Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Figure 6. Visualization results Atlas.ti pre-service mathematics teacher  task design direct proportion using equation strategy
Articles
Published: 2024-06-11

How do pre-service mathematics teachers resolve proportion tasks? Focus strategy of proportion solving

Suryakancana University
##plugins.generic.jatsParser.article.authorBio##
×

Rani Sugiarni

Departement Education Mathematics

Univeristas Pendidikan Indonesia
Univeristas Pendidikan Indonesia
Univeristas Pendidikan Indonesia
pre-service mathematics teacher proportion taks strategy

Galleys

Abstract

Abstract Problem solving for proportion problems has not fully incorporated various appropriate strategies. This study aimed to identify and analyze the strategy used by pre-service mathematics teachers in solving proportion problems. This research used a qualitative method with a phenomenological design. The participants of this study were 29 pre-service mathematics teachers with the characteristics of having learned the concept of proportion. Data were collected using tests, interviews, observation, and document study techniques. Data were analyzed in stages, starting with data collection, data reduction, data review, and results conclusion, to solve proportion problems. The results obtained were in the form of a description of the techniques used in solving proportion tasks. Pre-service mathematics teachers mostly used the cross-product strategy in solving proportion tasks. The results of this study can be used as a basis for developing hypothetical learning trajectories for comparison learning for pre-service mathematics teachers in the future.

