The Effectiveness of Concrete Representational Abstract Approach (CRA) Approach and Problem Solving Approach on Mathematical Representation Ability at Elementary School
Abstract
The selection of the wrong approach will be able to make the effectiveness of the learning decrease, so the need for attention to the approach used by the teacher in his learning. If the approach adopted is not appropriate, there will be a form of boredom from students and tend to ignore the lessons given that ultimately the results obtained are less in line with expectations. The Concrete Representational Abstract we approach systematically and explicitly teaches students through three stages of learning: 1) concrete, 2) representation and 3) abstract. Teaching with CRA is a three-stage learning process in which students solve problems through the through concrete object manipulation followed by learning through pictorial representation of
concrete object manipulations, ending with solving mathematical problems through abstract notation. Problem-solving approach, which is one of the learning approaches that can be applied in the learning process of mathematics. Many authors have attempted to explain what is the problem- solving approach for teaching mathematics. Ability of mathematical representation of students who get learning with CRA approach
better than students who get learning conventional approach and to know the ability of mathematical representation of students who obtained learning with problem -solving approach better than students who obtained learning of conventional approach can be shown from the calculation of post-ANOVA test with Scheffe ’method and t-test.
References
[1] Hafiziani Putri. (2015). The Influence Of Concrete Pictoral Abstract (CPA) Approach to The Mathematical Representation Ability Achievement Of The Pre-Service At Elementary School. International Journal of Education and Research. Vol. 3 No. 6 June 2015.
[2]Elizabeth Hughes. (2011). The effects of concrete-representational-abstract sequenced instruction on struggling learners acquisition, retention, and sel-efficacy of fractions. Clemson University Journal. Vol 1, No 1, 36-41
[3] Jailani (2011). Pendidikan Karakter Pada Pembelajaran Matematika. Pemantapan Keprofesionalan Peneliti, Pendidik, dan Praktisi MIPA Untuk Mendukung Pemban- gunan Karakter Bangsa. ISSN 978-979-99314-5-0
[4] Kamii, C., Kirkland, L., & Lewis, B. A. (2001). Representations and abstraction in young children’s numerical reasoning. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics(pp. 24-33). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
[5] Nitko, A.J., & Brookhart, S.M (2007). Educational assessment of student(5th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
[6] NTCM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NTCM.
[7] Polya. G. (1985). How to solve it: A new aspect of Mathematical Method. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[8] Santrock, J. W. (2009). Psikologi pendidikan. Jakarta: Salemba Humanikan.
[9] Santrock, J.W. (2002). Life-span development. Jakarta: Erlangga