Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 369 Download : 264

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Nutrition facts are the details on food packaging that describe its nutritional value, including serving size, calories, macronutrients like carbohydrates, protein, and fat, and micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals. These facts have mathematical concepts that can be utilized as a context for prospective teachers to create mathematical problems. By leveraging this real-world data, educators can contribute to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), by promoting nutritional awareness, and SDG 4 (Quality Education) by enhancing student engagement and understanding through relatable examples. This study examines the profile of mathematical tasks created by prospective mathematics teachers using nutrition facts as a context that meets numeracy task criteria. Data were collected from 62 mathematical tasks created by 31 prospective teachers attending a realistic mathematics education course on numeracy based on a problem-posing task at a public university in Surabaya, Indonesia. The posed tasks were categorized into solvable or unsolvable tasks and the domains of the level of context use and the level of cognitive processes. Results revealed that the level of context use in the posed tasks varied from zero to second order. Surprisingly, most of the tasks were in the first-order level context. Most posed tasks reached the application level, with only a few identified as reasoning tasks. Interestingly, some tasks coded as second-order context were classified as reasoning tasks. The study provides implications for designing numeracy tasks using nutrition facts and interventions in teacher education related to numeracy task design.

Keywords

Numeracy Tasks Nutrition Facts Problem Posing Prospective Teacher Quality Education

