Enhancing Students’ Mathematical Synthesis Ability by

Superitem Learning Model

Vara Nina Yulian1, 2, a) and Wahyudin1, b)

1
Study Program of Mathematics Education, School of Postgraduate Studies,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229, Bandung, Indonesia.
2
Study Program of Mathematics Education, Universitas Subang, Jl. RA Kartini Km 3
Subang, Subang, Indonesia.
a)
Corresponding author: varanina15@student.upi.edu
b)
Corresponding professor: wahyudin.mat@upi.edu

Abstract. This study aims to determine the improvement of student’s mathematical synthesis
ability and student attitudes toward learning mathematics with superitem learning model. This
research was quasi experiment in nature, with pretest-posttest control group design. The
experimental class is given in the form of learning with superitem learning model and control
classes are given learning with conventional learning model. The populations of this study are
students of 8th grade public junior high school at North Bandung, with the research sample is
selected two classes. Two classes are selected to be used as experimental class and control
class. The instrument used consisted of mathematical synthesis ability test and attitude scale.
The results of this study conclude that students’ mathematical synthesis ability that’s learning
with superitem learning model better than students who received learning with conventional
model. Students give positive responses and attitudes toward learning with superitem learning
model.

Index Terms - Mathematical Synthesis Ability, Superitem

1. Introduction
Whether we realize it or not, we usually use synthesis thinking ability in everyday life, in
different level. With our synthesis capabilities it will be easy to solve a problem. The ability to
synthesis related with aspects in the cognitive domain that exist in Bloom's taxonomy.
Based cognitive taxonomy by Benjamin S. Bloom [5] synthesis cognitive thinking is the ability to
work with the parts, pieces, elements, and compile them into a new determination as pattern and
structure. Students who have had a synthesis aspect in mathematics if they have the ability to organize
(conceptualize) concepts and postulates so that something new can be obtained.
However, the reality on the level of students 'synthesis ability in Indonesia is still poor, according
to Tjalla [6] from 49 countries participating in TIMSS 2007, Indonesian students' achievement in
mathematics was ranked 36th, with an average score of 405 (average score international = 500). In the
achievement of Mathematics learning, the five best world sequences were occupied by Taiwan
followed by South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Indonesia's position is still far better
than that of Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Columbia, Oman, Palestine, Botswana, Kuwait, Spain, Saudi
Arabia, Ghana, Qatar and Morocco. In general, the results of TIMSS 2007 show that our students have
basic mathematical knowledge but not enough to solve routine problems (form manipulation, choosing
strategies, etc.) especially non-routine ones (intuitive and inductive reasoning based on patterns and
regularity).
Based on research we can conclude that the students' ability in solving problems with wide material
and high level of difficulty is still very poor, in this case the poor ability of students to synthesize.
Because if the ability of students to synthesize is high in solving math problems, of course our rank in
the eyes of the world will rise too.
Poor student achievement in this case the quality of mathematics learning outcomes due to the lack
of suitable learning model given to students. Some interpretations of quality are seen from products
obtained by a graduate in the form of mathematical intellectual abilities and some interpret it as a
chain error that not only looks at the results, but also includes the process.
One criterion that can be used as an indicator or guide to the quality of education is student learning
outcomes. Student learning outcomes indicate whether the instructional objectives that have been
prepared are achieved or not. Therefore good learning outcomes can show the instructional objectives
that have been prepared and achieved. Otherwise, if the learning outcomes are far from expected, it is
necessary to review the instructional objectives that have been prepared, as well as review whether the
teaching and learning process that has been done is appropriate or not with the lesson plans contained
in the unit of study.
To achieve student learning outcomes that are in line with what is expected is not only determined
by student factors, but also factors outside students which are basically the role of the teacher and the
condition of the community in which the student is located. In connection with this, Rohani [4] stated
that the five factors underlying the occurrence of educational interaction in this case affect the success
of students in learning, namely: 1) goal factors, 2) object / material / content factors, 3) teacher and
students’ factors, 4) method factors, and 5) simulation factors.
In order to be able to foster learning motivation in students it is not easy, but it is expected that with
increasing student learning motivation, learning outcomes can reflect that the instructional objectives
made have been achieved. Therefore the teacher must be able to carry out teaching and learning
activities that can motivate students towards mastering the material. As Walker [8] has stated, changes
that are learned usually produce good results when people / individuals have the motivation to do so;
and practice sometimes results in changes in motivation which result in changes in achievement.
Some ways to foster motivation are through various ways of teaching, conducting repetition of
information, and providing new stimulation. In general, students will be stimulated to learn (actively
involved in learning) if he sees that the teaching situation tends to satisfy him according to his needs.
Another issue that also appeared prominent was the material capacity delivered, namely until now
there are not many teachers (individually) or a school delivering routine or non-routine materials /
questions that train students to answer how and why. Or not stimulate students to think creatively,
innovatively and alternatively.
In order for students to be actively involved in the learning process, one that needs to be considered
is student readiness to learn. Student readiness to learn can be accelerated by using a spiral approach
from Bruner. Acceleration of student readiness to learn occurs by presenting different material or
concepts adjusted to the ability of students, so that students more easily understand it. The spiral
approach is the path taken to develop concepts, from intuitive ways to analysis, from exploration to
mastery by providing enough space between the lowest and highest stages. The spiral approach is
relevant to the characteristics of mathematics learning, namely learning from concrete things to
abstract, from simple to complex and concepts or principles level.
Students will understand a lesson if they have sufficient prerequisite knowledge and the material is
presented in accordance with the readiness of students, according to the application of a spiral
approach from Bruner. Meanwhile Biggs and Collis [1] conduct studies on the structure of learning
outcomes with tests arranged in superitem form. Biggs and Collis suggest that each stage or cognitive
level has the same response structure and is increasing from simple to abstract. The structure is called
the SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Based on the quality of the child
response model, the SOLO stage of children is qualified in five stages: structural, unstructured, multi
structural, relational, and abstract.
The study of the SOLO stage was also carried out by Sumarmo [7]. The findings in this study
reinforce the belief that in mathematics learning, the concept description to students should not be
directly in a complex concept or process but must start from a simple concept and process.
Recognizing the importance of a learning model that focuses on improving the ability of synthesis
in mathematics learning, because with the ability of synthesis in mathematics learning students are
able to solve mathematical problems in everyday life, and are able to apply mathematics to other
disciplines well, and able to minimize symptoms in students who cannot solve the problem of
synthesis ability in mathematics learning. For this reason, we need a learning model that emphasizes
active student learning. This can be realized through a form of learning designed so that students are
active.
One alternative model of mathematics learning that links SOLO Taxonomy and enhances student
learning outcomes (in synthesis ability) is to use a superitem learning model. Superitem [3] is "a
general situation or branch of information followed by five questions, one question for each level in
the SOLO taxonomy." In addition, the superitem learning model is learning that starts from the simple
ones that increase in the more complex .
This was also confirmed by the results of Firmasari's [2] study which reported that the average
mathematical reasoning ability using SOLO taxonomy-based teaching materials with superitem
techniques was better than the average class using ordinary teaching materials. In addition, Firmasari's
research [3] shows that there is complete mastery of students' understanding and mathematical
reasoning abilities using superitem techniques.

