Main Article Content

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explain the level of student understanding of the context of the vision, mission, and objectives of the Mathematics Education Study Program (PMA Study Program). This study uses a quantitative descriptive approach. The questionnaire used is an open and closed questionnaire, meaning the questionnaire contains questions with four (4) answer choices and is accompanied by an explanation of the choice of the answer. The research sample was set at 20%, namely as many as 61 students from each semester. The results of the study show; (1) almost all students are 60 people (98.36%) who understand the context of the vision of superior words, 13 people including very understanding (21.31%) and able to interpret professional words, and 60 people are very understanding (98.36% ) and able to interpret the words Rahmatan Lil Alamin, (2) Students almost entirely understand the mission of the first PMA Study Program (98.36%), and so on with the same percentage for the second, third, and fourth missions, (3) Level Mathematicians' understanding of the context of the Study Program's objectives is to understand only the first goal with the number of students 55 students (90.16%), while the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth goals are in the very understand category of 9 people (14.75%). So, in general, it can be said that PMA Study Program students almost all understand the context of the new PMA vision, mission, and objectives of the Study Program

Keywords

Comprehension Goals Mathematic Mission Vission

Article Details

References

  1. Arikunto, S. 2006. Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan.: Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.
  2. Borang Akreditasi Prodi.Pendidikan Matematika IAIN Zawiyah Cotkala langsa 2016.
  3. Bungin, B. 2013.Metodedologi Penelitian Sosial dan Ekonomi. Prenadamedia Group. Jakarta.
  4. Hikman, R. 1990. Mind Manager, Soul of Leader. Wiley and Son. New York.
  5. Kanafi, Imam, dkk. 2013. Persepsi dan Transformasi Visi dan Misi Pada Civitas Akademika STAIN Pekalongan.
  6. Kuncoro. 2006. Strategi: Bagaimana Meraih Keunggulan Kompetitif. Erlangga. Jakarta.
  7. Notohadiprawiro. 2006. Masyarakat Perguruan Tinggi. Universitas Gajah Mada. Yogyakarta.
  8. Novita Mariana, dkk. 2015. Tracer Studi Mahasiswa Program Studi Sistem Informasi Universitas Stikubank Semarang (Jurnal Dinamika Informatika.Vol. 7 No, 2, Oktober 2015, ISSN 2085 – 3343).
  9. Purwanto. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif. Pustaka Pelajar. Yogyakarta.
  10. Sagala, S. 2013. Konsep Dan Makna Pembelajaran. Alfabeta. Bandung.
  11. Saifuddin, A. 2013.Metode Penelitian. Pustaka Pelajar. Yogyakarta.
  12. Sunardi, D dan Sudarwati, W. 2014.Pengukuran TIngkat Pemahaman Civitas Akademika Terhadap Visi Misi Jurusan Teknik Industri.(online) http://download.portalgaruda.org/article.php?article=298258&val=7261&title=PENGUKURAN%20TINGKAT%20PEMAHAMAN%20CIVITAS%20AKADEMIKA%20TERHADAP%20VISI%20MISI%20JURUSAN%20TEKNIK%20INDUSTRI.
  13. Sunaryo, W. K. 2012.Taksonomi Kognitif. PT Remaja Rosda Karya. Bandung.
  14. Susanto, A. 2013.Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran di Sekolah Dasar. PT Fajar Interpratama Mandiri. . Jakarta.
  15. UII, 2009, Dokumen Blue Print Manajemen Alumni, Universitas islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta.
  16. Usman, H. 2011. Manajemen Teori, Praktik, dan Riset Pendidikan. Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.
  17. Tulasi, D. 2010. Merunut Pemahaman Taksonomi Bloom: Suatu Kontemplasi Filosofis. Humaniora Volume 1 Nomor 2 Oktober 2010: 359-371.
  18. Wibisono, D. 2006.Manajemen Kinerja, Konsep, Desain, dan Teknik Perusahaan. Erlangga. Jakarta.
  19. Zevika dan Yerizon. 2012. Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep Siswa Kelas VIII SMP Negeri 2 Padang Panjang Melalui Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair Share Disertai Peta Pikiran. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, Volume 1 Nomor 1: 45.