Learn to Relax with Crossword Puzzles, And Easy Ways to Make It

Learn to Relax with Crossword Puzzles, And Easy Ways to Make It
In teaching, we certainly want students to be actively involved in it, both when we explain and when giving assignments. The key to achieving all of that is one of them is the model and media that we use, which is sought to attract their enthusiasm to be actively involved in each stage of learning.
One type of learning that has been proven to provoke active student response is the Crossword Puzzle, or better known as the Crossword Puzzle Games. TTS as we know it is entertainment media / games in the form of boxes in black and white, consisting of two lanes, horizontal and descending. And equipped with clue (instructions) what words should be filled in each box.
Crossword puzzles will be very appropriate if we use to do a review of the material that we have conveyed. Clues or clues in crosswords are different from the problems they usually face, and sometimes even require their own logic. As the instructions are only one word, students must grasp the intention that what is desired is a synonym for that word.
So, with this relaxing and enjoyable learning, will be able to build the nerves of the brain and have a refreshing effect on the mind. With a relaxed learning atmosphere, the brain’s work function will return to optimal. And teachers do not have to use it to learn in the classroom, but can also be given to fill the days off at home.
Is it difficult to make crosswords?
If we make it manually, it’s definitely difficult. If we usually make enough evaluation questions, we have to do more work, which is to match one word with another word. The time required is also longer. For this reason, we can use applications that will facilitate our work, namely the Eclipse Crossword application.
Besides being free and lightweight, this application is also easy to use. For this reason you need to save it at any time if you want to make a TTS for learning. If you don’t have it and want to download it, please go to the page below (complete with tutorial to use it).
Eclipse Crossword application for Creating Learning TTS
Now we have seen that the crossword media can make students learn more relaxed. With this learning atmosphere, it is likely that students will become more understanding and easy to remember in a longer time.
Learning steps
Because crossword puzzles are more a medium for evaluation, teachers can develop their own when to apply them. In general, the following learning steps:
Prepare a crossword puzzle that we have made using the application earlier.
Share the puzzle with students, individually or in groups.
Explain the rules for how to fill it.
Invite students to work on it.
Set a time limit.
Give rewards to students or groups who complete quickly and correctly.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Crossword Puzzel (Crossword Puzzles)
Whatever learning we choose must have advantages and disadvantages. Because success or failure also depends on the character of the material being studied.
Including crossword puzzle is very suitable to remember terms, and is not appropriate for some subjects such as mathematics (but if you are able to create it, it can still be used as well).
The main strengths of crossword puzzels are that they are very simple to use in learning, train students ‘accuracy in understanding their clues and answers, and can hone students’ thinking (logic). Students who have difficulty answering one problem, can be helped by the help of letters that appear from answers to other questions.
In addition, TTS can also be used outside of study hours, as an entertainment medium as TTS functions in general.
While the weakness is that it cannot be used for one full face-to-face and can only be done at the end of the learning for evaluation / assessment purposes. In addition, students who answer one of the questions are likely to experience confusion because the answers to other questions are related. But this can also be an advantage because students will be more careful about what answers are the most correct.
To overcome this problem, we can give a bonus of one or several letters in the box, especially for questions (clue) that are categorized as difficult.
Thus a brief description of the Crossword Puzzle for learning, as well as applications to make it easier. Hopefully it can be understood and useful for all readers .

