RESULTS ANALYSIS OF MATHEMATICS
LEARNING WITH LEARNING PROBLEM
POSING TYPES OF POST SOLUTION
POSING AT XI GRADE SENIOR HIGH
SCHOOL 2 OF BENGKULU CITY
Eko Margono1, Della Maulidiya2, Hanifah3
Mathematics Study Program, JPMIPA FKIP
Bengkulu University
email : 1eko.margonoa1c014010@gmailcom,
2
della.maulidiya@unib.ac.id,3hanifah@unib.ac.id,
ABSTARCT
This study aims to describe the learning outcomes
of students at XI grade Senior High School 2 Of
Bengkulu City who learning Problem Posing Post
Solution Posing Type. This research is descriptive
research. The sample was taken by using
purposive sampling technique, the sample in this
study is the students at XI grade Senior High
School 2 Of Bengkulu City academic year
2017/2018 which amounted to 36 students. The
instrument used for data collection in this study is
the test sheet. Data test results are then tested the
validity, reliability, difficulty level, and
differentiating power problems. The results
showed that 51.61% of the posttest scores of
students who learned to use Problem Posing
learning in the Post-solution posing type were
above the minimum completeness criteria (KKM)
with an average grade of 73.74.
Keywords: Learning Outcomes, Problem Posing
type Post Solution Posing
INTRODUCTION
Mathematics is one component study that
have an important role in education and a way to
solve problems in everyday life. The important
role of mathematics has resulted in these subjects
having problems that are certainly not easy to
solve. One of the most visible problems in
mathematics is the learning process. The learning
process is a joint effort between teachers and
students to share and process information so that
knowledge is formed in students. Learning
mathematics is a high mental activity because it
requires students to think critically in facing all
problems, therefore in teaching mathematics
teachers must be able to provide explanations so
that abstract mathematical concepts can be
understood by students. The interaction between
teacher and student in learning is the main
requirement for the ongoing learning process so
that learning objectives are achieved. In this case
the teacher holds the main role in creating a
situation that is able to stimulate the realization of
an effective teaching and learning process, namely
how to learn well, so that students can learn well
too.
The results of interviews conducted with one
of the XI grade mathematics teachers at Senior
High School 2 Of Bengkulu City, information was
obtained that some students had not reached the
Minimum Completion Criteria in the previous test
results. Students are also not yet active in the
learning process, even though Bengkulu Senior
High School 2 uses the 2013 curriculum. In this
2013 curriculum students are learning centers, so
students must be active in the learning process.
Thus learning is needed to be able to encourage
students to be more active in learning so that
student learning outcomes increase.
Teachers are required to be able overcome the
problems that arise in learning mathematics by
applying learning that is in accordance with the
character of the students and with the material to
be delivered to students. The learning process is
related to the interaction between teachers and
students. One of the problems in learning is the
lack of students' ability to ask questions. Problem
posing learning is expected to increase student
participation and change their mindset so they are
able to accept the concept correctly and can solve
the questions given and obtain the desired learning
outcomes.
The learning model is the pattern used as a
guide to make learning plan in class Suprijono
(2014: 46). Freire (Ompusunggu, 2014) defines
problem posing as a way of solving problems
through elaboration, which is to reformulate the
problem into simple parts so that it is understood.
