ZONE PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT GIVES A NEW MEANING TO THE STUDENTS’ INTELLIGENCE IN STATISTICAL METHOD LESSON

Georgina Maria Tinungki

Abstract


Development of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) a learner needs guidance, help from adults or peers with a higher skill set in order of achieve a higher level of development. The level of knowledge or gradual knowledge is called by Vygotsky as scaffolding. Scaffolding means giving learners helps during the early stages of learning, then reducing the quantity of help and giving the learner opportunity to immediately take on the greater responsibility, after being able to do tasks on their own. One in the statistics Lesson program is Statistical Method, which requires high-level thinking since the students are hoped to be able to analyze statistics inference. In this case, students need help during the learning process in order to understand the concept of Statistical Method material optimally. The help could be in the form of guidance, encouragement, outlining problems into other forms that enable students to be independent. By implementing the ZPD process in the form of scaffolding stage, students are able to understand concepts of Statistical Method material optimally.


Keywords


Scaffolding, Statistical Method, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

Full Text:

PDF

References


Angeli, Ch., & Valanides, N. (2004). The effect of electronic scaffolding for technology integration on perceived task effort and confidence of primary student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 29-43.

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: A view from the west. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147-164.

Atebe, H.U. (2011). The van Hiele levels as correlate of students’ ability to formulate conjectures in school geometry. In H. Venkat & A.A. Essien (eds). Proceedings of the 17th National Congress of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA): Mathematics in a Globalised World, 1: 11-15.

Borchelt, N. (2007). Cognitive computer tools in the teaching and learning of undergraduate calculus. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-17.

Camiciottoli, B.C., & Fortanet-Gómez, I., (2015). Multimodal analysis in academic settings. London: Routledge.

Engelbrecht, J., Harding, A., & Phiri, P. (2010). Are OBE-trained learners ready for university mathematics? Pythagoras, 7(2), 3-13.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. in Moll, L.C. (ed). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, J.H. (2015). Teaching for transfer in EAP: Hugging and bridging revisited. English for Specific Purposes, 37(1), 1-12.

Hanjani, A.M., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101-114.

Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students' writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116-123.

Kuusisaari, H. (2014). Teachers at the zone of proximal development: Collaboration promoting or hindering the development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 46-57.

Mayer, R.E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 31–48. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ndlovu, M.C. (2011). University-school partnerships for social justice in mathematics and science education: the case of the SMILES project at IMSTUS. South African Journal of Education, 31(3), 419-433.

Padayachee, P., Boshoff, M., Olivier, W., & Harding, A. (2011). A blended learning Grade 12 intervention using DVD technology to enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics. Pythagoras, 32(1), 1-8.

Shooshtari, Z.G., Jalilifar, A., & Haghighi, S.B. (2017). A multimodal approach toward teaching for transfer: A case of team teaching in EASP writing courses. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(4), 157-190.

Tayebeh, F., & Ghaemi, F. (201). Implications of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development in Teacher Education: ZPTD and Self-scaffolding. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29. 1549-1554.

Van der Walt, M., Maree, K., & Ellis, S. (2008). A mathematics vocabulary questionnaire for use in the intermediate phase. South African Journal of Education, 28(4), 489-504.

Verenikina, I. (2003). Understanding scaffolding and the ZPD in educational research. Proceedings of the International Education Research Conference (AARE – NZARE). Wollongong: University of Wollongong, Australia.

Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: the zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684.

Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362-382.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30862/jhm.v2i2.69

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Indexed by:

  


Journal of Honai Math
Universitas Papua
Jalan Gunung Salju, Amban,
Manokwari, Papua Barat - 98314
Telp. (0986) 211 430; Fax. (0986) 211 430
Email: journal.honai.math@unipa.ac.id


p-ISSN: 2615-2185 | e-ISSN: 2615-2193


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

View My Stats