A Comparison of Indonesia and Singapore Secondary School Textbooks of Mathematics: A Praxeological Analysis of Cube and Cuboid Task Design
Iik Nurhikmayati
,
Darhim
,
Jarnawi Afgani Dahlan
,
Tommy Tanu Wijaya
Comparison of mathematics textbooks between Indonesia and Singapore is one way to assess the educational process. This article provides insight into h.
Abstract:
Comparison of mathematics textbooks between Indonesia and Singapore is one way to assess the educational process. This article provides insight into how mathematical concepts are taught and applied in problem-solving in each country. The study provides knowledge about how mathematical concepts are constructed by teachers and students and implemented in problem-solving between countries. This study aims to compare task designs in high school mathematics textbooks between Indonesia and Singapore based on the type of task, technique, technology, and theory used, with a focus on cubes and cuboids. The comparative analysis of the two books uses praxeological theory, the main construction of Didactic Anthropology Theory, with reference to epistemological model (REM) model analysis. The research results show that there are differences in the approaches, methods, and habits used in task design in the two countries. The techniques, technology and theories found in the two task designs show that Indonesian mathematics textbooks use more verification and drawing up conclusions which are influenced by perceptual techniques. Meanwhile, the task of designing Singapore's mathematics textbooks involves more direct investigations into forming students' knowledge through physical and operational techniques. The techniques, technology, and theories used in both designs influence the number of learning obstacles. Epistemological constraints occur in Indonesian textbooks and only a few in Singapore textbooks. These findings provide insight into how to build mathematical knowledge for students through good assignment design based on a country's educational character.
Keywords: Comparison of Indonesia and Singapore, praxeology analysis, task design.
0
References
Abdullah, A. H., & Shin, B. (2019). A comparative study of quadrilaterals topic content in mathematics textbooks between Malaysia and South Korea. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.3.7572.315-340
Alajmi, A. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9342-1
Alawiyah, F. (2017). National standards of primary and secondary education. Aspirasi, 8(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.46807/aspirasi.v8i1.1256
As’ari, R. A., Tohir, M., Valentino, E., Imron, Z., & Taufiq, I. (2017). Matematika SMP/MTs kelas VIII [Mathematics for junior high school Class VIII] (2nd ed.). Balitbang, Kemendikbud.
Asami-Johansson, Y., Attorps, I., & Winsløw, C. (2020). Comparing mathematics education lessons for primary school teachers: Case studies from Japan, Finland and Sweden. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 688–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1614688
Battista, M. T. (2003). Understanding students’ thinking about area and volume measurement. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Ed.), Learning and teaching measurement: 2003 year book. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Bosch, M. (2015). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 51-69). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_4
Bosch, M., & Gascon, J. (2014). Introduction to the anthropological theory of didactic (ATD). In A. Bikner (Ed.), Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education (pp. 67–83). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9
Cesaria, A., & Herman, T. (2019). Learning obstacles in geometry. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 14(3), 1271–1280. https://bit.ly/4ksYx2K
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
Chen, C. (2024). Exploring the impact of acute physical activity on creative thinking: A comprehensive narrative review with a focus on activity type and intensity. Discover Psychology, 4(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00114-9
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné [The didactic transposition: From scholarly knowledge to taught knowledge] (2nd ed.). La Pensée Sauvage.
Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemiology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.131
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
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
Freiberger, O. (2018). Elements of a comparative methodology in the study of religion. Religions, 9(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9020038
Graf, D., Leung, F., & López-Real, F. (2005). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29723-5_1
Gravemeijer, K. (2014). Transforming mathematics education: The role of textbooks and teachers. In Y. Li & G. Lappan (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum in school education (pp. 259-275). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7560-2_13
Hamidy, A., Jailani, J., & Rahman, F. (2020). The effect of national examination and curriculum on students’ performance in solving TIMSS model mathematics problems. Prisma Sains, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v8i1.1991
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
IPSOS. (2023). Global education monitor: Public opinion on education. https://bit.ly/4iCNSRa
Jablonski, S., & Ludwig, M. (2023). Teaching and learning of geometry: A literature review on current developments in theory and practice. Education Sciences, 13(7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070682
Jones, K., & Fujita, T. (2013). Interpretations of national curricula: The case of geometry in textbooks from England and Japan. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0515-5
Kamaliyah, K. (2017). Mendesain dan melaksanakan pendekatan saintifik dalam pembelajaran matematika [Design and implementation of a scientific approach to mathematics learning]. EDU-MAT, 4(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.20527/edumat.v4i2.2548
Katalenić, A., Milin Šipuš, Ž., & Čižmešija, A. (2020). Asymptotes and asymptotic behaviour in graphing functions and curves: An analysis of the Croatian upper secondary education within the anthropological theory of the didactic. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1185–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10020-5
Lerman, S. (2020). Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0
Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an east asian identity in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017936429620
Manopo, & Rahajeng, R. (2020). Analisis perbandingan soal HOTS dari buku ajar matematika [Comparative analysis of HOTS questions from mathematics textbooks]. EDU-MAT: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8(2), 119–130. https://bit.ly/4itrRV4
Mavilidi, M. F., & Vazou, S. (2021). Classroom-based physical activity and math performance: Integrated physical activity or not? Acta Paediatrica, 110(7), 2149–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15860
Miyakawa, T. (2017). Comparative analysis on the nature of proof to be taught in geometry: The cases of French and Japanese lower secondary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9711-x
Mokhtarianpour, M. (2016). Islamic model of Iranian pattern development process model. The Pattern of Islamic Development of Iran, 4(8), 9–30.