Where as Shoimin (2014: 133) says that problem
posing is learning that requires students to
compose their own questions or break down a
question into simpler questions. The syntax is
understanding, a way out, identification of errors,
minimizing writing / counting, finding alternatives
and arranging questions.
Silver (Siswanto & Subanji, 2010: 39)
classifies Problem Posing into 3 forms, namely
Pre-solution posing, Within-solution posing, and
Post-solution posing. Dameyani (2014) revealed
that Problem Posing learning type Post-solution
1
posing can increase the percentage of
completeness of student learning outcomes.
Explanation from three forms of cognitive
activities according to Silver (Siswanto & Subanji,
2010), namely:
a. Pre-solution posing, learners produce
initial problems caused by the stimulus. In
this Pre-solution posing, a student makes a
question of the situation being held. So
students are expected to be able to make
questions related to the statement given by
the teacher.
b. Within-solution posing, students formulate
questions that can be solved. So in Within
solution posing, students reformulate the
question questions into a new sub-question
from the questions in the given questions.
c. Post-solution posing, students modify the
conditions of the questions that have been
completed to produce new questions. In
this type, students are given the
opportunity to be able to make varied
questions easily. This is because there has
been a settlement of the condition of the
statement given by the teacher so that
students can just make a problem by
making a solution as the initial condition.
The difference between pre-solution posing,
Within-solution posing and post solution-posing is
on the condition of the statement given. All three
still have a common goal that is directing students
to form new questions from a statement.
Thobroni (2016: 286-287) suggests 4
advantages of problem posing namely 1)
educating students to think critically, 2) active
students in learning, 3) learning to analyze a
problem, 4) educating children to believe in
themselves. While some of the shortcomings of
problem posing according to Thobroni (2016:
287) are first, it requires considerable time;
second, it cannot be used in low class; third, not
all students are skilled at asking.
Learning outcomes are the results obtained by
someone in the form of cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor in the process of teaching and
learning activities that are assessed through tests
(Maisaroh & Rostrieningsih, 2010: 162). The
same thing is also explained by Sudjana
(Maisaroh & Rostrieningsih, 2010: 161) who says
that broadly speaking learning outcomes are
divided into three domains, namely, 1) cognitive
domains related to students' intellectuals, 2)
affective domains relating to attitudes, and 3)
psychomotor domain that deals with skills or
abilities to act.
Research conducted using learning problem
posing type pre-solution posing. Learning
outcomes are examined specifically in the
cognitive domain
RESEARCH METHODS
This research is descriptive research
conducted in Senior High School 2 Bengkulu
City. The population in this study were XI grade
students of Senior High School 2 Bengkulu City
in the even semester of the academic year
2017/2018. Sampling uses purposive sampling
technique, namely with certain considerations.
Consideration of this sampling is the average
mathematical value of students who have high
replications beforehand, so that the class XI MIPA
F is taken as the sample class.
In this study the instruments used were tests.
Postest is given at the end of the learning process
which is the seventh meeting. The test questions
in the form of essays and questions were first
tested in the trial class and analyzed to see the
validity of the questions, the reliability of the
questions, the differentiation of the questions, and
