Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 903 Download : 445

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The objective of textbook study is to create high-quality textbooks. Analysis was done using a praxeological-didactical analysis (PDA) method. PDA offers space to analyze curriculum materials, such as math textbooks, which are the outcome of human action in the anthropology of a specific nation's society. There are 10 types of tasks given in the mathematics textbook on measurement of spatial figures and seven techniques are identified as possible ways to complete the tasks. The justification of praxis is that there are three emerging technologies and two theories that are used as the final direction of the given task type. There is a sequence of task composition at the start with loads at level 2 and level 3 that can affect student readiness. Psychologically, it is regarded as difficult at first, which can lead to students becoming disinterested as well as bored, thus experiencing difficulties, creating ontogenetic obstacles. The other predicted learning obstacles identified in this textbook are epistemological and didactic obstacles. All the findings from this analysis can be applied to continuously raise the standard of the currently available mathematics textbooks.

Keywords

Analysis Didactical Mathematics Praxeological Textbook

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Yunianta, T. N. H., Suryadi, D., Dasari, D., & Herman, T. (2023). Textbook praxeological-didactical analysis: Lessons learned from the Indonesian mathematics textbook. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(3), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp503-524
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ahl, L. M. (2016). Research Findings’ Impact on the Representation of Proportional Reasoning in Swedish Mathematics Textbooks. REDIMAT, 5(2), 180–204. https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.2016.1987
  2. AL-salahat, M. M. S. (2022). The effect of using concrete-representational-abstract sequence in teaching the perimeter of geometric shapes for students with learning disabilities. . International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 10(2), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2403
  3. Bayazit, I. (2013). Quality of the tasks in the new Turkish elementary mathematics textbooks: The case of proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 651–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9358-8
  4. Bittar, M. (2022). A Methodological Proposal for Textbook Analysis. Mathematics Enthusiast, 19(2), 307–340. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1555
  5. Bosch, M., Chevallard, Y., & Gascón, J. (2005). Science or magic? The use of models and theories in didactics of mathematics. Proceedings of CERME4.
  6. Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2014). Introduction to the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD). In Networking of Theories as a Research Practice in Mathematics Education (pp. 67–83). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9_5
  7. Bosch, M., Gascón, J., & Trigueros, M. (2017). Dialogue between theories interpreted as research praxeologies: the case of APOS and the ATD. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9734-3
  8. Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Kluwer Academi Publisher.
  9. Brown, S. A. (2008). Exploring Epistemological Obstacles to the Development of Mathematics Induction. Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Research on Undergraduate Mathematics Education , 1–19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254644126
  10. Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Hayes, A. M. (2009). Geometry and Measurement: A Discussion of Status and Content Options for Elementary School Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 7(1), 21–42.
  11. Chevallard, Y. (1989). On didactic transposition theory: Some introductory notes. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Selected Domains of Research and Development in Mathematics Education, 51–62.
  12. Chevallard, Y. (1998). Analyse des pratiques enseignantes et didactique des mathématiques: l’approche anthropologique. Actes de l’UE de la Rochelle, 91-118.
  13. Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. Proceedings of the IV Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 21–30.
  14. Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemiology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.131
  15. Chevallard, Y. (2019). Introducing the anthropological theory of the didactic: An attempt at a principled approach. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 71–114.
  16. Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic Transposition in Mathematics Education. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 214–218). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48
  17. Dündar, S., & Gündüz, N. (2017). Justification for the subject of congruence and similarity in the context of daily life and conceptual knowledge. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.8.1.3256.35-54
  18. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
  19. Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical Pictures: Kinds of Representation and Specific Processings. Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Mathematics Education, 142–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57771-0_10
  20. Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6
  21. Fan, L., Mailizar, M., Alafaleq, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). A comparative study on the presentation of geometric proof in secondary mathematics textbooks in China, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. In Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources: Advances and issues (pp. 53–65). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4
  22. Formosinho, J., & Formosinho, J. O. (2012). Towards a social science of the social: The contribution of praxeological research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2012.737237
  23. Giménez, J., Font, V., & Vanegas, Y. M. (2013). Designing Professional Tasks for Didactical Analysis as a research process. Proceedings of ICMI Study 22, 579–587.
  24. Hendriyanto, A., Suryadi, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Juandi, D. (2023). Praxeology review: Comparing Singaporean and Indonesian textbooks in introducing the concept of sets. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), em2229. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12953
  25. Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2009). Mathematics textbooks and their potential role in supporting misconceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390701691558
