Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 177 Download : 110

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The conception of functions, defined as the relationship between magnitudes or sets of ordered pairs, varies among students depending on the contextualization of the concept within the curriculum, notably in school textbooks. This investigation endeavors to scrutinize the approach taken by Indonesian textbooks in introducing the function concept at the lower secondary school level. An eighth-grade mathematics textbook was scrutinized utilizing praxeology, the fundamental construct of the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic. The analytical process unfolded in three main phases: examination of the praxis block, analysis of the logos block, and evaluation of the textbook's praxeological structure in collaboration with experts and educators. The examination revealed that the Indonesian textbook organizes functions into three distinct local praxeological frameworks: functions as sets, bijective functions, and functions as relationships between magnitudes. The praxis primarily emphasizes tasks and techniques for functions formulated by sets, shaping the landscape of function learning in Indonesia. Consequently, a notable epistemological gap within logos stems from the disparity between two conceptions of functions: functions as sets and analytical expressions. These findings underscore the necessity for an alternative praxeological arrangement of functions, mainly to bridge the divide between the set-theoretical definition and the analytical expression of a function.

Keywords

Anthropological Theory of the Didactic Functions Praxeology Textbook Analysis

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Suryadi, D. (2024). How do Indonesian students learn function concepts? A praxeological analysis of textbook. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp451-472
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, A. H., & Shin, B. (2019). A comparative study of quadrilaterals topic content in mathematics textbooks between Malaysia and South Korea. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.3.7572.315-340
  2. Adinawan, M. C. (2016). Matematika untuk SMP/MTs Kelas VIII Semester 1 Kurikulum 2013 Revisi. Penerbit Erlangga.
  3. Aoki, M., & Winsløw, C. (2022). How to map larger parts of the mathematics curriculum? The case of primary school arithmetic in Japan. Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12). Bozen-Bolzano, Italy: CERME. https://hal.science/hal-03746496/
  4. Artigue, M., & Winsløw, C. (2010). International comparative studies on mathematics education: A viewpoint from the anthropological theory of didactics. Recherches En Didactique Des Mathématiques, 30(1), 47–82. https://revue-rdm.com/2010/international-comparative-studies/
  5. Bardini, C., Pierce, R., Vincent, J., & King, D. (2014). Undergraduate mathematics students’ understanding of the concept of function. Journal on Mathematics Education, 5(2), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.5.2.1495.85-107
  6. Biehler, R. (2005). Reconstruction of meaning as a didactical task: The concept of function as an example. Meaning in Mathematics Education, 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24040-3_5
  7. Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2014). Introduction to the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). In Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Prediger, S. (Eds), Networking of Theories as a Research Practice in Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education (pp. 67–83). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9_5
  8. Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In Bosch, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 21–30). Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain: FUNDEMI IQS – Universitat Ramon Llull and ERME.
  9. Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.131
  10. Chevallard, Y. (2019). Introducing the anthropological theory of the didactic: An attempt at a principled approach. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 12, 71–114. https://www.jasme.jp/hjme/download/05_Yves%20Chevallard.pdf
  11. Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic transposition in mathematics education. In Lerman, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 214–218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48
  12. Chevallard, Y., Bosch, M., & Kim, S. (2015). What is a theory according to the anthropological theory of the didactic? In Krainer, K., & Vondrová, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp, 2614–2620). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education and ERME.
  13. Chevallard, Y., & Sensevy, G. (2014). Anthropological approaches in mathematics education, French perspectives. In Lerman, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 38–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_9
  14. Dauidenko, S. (1997). Building the concept of function from students’ everyday activities. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(2), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.90.2.0144
  15. Denbel, D. G. (2015). Functions in the secondary school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 77–81. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083845.pdf
  16. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1243–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9329-0
  17. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x
  18. González-Martin, A. S., Giraldo, V., & Souto, A. M. (2013). The introduction of real numbers in secondary education: an institutional analysis of textbooks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2013.803778
  19. Hamilton, R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1994). Learning and instruction. McGraw-Hill New York.
  20. Hidayah, M., & Forgasz, H. (2020). A comparison of mathematical tasks types used in Indonesian and Australian textbooks based on geometry contents. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11754.385-404
  21. Human Development Department: East Asia and Pacific Region. (2010). Inside Indonesia’s Mathematics Classrooms: A TIMSS Video Study of Teaching Practices and Student Achievement. The Word Bank Office Jakarta.
  22. Ivie, S. D. (1998). Ausubel’s learning theory: An approach to teaching higher order thinking skills. The High School Journal, 82(1), 35–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40364708
  23. Jannah, U. R., & Nusantara, T. (2019). Students’ characteristics of students’ obstacles in understanding the definition of a function. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 243(1), 12134. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/243/1/012134
  24. Kleiner, I. (1989). Evolution of the function concept: A brief survey. The College Mathematics Journal, 20(4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07468342.1989.11973245
  25. Kleiner, I. (1993). Functions: Historical and pedagogical aspects. Science & Education, 2, 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00592206
  26. Macintyre, T., & Hamilton, S. (2010). Mathematics learners and mathematics textbooks: a question of identity? Whose curriculum? Whose mathematics? The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170903558224
  27. Markovits, Z., Eylon, B.-S., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28. https://flm-journal.org/Articles/435A001FB092B66926110B380E96D.pdf
  28. Mesa, V. (2004). Characterizing practices associated with functions in middle school textbooks: An empirical approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2–3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040409.63571.56
  29. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Minnich, C. A., Stanco, G. M., Arora, A., Centurino, V. A. S., & Castle, C. E. (2012). TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Volume 1: AK. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  30. Muzaffer, O. (2013). Learning difficulties experienced by students and their misconceptions of the inverse function concept. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(12), 901. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1457
  31. Ponte, J. P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3–8. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12423242.pdf
  32. 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
  33. Septyawan, S. R., & Suryadi, D. (2019). Learning obstacles on the concept of function: a hermeneutic phenomenological study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280(4), 42041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/4/042041
  34. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302715
  35. Sosniak, L. A., & Perlman, C. L. (1990). Secondary education by the book. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(5), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027900220502
  36. Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytic framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1), 9–16. https://flm-journal.org/Articles/308086F06226BBFBA6966CF21B6EC.pdf
  37. 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
  38. Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 289–325). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009- 1465-0_9
  39. Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005
  40. Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Suryadi, D. (2023). How students generate patterns in learning algebra? A focus on functional thinking in secondary school students. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.913
  41. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L., 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. Springer Science & Business Media.
  42. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.20.4.0356
  43. 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, 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
  44. Wijayanti, D. (2018). Two notions of ‘linear function’in lower secondary school and missed opportunities for students’ first meeting with functions. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 15(3), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1441
  45. Wijayanti, D., & Winslow, C. (2017). Mathematical practice in textbooks analysis: Praxeological reference models, the case of proportion. REDIMAT, 6(3), 307–330. https://dx.doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2017.2078
  46. Wilkie, K. J., & Ayalon, M. (2018). Investigating Years 7 to 12 students’ knowledge of linear relationships through different contexts and representations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(4), 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0236-8
  47. Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.6.347-360