Analysis of mathematical critical thinking ability of students based on diagnostic assessment

Abstract

The purposes of this study are 1) to describe the level of students’ critical thinking ability in learning Complex Analysis based on the results of diagnostic assessments, 2) to identify errors experienced by students in solving problems that measure mathematical critical thinking ability in learning Complex Analysis based on the results of diagnostic assessment, and 3) to determine instructional therapy for students who experience errors in solving problems that measure mathematical critical thinking ability in learning Complex Analysis based on results diagnostic assessment. The research design uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, with simultaneous models not balanced. The population of the research was Mathematics Department students of FMIPA UNNES in 2017/2018 who had participated in complex analysis studies consisting of two classes with a population size of 68. The samples were randomly selected from two classes with a sample size of 33. The four subjects were selected from two levels. Criticaland normal of each of the two students. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. The results of the study show that student learning outcomes on achieving critical mathematical thinking ability in complex analysis learning are complete. There are two levels of students’ critical thinking ability, namely critical and normal levels. The results of the analysis of students’ mathematical critical thinking ability, subject to a critical level, there are four indicators of questions that have not been reached. These indicators include aspects of assumptions, deductions, interpretations, and judging arguments. Subjects are of normal level, there are eleven indicators of questions that have not been reached. These indicators include all aspects of mathematical critical thinking ability namely, inferential, assumptions, deductions, interpretations, and judging arguments. The diagnosis of errors found that subjects with normal levels experienced errors of all types, namely errors of understanding, process, conclusion, transformation, and carelessness, as well as lack of material mastery. Subjects with critical levels experience misunderstanding and conclusions.