3 views

Uploaded by DESY DWI FRIMADANI

articel

- Creativity in Plastic Surgery
- Problem Solving
- Manager's Pocket Guide to Creativity
- Education Freedom Manifesto
- In the Plains of Maharashtra
- Video Making Project
- Creative Problem Solving (1)
- complete list of behavioral interview questions
- math program of studies
- 00 Surat LKMA - Kemenlu Belanda_English.pdf
- 1. Mechatronics Workshop KCC Day1Session1.pdf
- Arcavi&Schoenfeld_2008
- 10 ingredients for a high-performance leadership team _ civil + structural ENGINEER
- math reflection
- ubd template diltz
- technets1 dec2012
- The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evalua.pdf
- 7111 08 v2 unit-b-4 01 ppt ppt
- 7111 08 v2 unit-b-4 01 ppt
- Compare and Contract Skill of Management

You are on page 1of 6

To cite this article: N A Dina et al 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 947 012025

MISEIC IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1234567890

947 (2017) 012025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012025

Adversity Quotient

1Postgraduate Mathematic Education Program, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia

1Email: nesadina@mhs.unesa.ac.id

Abstract: Flexibility is an ability which is needed in problem solving. One of the ways in

problem solving is influenced by Adversity Quotient (AQ). AQ is the power of facing difficulties.

There are three categories of AQ namely climber, camper, and quitter. This research is a

descriptive research using qualitative approach. The aim of this research is to describe flexibility

in mathematics problem solving based on Adversity Quotient. The subjects of this research are

climber student, camper student, and quitter student. This research was started by giving

Adversity Response Profile (ARP) questioner continued by giving problem solving task and

interviews. The validity of data measurement was using time triangulation. The results of this

research shows that climber student uses two strategies in solving problem and doesn’t have

difficulty. The camper student uses two strategies in solving problem but has difficulty to finish

the second strategies. The quitter student uses one strategy in solving problem and has difficulty

to finish it.

1. Introduction

One of the important topics in mathematics education is an effort to increase the ability of student to

practice meaningfull learning process. The ability to use the flexible strategy is called flexibility.

Flexibility is one of the indicators to measure one’s creativity [1]. Flexibility is the ability to select

appropriate procedures for particular problems and modify such procedures [2]. The individual's

flexibility of mind can possibly be indicated in several ways by means of test. Although they have

disappointments to establish a common factor of this type, the concept of flexibility and its probable

opposite, rigidity, will not be downed [3].

Flexibility have a strong conection with the ability of solving problem. Creative thinking can be

improved with flexibility, and with the use of problem solving techniques. The students should be asked

challenging question to improve their flexibility in mathematics. It is commonly believed that divergent

thinking exercises should be done in the class [4]. By the problem solving, the students are expected to

create many ideas. The applied problems must possess many strategies so that it can arise students’

flexibility.

The ability of solving problem seems to be an important one that must be developed through

mathematic learning. By learning problem solving in mathematics, students will acquire ways of

thinking, habits of persistence and curiosity, and confidence in unfamiliar situations that will serve them

better outside of the mathematics classroom [5]. Problem solving is a process of accepting problem as a

challenge to solve them [6]. Problem solving steps which is applied in this research including four steps.

They are understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back [7].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution

of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1

MISEIC IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1234567890

947 (2017) 012025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012025

Students’ successful factor in solving problem is influenced by some ways, one of them is students’

difficulty level. The difficulty encountered by two students might be different in the same problem. The

difficulty is the students’ opportunity to increase their ability. Therefore, the students must motivate

themselve and try to overcome their difficulties in solving problem. Because of that, adversity quotient

(AQ) is needed in learning process. Adversity quotient is an intelligence to cope with difficulties [2], in

addition, adversity quotient can be called as the inteligence to change difficulty to be an opportunity [8].

There are three categories of AQ namely climber (high), camper (medium), and quitter (low) [9].

Through probem solving in this research, students are expected to be able to produce many strategies

to solve their problems. The used problems must possess many ways to solve the problems so that it can

show the criteria of flexibility. But, students must be categorized based on AQ before they are given

problem solving tasks.

Some researches discussed about flexibility. One of them was Arslan & Yazgan. They compared

flexibility by using many strategies to solve four of non routine mathematics problems which are given

to 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students [10]. Many researches connected flexibility with student ability or

student class level, but in this reseach flexibility is connected with adversity quotient. The aim of this

research is to describe students’ flexibility in mathematic problem solving based on Adversity Quotient.

This research can be used as an informative solution for mathematic teachers about students flexibility

in mathematics problem solving based on adversity quotient to design student learning and as the

reference for other researches who will be having the same topic as this paper.

2. Research methods

This research was done in Junior High School students in Surabaya city, Indonesia. The subject of this

research consisted of three students representing three categories of AQ namely climber student, camper

student, and quitter student. The instrument of this research involves mathematics problem solving task

used to describe flexibility. The data collection was done by way of the interview based on the task.

