International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Afriyani D, Sa’dijah C, Subanji S, Muksar M. Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2018;13(3), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Afriyani et al., 2018)
Reference: Afriyani, D., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, S., & Muksar, M. (2018). Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
Chicago
In-text citation: (Afriyani et al., 2018)
Reference: Afriyani, Dona, Cholis Sa’dijah, Subanji Subanji, and Makbul Muksar. "Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2018 13 no. 3 (2018): 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
Harvard
In-text citation: (Afriyani et al., 2018)
Reference: Afriyani, D., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, S., and Muksar, M. (2018). Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), pp. 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
MLA
In-text citation: (Afriyani et al., 2018)
Reference: Afriyani, Dona et al. "Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 3, 2018, pp. 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Afriyani D, Sa’dijah C, Subanji S, Muksar M. Characteristics of Students’ Mathematical Understanding in Solving Multiple Representation Task based on Solo Taxonomy. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2018;13(3):281-7. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920

Abstract

This articles discusses the characteristics of students’ mathematical understanding in solving multiple representation tasks. Qualitative explorative methods were used to clarify the characteristics of mathematical understanding. Data were obtained by assigning multiple representation tasks to and interviewing 25 students. It is concluded that there are two characteristics of mathematical understanding in solving multiple representation tasks: flexibility and compartmentalization. Flexible understanding consists of complete and incomplete flexibility. SOLO taxonomy level for students who have flexible understanding is relational. Multi-structural level refers to students whose comprehension is incomplete flexible, while uni-structural level refers to students whose understanding is compartmentalized. The findings of this study can be used as a guide to assess the depth of students’ mathematical understanding and a foothold in developing learning mathematics based multiple representations.

References

  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Bossé, M. J. (2014). Processes and Reasoning in Representations of Linear Functions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9416-x
  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., Bossé, M. J., & Chandler, K. (2017). Student Connections between Algebraic and Graphical Polynomial Representations in the Context of a Polynomial Relation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 915–938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9730-1
  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The Functions of Multiple Representations. Computers and Education, 33(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
  • Bal, P. A. (2015). Skills of Using and Transform Multiple Representations of the Prospective Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.197
  • Barmby, P., Harries, T., Higgins, S., & Suggate, J. (2007). How Can We Assess Mathematical Understanding? Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 41–48.
  • Boote, S. K. (2014). Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9318-8
  • Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the Formal Modes: Research Mathematics and the SOLO Taxonomy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(2), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217340
  • Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the Reluctance to Visualize in Mathematics. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in teaching and learning mathematics. Washington, DC: MAA. 127–138.
  • Gagatsis, A., Elia, I., & Mousoulides, N. (2006). Are Registers of Representations and Problem Solving Processes on Functions Compartmentalized in Students’ Thinking? Relime Número Espec, 9, 197–224.
  • Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational Systems, Learning, and Problem Solving in Mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behaviors, 17(2), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80056-1
  • Greer, B. (2009). Representational Flexibility and Mathematical Expertise. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 41(5), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0211-7
  • Jao, L. (2013). From Sailing Ship to Subtraction Symbols : Multiple Representations to Support Abstraction. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 33, 49–64.
  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2011). Using SOLO Taxonomy to Explore Students’ Mental Models of the Programming Variable and the Assignment Statement. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 4(2), 54-74.
  • Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student Understanding of the Cartesian Connection: An Exploratory Study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500-5008. https://doi.org/10.2307/749655
  • Mhlolo, M. K., Venkat, H., & Schäfer, M. (2012). The Nature and Quality of the Mathematical Connections Teachers Make. Journal of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, 33(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/doi:10.4102/pythagoras.v33i1.22
  • Rahmawati, D., Purwanto, Subanji, Hidayanto, E., & Anwar, R. B. (2017). Process of Mathematical Representation Translation from Verbal into Graphic. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 367-381.
  • Warner, L. B., Schorr, R. Y., & Davis, G. E. (2009). Flexible Use of symbolic Tools for problem Solving, Generalization, and Explanation. ZDM—The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 41(5), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0190-8

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.