Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 697 Download : 538

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine students’ learning barriers in understanding integral concepts through their thinking processes with the perspective of APOS theory (Action, Process, Object-Scheme). This research applied qualitative research with a case study method. The samples of this research were 19 civil engineering students who had contracted calculus courses and who had been given a written test. The results of the written test were divided into three different categories – they are comprehension ability is high (score ), medium (60  Score <  ) and low (score < 60). Deep   interviews were conducted with three representative students who took the written test and met the criteria    for each group. The results of the interviews showed that students in the high category still had conceptual ontogenic learning obstacle despite passing the APOS path. Students in the moderate category be able to reach the encapsulation stage but they had not been able to de-encapsulate it to the process. They had conceptual and epistemological ontogenical learning obstacles. Whereas the low category students had the tendency to only reach the action stage and had difficulty in doing initial de-encapsulation due to lack of learning experience in the prerequisite materials. The learning obstacles they experienced were psychological and conceptual-ontogenical learning obstacles. Aggregately, the students tended to experience conceptual ontogenic learning obstacle. The result of this study is expected to be used as a basis for designing a hypothetical learning trajectory in future research.

Keywords

APOS Theory Case Study Integral Learning Obstacle

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Nurhayati, L., Suryadi, D., Dasari, D., & Herman, T. (2023). Integral (antiderivative) learning with APOS perspective: A case study. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i1.pp129-148
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adeniji, S. M., & Baker, P. (2022). Worked-examples instruction versus Van Hiele teaching phases: A demonstration of students’ procedural and conceptual understanding. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(2), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i2.pp337-356
  2. Aebi, M. F., & Linde, A. (2015). The epistemological obstacles in comparative criminology: A special issue introduction. In European Journal of Criminology (Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 381–385). SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815595
  3. Afgani, M. W., Suryadi, D., & Dahlan, J. A. (2019). The enhancement of pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical understanding ability through ACE teaching cyclic. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.441
  4. Albertini, D., Bernardini, A., & Sarti, A. (2021). Antiderivative Antialiasing Techniques in Nonlinear Wave Digital Structures. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 69(7/8), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2021.0017
  5. Anaya, I. J. J., Leal, J. E. F., & Parada Rico, S. E. (2022). An approach to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus through Realistic Mathematics. Educacion Matematica, 34(1), 280–305. https://doi.org/10.24844/EM3401.10
  6. Antonio Rivera-Figueroa, V. G.-B. (2019). On conceptual aspects of calculus: a study with engineering students from a Mexican university. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(6), 883–894. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1543812
  7. Bajo-Benito, J. M., Sánchez-Matamoros García, G., & Gavilán-Izquierdo, J. M. (2021). The Use of Logical Implication as an Indicator of Understanding the Concept of Number Sequences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11429
  8. Baker, B., Cooley, L., & Trigueros, M. (2000). A Calculus Graphing Schema. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 557–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/749887
  9. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.https://www.worldcat.org/title/theory-of-didactical-situations-in-mathematics-didactique-des-mathematiques-1970-1990/oclc/36543540
  10. Brousseau, G. (2002). Epistemological obstacles, problems, and didactical engineering. Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics: Didactique Des Mathématiques, 1970–1990, 79–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2_6
  11. Brown, L. (2008). The incidence of study-related stress in international students in the initial stage of the international sojourn. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306291587
  12. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
  13. Díaz-Berrios, T., & Martínez-Planell, R. (2022). High school student understanding of exponential and logarithmic functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66(1), 100953–100963. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100953
  14. Dubinsky, E. A. I. O. A. F. S. R. W. K. (2014). Apos theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6
  15. Edyta Nowinska. (2014). A Cognitive Theory Driven New Orientation of Indonesian Lessons. Journal on Mathematics Education, 5(2), 170–190. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.22342/jme.5.2.1501.170-190
  16. Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  17. Feagin, J. R., Orum, A. M., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for the case study. UNC Press Books. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469663814_feagin
  18. Ferdianto, F., & Hartinah, S. (2020). Analysis of the Difficulty of Students on Visualization Ability Mathematics Based on Learning Obstacles. International Conference on Agriculture, Social Sciences, Education, Technology and Health (ICASSETH 2019), 227–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200402.053
  19. Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4, 301–316. https://scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=2205343
  20. Greco, J., & Turri, J. (2017). Virtue epistemology. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://philpapers.org/rec/GREVE-4
  21. Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-qualitative-researchers-companion/book7103
  22. John W. Creswell, J. D. C. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design/book255675
  23. Johnson, P., Almuna, F., & Silva, M. (2022). The role of problem context familiarity in modelling first-order ordinary differential equations. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i2.pp323-336
  24. Zingiswa, J. (2013). Mathematics begins with direct human experience. An APOS approach to conceptual understanding of a mathematical concept. 602–615. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/22542/Zingiswa%20Jojo.pdf?sequence=1
  25. Kemp, A., & Vidakovic, D. (2023). Students’ understanding and development of the definition of circle in Taxicab and Euclidean geometries: an APOS perspective with schema interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 112(3), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10180-2
  26. Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 101–116. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017973827514
  27. Maulida, A. S., Dasari, D., & Suryadi, D. (2020). Pupils Inter-dialogue in the Context of Problem Solving Polyhedron Geometry in Junior High School: Phenomenological Studies. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032018
  28. Moru, E. K. (2007). Talking with the literature on epistemological obstacles. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(3), 34–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248586
  29. Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring Rubrics: What, When and How? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.7275/a5vq-7q66
  30. Nedelcu, D., Malin, T. C., Gillich, G. R., Barbinta, C. I., & Iancu, V. (2020). Displacement and velocity estimation of the earthquake response signals measured with accelerometers. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 997(1), 012051. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/997/1/012051
  31. Nguyen, D.-H., & Rebello, N. S. (2011). Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010113
  32. Paul, Ernes O. S. J. P. van B. M. B. R. M. L. K. R. M. (2016). The philosophy of mathematics education: Vol. VII (1st ed.). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1
  33. Prihandhika, A., Prabawanto, S., Turmudi, T., & Suryadi, D. (2020). Epistemological Obstacles: An Overview of Thinking Process on Derivative Concepts by APOS Theory and Clinical Interview. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032028
  34. Sulistiawati, A. S. (2019). Investigating The Learning Obstacle and The Self Confidence of Students College in Material Understanding Ability of Linear Algebra Course. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(9), 401–411. http://www.ijstr.org/paper-references.php?ref=IJSTR-0919-21939
  35. Suriyah, P., Waluya, S. T. B., & Dwijanto, I. R. (2022). Construction Of Mathematics Problem-Based on APOS Theory To Encourage Reflective Abstraction Viewed From Students’ Creative Thinking Profile. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(9), 1290–1309. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/12419
  36. Suryadi, D. (2013). Didactical design research (DDR) to improve the teaching of mathematics. Far East Journal of Mathematical Education, 10(1), 91–107. http://www.pphmj.com/abstract/7396.htm
  37. Thomas, G. (2021). How to do your case study. How to Do Your Case Study, 1–320. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/how-to-do-your-case-study/book270216
  38. Tokgoz, E. (2022). An Analysis of Conceptual Integral Knowledge of STEM Majors. 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://strategy.asee.org/40688
  39. Wahba, E. (2022). Derivation of the differential continuity equation in an introductory engineering fluid mechanics course. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 50(2), 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190211014460
  40. Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 141–155). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-009

Most read articles by the same author(s)