Assumptions of Dialectical Hermeneutics Understanding

Assumptions of Dialectical Hermeneutics Understanding
Dialectical hermeneutics is an attempt to interpret with the assumption that understanding is something that arises and pre-dates cognition. Therefore, according to this theory, to understand the text, not only by tracing the meaning placed by the author in the text, but also must be linked between our existence with something indicated by the text. This means that meaning is not something singular, but what exists is the diversity of meanings and existential dynamics.
Thus, reading and interpretation will always be a re-reading and re-interpretation, so that reading a new text will bring understanding with a new meaning as well. This theory figure is Martin Heidegger (Handayani Bella Papers), one of Husserl’s students who had been interested in philosophy from the beginning, especially Husserl’s phenomenology.
But even so, he is a philosopher who strongly opposes Husserl’s phenomenal Hermeneutics, which requires the neutrality of the interpreter. According to him, understanding must be preceded by prejudices about the object.
Heidegger opposed Husserl’s phenomenological ideas even though he had been a student of Hausserl. Heidegger rejects Husserl’s notion of neutrality of the interpreter, because the work of interpretation can only be carried out with precedence with prejudices about objects.
According to Heidegger, historical prejudices for objects are sources of understanding, because prejudice is a part of existence that must be understood.
According to this perspective, understanding is something that arises and already exists before cognition. To understand the text, it is not possible to achieve it by tracing the particular meaning placed there by the author. Our existence must be related to what the text can show. The implication is that there is no longer a single and permanent meaning; instead, there is a diversity of meanings and existential dynamics. The reading or interpretation is always a re-reading or re-interpretation, which will thus understand the same new text again with a new meaning as well.
Hermeneutics Dialogical (Hans Georg Gadamer). Dialogic hermeneutics is an interpretation with the assumption that true understanding can be achieved through dialectics by asking lots of questions. That is, the interpreter’s mind also plunges into reawakening the meaning of the text. Thus, the process of understanding is the process of fusion between at least two horizons. The author and the historical context of the text are considered in the process along with interpreter prejudices such as tradition, the practical importance of language, and culture (Raharjo, 2008: 33).
The figures of this theory are students of Martin Heidegger himself, a Marbug-born philosopher named Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002). Gadamer’s peak career was in 1960 when he wrote a fairly monumental work entitled Wahrheit und Methode (truth and method) which later became a reference for contemporary Hermeneutics studies until now.
As a successor to Heidegger who had developed an ontological interpretation, Gadamer did not interpret hermeneutics as a translator of existence, but thought in the philosophical tradition. Actually, he does not consider hermeneutics as a method, because for him the correct understanding is understanding that leads to the ontological level not the methodological. That is, the truth can be achieved not through methods, but through dialectics by asking lots of questions. Thus, language becomes a very important medium for dialogue (Zarkasyi, 2004).
According to this perspective, which will be discussed further in a separate sub-chapter, in the process of understanding the text, the interpreter’s mind also plunges into the revival of the meaning of the text. The process of understanding is the process of fusing horizons. The act of understanding is a will which as far as possible bears the process of fusion between at least two horizons. The author and the hostoris context of a text are considered in the interpretative process along with interpreter prejudices such as tradition, practical interests, language and culture.

