| dc.contributor.author | Yulianto, Rismawan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Harta, Idris | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-06-14T02:53:16Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-06-14T02:53:16Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017-05-14 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [1] Adebule. S. O. 2009. “Reliability and levels of difficulty of objective test items in a Mathematics achievement test A study of ten senior secondary schools in five local government areas of Akure, Ondo State.” Educational Research and Review 4 (11):585-587. [2] Agustin, Rika, Erdi Istiaji, dan Dewi Rokhmah. 2014. “Kelayakan Buku Pop-Up sebagai Alternatif Media Pendidikan Kesehatan Reproduksi.” e-Jurnal Pustaka Kesehatan 2 (2): 263-270. [3] Boopathiraj, C. dan DR. K. Chellamani. 2013. “Analysis of Test Items on Difficulty Level and Discrimination Index in the Test For Research In Education.” International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research 2 (2):189-193. [4] Embretson, Susan E dan Robert C. Daniel. 2008. “Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items.” Psychology Science Quarterly 50 (3): 328-344. [5] Fadhilah, Masyhuratul, Sri Mulyani Endang Susilowati, dan Priyantini Widiyaningrum. 2012. “Analisis Buku Ajar Siswa IPA Biologi yang Banyak Digunakan di SMP Negeri Kabupaten Jepara.” Unnes Journal of Biology of Education 1 (2): 190-194. [6] Hamdani. 2011. Strategi Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: CV Pustaka Setia. [7] Hidayat, Sholeh. 2013. Pengembangan Kurikulum Baru. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. [8] Kolovou, dkk. 2009. “Non-Routine Problem Solving Tasks in Primary School Mathematicss Textbooks – A Needle in a Haystack.” Mediterranean Journal for Researh in Mathematics Education 8(2): 31-68. [9] Kurnia, Feni, Zulherman, dan Apit Fathurohmah. 2014. “Analisis Bahan Ajar Fisika SMA Kelas XI di Kecamatan Indralaya Utara Berdasarkan Kategori Literasi Sains.” Jurnal Inovasi dan Pembelajaran Fisika 1 (1): 43-47. [10] Kusaeri dan Suprananto. 2012. Pengukuran dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu. [11] Mitra, N. K., Nagaraja H. S., Ponnudurai G., dan Judson J. P. 2009. ” The Levels Of Difficulty And Discrimination Indices In Type A Multiple Choice Questions Of Pre-clinical Semester 1 Multidisciplinary Summative Tests”. Original Article 3(1): 2-7. [12] Mulyasa. 2014. Pengembangan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. [13] Prastowo, Andi. 2012. Paduan Kreatif Membuat Bahan Ajar Innovatif. Jogjakarta: DIVA Press. [14] Sanjaya, Wina. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Berorientasi Standar Proses Pendidikan. Jakarta: Kencana. [15] Shadiq, Fadjar. 2014. Belajar Memecahkan Masalah Matematika. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu. [16] Tim Pengembang MKDP. 2012. Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada. [17] Trance, Naci John C. 2013. “Process Inquiry: Analysis of Oral Problem-Solving Skills in Mathematics of Engineering Students.” US-China Education Review A 3(2): 73-82. [18] Wijaya, Ariyadi. 2012. Pendidikan Matematika Realistik. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu. [19] Wena, Made. 2009. Strategi Pembelajaran Innovatif Kontemporer. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara. [20] Yuana, Rosihan Ari dan Indriyastuti. 2014. Perspektif Matematika-1. Surakarta: Tiga Serangkai. | in_ID |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2528-4630 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11617/8778 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study aims to determine the level of difficulty of problem solving items in mathematics books for grade X of high school students of “peminatan” program of curriculum 2013. The research method is qualitative. The data in this study are solving problems that are analyzed according to the type and characteristics of question containing the type of number, type and use of surgery, a lot of questions, the adequacy of the data, and the similarities problem. The data collected by content analysis of the book. Data analysis technique are by data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion. The results show that: 1) There are 40 items troubleshooting of the whole matter in the book, 2) are 97,50% types of problems routine troubleshooting and 2,50% type of non-routine problem solving, 3) In each question troubleshooting use this type of count numbers are 45%, combined with other types of numbers as negative numbers are 5%, decimals are 40%, and fractions are 10%, 4) Adequacy of data in a question of a complete count, and there are some questions that are similar to the previous problem. From the analysis on problem solving can be summed up in the general level of difficulty about. The percentage of the level of difficulty of questions in categories easily by 17,50%, the categories being is 57,50%, and 25% are difficult category. The percentage of students math books including proportions good about the difficulty level. | in_ID |
| dc.language.iso | id | in_ID |
| dc.publisher | HMP Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta | in_ID |
| dc.subject | the difficulty level of questions | in_ID |
| dc.subject | problems solving | in_ID |
| dc.subject | textbook | in_ID |
| dc.title | Analisis Tingkat Kesulitan Soal Pemecahan Masalah dalam Buku Siswa Pelajaran Matematika Peminatan SMA Kelas X Kurikulum 2013 | in_ID |
| dc.type | Article | in_ID |