2. Research Methods and Designs

This study uses the pretest-posttest control group design research. In the experimental group
is given learning with superitem learning models to examine students' mathematical synthesis abilities.
The subjects of this study were 84 grade 8 students from one state junior high school which was
determined purposively. This study instrument is: synthesis ability test in mathematics learning,
observation sheets and student worksheets.

3. Results and Discussion

The following are the results of research on students' synthesis ability in learning
mathematics as presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Mathematical Synthesis Ability

Experiment Control
Grade
̅
𝒙 ̅
𝒙
Normalized
High 0.8980 0.4623
Gain
Medium 0.6749 0.6139
Low 0.7307 0.5997

Based on the data in table 1 above, the ability of students to analyze mathematics in high groups by
using superitem learning models is better than students who learn with ordinary learning. This can be
seen from the difference in the average normalized gain value of the control class with the
experimental class in the high group of 0.4623 and 0.8980. From this value, it can be seen that the
difference in the increase in synthesis ability in mathematics learning in the experimental group is
included in the high category because g ≥ 0.7, while for the control group the average normalized gain
is in the medium category because it is in the range between 0.3 < g < 0.7.
 The ability to synthesize students in learning mathematics in the medium group by using superitem
learning models is better than students who learn with ordinary learning. This can be seen from the
difference in the average normalized gain value of the control class with the experimental class in the
medium group which is 0.6139 and 0.6749. From this value it can be seen the difference in the
increase in synthesis ability in mathematics learning in the experimental group and the control group,
the average normalized gain is in the medium category because it is in the range between 0.3 < g <0.7.
The ability to synthesize students in mathematics learning in low groups by using superitem
learning models is better than students who learn with ordinary learning. This can be seen from the
difference in the average normalized gain value of the control class with the experimental class in the
low group of 0.6369 and 0.7307. From this value, it can be seen that the difference in the increase in
synthesis ability in mathematics learning in the experimental group is included in the high category
because g ≥ 0.7, while for the control group the average normalized gain is in the medium category
because it is in the range between 0.3 < g < 0.7.
Mathematics teacher was given an observation sheet to evaluate the researcher and measure student
activity during the learning process. Observation sheets are given three times during the teaching and
learning process. At the first meeting the learning activities conducted by researchers only reached
50% and the learning activities carried out by students only reached 25%. At the second meeting the
learning activities conducted by researchers only reached 75% and the learning activities carried out
by students only reached 62.5%. At the third meeting the learning activities carried out by the
researchers had reached 100% and the learning activities carried out by the students reached 100%.
This means that the teacher and also the students have carried out teaching and learning activities
effectively and in accordance with the learning scenario.