Understanding of Hermeneutics Phenomenology

Understanding of Hermeneutics Phenomenology
To understand this experience, interpreters must have intense similarities with the author. In contrast to Schleiermacher’s view that the author’s work stems from principles implicit in the author’s mind, Dilthey holds that such assumptions are historical. He considers the external influence in the development of the author’s mind. According to Dilthey, a person’s mind always develops due to external situations and new experiences. Because it emphasizes the author’s (historical) past in interpreting texts, the idea of Dilthey’s hermeneutics is also often called historical hermeneutics.
Thus, methodical hermeneutics begins with a sharp criticism of Schleiermacher’s theory in his romantic hermeneutics which states that humans are language creatures. This criticism was leveled by Willhem Dilthey (Rharump Journal Manusript) a historical philosopher from Germany, he was actually a great admirer of Schleiermacher with his ability to combine theology and literature with philosophical works.
But in this case, Willhem Dilthey is different from Schleiermacher, according to him, humans are not merely creatures of language, who only hear, write and read to then understand and interpret. but more than that, humans are existential beings, who understand and interpret in every aspect of their lives, where linguistic expressions are the result of the experience of language speakers and humans will be able to understand history, because he is the creator of his own history.
Thus, the human psychology can not be separated from its external side, because humans are the product of social systems that shape it in such a way.
So in the end, according to him, hermeneutics is basically historical, which means that the meaning itself never stops at one time, but always changes according to historical modification. Mudjia exemplifies the writing of Indonesian history which was not only written once for all (Raharjo, 2008: 42).
Phenomenological Hermeneutics (Edmund Husserl 1889-1938). Hermeneutics of phenomenology is the understanding of texts by freeing themselves from prejudice and letting the text speak for itself. That is, the text reflects its own mental framework, and the interpreter must be neutral and distance himself from the subjective elements of the object.
The originator of this theory is Edmund Husserl (1889-1938), a philosopher of the flow of phenomenology, which in fact if there is his contribution to hermeneutics, it can be ascertained that it is beyond its main purpose. Although not completely, Husserl is allergic to the thought that we view as Hermeneutics, his ideas about the theory of interpretation of phenomena are not fundamental, but the phenomena themselves are of interest to him.
In contrast to previous hermeneutics, Husserl considers knowledge of the objective world to be uncertain.
According to him, what we suppose as an objective world is actually a world that has been colored by imperfect sensor apparatus from the human body and from rational activities and the abstraction of the mind. When we try to gain a certain knowledge of the objective world, we are in fact ascertaining the world of our perception-the world of phenomena.
Husserl offers a science of consciousness to track systemic regularities in perception and understanding through certainty in the knowledge of the objective world that becomes necessary.
Through phenomenology, people must have the courage to accept what is actually seen in phenomena precisely, as he presents himself more than interpreting it, and then describe it with honesty.
Departing from the basic framework of phenomenology, according to Husserl’s hermeneutics, the process of interpretation must return to the data, not to thought, that is, to the case itself which must reveal itself. The interpreter must relinquish all his personal presuppositions and beliefs and sympathetically see the object that directs him to him.
Thus, for Husserl’s hermeneutics, true knowledge is the presence of data in mindfulness, not engineering the mind to form theories.
Thus, in this perspective the process of true understanding must be able to free itself from prejudice, namely by allowing the text to speak for itself. Unlike the romantic and historical hermeneutics, this phenomenological hermeneutics holds that the text reflects its own mental framework, and therefore the interpreter must be neutral and distance himself from his subjective elements on the object.
Regarding phenomena, Husserl considers that objective world knowledge is uncertain. According to him, what we suppose as an objective world has been colored by imperfect sensor apparatus from the human body and from rational activities and from the abstraction of the mind. That way, when trying to gain definitive knowledge about the objective world, we are in fact confirming our world of perception, the world of phenomena. Husserl offers a phenomenology for tracking systemic regularities in perception and understanding through certainty of objective world knowledge. Namely by accepting what is actually seen in the phenomenon, and describe it honestly.

Hermeneutics understanding methodology system

Hermeneutics understanding methodology system
As a system of understanding methodology, romantic hermeneutics departs from a simple question: actually how is human understanding and how does understanding occur? And the answer to this question, according to this type of hermeneutic perspective, lies in the five elements involved in the process of understanding a discourse, namely: interpreter, text, author’s intent, historical context, and cultural context.
The figure of this understanding is Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher (Publikasi Jurnal Internasional), a philosopher, theologian, philologist and figure as well as the founder of German Liberal Protestantism. he is considered to be the initiator of modern hermeneutics because it became the first German philosopher who constantly thought about hermeneutics, so that he could revive it as an interpretive art in church tradition.
His interest in this study has strengthened since at Halle University, when he met with three other thinkers, namely F.A. Wolf is a classical philologist, Reil a professor of medicine and Steffens a philosopher (Raharjo, 2008: 37).
Regarding the above question, Schleiermacher proposed two theories of understanding hermeneutics: first grammatical understanding of all expressions, and second: psychological understanding of the author. Based on both, Hermeneutika becomes an intuitive understanding, whose task is to reconstruct the author’s mind. So that understanding can only be obtained not only from understanding the history and culture of the author alone, but more than that it must involve the subjectivity of the author.
So the interpretation process starts from the interpreter to the text through historical and cultural contexts to recapture the original author’s intent. And the interpretation will be better, if based on knowledge of the historical background of the author of the text. As stated Thiselton quoted Mudjia, The more we learn about an author, the better equipped we are for interpretation.
According to Schleiermacher, in every sentence spoken there are two moments of discussion, namely what is said in the context of language and what is thought by the speaker. This is because it can happen what the speaker of the language says is not the same as what he thinks.
In addition, the speaker has aspects of place and time, and language tends to be modified according to both. So that meaning is not just what is brought by language, because language can reveal a reality very clearly, but at the same time can hide it tightly, it depends on the user.
Perspectives like this that make it referred to as romantic Hermeneutics, which in the Gadamer language is called historical romanticism. Where the author and all the background subjectivity becomes the central truth of understanding a text. And understanding must follow the law that misunderstandings appear instead automatically or naturally, while understanding must be sought.
Therefore understanding can be sought by tracing all misunderstandings that can and might occur.
In summary, the romantic Hermeneutics working model includes two things: first: understanding the text through mastery of the syntactic rules of the author’s language, and second: capturing intuitive emotional and inner content of the author by placing himself in the author’s inner world of interpretation.
Methodical hermeneutics is the emphasis of understanding expressions of life arranged in written form. Like the previous theory in romantic Hermeneutics, methodical Hermeneutics also emphasizes the psychological side of the author to understand a statement. But the difference, methodical Hermeneutics emphasizes more on the author’s history.
The thought of Hermeneutika Schleiermacher was criticized by Wilhem Dilthey, a German philosopher, literary critic and historian. According to him, humans are not just language creatures, as Schleiermacher is very highlighted, but existential beings. According to Dilthey, since the beginning man has never lived only as a linguistic creature who only hears, writes and reads to later understand and interpret. More than that, humans are beings who understand and interpret in every aspect of their lives (Maulidin, No. 14. V., 6).
However, in the process of understanding the text, Dilthey holds that the meaning of the text must be traced from the subjective intent of the author. For Dilthey, hermeneutics is a technique for understanding expressions about life arranged in written form. Therefore, he emphasizes historical events and works which are expressions of past life experiences.

