A praxeological review of concept-sequence and series: Comparing Malaysia and Indonesia textbooks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v10i2.24079Keywords:
textbooks, praxeology review, sequence and seriesAbstract
Malaysia, through its curriculum, has implemented mathematics textbooks as the main source. However, not all concepts can be offered to a country. This research aims to analyse the comparison between Indonesian and Malaysian textbooks from a praxeological perspective . The data used is only on the topic of sequences and series. This qualitative research adopts a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, serving as an alternative method. In the context of the Indonesian version of didactic design, this study represents research conducted during the prospective stage of the entire research series. The results of the research show that in the praxis block, there are similarities in the presentation of Indonesian and Malaysian textbooks in introducing the topic of sequences and series. The difference is that in Indonesian mathematics textbooks there are 2 themes, while in Malaysia there is only 1 theme. The design in Malaysian textbooks is more in-depth and comprehensive, and the learning trajectory is arranged more systematically so that Malaysian textbooks allow for no gaps between the types of T used. The use of Malaysian textbooks has the potential to build complete knowledge, so the potential for students to have difficulties will be smaller.
References
Artigue, M., & Bosh, M. (2014). Introduction to the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, & S. Prediger (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
Bahariah, Jannah, N., Nurazreen, & Nazri, M. (2017). Matematik tingkat 2 [Level 2 mathematics]. Kementrian Pendidikan Malaysia [Ministry of Education Malaysia].
Baker, A. (2019). Open educational resources in teacher preparation programs: teacher candidates’ perceptions of open textbooks. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijtepd.2019010104
Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College.
Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2006). Twenty-five years of the didactic transposition. ICMI Bulletin, 58(58), 51–65.
Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2014). Introduction to the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). Networking of Theories as a Research Practice in Mathematics Education, 67–83.
Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Can, F. (2021). An examination of reading texts in a journey to Turkish A1 and A2 level textbooks in terms of readability. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9is2-sep.4379
Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three Countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903460070
Chevallard, Y. (1992). A theoretical approach to curricula. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik: Zeitschrift Der Gesellschaft Für Didaktik Der Mathematik [Journal for Mathematics Didactics: Journal of the Society for Mathematics Didactics], 13(2), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338779
Chevallard, Y. (2006). Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education. In Proceedings of the IV Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 21–30.
Chevallard, Y. (2019). Introducing the anthropological theory of the didactic: an attempt at a principled approach. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 12, 71–114.
Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic transposition in mathematics education. In: Lerman, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48
Chevallard, Y., Bosch, M., & Kim, S. (2015). What is a theory according to the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic?. In CERME 9-Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 2614–2620.
Chevallard, Y., & Sensevy, G. (2014). Anthropological approaches in mathematics education, French perspectives. Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_9
Cohen, L., Manison, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. In Research Methods in Physical Activity and Health. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
Curriculum Development Centre (CDC). (2016). Implementation guide for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in teaching and learning. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Erbaş, A. K., Alacaci, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). A comparison of mathematics textbooks from Turkey, Singapore, and the United States of America. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2324–2330.
Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x
Fan Lianghuo, & Zhu Yan. (2000). Problem solving in Singaporean secondary mathematics textbooks. The Mnthernntics Educntor, 5(1), 117–141.
Friesen, N., Henriksson, C., & Saevi, T. (2012). Hermeneutic phenomenology in education: method and practice. Sense Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-834-6
Fuadah, U. S., Saud, U. S., Hadiyanti, Y., & Nugraha, T. (2021). Study of decimal in elementary mathematics textbooks from ministry of education and culture of the republic of indonesia. International Conference on Elementary Education, 3(1), 617–628. http://proceedings2.upi.edu/index.php/icee/article/view/1523
Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., & Bartsch, K. (1988). Brief report: Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for research in mathematics Education, 19(5), 449-456.
Gracin, D. G. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 49(7), 1003-1024.
Guez, A., Peyre, H., Le Cam, M., Gauvrit, N., & Ramus, F. (2018). Are high-IQ students more at risk of school failure?. Intelligence, 71, 32-40.
Guillen, D. E. F. (2019). Qualitative research: Hermeneutical phenomenological method. Propósitos y Representaciones [Purposes and Representations], 7(1), 201-229. https://doi.org/10. 20511/pyr2019.v7n1.267
Hardiyanti, A. (2016). Analisis kesulitan siswa kelas ix smp dalam menyelesaikan soal pada materi barisan dan deret [Analysis of the difficulties of nineth-grade junior high school students in solving questions on sequences and series]. Konferensi Nasional Penelitian Matematika Dan Pembelajarannya (KNPMPI) [National Conference on Mathematics Research and Learning], 78–88.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
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), 1–13.
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
Huang, R., Tlili, A., Zhang, X., Sun, T., Wang, J., Sharma, R. C., Affouneh, S., Salha, S., … & Burgos, D. (2022). A comprehensive framework for comparing textbooks: insights from the literature and experts. Sustainability, 14(11), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116940
Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2015). Cognitive and a ective aspects in science education.
Kang, W. A. N., & Kilpatrick, J. (1992). Didactic transposition in mathematics textbooks. For the learning of mathematics, 12(1), 2–7.