Data analysis in this research consists of three steps namely condensing data, presenting data, and

conclusion. The written and interview data are analized according to indicators of flexibility on every

steps of problem solving.

3.1 Results

The result of this research showes that the three subjects were solving problems with different strategy.

Climber student succeeded to solve the problem by two strategies. Camper student did the same as

climber student did, but she failed to finish the second strategy and the answer of the two strategies

weren’t correct. Quitter student only used one strategy to solve the problem and her answer wasn’t

correct.

Climber student was able to implement two strategies namely sketch and scheme successfully with the

correct answers. In sketch strategy, she understood the problem situation correctly. She understood that

the parts of agliculture land among children were connected one another. Then, she tried to ilustrated by

picture. She ilustrated rectangle as a whole agliculture land. She devided it based on the rules in the

problem. She created variable L as a whole agliculture land and succeeded to finish the answer as seen

in figure 1.

2

MISEIC IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1234567890

947 (2017) 012025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012025

In the second strategy, she chose to use scheme to solve the problem. Her understanding about the

problem was consistent in that scheme. She created three variables namely 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧. X means the whole

aglucilture land, 𝑦 means the rest of first land, while 𝑧 means the rest of second land. Then, she started

to determine the value of the three variables until the final answer, and she got 𝑥 = 120 ha (as seen in

figure 2).

Camper student was able to make two strategies namely fraction addition and sketch. In fraction addition

strategy, she can implement it until she finish it but the answer is wrong. In sketch strategy, she was not

able to implement it although her ways and understanding are correct. In fraction addition strategy, she

didn’t succeeded to understand the problem. She thought that the parts of agliculture land among

children were not connected one another. Because of her missunderstanding, she answered the wrong

answer in the next steps as seen in figure 3 and 4.

.

3

MISEIC IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1234567890

947 (2017) 012025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012025

Figure 4. She tried to calculate the area of agriculture land of every child. She got the final answer of

7100 ha.

She tried to use ilustrate the picture in the second strategy. But, her understanding about the problem

changed. She succeeded to understand that the parts of agliculture land among children were connected

one another. But, she failed to finish the second strategy. She told that she got difficulties to continue

because she had no ideas to connect the picture with the problem situation as seen in figure 5.

Quitter student didn’t understand the problem. She only used one strategy to solve the problem.She

thought that the parts of agliculture land among children were not connected one another. In the next

step, she did simple calculation. She added the three part of Alan, Alesha, and Adib and then she

determined the result in hectare. After that, she added it with Abhi’s and she got 35,994 hectare. She

tried to assume the final answer to became 36,4 hectare but she wrong.

3.2 Discussion

Based on the result and the interview from the three students, not all of the subjects encountered

difficulties in every step in problem solving. But, the connection between flexibility an AQ become

clear in the third steps of problem solving that is carring out the plan.

Student with high level of AQ (climber) was able to show flexibility by using two different strategies

to solve the problem. Although at the beginning she tried to change the picture to be scheme, but she

succeeded to finish her scheme. The climbers like challenge and wasn’t easy to give up when they meet

the difficulties [10].

Student with medium level of AQ (camper) was less able to show flexibility because she wasn’t able

to finish the second strategy. She decided to give up when she find difficulties. The campers like to be

in the comfort zone. They feel satisfied when the succeed to achieve something but they refused to get

something better [10].

4

MISEIC IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1234567890

947 (2017) 012025 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012025

Student with low level of AQ (quitter) wasn’t able to show flexibility because she only used one

strategy to solve the problem. She didn’t want to try another strategy. The quitters didn’t like the

challenge. They didn’t like to try something new in their lives [10].

4. Conclusion

Based on the research, it can be concluded that climber student can show flexibility and is able to cope

with difficulties. Camper student is less able to show flexibility because she can’t cope with difficulties

in the second strategy. Quitter student isn’t able to show flexibility because she only use one strategy to

solve the problem.

5. References

[1] Siswono Tatag Yuli Eko 2007 Penjenjangan Kemampuan Berpikir Kreatif dan

Identifikasi Tahap Berpikir Kreatif Siswa dalam Memecahkan dan Mengajukan

Masalah Matematika Disertasi PPs UNESA Surabaya p 33

[2] Star J R 2006 Flexibility in the Use of Mathematical Procedure San Diego American

Educational Research Education p 15

[3] Guilford J P 1967 Creativity Research Past Present and Future University of Soyth

California p 7

[4] Kandemir Mehmet Ali 2007 Creativity Training in Problem Solving: A Model of

Creativity in Mathematics Teacher Education New Horizons in Education Vol 55

No 3 Dec 2007 p 2

[5] National Council of Teacher of Mathematics 2000 Principles and Standards for School