Discuss philosophies and methods of contemporary hermeneutic research

Discuss philosophies and methods of contemporary hermeneutic research
Furthermore, in contemporary philosophy the term hermeneutic is used in a broader sense, covering almost all the themes of traditional philosophy, as far as language issues are concerned (Fowler, 1984: 146). As a discussion of philosophy and research methods, hermeneutics is increasingly in demand. The term hermeneutics at this time contains two meanings, namely hermeneutics as a set of methodological principles of interpretation and as a philosophical exploration of the nature and conditions that cannot be avoided from understanding activities (Raharjo and Nuzulul Kiki Research).
While Wilhelm Dilthey, the first historian of the Hermeneutic tradition, stated that hermeneutics had emerged a century earlier by Protestantism, shortly after the birth of the principle of the Precepts of Luther Scriptura (Grondin, 2007: 45-46). But from Dilthey’s report, we will have difficulty finding from the writings what can be called hermeneutics in the spirit of Luther. Only in the work of Luther’s followers such as Philipp Melanchton (1497-1560) and Flacius Illyricius (1520-1575) (Grondin, 2007: 47).
In turn, a German Protestant philosopher Schleiermacher was seen as the person responsible for bringing hermeneutics from the biblical studies space to the scope of philosophy, so he was later considered to be the initiator of modern hermeneutics.
According to him, whatever is in the form of text can be the object of hermeneutics, and is not limited to the text of the holy book.
Next Hermeneutics was developed by Wilhelm Dilthey himself who initiated hermeneurics as the foundation of human sciences, then Hans-Georg Gadamer who developed it into a philosophical method, and continued by contemporary philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur, Jurgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and others (Raharjo, 2008: 30).
While in ancient philosophy there has actually been seen a tradition of looking for things that can be regarded as Hermeneutics in classical texts such as De Interpretation of Aristotle, which is often translated in German with Hermeneutics of Aristotle (Grondin, 2007: 48). The Greeks used the word ermenia to describe what we now call translation, or more correctly interpreted as interpretation (Grondin, 2007: 56).
Meanwhile, when written language (text) emerged, Aristotle asserted that written signs were only symbols for oral speech, as Plato affirmed about this, that written discourse, even the best, still functioned as a rememoration. Here, both of them agreed to return the written media to the spoken word, while the spoken word was a symbol for the inner word (Grondin, 2007: 62).
From these three horizons, Aristotle assumes that nothing is really missing in his transmission circuit. That is, the word written sign that exactly represents the word inner. While Plato stresses the difference between the horizons, according to him there is no guarantee that the written word will be understood correctly (Grondin, 2007: 63).
Hermeneutics did not suddenly become a scientific discipline in philosophical treasures, but at first it was limited to the theological sub-discipline that had emerged since the beginning in the history of human civilization which included a methodological study of the authenticity and interpretation of texts. But in the next period, development hermeneutics becomes a comprehensive interpretation study with a broader scope (Raharjo, 2008: 53).
In this section, the author will deliberately disclose some historical information which will emphasize the development of hermeneutics into various principle and methodological variants.
This is due to the realization that in the fragmented realm of contemporary philosophy, we can find very little in common with one another, except for the fact that we really live on fragmented philosophical discourse, namely discourse characterized by interpretation. Philosophy that tries to deal with situations like this can be called hermeneutics (Grondin, 2007: 17).
Romantic Hermeneutics (Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher). Schleiermacher was the first German philosopher who constantly thought about the hermeneutics issue. That is why he is considered the father of modern hermeneutics, because in his thoughts, the meaning of hermeneutics has changed from mere theological study (the Biblical text) to a method of understanding in philosophical understanding.
Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic thinking stems from a universal question: how human understanding and how it occurs. In this case, he proposes two theories of understanding hermeneutics, namely: grammatical understanding of all expressions and psychological understanding of the author.
From this second form, Schleiermacher then develops what he calls intuitive understanding whose operation is a reconstruction work.
That is, hermeneutics is tasked with reconstructing the author’s mind. The purpose of understanding is not the meaning obtained from within the subject matter, but rather the meaning that arises in the view of the reconstructed author.
The correct understanding according to Schleiermacher, not only involves understanding the historical context and the culture of the author, but also an understanding of the subjectivity of the author (Zarkasyi, 2004). In this perspective, there are five elements involved in understanding discourse, namely: interpreter, text, author’s intent, historical context, and cultural context (Thiselton, 1992: 204-205).
Interpreters who want to understand a discourse besides looking at the text, also place it in a historical and cultural context, so that according to Gadamer, Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics is called historical romanticism (Gadamer, 1977: 7). Only in this way, according to this hermeneutic, is the interpreter really up to the meaning of the text. The meaning of the text, insofar as it follows this perspective, is identified with the author’s intent. Thus, for Schleiermacher, in addition to grammatical factors (grammar), the conditions of the author’s conditions and motives are very important for understanding the meaning of a text.

