Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Semiotics is simply defined as the sign-using to represent a mathematical concept in a problem-solving. Semiotic reasoning of constructing concept is a process of drawing a conclusion based on object, representamen (sign), and interpretant. This paper aims to describe the phases of semiotic reasoning of elementary students in constructing the properties of a rectangle. The participants of the present qualitative study are three elementary students classified into three levels of Adversity Quotient (AQ): quitter/AQ low, champer/AQ medium, and climber/AQ high. The results show three participants identify object by observing objects around them. In creating sign stage, they made the same sign that was a rectangular image. However, in three last stages, namely interpret sign, find out properties of sign, and discover properties of a rectangle, they made different ways. The quitter found two characteristics of rectangular objects then derived it to be a rectangle’s properties. The champer found four characteristics of the objects then it was derived to be two properties of a rectangle. By contrast, Climber found six characteristics of the sign and derived all of these to be four properties of a rectangle. In addition, Climber could determine the properties of a rectangle correctly.

Keywords

Reasoning Semiotic Semiotic Reasoning Construction Concept Adversity Quotient (AQ)

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Suryaningrum, C. W., Purwanto, Subanji, Susanto, H., Ningtyas, Y. D. W. K., & Irfan, M. (2020). Semiotic reasoning emerges in constructing properties of a rectangle: a study of adversity quotient. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(1), 95–110. Retrieved from https://jme.ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/jme/article/view/3811
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ahamad, S.N.S.H., Li, H.C., Shahrill, M., & Prahmana, R.C.I. (2018). Implementation of problem- based learning in geometry lessons. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012008.
  2. Ali, R.H., & Aslaadi, S. (2016) A cognitive semiotic study of students ' reading a textless image versus a verbal image. Advances in Laguage and Literary Studies, 7(5), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.5p.1.
  3. Arzarello, F., & Sabena, C. (2011). Semiotic and theoretic control in argumentation and proof activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 189-206.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9280-3.
  5. Bjuland, R. (2012) The mediating role of a teacher’s use of semiotic resources in pupils’ early algebraic reasoning. ZDM, 44(5), 665-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0421-2.
  6. Brier, S. (2015). Cybersemiotics and the reasoning powers of the universe : philosophy of information in a semiotic- systemic transdisciplinary approach. Green Letters Studies in Ecocriticism, 19(3), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2015.1070684.
  7. Campos, D.G. (2010). Peirce’s philosophy of mathematical education: Fostering reasoning abilities for mathematical inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 421-439.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9188-5.
  9. Creswell, J.W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Research (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
  10. Deledalle, G. (2013). Peirce and semiotic–An introduction. KODIKAS/CODE. Ars Semeiotica, 36(3- 4), 185-191.
  11. Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University.
  12. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Edication, 9(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479800008520167.
  13. Godino, J.D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M.R., & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2-3), 247-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649- 010-9278-x.
  14. Hardiarti, S. (2017). Ethnomatematics: The application of quadrilateral plane figure in muaro Jambi temple [in Bahasa]. Aksioma, 8(2), 99-110. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/217393- none.pdf.
  15. Hendroanto, A., van Galen, F., van Eerde, D., Prahmana, R.C.I., Setyawan, F., & Istiandaru, A. (2018). Photography activities for developing students’ spatial orientation and spatial visualization. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/943/1/012029.
  16. Kralemann, B., & Lattmann, C. (2013). Models as icons: Modeling models in the semiotic framework of Peirce’ s theory of signs. Synthese, 190(16), 3397-3420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s.
  17. Metro-Roland, M. (2009). Interpreting meaning : An application of Peircean semiotics to tourism.
  18. Tourism Geographies, 11(2), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680902827225.
  19. Miller, J. (2015). Young indigenous students’ engagement with growing pattern tasks: A semiotic perspective. Proceeding of the 38th Annual Conference of the Mathematic Education Reseacrh Group of Australasia, 421-428. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572490.pdf.
  20. Ng, O.L., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM, 47(3), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0660-5.
  21. Ostler, E. (2011). Teaching adaptive and strategic reasoning through. International Journal of Mathematics Science Education, 4(2), 16-26.
  22. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4673/f9f3c2892b621b05b1ce4ddff02d9a5c2757.pdf.
  23. Panchal, C. (2013). A study of abstract reasoning of the students of standard IX of Ahmedabad city. International Journal for Research in Education, 2(3), 30-34. http://www.raijmr.com/ijre/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/IJRE_2013_vol02_issue_03_14.pdf.
  24. Parcell, W.C., & Parcell, L.M. (2009). Evaluating and communicating geologic reasoning with semiotics and certainty estimation. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(5), 379-389.
  25. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3544288.
  26. Peirce, C.S. (1931). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  27. Presmeg, N. (2016). Semiotics in theory and practice in mathematics education. ICME-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31370-2.
  28. Priss, U. (2016). A semiotic-conceptual analysis of conceptual learning. In International Conference on Conceptual Structures (pp. 122-136). Cham: Springer.
  29. Radford, L., & Schubring, G. (2008). Semiotics in Mathematics Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  30. Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Kadunz, G. (2016). Semiotics as a Tool for Learning Mathematics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  31. Sarbo, J.J., & Yang, J.H. (2015). A semiotic approach to critical reasoning. In International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations (pp. 10-19). Cham: Springer. http://www.cs.ru.nl/~janos/project-site/iciso2015-final.pdf.
  32. Schreiber, C. (2013). Semiotic processes in chat-based problem-solving situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9417-7.
  33. Semetsky, I. (2013). The Edusemiotics of Images. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  34. Sendera, H., Yakin, M., & Totu, A. (2014). The semiotic perspectives of peirce and saussure: A brief comparative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155(October), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.247.
  35. Stjernfelt, F. (2015). Dicisigns Peirce’s semiotic doctrine of propositions. Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 192(4), 1019-1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0406-5.
  36. Stoltz, P.G. (2004). Adversity Quotient: Reverse the Threats into Opportunities Fifth Edition [in Bahasa]. Jakarta: Grasindo.
  37. Syah, M. (2010). Learning Psychology [in Bahasa]. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada.
  38. Turgut, M. (2017) Students’ reasoning on linear transformations in a DGS: A semiotic perspective.
  39. CERME 10 (pp. 01946324). Dublin, Ireland. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01946324.
  40. Türkcan, B. (2013). Semiotic approach to the analysis of children’s drawings. Educational Science: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 600-607. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1016743.pdf.
  41. Usiskin. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometri. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
  42. Uslucan, H.H. (2004). Charles Sanders Peirce and the semiotic foundation of self and reason. Mind, Culture, and activity, 11(2), 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1102_2.
  43. West, D.E. (2015). Embodied experience and the semiosis of abductive reasoning. Southern Semiotic Review, 5(1), 53-59.
  44. Yang, C., & Hsu, T. (2015). Applying semiotic theories to graphic design education: An empirical study on poster design teaching. International Education Studies, 8(12), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n12p117.