4. Conclusions
Based on the results, following conclusions were obtained: 1) the ability of students to
synthesize mathematics in high and low groups by using superitem learning models better than
students learning with ordinary learning, 2) synthesis ability students in learning mathematics in the
medium group using superitem learning models are no better than students who learn with ordinary
learning. Students' attitudes are known from the high interest, motivation, activity during learning, and
understanding of the importance of mastering mathematics.

References

[1] Biggs J B and Collis K F 1982 Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy (New
York: Academic Press)
[2] Firmasari S 2015 Implementasi Metode Tutor Sebaya dalam Pengembangan Bahan Ajar
Menggunakan Taksonomi SOLO Superitem Euclid Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika ISSN
2355-1712 Vol 1 No 1 [Online] 2015 Available from:
http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/AdMathEdu/article/download/4782/3145
[3] Firmasari S and Aminah N 2016 Analisis Pemahaman dan Penalaran Matematis pada
Perkuliahan Teori Bilangan menggunakan Teknik Superitem Repository FKIP Unswagati
[Online] Available from: http://www.fkip-
unswagati.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/repository/article/viewFile/343/306
[4] Rohani Ahmad H M 2004 Pengelolaan Pengajaran (Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta)
[5] Ruseffendi H E T 2006 Pengantar kepada Membantu Guru Mengembangkan Kompetensinya
dalam Pengajaran Matematika untuk Meningkatkan CBSA (Bandung: PT Tarsito)
[6] Tjalla A 2010 Potret mutu pendidikan indonesia ditinjau dari hasil-hasil studi internasional
[Online] Available from: http://repository.ut.ac.id/2609/1/fkip201047.pdf
[7] Sumarmo U 1994 Suatu Alternatif Pengajaran untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan
Masalah Matematika pada Guru dan Siswa SMP. Laporan Hasil Penelitian FPMIPA IKIP.
(Bandung: Tidak Diterbitkan)
[8] Walker 1984 Conditioning dan Proses Belajar Instrumental (Jakarta: UI Press)
 MSCEIS 2018
ARTICLE’S EVALUATION FORM
PAPER ID: ABS-236
PAPER TITLE:
Application of Corrosion E-Module to Improve High-Level Thinking Ability

Part A. Peer reviewer’s evaluation

No Evaluation Objects Score (1-4)
1. The title reflects the content of the article 3

2. The abstract reflects the content of the article 3

3. The article offers to solve the problem 3

4. The research methods are clear enough 3

5. The data and its analysis are scientifically sound 3

6. The tables and or graphs are accurately utilized to prove the article 3
claim
7. The discussionis relevant to the results 3

8. The references used in the article are relevant 3

9. Originality 3

10. Systematics 3

11. Language 3

12. Writing’s accuracy 3

SUM 36

Part B. Peer reviewer’s decision

No Decision (Based on the average score of the part A)
1 Published as it is ( average score : 4)

2 Minor revision (average score : 3,5 - 3,9) v

3 Major revision (average score : 2,0 - 3,4 )

 4 Rejected (average score <2,0)

Part C. Peer reviewer’s comment(s):

• Find out the attached article to revise the paper.
• Revise the article format as the required template from MSCEIS 2018 as can be
seen in the below link:
http://msceis.conference.upi.edu/2018/.
• There should be at least minimum 70% international journal used for the citation.
It is suggested to add more relevant recent research to discuss and suppot this
research findings.