Language knowledge and individual knowledge

Language knowledge and individual knowledge
These considerations include language knowledge and individual knowledge. The first knowledge is knowledge about grammar or knowledge about words (philology). Philology comes from Latin, which is philos which means love and logos which means word or science (Djamaris, 2006). Philology literally means love of words or the knowledge of words. However, philology is now interpreted as a study of old literature concerning authenticity, form, content, language and culture (Alwi and Hendriprasetyo Research Papers).
Knowledge of grammar in this matter includes morphology and syntax that must be mastered by the interpreter in the framework of the structure of language. This knowledge is basic knowledge that the interpreter must be prepared and possessed. Unpreparedness or weakness at the bottom of this makes it a barrier to reading texts.
According to Saputra (2008) philological knowledge of texts (in this context) is based on the dimensions of time and cultural distance. Interval is the period in which the text was created or created with the current time when the text is read. Cultural distance is the distance where the text was made or created in the past or the past when the cultural elements that accompany it are no longer familiar to the present reader.
Furthermore, Robson (1988) argues that the main task of philology is to make a text readable and understandable, especially in relation to the presentation of the text and interpretation.
The second knowledge is the psychological aspect. Scheleiermacher argues that understanding of the text depends on the talents of the language and the talents of individual knowledge. It is based on the view of the text, that is, the text is a speech or language, and the speech is a thought. On one hand the interpreter must decode the language and on the other hand try to read the mind.
Grammatical knowledge or grammar related to the determination of meaning in a text can only be done through the field of language and culture.
The meaning of a body of text is determined by referring to its relationship with other words around it. Psychological knowledge is knowledge where the reader tries to reconstruct the subjectivity of the author so that he can understand the intent that the author is trying to convey.
The History of Hermeneutics. The term hermeneutica first appeared when it was introduced by a Strasborg theologian Johann Konrad Danhauer (1603-1666) in his book entitled: Hermeneutica sacra, Sive methodus Eksponendarums Sacrarum Litterarum, who considered that Hermeneutics was the most important requirement for any science that bases its validity on interpretation of texts.
He openly describes his inspiration from the treatise of Peri Hermeneias (de interpretations) Aristotle, who claimed that the new interpretative science was nothing but a complement to the Aristotelian Organon (Raharjo, 2008: 54).
In the 17th century only began to be used to show the theory of the rules that need to be followed in the process of understanding and interpreting correctly a text that comes from the past, especially the texts of the scriptures and classical texts.
The climax of the development of the hermeneutic philosophical school is when two schools of thought contradict each other, namely pragmatics of Hirschian Intentionalism and Gadamerian hermeneutics.
Pragmatic intentionalism views that the meaning is already there because it is brought by the author or compiler of the text, so that it is just waiting for the interpreter’s interpretation, and the meaning is behind the text. On the contrary, Gadamerian hermeneutics views that the meaning must be constructed and reconstructed by the interpreter itself according to the context, so that the meaning is in front of the text (in front of the text).
Hermeneutika Gadamerian said that meaning is determined by the interpreter itself by considering the context. Thus the context is one very important element in producing meaning. Inevitably, the two different schools of thought gave birth to a distinction of methodological frameworks. Although it must be acknowledged that it is included by its initiators that hermeneutics is not the only most perfect method for understanding texts, but its presence has made a major contribution to the development of contemporary philosophical thought (Raharjo, 2008: 25-26).