the level of difficulty of the questions.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The study was conducted from March 20,
2018 to May 9, 2018 in XI grade of Senior High
School 2 Bengkulu City. The study consisted of 7
meetings namely 5 material meetings, 1 quiz
meeting and 1 posttest meeting. Before carrying
out the posttest, the posttest question was first
validated by two expert validators. Then after the
questions are valid, the question is tested to the
trial class. And the results of the trial were
analyzed the level of validity, reliability, level of
difficulty and the power of different questions.
The validity test technique used in this study is the
product moment Pearson correlation test. Product
moment correlation formula as follows:
𝑁 ∑ 𝑋𝑌 − (∑ 𝑋)(∑ 𝑌)
𝑟𝑥𝑦 =
√{𝑁 ∑ 𝑋 2 − (∑ 𝑋)2 }{𝑁 ∑ 𝑌 2 − (∑ 𝑌)2 }
(Arikunto, 2013:87)
The question is said to be valid if 0,40 <
𝑟𝑥𝑦 ≤ 1,00.
2
 To test the reliability of the learning outcomes Tabel 2 Each Question Indicator
test, Cronbach's Alpha formula was used as
follows: Indikator Butir Soal
𝑛 ∑ 𝑠𝑖 2 Determine Determine the position of
𝑟11 = ( ) (1 − 2 ) the position of two circles
(𝑛 − 1) 𝑠𝑡
(Lestari & Yudhanegara, 2017 : 206) two circles based 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 + 2𝑥 − 6𝑦 + 9 =
The question is said to be reliable if 0,40 < on discriminant 0 dan 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 + 8𝑥 − 6𝑦 +
𝑟11 ≤ 1,00. The distinguishing test of the problem 9 = 0 based on discriminant!
uses the following formula: Determine Determine the power line
𝑋̅𝐴 − 𝑋̅𝐵 the equation of and power point on the X axis
(𝐷𝑃 = ) the power line of if two circles are known 𝑥 2 +
SMI
two circles 𝑦 2 + 2𝑥 − 2𝑦 − 6 = 0 and
(Lestari & Yudhanegara, 2017 : 217)
𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 − 12𝑥 − 4𝑦 + 36 =
Questions can be used if they meet different
0!
power 0,20 < 𝐷𝑃 ≤ 1,00. Test the difficulty
level using the following formula:
Resolve If two circles 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 +
problems related 8𝑥 − 10𝑦 − 𝑘 = 0 dan 𝑥 2 +
𝑋̅
𝐼𝐾 = to two orthogonal 𝑦 2 − 12𝑥 − 10𝑦 − 3 = 0
𝑆𝑀𝐼 circles mutually orthogonal,
(Lestari & Yudhanegara, 2017 : 224)
determine the value k
Questions can be used when meeting the level
Determine The length of the alliance
of difficulty 0,70 < 𝐼𝐾 ≤ 0,10. The following
the length of the tangent is known in two
are the results of the analysis of the trial:
tangent line of the circles L1 and L2 are 8 cm. if
two circles the distance of the center of
Table 1 Instrument Test Results
the two circles is 17 cm and
Reliabilit Level of Diffe-
No Validity the length of the radius L1 is
y difficulty rence
10 cm, count the length of the
1 0.75 0,71 0,69 0.41 radius of the circle L2 !
2 0.67 0,82 0.26 Determine It is known that two
3 0.76 0,67 0.51 the length of the circular sections of wood are
4 0.65 0,77 0.36 winding belt is tied with a rope that is 144
5 0.59 0.37 minimal cm. if the radius are the same
0,59
length then determine the
Based on the above calculations it can be
length of the wooden radius!
seen that all the questions that have been tested
can be used as a posttest question. Because based
on the criteria of validity, reliability, level of
difficulty and different power all these questions
fall into the category of questions that can be used.
Analysis of achievement of learning
At the seventh meeting students were given a
outcomes is carried out based on the results of
posttest question to measure student learning
learning outcomes of students according to
outcomes after carrying out problem posing
indicators of each question. The following
learning in the type of post-solution posing. Based
indicator table is used to measure student learning
on the posttest data of the students the following
outcomes
results were obtained:

3
 Table 3 Descriptive Analysis of Experimental
Class Outcomes
Deskripsi Indeks
Number of studetnts 31
Average 73,74
Maximum 92
Minimum 47
Standard deviation 12,627
Varians 159,465

From table 3 it is known that the average

posttest value of students in the experimental class
is 73.74. It is known that the average posttest
value of students who carry out learning is below
the minimum completeness criteria set at 75. Fig. 1. One of the Student's Answers at Item
Number 3
Following is the analysis of students' answers From Figure 1, it can be seen that students
based on the average score of the questions: experience difficulties in the operation so that they
Tabel 4 Analysis Of Each Average Item are unable to proceed to the next stage. This
Number Average Percentage of causes the scores obtained by students in question
of item Achievement number 2 to be low.
1 15,41 72,09% Item number 5 deals with the indicator
2 15,4 74,51% Determining the length of the winding belt at a
3 15,20 71,12% minimum. This material was in the 5th meeting of
4 15,43 74,67% the study. Here is one example of the students'
5 16,3 76,29% answers to question number 5.

From table 4, it is known that all posttest

questions have a percentage of truth of more than
50%. This shows that 50% of the answers to each
question can be solved by students even though
the classical average is still below the KKM set by
the school where the research is conducted. The
lowest percentage of score achievement is in
number 3 which is 71.12% and the lowest
achievement score is in number 5, which is
76.29%.
Problem number 3 deals with indicators
Resolving problems related to two orthogonal
circles. This material was at the 3rd meeting of the
study. Following is the documentation of one of
the students' answers to question number 3

Fig. 2. One of the Student's Answers in Item

Number 5
From Figure 2 it can be seen that students
experience errors in translating questions into
mathematical forms, namely the failure of the
formula around the circle to calculate the length of

4
the arc, so that some students do not get a perfect Suggestion
score. Based on the results of the research that has
Analysis of learning outcomes showed that been done, the suggestions that can be given are:
there were 51.61% of students who passed the
KKM based on 75.. The following diagram of the 1. So that problem posing learning can adjust
posttest value of students: to school hours, learning is done in groups
so students can solve problems together
with their group members.
XI MIPA F 2. In order for the process of reformulating
100 the problem to run well, the instructions
for work must be made clearly
50
REFERENCES
0 [1] Arikunto, S. (2007) Research Procedure
DC
AAP

DJ
FPM
DER

AAN

MT

MGP
PNA

DRO

CA
MATJ

EDP
RP
MSS

RN
MKH
RA
JMS
AL

RN
FI

AI

FZ

FK

HDP

AS
YPS

AM
SA
IA

A Revised Edition Practice Approach VI

Fig. 3. Posttest Value Diagram
From the diagram above it can be seen that
the low class average is equal to 73.74 because
there are some students who get too low scores.
Table 5 Criteria for Success Levels of Students
Understanding in %
level of success Information
>80% Very High
75-79% High
70-74% Enough
65-69% Low
Source: Zainal Aqib (2009: 41)
From the table above it is known that Problem
Posing learning type Post-solution posing is in the
criteria of being. This is caused by the following
factors: 1) There are some students who are not
very interested in mathematics which is indicated
by the lack of participation of certain students
during the learning process 2) Students who are
weak in communication where the ability to ask is
important in Problem Posing learning 3) The
presentation is done in groups so that there are
some students who rely on their group friends.
END SECTIONS
Conclusion
Based on the results of the research that has
been done, it can be concluded that 51.61% of the
posttest scores of students who learn to use
Problem Posing learning type Post-solution posing
are above the minimum completeness criteria
(KKM) with a class average value of 73.74.
hal 134, Rineka Apta, Jakarta.
[2] Aqib, Zainal. 2009. Classroom action
research. Bandung: CV. Yrama Widya.
[3] Dameyani (2014). Efforts to Improve
Learning Outcomes of Class VII Students
of Bengkulu City SMPN 05 Through
Problem Posing Learning Model Type
Post Solution Posing
[4] Maisaroh, & Rostrieningsih. (2010).
Improving Student Learning Outcomes by
Using Active Learning Type Quiz Team
Learning Methods in Basic
Communication Skills Subjects at SMK
Negeri 1 Bogor. Journal of Economics and
Education.Vol. 8, No.2
[5] Ompusunggu, V. D. (2014). Increasing the
Ability of Mathematical Understanding
and Positive Attitudes toward Mathematics
in Medan 2ND Middle School Students
Through Problem Posing Approach,
Saintech Journal, 7. Vol 6, No. 4.
[6] Riyana, Astina (2015). Bloom's Taxonomy
(Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor
domains). Jakarta.
[7] Shoimin, Aris. 2014. 68 Innovative
Learning Model in 2013 Curriculum.
Yogyakarta: Ar-ruzz Media
[8] Siswanto, W., & Subanji. (2010). Creative
and Innovative Learning Models. Malang.
[9] Suprijono, Agus. 2014. Cooperative
Learning. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
[10] Thobroni, M. (2016). Learning and
Learning. Yogyakarta: AR-RUZZ
MEDIA.