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Sari, Y. M., Kohar, A. W., El Milla, Y. I., Fiangga, S., & Rahayu, D. S. (2024). Aligning numeracy task design with SDG goals: Nutrition facts as a context for prospective mathematics teachers’ problem posing. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp191-206
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
  2. Blitstein, J. L., Guthrie, J. F., & Rains, C. (2020). Low-Income Parents’ Use of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels in a Virtual Supermarket. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 52(9), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNEB.2020.04.003
  3. Cowburn, G., & Stockley, L. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition, 8(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2005666
  4. Crespo, S., & Harper, F. k. (2020). Learning to pose collaborative mathematics problems with secondary prospective teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101430. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2019.05.003
  5. Follong, B. M., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Miller, A., Collins, C. E., & Bucher, T. (2020a). An Exploratory Survey on Teaching Practices Integrating Nutrition and Mathematics in Australian Primary Schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 14–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.566
  6. Follong, B. M., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Miller, A., Collins, C. E., & Bucher, T. (2020b). Integrating nutrition into the mathematics curriculum in Australian primary schools: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Nutrition Journal, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12937-020-00640-X/TABLES/2
  7. Gao, Z., Wu, F., Lv, G., Zhuang, X., & Ma, G. (2021). Development and validity of a general nutrition knowledge questionnaire (Gnkq) for Chinese adults. Nutrients, 13(12), 4353. https://doi.org/10.3390/NU13124353/S1
  8. Gibbs, H. D., Bonenberger, H., Hull, H. R., Sullivan, D. K., & Gibson, C. A. (2020). Validity of an updated nutrition literacy assessment instrument with the new nutrition facts panel. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 71(1), 116–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2019.1606167
  9. Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SAPHARM.2012.04.004
  10. Grunert, K. G., Wills, J. M., & Fernández-Celemín, L. (2010). Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite, 55(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2010.05.045
  11. Guo, M., Leung, F. K. S., & Hu, X. (2020). Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of Chinese Miao students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 367–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10649-020-09972-1/TABLES/3
  12. Huizinga, M. M., Carlisle, A. J., Cavanaugh, K. L., Davis, D. L., Gregory, R. P., Schlundt, D. G., & Rothman, R. L. (2009). Literacy, Numeracy, and Portion-Size Estimation Skills. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(4), 324–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2008.11.012
  13. Kohar, A., Rahaju, E., & Rohim, A. (2022). Prospective teachers’ design of numeracy tasks using a physical distancing context. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i2.pp191-210
  14. Kwek, M. L. (2015). Using problem posing as a formative assessment tool. Mathematical Problem Posing: From Research to Effective Practice, 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_13/COVER
  15. Ma, G., & Zhuang, X. (2021). Nutrition label processing in the past 10 years: Contributions from eye tracking approach. Appetite, 156, 104859. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPET.2020.104859
  16. Malloy-Weir, L., & Cooper, M. (2017). Health literacy, literacy, numeracy and nutrition label understanding and use: a scoping review of the literature. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 30(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/JHN.12428
  17. Mansfield, E., Wahba, R., & De Grandpré, E. (2020). Integrating a Health Literacy Lens into Nutrition Labelling Policy in Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, Vol. 17, Page 4130, 17(11), 4130. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH17114130
  18. Michelsen, C., Beckmann, A., Freiman, V., Jankvist, U. T., & Savard, A. (2022). Introduction: 15 Years of Mathematics and Its Connections to the Arts and Sciences. In C. Michelsen, A. Beckmann, V. Freiman, U. T. Jankvist, & A. Savard (Eds.), Mathematics and Its Connections to the Arts and Sciences (MACAS) 15 Years of Interdisciplinary Mathematics Education (pp. 3–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10518-0_1
  19. Nijlen, D. Van, & Janssen, R. (2015). Examinee Non-Effort on Contextualized and Non-Contextualized Mathematics Items in Large-Scale Assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 28(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.973559
  20. Palm, T. (2006). Word Problems as Simulations of Real-World Situations: A Proposed Framework]. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 42–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40248523
  21. Paolucci, C., & Wessels, H. (2017). An Examination of Preservice Teachers’ Capacity to Create Mathematical Modeling Problems for Children. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117697636/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0022487117697636-FIG7.JPEG
  22. Rothman, R. L., Housam, R., Weiss, H., Davis, D., Gregory, R., Gebretsadik, T., Shintani, A., & Elasy, T. A. (2006). Patient Understanding of Food Labels: The Role of Literacy and Numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMEPRE.2006.07.025
  23. Salgado, F. A. (2016). Developing a Theoretical Framework for Classifying Levels of Context Use for Mathematical Problems. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening up mathematics education research (Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 110–117). MERGA.
  24. Salgado, F. A. (2017). The Role of Context and Context Familiarity on Mathematics Problems. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación En Matemática Educativa, 20(3), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.17.2031
  25. Sevinc, S., & Lesh, R. (2017). Training mathematics teachers for realistic math problems: A case of modeling-based teacher education courses. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11858-017-0898-9/TABLES/6
  26. Sevinc, S., & Lesh, R. (2022). Preservice mathematics teachers’ conceptions of mathematically rich and contextually realistic problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25(6), 667–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10857-021-09512-5/FIGURES/8
  27. Stage, V. C., Kolasa, K. M., Díaz, S. R., & Duffrin, M. W. (2018). Exploring the associations among nutrition, science, and mathematics knowledge for an integrative, food-based curriculum. The Journal of School Health, 88(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOSH.12576
  28. Taufiq, Budiarto, M. T., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Kohar, A. W. (2023). Profile of Teacher Decision-Making in Designing Mathematical Tasks Based on Teaching Experience. International Journal of Current Educational Research, 2(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.53621/ijocer.v2i2.221
  29. United Nations. (2015). The 17 Goals -Sustainable Development Goals-. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
  30. Wang, T., & Li, M. (2014). Literature review of characteristics of science item contexts. Annual Meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).
  31. 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/TABLES/9
  32. Wijaya, A., Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Doorman, M., & Veldhuis, M. (2018). Opportunity-to-Learn to Solve Context-based Mathematics Tasks and Students’ Performance in Solving these Tasks-Lessons from Indonesia. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(10), 1598. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/93420
  33. Zulkardi, & Kohar, A. W. (2018). Designing PISA-Like Mathematics Tasks In Indonesia: Experiences and Challenges. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1), 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012015