Bandung, December 2018

Peer Reviewer,

Kesesuaian
Hala
No Komponen Tidak Keterangan
Sesuai man
Sesuai
Ukuran kertas
1. ? ?
dan margin
▪ Judul: Font 17 TNR Bold
2. Penulisan judul v 1
▪ Huruf pertama Kapital dan berikutnya
 huruf kecil kecuali singkatan. Judul rata
kiri
▪ Jarak judul dengan atas (spacing before)
= 79,4 pt
▪ Jarak antara judul dengan nama penulis
(after) = 10 mm atau 28,4 pt
▪ Aligment = rata kiri, indent = 2,5 cm
▪ Penulisan nama diawali inisial nama awal
kemudian ditulis nama akhir, tanpa titik,
tapi dengan spasi
▪ Coresponding author diberi tanda
bintang (*) di akhir nama yang
Penulisan nama
3. v bersangkutan. 1
Author
▪ Dicantumkan nomor afiliasi penulis
berupa superscript angka tanpa tanda
kurung diakhir nama
▪ Indent = 2,5 cm, spacing after = 5,7 pt,
alignment = rata kiri
Penulisan
4. v ▪ Indent = 2,5 cm, alignment = rata kiri 1
afiliasi
▪ Ditulis “ *Corresponding author’s email “
Penulisan yang diikuti oleh alamat email terkait
5. Corresponding v ▪ Indent = 2,5 cm, spacing after = 12 pt, 1
Author ‘s Email alignment = rata kiri
▪ Font berwarna hitam tanpa garis bawah
▪ Abstrak ditulis dengan font 10 TNR
(tulisan abstrak di bold)\
▪ Indent = 2,5 cm, after = 28,4 pt,
Penulisan
6. v alignment = rata kiri 1
abstract
▪ Isi abstrak ditulis langsung setelah judul
(tanpa enter)
▪ Keyword dihapuskan
▪ Sub judul dituliskan sebagai berikut:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Result and Discussions
4. Conclusion
5. Reference
Acknowledgements (jika diperlukan, tanpa
Penulisan sub- 1–8
7. v numbering)
judul
▪ Sub judul ditulis dengan font TNR 11,
bold, dengan spacing before 12 pt dan
aligment rata kiri
▪ Subsection/sub-sub judul ditulis dengan
font TNR 11, cetak miring, dengan
spacing before 12 pt dan aligment rata
kiri
8. Penulisan badan v ▪ Paragraf pertama pada setiap sub 1–8
 teks judul/subsection tidak menjorok
▪ Awal paragraf kedua dan seterusnya
menjorok dengan indent by = 0,5 cm
▪ Antara subsection dengan paragraf tidak
diberi jarak
▪ Jarak antar judul/section menggunakan
spacing (tidak enter manual)
▪ Keterangan tabel (caption) disimpan
diatas tabel (ditengah) dengan after = 6
pt. dengan penulisan: Table 1.
▪ keterangan tabel tidak melebihi lebar
9. Penulisan tabel v tabel, jika lebih pindahkan kebawah rata 3–5
kiri-kanan (justify).
▪ Pada tabel hanya ada 3 garis (Border),
yaitu dua garis khorizontal pada header
tabel dan satu pada bagian bawah tabel
▪ Keterangan gambar ditulis dibawah
gambar dengan jarak (before) = 6 pt,
dengan penulisan: Figure 1.
Penulisan ▪ keterangan gambar tidak melebihi lebar
10. v 5
gambar gambar, jika lebih pindahkan kebawah
rata kiri-kanan. Jarak gambar ke paragraf
sebelumnya (spacing before) = 12 pt
(tidak menggunakan sapasi manual)
Penulisan
11. v -
equation
▪ Penomoran referensi menggunakan
format numbering (tidak diketik manual)
▪ Referensi ditulis dengan indent = 1 cm
dan indent by (baris kedua dst.) = 0,5 cm
▪ Contoh format sumber online [1]:
Alexander K L 2012 Effects Instruction in
Creative Problem Solving on Cognition,
Creativity, and Satisfaction among Ninth
Grade Students in an Introduction to World
Agricultural Science and Technology Course
http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/
Penulisan
12. v ▪ Contoh format referensi buku [3]: 7–8
referensi
Depdiknas 2006 Kurikulum 2013. Standar
Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Matematika
Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Madrasah
Tsanawiyah. (Jakarta: Depdiknas)
▪ Contoh format referensi
jurnal/proceeding [14]:
Umar W 2016 Strategi Pemecahan Masalah
Matematis Versi George Polya dan
Penerapannya dalam Pembelajaran
Matematika. Kalamatika FKIP UHAMKA 1
59
*(Nama belakang ditulis terlebih dahulu
dan diikuti inisial nama belakang)
 Kesesuaian
No Komponen Tidak Keterangan Hal
Sesuai
Sesuai
Ukuran kertas
1. v 1
dan margin
- Judul: Font 17 TNR Bold, Huruf pertama Kapital dan
2. Penulisan judul v berikutnya huruf kecil kecuali singkatan atau istilah 1

