Kendala dan Miskonsepsi Kognitif Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Geometri Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi
DOI:
10.29303/jm.v7i4.10670Published:
2025-12-08Downloads
Abstract
This study aims to identify students’ misconceptions in solving Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) geometry problems on plane figures. A descriptive qualitative approach using Cognitive Error Analysis was applied to the written responses of 10 eleventh-grade students in the Mathematics Cambridge Program. The validated instrument consisted of three HOTS essay items. Data were analyzed through error classification, mapping to HOTS levels (C4, C5, C6), and in-depth diagnosis of responses identified as misconceptions. The findings show that students’ main difficulties lie in the Analyzing stage (C4), which subsequently weakens their ability to evaluate and create strategies (C5–C6). Two dominant patterns emerged: misreading non-routine instructions and errors in fundamental geometric concepts, with several cases indicating independent weaknesses at C6. These results highlight the need to strengthen strategic analysis as the foundation for HOTS development. The study is limited by its small sample size and reliance on written data.
Keywords:
misconceptions HOTS geomety cognitive error analysisReferences
Andrés Rodríguez-Nieto, C., Bongani Dhlamini, Z., Singh Chauhan, A., Baltaeva, U., Abubakar, A., Dejarlo, J. O., & Andriani, M. (2023). Ways of Thinking 3D Geometry: Exploratory Case Study in Junior High School Students. In Polyhedron International Journal in Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, Issue 1).
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 420–464). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284661595
Dewi, N. P., Martini, & Purnomo, A. R. (2021). Pendidikan Sains Analisis Miskonsepsi Peserta Didik pada Materi Sistem Pernapasan Manusia. Pensa E-Jurnal : Pendidikan Sains, Vol. 9, No. 3, 422–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26740/pensa.v9i3.40331
Gardner, Howard. (2011). Frames of mind : the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Kholid, M. N., Dewi, R. S. A., Tong, D. H., Wijaya, A. P., & Maharani, S. (2024). Problem Solving in Three-Dimensional Geometry: How Are Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers Mathematical Communication Characteristics? Asian Journal of University Education, 20(2), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v20i2.27192
Kuserawati, A. A., Riyadi, & Sudiyanto. (2025). Profil Tes Diagnostik Model Four Tier Diagnostic Test dalam Mengungkap Miskonsepsi pada Pembelajaran Matematika. Didaktika: Jurnal Kependidikan, Vol. 14 No. 3. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.58230/27454312.2454
Maison, M., Lestari, N., & Widaningtyas, A. (2020). Identifikasi Miskonsepsi Siswa Pada Materi Usaha Dan Energi. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 6(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v6i1.314
Mulyani, S., Hadi, C. A., Santosa, F., Subhan, A., Jurusan, P., Matematika, P., Sultan, U., & Tirtayasa, A. (2020). Instrumen Tes Four-Tier pada Materi Aritmetika Sosial (Vol. 1, Issue 1). http://www.jurnal.untirta.ac.id/index.php/wilangan
Nurussama, A., & Hermanto, H. (2022). Analisis Miskonsepsi Siswa pada Materi Pecahan Ditinjau dari Teori Konstruktivisme. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 11(1), 641. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v11i1.4697
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing, 1. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
Putri, J. H., Diva, D. F., Dalimunthe, N. F., Prasiska, M., & Irani, A. R. (2024). Miskonsepsi dalam Pembelajaran Matematika: Sebuah Tinjauan Literatur terhadap Penelitian-Penelitian Terbaru. JagoMIPA: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan IPA, 4(3), 580–589. https://doi.org/10.53299/jagomipa.v4i3.749
Radatz, H. (1980). Students’ Errors in the Mathematics Learning Process: a Survey (Gunter Seib, Trans.). FLM Publishing CO Ltd Montreal Quebec Canada, 1, 2–3.
Ridha, M., Suhendra, S., & Nurlaelah, E. (2023). Student Errors in Solving Three Dimensional Problems Based on Nolting Theory. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 12(2), 2426. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v12i2.6739
Siagian, A. F., & Manalu, A. (2018). Analisis Miskonsepsi Siswa SMA Sekotamadya Pematangsiantar dalam Materi Mekanika dengan Menggunakan Metode Certainly of Respons Index (CRI).
Unaida, R., Lukman, I. R., Siraj, W., Kinanti, U., Malikussaleh, J., Cot, T., Nie, M., Batu, A., & Utara, I. (2024). Optimalisasi Kompetensi Guru (Ratna Unaida dkk. Jurnal Malikussaleh Mengabdi, 3(2), 2829–6141. https://doi.org/10.29103/jmm
Ürey, M., & Çalik, M. (2008). Mustafa ÜREY & Muammer ÇALIK Combining different conceptual change methods within 5E model: A sample teaching design of “cell” concept and its organelles Combining different conceptual change methods within 5E model: A sample teaching design of “cell” concept and its organelles. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 9, Issue 2).
Wilson, L. O. (2016). Blooms Taxonomy Revised - Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 1(1), 1–8.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lastri Hutagalung, Lukita Ambarwati, Anny Sovia, Tian Abdul Aziz, Flavia Aurelia Hidajat
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