Abstrak Penyelesaian soal proporsi belum sepenuhnya memasukkan berbagai strategi yang tepat. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi dan menganalisis strategi yang digunakan guru matematika calon guru dalam menyelesaikan masalah perbandingan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan desain fenomenologis. Partisipan penelitian ini berjumlah 29 mahasiswa calon guru matematika dengan karakteristik telah mempelajari konsep proporsi. Data dikumpulkan dengan menggunakan teknik tes, wawancara, observasi, dan studi dokumen. Data dianalisis secara bertahap, dimulai dari pengumpulan data, reduksi data, penelaahan data, dan penarikan kesimpulan hasil, untuk menyelesaikan masalah proporsi. Hasil yang diperoleh berupa uraian tentang teknik-teknik yang digunakan dalam menyelesaikan tugas proporsi. Mahasiswa calon guru matematika sebagian besar menggunakan strategi cross produk dalam menyelesaikan tugas proporsi. Hasil penelitian ini dapat digunakan sebagai dasar untuk mengembangkan hypothetical learning trajectory untuk pembelajaran perbandingan bagi mahasiswa calon guru matematika di masa yang akan datang.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Arican, M. (2018). Preservice middle and high school mathematics teachers’ strategies when solving proportion problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9775-1
  2. Arican, M. (2019a). Facilitating pre-service mathematics teachers’ understanding of directly and inversely proportional relationships using hands-on and real-world problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 102–117. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198045.pdf
  3. Arican, M. (2019b). Preservice mathematics teachers’ understanding of and abilities to differentiate proportional relationships from nonproportional relationships. International journal of science and mathematics education, 17(7), 1423–1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9931-x
  4. Arican, M. (2020). Investigating preservice teachers’ determination and representation of proportional and nonproportional relationships in terms of problem contexts. Necatibey eğitim fakültesi elektronik fen ve matematik eğitimi dergisi, 14(1), 629–660. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.683225
  5. Arican, M., Koklu, O., Olmez, I. B., & Baltaci, S. (2018). Preservice middle grades mathematics teachers’ strategies for solving geometric similarity problems. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 502–516. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.428297
  6. Arican, M., & Özçakir, B. (2021). Facilitating the development of preservice teachers’ proportional reasoning in geometric similarity problems using augmented reality activities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 2327–2353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10359-1
  7. Arican, M., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2023). Preservice middle school mathematics teachers’ strategy repertoire in proportional problem solving. Research in Mathematics Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2023.2212260
  8. Arıcan, M. (2019). A diagnostic assessment to middle school students’ proportional reasoning. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(4), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.522839
  9. Ayan-Civak, R., Işıksal-Bostan, M., & Yemen-Karpuzcu, S. (2023). From informal to formal understandings: analysing the development of proportional reasoning and its retention. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2160384
  10. Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B. S. (2012). Ratio and proportion: Research and teaching in mathematics teachers’ education (Pre- and in-service mathematics teachers of elementary and middle school classes). In Ratio and Proportion: Research and Teaching in Mathematics Teachers’ Education (Pre- and In-Service Mathematics Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Classes). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-784-4
  11. Bintara, I. A., Herman, T., & Hasanah, A. (2020). Didactical design realistic mathematics education based on green mathematics in direct & indirect proportions concept at junior high school. Proceeding International Conference on Science and Engineering, 3, 555–560. https://doi.org/10.14421/icse.v3.562
  12. Bintara, I. A., & Suhendra. (2021). Analysis toward learning obstacles of junior high school students on the topic of direct and inverse proportion. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1882, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012083
  13. Borowski, E. J., & Borwein, J. M. (1989). Dictionary of mathematics. (No Title). https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/collins-dictionary-of-mathematics/author/borowski-e-j-borwein-j-m/
  14. Brakoniecki, A., M. Amador, J., & M. Glassmeyer, D. (2021). One task, multiple proportional reasoning strategies. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 114(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtlt.2019.0276
  15. Burgos, M., Albanese, V., & López-Martín, M. del M. (2022). Prospective primary school teachers’ recognition of proportional reasoning in pupils’ solution to probability comparison tasks. Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. https://hal.science/hal-03751836/document
  16. Burgos, M., Beltrán-Pellicer, P., & Godino, J. D. (2020). The issue of didactical suitability in mathematics educational videos: Experience of analysis with prospective primary school teachers. Revista Espanola de Pedagogia, 78(275), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.22550/REP78-1-2020-07
  17. Burgos, M., & Godino, J. D. (2022). Prospective primary school teachers’ competence for the cognitive analysis of students’ solutions to proportionality tasks. Journal Fur Mathematik-Didaktik, 43(2), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-021-00193-4