- Ditulis dengan font 11 TNR (Times New Roman) Bold

- penulisan nama diawali inisial nama awal kemudian
ditulis nama akhir, tanpa titik, tapi dengan spasi,
contoh:
D Saepuzaman, M G Nugraha and C P Asmoro
Penulisan nama - Coresponding author diberi tanda bintang (*) di 1
3. v
Author akhir nama yang bersangkutan.
- Afiliasi ditandai dengan penomoran di akhir nama
yang bersangkutan (1,2,3). Jika semua penulis berasal
dari afiliasi yang sama, tidak perlu di beri nomor.

- Ditulis dengan font 11 TNR (Times New Roman)

4. Penulisan afiliasi v 1
- Inden = 2,5 cm
- Coresponding autor ditulis dengan font 11 TNR.
- Inden = 2,5 cm
Penulisan - After = 12 pt
5. Corresponding v - Beri keterangan pada penulisannya. Contoh: 1
Author *Corresponding author’s email:
example@gmail.com

- Abstrak ditulis dengan font 10 TNR (tulisan abstrak

di bold), maksimal 200 kata contoh:
Penulisan Abstract. Tulis disini….
6. v 1
abstract - Inden = 2,5 cm
- After = 28,4 pt
- Tidak perlu mencantumkan keyword
- Penamaan subjudul (section) ditulis dengan font 11
TNR di bold dengan urutan dan penamaan sebagai
berikut:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Result and Discussion
Penulisan sub- 4. Conclusion 1,3,
7. v
judul 5. References 4
Acknowledgments (tanpa nomor, jika ada)
- Spacing before: 12 pt
- Numbering:
1. Section
1.1. subsection
1.1.1. subsubsection. Paragraph ditulis
 langsung disini…
sections should be numbered 1, 2, 3, etc
subsections should be numbered 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
etc
subsubsections should be numbered 2.3.1, 2.3.2,
etc

- Paragraf pertama setiap sub judul (section) dan

subsection tidak diberi inden, tetapi paragraph
Penulisan badan berikutnya diberi inden 5 mm. Tanpa tombol tab
8. v 1-4
teks - Gunakan referensi pada badan teks dengan format
[1], [2], [3] dst..
- Gunakan penomoran referensi secara berurutan
- Pada tabel, ukuran font bisa diperkecil sesuai
dengan ukuran tabel. Tabel disimpan ditengah
(center)
- Jika tabel lebih dari satu tapi dalam satu judul
(caption), setiap sub tabel diberi label (a), (b), (c),
dst…
- Keterangan tabel (caption) disimpan diatas tabel
9. Penulisan tabel v 3
(ditengah) dengan before = 12 pt dan after = 6 pt.
dengan penulisan: Table 1. keterangan tabel tidak
melebihi lebar tabel, jika lebih pindahkan kebawah
rata kiri-kanan (justify).
- Pada tabel hanya ada 3 garis (Border), yaitu dua
garis khorizontal pada header tabel dan satu pada
bagian bawah tabel
10. Penulisan gambar 4,6
Penulisan 3,4,
11.
equation 5,6
- Referensi mengikuti gaya penulisan berikut:
- Dalam referensi tuliskan judul jurnal atau bukunya.
Seperti dibawah ini:
- Hilangkan tanda baca, kecuali dgn penulis lebih dari
3 orang diberi tanda koma (,) setelah huruf terakhir
nama penulis tetapi sebelum ‘and’ tidak perlu.
untuk jurnal volume dibold.
- Contoh penulisan referensi dari jurnal:
Penulisan [1] Firmasari S, Sukestiyarno Y L and Mariani S 2013
12. v 7,8
referensi Pengembangan bahan Ajar menggunakan
Taksonomi SOLO Superitem dengan Tutor
Sebaya Berbantuan WinGeom. Unnes Journal
of Mathematics Education Research 2 1
[1] Contoh penulisan referensi dari internet:
[2] Tjalla A 2010 Potret mutu pendidikan indonesia
ditinjau dari hasil-hasil studi internasional
http://repository.ut.ac.id
[2]
Contoh penulisan refernsi dari buku:
 [3] Biggs J B and Collis K F 1982 Evaluating the
Quality of Learning: the SOLO Taxonomy
(New York: Academic Press)
[3]
Buat dalam format word