Kemdikbud. (2016). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia tentang standar proses pendidikan dasar dan menengah nomor 22 tahun 2016 [Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia concerning basic and secondary education process standards number 22 of 2016]. Kemdikbud.
Keshavarz, H. (2020). Hermeneutic Phenomenology in Supporting Research and Information Services: Contributions to Information Science. Journal of Information Science Theory & Practic, 8(4), 29–39.
Kharisma, E. N. (2016). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kritis matematis siswa smk pada materi barisan dan deret [Analysis of vocational students' mathematical critical thinking abilities on sequence and series material]. JRPM (Jurnal Review Pembelajaran Matematika), 3(1), 62-75
Kul, Ü., Sevimli, E., & Aksu, Z. (2018). A comparison of mathematics questions in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of synthesized taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Education, 7(3), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.395162
Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: a comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303
Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234-241
Maarif, S., Perbowo, K. S., & Kusharyadi, R. (2021). Depicting epistemological obstacles in understanding the concept of sequence and series. IndoMath: Indonesia Mathematics Education, 4(1), 66-80.
Manullang, S., S, A. K., Hutapea, T. A., Sinaga, L. P., Sinaga, B., S, M. M., & Sinambela, P. N. J. (2017). Buku matematika SMA/MA/SMK/MAK kelas XI [Mathematics Book for SMA/MA/SMK/MAK eleventh-grade]. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia.
Mellor, K., Clark, R., & Essien, A. A. (2018). Affordances for learning linear functions: A comparative study of two textbooks from South Africa and Germany. Pythagoras, 39(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v39i1.378
MoEC. (2018). Regulation of the minister of education and culture no. 37 of 2018 concerning core competencies and basic competencies of lessons in the 2013 curriculum in basic education and secondary education. Ministry of Education and Culture.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Arora., A. (2012). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2011: International Results in Science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E., Gregory, K., Garden, R., K. O’Connor, S. C., & Smith, T. (2000). TIMSS 2019 International results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/.
Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International mathematics report: findings from iea’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Nazli Akar, & Övez, F. T. D. (2018). An anthropological analysis of the knowledge on graphics within middle school mathematics. Journal of Education and Future Year, 13, 95–119.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do – student performance in reading, mathematics and science (volume i). In PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264188716-ar
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy.OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results in focus. OECD Publising. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/%0Apisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publica%0Ations/pisa-2018-results.htm
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results :The State of learning and equity in education (volume I). https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830998488
Padilla, M. (1990). The science process skills (Research matters–to the science teacher). NARST Publication.
Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: Two contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDM, 45, 685-698.
Pratama, G. S., & Retnawati, H. (2018). Urgency of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) content analysis in mathematics textbook. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012147
Putra, Z. H., & Witri, G. (2017). Anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD) a new research perspective on didactic mathematics in indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Guru [Journal of Teacher Education], 2(1), 221–227.
Putri, F., Rahmadila, & Elfira, F. (2023). Hypothetical learning trajectory of sequence and series topics based on realistic mathematics education (RME) approach for junior high school. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2805, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
Rachma, A. A., & Rosjanuardi, R. (2021). Students’ obstacles in learning sequence and series using onto-semiotic approach. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika [Journal of Mathematics Education], 15(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.15.2.13519.115-132
Rashidov, A. (2020). Development of creative and working with information competences of students in mathematics. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 8(3), 10–15. www.idpublications.org
Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66.
Siagian, Q. A., Aswin, A., & Herman, T. (2023). Praxeological analysis of mathematics textbooks for class XI high school students on arithmetic and geometric sequences. EduMa: Mathematics Education Learning And Teaching, 12(2), 139–152.
Son, J. W., & Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9229-6
Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith., M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In edited by F. K. Lester Jr (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 319–369).
Sun, Y., Kulm, G., & Capraro, M. M. (2009). Middle grade teachers’ use of textbooks and their classroom instruction. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 20–37.
Suryadi, D. (2019a). Landasan filosofis penelitian desain didaktis (DDR) [Philosophical foundations of didactic design research (DDR)]. Gapura Press.
Suryadi, D. (2019b). Penelitian Desain Didaktis (DDR) dan Implemtasinya [Didactical Design Research (DDR) and its Implementation]. Gapura Press.
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
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034970
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills, enhanced edition: learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Tümay, H. (2016). Reconsidering learning difficulties and misconceptions in chemistry: Emergence in chemistry and its implications for chemical education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1039/x0xx00000x
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). Textbooks and Educational opportunity. In Using TIMSS to Investigate the Translation of Policy into Practice through the World of Textbooks (pp. 1–20). Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Yang, D. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2015). Examining the differences of linear systems between finnish and taiwanese textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1265–1281. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1483a
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
Yang, D. C., Tseng, Y. K., & Wang, T. L. (2017). A comparison of geometry problems in middle-grade mathematics textbooks from Taiwan, Singapore, Finland, and the United States. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2841–2857. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00721a
Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 609–626.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Rahmat Kusharyadi, Siti Fatimah, Kusnandi Kusnandi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with the Jurnal Elemen agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Jurnal Elemen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
