kemampuan memperoleh, mengelola, dan memanfaatkan informasi untuk bertahan hidup pada keadaan yang selalu berubah, tidak pasti, dan kompetitif.

Standar kompetensi dan kompetensi dasar matematika dalam dokumen ini disusun sebagai landasan pembelajaran untuk mengembangkan kemampuan tersebut di atas. Selain itu dimaksudkan pula untuk mengembangkan kemampuan menggunakan matematika dalam pemecahan masalah dan mengkomunikasikan ide atau gagasan dengan menggunakan simbol, tabel, diagram, dan media lain. Read More…

Posted by: p4mristkippgrisda | May 14, 2011

LESSON PLAN 2

LESSON PLAN

oleh: Lestariningsih

SECOND MEETING

SCHOOL                              : Junior High School

SUBJECT                              : Mathematics

CLASS / SEMESTER             : VIII/2

TIME ALLOCATION             : 2 x 40 minutes

A.  Standard Competence

5. Understanding the properties of cube, cuboids, prism, pyramid, their elements and their size

B.  Basic Competence

5.1. Identifying the properties of cube, cuboids, prism, pyramid, their element

C. Learning Objectives

  • Students can identify the face of cube.
  • Students can identify the edge of cube
  • Students can identify the vertex of cube
  • Students can identify the face of cuboids
  • Students can identify the edge of cuboids
  • Students can identify the vertex of cuboids
  • Students can identify the face of prism
  • Students can identify the edge of prism
  • Students can identify the vertex of prism
  • Students can identify the face of pyramid
  • Students can identify the edge of pyramid
  • Students can identify the vertex of pyramid
  • Students can determine the Euler formula in solid figure

D.  Learning Materials

Face, edge and vertex of cube

Face, edge and vertex of cuboids

Face, edge and vertex of prism

Face, edge and vertex of pyramid

E.  Learning Model

Cooperative

      Learning Method

Discussion

Demonstration

Giving Task

Question & Answer

Approach

Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia (PMRI)

 

  1. F.       Learning Activity

Opening (15 minutes)

  1. Teacher says greeting and makes sure that the students are ready to study.
  2. Students are reminded about cube and cuboids net.
  3. Teacher tells the objectives of learning. Those are students able to identify the face, edge and vertex of cube and cuboids.

Main Activity (45 minutes)

  1. a.      Exploration (15 minutes)
    1. Students are divided to be some groups and each group consists of 2 students.
    2. Each group is given worksheet.
      1. Students identify each figure in worksheet and classify into kinds of solid figure.
      2. Students count the number of face of cube
      3. Students count the number of edge of cube
      4. Students count the number of vertex of cube
      5. Students count the number of face of cuboids
      6. Students count the number of edge of cuboids
      7. Students count the number of vertex of cuboids
      8. Students count the number of face of prism
      9. Students count the number of edge of prism
      10. Students count the number of vertex of prism
      11. Students count the number of face of pyramid
      12. Students count the number of edge of pyramid
      13. Students count the number of vertex of pyramid
        1. b.      Elaboration (20 minutes)
          1. Students discus their work in front of classroom.
          2. Other groups give their responses to the discussion.
        2. Students look for the relationship between face, shape, and vertex of solid figure
    3. c.       Confirmation (10 minutes)
      1. Students determine the Euler’s formula.
      2. Teacher guides students to determine which one is true.

Closing (20 minutes)

  1. Students make conclusion from their learning process that is

The Vertices + Faces is always two more than Edges. You can write this down as a formula:

V – E + F = 2

  1. Students do exercises individually.

G. Learning Sources

  • Mathematics-for junior high school-year 8. Department of National Education 2010
  • Math for Junior High School- 2nd semester grade 8, Erlangga
  • Worksheet
  • Snack box

Palembang, March 31, 2011

Teacher team,

Anton Jaelani

NIM. 20102812007

Lestariningsih

NIM. 20102812008

Principle

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.