Perception in shaping worldview

Perception in shaping worldview
Translation makes us aware of the way that actual words shape worldviews, even our perceptions; that language is a real treasury of cultural experiences, we exist in and through this media, we can see through their eyesight. However, more applicatively the word hermeneutics, according to F. Budi Hardiman on Hendriprasetyo Journals, can be defined in three ways namely;
a. express one’s thoughts in words, translate, and act as interpreters;
b. attempt to transfer and a foreign language whose meaning is unknown to other languages that can be understood by the reader; and;
c. the movement of unclear mind expressions is changed into clear expressions (via Faiz, 2003: 22).
Therefore, hermeneutics always deals with three elements in its interpretive activities, namely: (1) the sign, message or text that is the source or material in the interpretation associated with the message carried by Hermes; (2) intermediaries or interpreters (Hermes); (3) delivery of the message by the Intermediary so that it can be understood and reached the recipient (Faiz, 2003: 21).
With reason, considering the three horizons is expected to be an effort of understanding or interpretation into the activities of reconstruction and reproduction of the meaning of the text, which in addition to tracking how a text was raised by the author, and what content enters and wants to be included by the author in the text he made; also try to regenerate the meaning according to the situation and condition when the text is read or understood
In other words, as a method of interpretation, hermeneutics pays attention to three things as the main components in the interpretation effort, namely the text, the context, and then attempts at contextualization.
Hermeneutics as a form of mediation and the process of carrying a message so that it can be understood has three forms, namely expressing words, explaining, and translating. Literary interpretation when viewed from its outward form has involved two of these processes and often also a third. Literature represents something that must be understood. Text with the subject can be separated from us because of time, place, language, and other obstacles that require understanding. The task of interpretation must make something vague, far, and dark meaning into something clear, close, and understandable (Palmer, 2005).
The success to get the key meaning of hermeneutics is in the reader and in the text. Texts are the work of human beings with language that is created by a creator (author) who intends to convey ideas, ideas, thoughts, and goals in a text. The text has a reference and a reference to another world that is unknown, therefore it is closed, so the reader is required to understand and find something that is intended to be discussed by the text. This attitude shows the need for a treatment of texts (Susanto, 2011).
With regard to the reader himself as an interpreter of the text, then the activities undertaken by the interpreter of the text may not be subjective but intersubjective, namely mixing the text as the author’s representative and the interpreter itself. The interpreter does not operate authoritatively according to his own will in interpreting a text.
That interpretation requires a tool, Susanto (2011) calls it an understanding horizon.
The horizon of understanding is everything that exists around humans, a reality, events, and experiences in a community and becomes a knowledge relation about a world that belongs to someone. Thus, if someone’s understanding horizon is different, then one’s understanding will be different in the face of a new world. This shows that the horizon of understanding is also influenced by historical aspects. In addition, a person’s understanding is also influenced by aspects of the age where there can be a change in the horizon of understanding over time through understanding new social products.