  26. Kang, W., & Kilpatrick, J. (1992). Didactic transposition in mathematics textbooks. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(1), 2–7.
  27. Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Pedoman Penerapan Kurikulum dalam Rangka Pemulihan Pembelajaran (56/M/2022).
  28. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2019). Laporan Hasil Ujian Nasional Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan. Https://Hasilun.Pusmenjar.Kemdikbud.go.id/. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://hasilun.pusmenjar.kemdikbud.go.id/#2019!smp!daya_serap!99&99&999!T&03&1&T&1&!1!&
  29. Kleeberg, B. (2019). Post Post-Truth: Epistemologies of Disintegration and the Praxeology of Truth. Stan Rzeczy, 2(17), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.51196/srz.17.2/26
  30. Löwenhielm, A., Marschall, G., Sayers, J., & Andrews, P. (2017). Opportunities to acquire foundational number sense: A quantitative comparison of popular English and Swedish textbooks. Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10), 371–378. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01873468
  31. Lutfi, M. K., Juandi, D., & Jupri, A. (2021). Students’ ontogenic obstacle on the topic of triangle and quadrilateral. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012108
  32. Miyakawa, T. (2017). Comparative analysis on the nature of proof to be taught in geometry: the cases of French and Japanese lower secondary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9711-x
  33. NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
  34. Owen, J. C. (1991). Algebraic Solution for Geometry from Dimensional Constraints. Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling Foundations and CAD/CAM Applications , 397–407.
  35. Pansell, A., & Boistrup, L. B. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ teaching practices in relation to textbooks: Exploring praxeologies. Mathematics Enthusiast, 15(3), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1444
  36. Pepin, B., Haggarty, L., & Keynes, M. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656616
  37. Prabowo, A., Suryadi, D., Dasari, D., Juandi, D., & Junaedi, I. (2022). Learning Obstacles in the Making of Lesson Plans by Prospective Mathematics Teacher Students. Education Research International, 2022, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2896860
  38. Pritchard, D. (2013). What is this thing called knowledge? Routledge.
  39. Purnomo, Y. W., Mastura, F. S., & Perbowo, K. S. (2019). Contextual Features of Geometrical Problems in Indonesian Mathematics Textbooks. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1315(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1315/1/012048
  40. Putra, Z. H. (2020). Didactic transposition of rational numbers: A case from a textbook analysis and prospective elementary teachers’ mathematical and didactic knowledge. Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.13.4.365-394.2020
  41. Putra, Z. H., Dahnilsyah, & Aljarrah, A. (2021). A Praxeological Analysis of Pre-Service Elementary Teacher-Designed Mathematics Comics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(3), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.3.14143.563-580
  42. Ramelan, M., & Wijaya, A. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of Indonesian and Singaporean Mathematics Textbooks from the Perspective of Mathematical Creativity: A Case Statistics and Probability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1320(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012037
  43. Robutti, O. (2018). Meta-didactical transposition. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 1–10). Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018.
  44. Sievert, H., van den Ham, A. K., Niedermeyer, I., & Heinze, A. (2019). Effects of mathematics textbooks on the development of primary school children’s adaptive expertise in arithmetic. Learning and Individual Differences, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.02.006
  45. Solis, D., & Isoda, M. (2022). Comparing elementary school textbooks of China, Japan, and Malaysia: a praxeological and developmental progression analysis regarding length measurement. Research in Mathematics Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2103022
  46. Staples, M., & Truxaw, M. P. (2009). A Journey with Justification: Issues Arising from the Implementation and evaluation of the Math ACCESS Project. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 827–835. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228466040
  47. Suryadi, D. (2016). Didactical design research (DDR): upaya membangun kemandirian berpikir melalui penelitian pembelajaran. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika.
  48. Suryadi, D. (2019a). Penelitian Desain Didaktis (DDR) dan Implementasinya. Gapura Press.
  49. Suryadi, D. (2019b). Philosophical Foundation of Didactical Design Research (DDR). Gapura Press.
  50. Szilágyi, J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2013). Young children’s understandings of length measurement: Evaluating a learning trajectory. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 581–620. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.3.0581
  51. Takeuchi, H., & Shinno, Y. (2020). Comparing the Lower Secondary Textbooks of Japan and England: a Praxeological Analysis of Symmetry and Transformations in Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09982-3
  52. Tosho, G. (2021). Buku Panduan Guru Matematika untuk Sekolah Menengah Pertama Kelas VII “Mathematics for Junior High School 1st Level.” Pusat Kurikulum dan Perbukuan Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.
  53. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book : using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Kluwer Academic Publisher. https://doi.org/10.10071978-94-007-0844-0
  54. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1159/000202727
  55. Wang, Y., Barmby, P., & Bolden, D. (2017). Understanding Linear Function: a Comparison of Selected Textbooks from England and Shanghai. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9674-x
  56. Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9264-3
  57. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
  58. Wijayanti, D., & Winsløw, C. (2017). Mathematical Practice in Textbooks Analysis: Praxeological Reference Models, the Case of Proportion. REDIMAT, 6(3), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1783/redimat.2017.2078
  59. Yang, D. C., & Sianturi, I. A. (2017). An Analysis of Singaporean versus Indonesian textbooks based on trigonometry content. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3829–3848. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00760a

Most read articles by the same author(s)