  18. Büscher, C. (2021). Exploring students’ proportional reasoning in solving guided-unguided area conservation problem: A case of Indonesian students. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), em0643. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10942
  19. Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Validation of the digital competence questionnaire for pre-service teachers through structural equations modeling. Bordon. Revista de Pedagogia, 72(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2020.73436
  20. Cabero-Fayos, I., Santágueda-Villanueva, M., Villalobos-Antúnez, J. V., & Roig-Albiol, A. I. (2020). Understanding of inverse proportional reasoning in pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(11), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110308
  21. Clapham, C., & Nicholson, J. (2009). The concise oxford dictionary of mathematics (oxford paperback reference).https://secure.nodebox.net/djyzdhost/02-gunnar-barton-dvm-1/the-concise-oxford-dictionary-of-mathematics-oxf-9780199679591-fng4wxE4heS-NEW.pdf
  22. Copur-Gencturk, Y., Baek, C., & Doleck, T. (2022). A closer look at teachers’ proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10249-7
  23. Cox, S. K., & Root, J. R. (2020). Modified schema-based instruction to develop flexible mathematics problem-solving strategies for students with autism spectrum disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518792660
  24. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Introduction to mixed method research (Trans. Ed.: Sözbilir, M) Ankara. Trn. Ed.: Mustafa Sözbilir. 2nd. Edition, Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://inased.org/All_Documents/Journals/EPASR/epasrv16n4.pdf
  25. Dejene, W. (2020). Conceptions of teaching & learning and teaching approach preference: Their change through preservice teacher education program. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1833812. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1833812
  26. Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2021). Computational thinking: A disciplinary perspective. Informatics in Education, 20(3), 361. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2021.21
  27. Diba, D. M. S., & Prabawanto, S. (2019). The analysis of students’ answers in solving ratio and proportion problems. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032114
  28. Fernández, C., Llinares, S., Dooren, W. Van, Bock, D. De, & Verschaffel, L. (2012). The development of students’ use of additive and proportional methods along primary and secondary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0087-0
  29. Gabriel, F., Coché, F., Szucs, D., Carette, V., Rey, B., & Content, A. (2013). A componential view of children’s difficulties in learning fractions. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00715
  30. Gill, M. J. (2020). Phenomenology as qualitative methodology. Qualitative Analysis: Eight Approaches, 73–94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341104030_Phenomenology_as_qualitative_methodology
  31. Grattan-Guinness, I. (2004). The mathematics of the past: Distinguishing its history from our heritage. Historia Mathematica, 31(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0315-0860(03)00032-6
  32. Grace-Bridges, R. (2019). Generation Z Goes to College. In Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention (Vol. 25, Issue 1). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.24926/jcotr.v25i1.2919
  33. Høyrup, J. (2005). Leonardo fibonacci and abbaco culture. A proposal to invert the roles. Revue d’Histoire Des Mathematiques, 11(1), 23–56. http://www.numdam.org/item/RHM_2005__11_1_23_0.pdf
  34. Izsák, A., & Jacobson, E. (2017). Preservice teachers’ reasoning about relationships that are and are not proportional: A knowledge-in-pieces account. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), 300–339. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.3.0300
  35. Jayasuriya, N. A., Hughes, A. E., Sovio, U., Cook, E., Charnock-Jones, D. S., & Smith, G. C. S. (2019). A lower maternal cortisol-to-cortisone ratio precedes clinical diagnosis of preterm and term preeclampsia by many weeks. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 104(6), 2355–2366. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-02312
  36. Johar, R., Patahuddin, S. M., & Widjaja, W. (2017). Linking pre-service teachers’ questioning and students’ strategies in solving contextual problems: A case study in Indonesia and the Netherlands. Mathematics Enthusiast, 14(1–3), 101–128. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1390
  37. Johar, R., Yusniarti, S., & Saminan. (2018). The analysis of proportional reasoning problem in the Indonesian mathematics textbook for the junior high school. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.1.4145.55-68
  38. Joshua, S., & Lee, M. Y. (2022). Incoherencies in elementary pre-service teachers’ understanding of calculations in proportional tasks. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(4), em0698. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/12178
  39. Karli, M. G., & Yildiz, E. (2022). Incorrect strategies developed by seventh- grade students to solve proportional reasoning problems. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 22(29), 111–148. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.29.5
  40. Kent, L. (2017). Examining mathematics classroom interactions: Elevating student roles in teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 3(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.3.2.93
  41. Lamon, S. J. (2020). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. In teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008057
  42. Lin, R. S., Lin, J., Roychoudhury, S., Anderson, K. M., Hu, T., Huang, B., Leon, L. F., Liao, J. J. Z., Liu, R., Luo, X., Mukhopadhyay, P., Qin, R., Tatsuoka, K., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Chen, T. T., & Iacona, R. (2020). Alternative analysis methods for time to event endpoints under nonproportional hazards: a comparative analysis. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 12(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2019.1697738