Muhtadi, D., Junaedi, I., & Mulyono. (2021). Studi komparatif kurikulum matematika sekolah menengah Indonesia dan Turki [A comparative study of Indonesian and Turkish secondary school mathematics curricula]. Journal of Authentic Research on Mathematics Education, 3(2), 126–133.
Ng, P. T. (2020). The paradoxes of student well-being in Singapore. ECNU Review of Education, 3(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120935127
Nugrahanto, S., & Zuchdi, D. (2019). Indonesia PISA result and impact on the reading learning program in Indonesia. In B. Lestyarini, Wiyatmi, K. Syamsi, Nurhadi, & T. Herawan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Interdisciplinary Language, Literature and Education (ICILLE 2018) (pp.373-377). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icille-18.2019.77
Parker, F., Novak, J., & Bartell, T. (2017). To engage students, give them meaningful choices in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717734188
Rezat, S., Visnovska, J., Trouche, L., Qi, C., & Fan, L. (2018). Present research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources in ICME-13: Conclusion and perspective. In J. Fan, L., Trouche, L., Qi, C., Rezat, S., Visnovska (Ed.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources, ICME-13 monographs. (pp. 343–358). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_16
Sa’adah, M. (2020). Studi komparatif reformasi pendidikan di Singapura dan Indonesia. Jurnal Pembangunan Pendidikan: Fondasi Dan Aplikasi, 7(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.21831/jppfa.v7i1.25273
Sierpinska. (2016). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1109374
Smelser, N. (1973). The methodology of comparative analysis. In Donald (Ed.), Comparative research methods (pp. 45–52). Prentice-Hall.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2000). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 867–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270050167215
Sunzuma, G., Masocha, M., & Zezekwa, N. (2013). Secondary school students’ attitudes towards their learning of geometry: A survey of Bindura urban secondary schools. Greener Journal of Educational Research, 3, 402–410. https://doi.org/10.15580/GJER.2013.8.051513614
Suryadi, D. (2013). Didactical design research (DDR) dalam pengembangan pembelajaran matematika [Didactical design research (DDR) in mathematics learning development]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 1(1), 3–12.
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
Times Higher Education. (2023). World university ranking 2023 by subject: Education. Time Higher Education. https://shorturl.at/n1W9y
Tohir, M. (2019). Hasil PISA Indonesia Tahun 2018 turun dibanding tahun 2015 [Indonesia’s PISA results in 2018 are lower than 2015]. Open Science Framework, 2, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/pcjvx
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
van den Ham, A. K., & Heinze, A. (2018). Does the textbook matter? Longitudinal effects of textbook choice on primary school students’ achievement in mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.005
Varverde, G., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. (2002nd ed.). Springer.
Wang, Y., Barmby, P., & Bolden, D. (2017). Understanding linear function: A comparison of selected textbooks from England and Shanghai. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9674-x
Yang, D. C. (2014). The study of geometric content in the middle grade mathematics textbooks in Singapore, Taiwan, and USA. In K Jones, C. Bokhove, G. Howson, & L. Fan (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development (pp. 501–504). University of Southampton.
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
Yawan, H., Al-Furqon, Karman, Sarmadan, & Reskiawan, B. (2023). Exploring educational paths: Unveiling contrasts between Indonesia’s curriculum and Hongkong’s curriculum. International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching, 7(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v7i2.6443
Yeo, J., Seng, T. K., & Yee, L. C. (2019). New syllabus mathematics (NSM) 1 (7th ed). Shinglee.
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(4), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9036-9