Mathematics (Reston VA: NCTM) p 101

[6] Hudojo Herman 2001 Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika

(Malang : JICA) pp 23-25

[7] Polya G 1973 How To Solve It (2ndEd) (Princeton: Princeton University Press) p 25

[8] Sopiatin Popi and Sahrani Sohari 2011 Psikologi Belajar dalam Perspektif Islam

(Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia) p 27

[9] Stoltz G 2004 Adversity Quotient: Mengubah Hambatan Menjadi Peluang (T Hermaya)

(Jakarta: PT Gramedia) pp 11-35

[10] Arslan Cigdem and Yazgan Yeliz 2015 Common and Flexible Use of Mathematical

Non Routine Problem Solving Strategies American Journal of Educational Research 2015

Vol No 12 pp 1519-1523

- Creativity in Plastic SurgeryUploaded byAnonymous 8hVpaQdCtr
- Problem SolvingUploaded byGianni Dalla Pellegrina
- Manager's Pocket Guide to CreativityUploaded byreggiee
- Education Freedom ManifestoUploaded byrobmosis
- In the Plains of MaharashtraUploaded byDarshit Jaju
- Video Making ProjectUploaded byChochomz N de Panda
- Creative Problem Solving (1)Uploaded bydaisy
- complete list of behavioral interview questionsUploaded byapi-257096431
- math program of studiesUploaded byapi-232588272
- 00 Surat LKMA - Kemenlu Belanda_English.pdfUploaded byPemudi Ismail
- 1. Mechatronics Workshop KCC Day1Session1.pdfUploaded byMugilan Mohan
- Arcavi&Schoenfeld_2008Uploaded bydespinakiriakaki
- 10 ingredients for a high-performance leadership team _ civil + structural ENGINEERUploaded byKuber Bogati
- math reflectionUploaded byapi-269453634
- ubd template diltzUploaded byapi-281020585
- technets1 dec2012Uploaded byapi-191918585
- The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evalua.pdfUploaded bylelbassiti
- 7111 08 v2 unit-b-4 01 ppt pptUploaded byapi-357233146
- 7111 08 v2 unit-b-4 01 pptUploaded byapi-356808706
- Compare and Contract Skill of ManagementUploaded byVinh Phuong
- 2016-2017 pst formsUploaded byapi-358166659
- portfolioUploaded byapi-269565247
- MIDTERM EXAM MATH IN THE MODERN WORLD.docxUploaded byGregorio Gamboa Maniti II
- matrixUploaded byapi-316957556
- novak one-theme literature review template 2019Uploaded byapi-444366202
- Cognitive LearningUploaded byLourd Misa
- Finance 101 syllabusUploaded byMiguel Goco
- Lesson-Plan-Claret-Math.docxUploaded byMharaToot
- vit patterns and algebra pre testUploaded byapi-336022570
- Brainstorming 1assdqUploaded byhardyirawan11

- Traditional Gender RolesUploaded bycarlosivanx
- Human Values Print OutUploaded byRanbir Singh
- ELC501 Sample of an Argumentative Article and the Written Analysis Based on ItUploaded byMuhammad Amirull Adlan
- White Cosmic World-Bridger,BOUploaded bypaolasalsa
- Psychosocial Interventions: a HandbookUploaded bybyznl
- Adam W. Rigoni - Legal Rules, Legal Reasoning, And Nonmonotonic Logic PhDUploaded byPepe
- frankenstein golden linesUploaded byapi-402089003
- The Positive Impact of RoboticsUploaded byNasiru Zakariya
- Chapter 3-The Design and Construction ProcessUploaded byDIDI20094
- time managementUploaded byDebalina Ghosh
- Reading - Animals-3rd EsoUploaded byMari Carmen Pérez Gómez
- task sheet e portfolioUploaded byapi-238909471
- Text AnalysisUploaded byLaura Puscas
- Bloom TaxonomyUploaded bycentroidiomas
- Transformational.pdfUploaded byOasis International Consulting Ltd
- A Guide to the Fixed Mindset v the GrowthUploaded byholea
- 2. 14.pdfUploaded bySanam Shilpakar
- body image and the media finalUploaded byapi-429760816
- Verbal and SpatialUploaded byRenata Möhr Nemčić
- Patent Bar Exam Study GuideUploaded byMcRee Learning Center
- Khoirul Hadi UNJ JakartaUploaded byKhoirul Hadi
- Drew_Boyd -Innovation ! Inside the BoxUploaded byIon Jauregui
- Chapter 4musUploaded bysrojas5
- Myers BriggsPersonalityTypesforNegotiationUploaded byFiaz Mehmood
- Learning StrategiesUploaded byAid En
- ErgonomicsUploaded byMuhammad Rehan Tahir
- finalaslUploaded byapi-336565529
- Silabus Discourse Analysis-sdtUploaded byAnas Putra
- rubric 1Uploaded byapi-338694667
- A Meta-Analytic Review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning QuestionnaireUploaded byAna Faedrich