  43. Lutfi, A., Basir, M. A., Kusmaryono, I., & Wijayanti, D. (2022). Analysis of proportional reasoning task in task series book mandiri grade vii. Kontinu: Jurnal Penelitian Didaktik Matematika, 6(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.30659/kontinu.6.1.64-82
  44. Madden, J. J. (2018). Knowing ratio and proportion for teaching. In Mathematics Matters in Education (pp. 93–115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61434-2_5
  45. Misnasanti, Utami, R. W., & Suwanto, F. R. (2017). Problem based learning to improve proportional reasoning of students in mathematics learning. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1868). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995129
  46. Musser, Gary L.; Peterson, Blake E.; Burger, W. F. (2014). Mathematics for elementary teachers: a contemporary approach 10th edition. John Wiley & Sons. https://opac.perpusnas.go.id/DetailOpac.aspx?id=479762
  47. Nicholson, J. (2014). The concise oxford dictionary of mathematics. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199679591.001.0001
  48. Ölmez, İ. B. (2016). Oranlar üzerine iki farkli yaklaşim: nicelikler arasindaki toplamsal ve çarpimsal ilişkiler. Elementary Education Online, 15(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.94175
  49. Permatasari, D., Azka, R., & Fikriya, H. (2021). Exploring students’ algebraic thinking in generational activities and their difficulties. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 14(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v14i1.418
  50. Pratiwi, I. S., & Sudihartinih, E. (2021). Analysis of junior high school students’ mathematical connection on the ratio and proportion concepts. Edumatika: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.32939/ejrpm.v4i1.753
  51. Pyper, J. S. (2014). Pre-service mathematics teacher efficacy: Its nature and relationship to teacher concerns and orientation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 81–97. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/55768/42635
  52. Rohati, R., Turmudi, T., & Kusnandi, K. (2021). Students’ proportional reasoning in mathematics through covid-19 pandemic context. aksioma: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(3), 1670. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v10i3.3873
  53. Rosyidi, A. H., & Hasanah, K. (2022). The construction process of new concept based on apos theory: male vs female in direct proportion. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 11(4), 3360. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v11i4.5706
  54. Sari, Y. M., Fiangga, S., El Milla, Y. I., & Puspaningtyas, N. D. (2023). Exploring students’ proportional reasoning in solving guided-unguided area conservation problem: A case of Indonesian students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.V14I2.PP375-394
  55. Simson, R. (1838). The elements of Euclid. Desilver, Thomas. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=P_BJAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
  56. Scheibling-Sève, C., Gvozdic, K., Pasquinelli, E., & Sander, E. (2022). Enhancing cognitive flexibility through a training based on multiple categorization: developing proportional reasoning in primary school. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7661
  57. Son, J. W., & Lee, M. Y. (2021). Exploring the relationship between preservice teachers’ conceptions of problem solving and their problem-solving performances. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(1), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10045-w
  58. Supply, A. S., Vanluydt, E., Van Dooren, W., & Onghena, P. (2023). Out of proportion or out of context? comparing 8- to 9-year-olds’ proportional reasoning abilities across fair-sharing, mixtures, and probability contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(3), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10212-5
  59. Tunç, M. P. (2020). Investigation of middle school students’ solution strategies in solving proportional and non-proportional problems. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.16949/TURKBILMAT.560349
  60. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Elementary and middle school mathematics. Pearson. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/samplechapter/0/2/0/5/020538689X.pdf
  61. Van de Watering, G., & van der Rijt, J. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of assessments: A review and a study into the ability and accuracy of estimating the difficulty levels of assessment items. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.05.001
  62. Weiland, T., Orrill, C. H., Nagar, G. G., Brown, R. E., & Burke, J. (2021). Framing a robust understanding of proportional reasoning for teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09453-0
  63. Williams, K. (2019). Daniele barbaro on geometric ratio. Nexus Network Journal, 21(2), 271–292. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00004-019-00444-5
  64. Yanti, A. W., Jaelani, A., Sutini, S., & Kusuma, H. J. (2023). PISA problem solving of student with proportional reasoning and adversity quotient. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2569(1), 40005. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112543
  65. Yu, S., Kim, D., Mielicki, M. K., Fitzsimmons, C. J., Thompson, C. A., & Opfer, J. (2020). From integers to fractions: Developing a coherent understanding of proportional magnitude. CogSci. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001398

How to Cite

Sugiarni, R., Herman, T., Suryadi, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2024). How do pre-service mathematics teachers resolve proportion tasks? Focus strategy of proportion solving. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 17(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v17i1.619