ABSTRACT
Parta, I Nengah. 2009. Developing Inquiry Teaching Model for Refining Mathematics Knowledge Pre-service Mathematics Teacher via Posing Question. Dissertation. Promotor: Prof. R. Soedjadi, Co-Promotor: Prof. I Ketut Budayasa, Ph.D
Key Words: Developing, Inquiry Teaching Model, Refining Knowledge, Posing Question
The reasearch question is “How the developing and the developing result of the Inquiry Teaching Model that are valid, practical, and efective to refine mathematics knowledge pre-service mathematics teacher via posing questions”? Based on the research question, the aim of this research is to obtain valid, practical, and effective Inquiry Teaching Model.
The development is based on the “General Model of Educational Problem Solving”: Plomp, but the implementation phase is not under taken. In order to identify the criteria has been fulfiled, then validation and field trial are done.
To support for developing the model, learning devices and instruments are developed. Learning devices consist of students worksheet (abbreviated as LKM) and lesson plan (abbreviated as RP) and instruments consist of ; (1) Validation Sheet of Model and Learning Device, (2) Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility, (3) Observation Sheet of Students Activities, (4) Questionnaire of Students Response, and (5) Test of Subject Matter Comprehension (abbreviated as TPBA).
Prototype of validation sheets are validated by two validators and the result show that the prototype satisfy the validity criterion. The reliability of validation sheet of Model and Learning Device are tested based on the validation result. The test result show that validation sheet of Model and Learning Device has high reliability, since the score differences of each indicator from both validator no exceed than 1. Observation Sheet of Model Feasibility and Observation Sheet of Students Activities were not validated, and only discussed with colleagues who have done development research.
TPBA is validated by two validators and also discussed with Calculus lecturer. Validation result shows that the test satisfy the validity criterion but some terms need to be revised.
The Teaching Model is developped for pre-service mathematics teacher and the main issue that characterized this model is “possing questions with argument” by students. The syntax of the model contains of six phases and all of these phases are devided into three groups, i.e; preliminary, core activity, and conclusion activity. In core activity students build knowledge, refine knowledge, and internalize the knowledge. This core activity is devided into four phase, these are; (1) Displaying Information and Inquiry Activity, (2) Posing Questions, (3) Doing Group Discussion, and (4) Internalizing Exercise.
Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device are validated by five validators and the result shows that the prototype satisfies the validity criterion.
Prototype of Teaching Model and Learning Device that has been validated are tested via field trial. The objective of the field trial is to measure the practicality and effectiveness. In first trial, model feasibility has high category, so it satisfies the practicality criterion. Although practicality criterion attained, core phase in this model, i.e “Questioning” and Group Discussion and Internalizing Exercise are executed is only in the middle category. Furthermore, students persentage that did not make question is high, i.e 44%, the written question was not completed by argument, and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentences. Based on this result, then the model need to be revised and retrial.
In the second trial, model feasibility has high category, but “mean feasibility” of questioning phase is 2.89. This result indicate that the feasibility level of this phase is still do not support the model practicality. Therefore, the revision based on this trial is centered on “questioning” phase.
In the third trial, “mean feasibility”, of all phase more than three, i.e 
, so model feasibility has high category. Therefore all phases feasibility support the model practicality. Model effectiveness is measured based on four indicators, i.e; (1) comprehending subject matter, involving inquiry result and comprehension subject matter test result; (2) refining knowledge involving posing written question with argument and investigating of solution in group discussion, (3) students activities, and (4) students respon.
The result of the first trial shows that the model is not yet effective, since only ˝subject matter comprehension˝ indicator is achieved. In the second trial, ˝refining knowledge˝ indicator is still do not support model effectiveness, since the persentage of logic question completed by argument is 42,65% (less than 50%, the minimum limit for depth examination) and problem solution in group discussion just narrated using declarative sentence. In the third trial was obtained that model and the learning device are effective since all the effectiveness indicators achieve effectiveness criterion.
