Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 39 Download : 13

Main Article Content

Abstract

In learning geometry, the discussion about the definition of quadrilateral is a material that is difficult and not easily taught by the teacher. This study aims to explore the teacher's specialized content knowledge about square. This is a descriptive-qualitative research. The process of selecting subjects begins with searching prospective subject data according to the level of the teacher through a portfolio of 82 teachers in South East of Sulawesi: (33 First Teachers, 33 Young Teachers, and 16 Intermediate Teachers). The research subjects consisted of three teachers, namely: First Teacher, Young Teacher dan Intermediate Teacher with score > 50. Data were taken using vignette. The results show that there is a difference when the teacher is asked to define a square with when given a definition of a square. First Teacher is accurate when given a square definition with the symmetry and diagonal axis attributes; the side attribute is not accurate in giving arguments to the square definition. Young Teacher is inaccurate when given the definition of a square with side and angle attributes; accurate with symmetry and diagonal axis attributes; but it is not accurate when given a square definition. Regarding attributes of side; Intermediate Teacher revealed that the side and angle attributes are inaccurate but accurate with the symmetry and diagonal axis attributes but do not appear / are not used when asked to define a square. Specialized content knowledge First Teacher is better because it has been able to reconstruct concepts from a square, but Young Teacher and Intermediate Teacher are still influenced by concept images and figural concepts.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.15.2.11653.1-22

Keywords

Specialized Content Knowledge Teacher Rectangle Vignette

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Mega Teguh Budiarto, Yusuf Fuad, Latief Sahidin

Creative Commons License

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

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA).

How to Cite
Budiarto, M. T., Fuad, Y., & Sahidin, L. (2024). Teacher’s Specialized Content Knowledge on the Concept of Square: A Vignette Approach. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 15(1), 1–22. Retrieved from https://jpm.ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/jpm/article/view/200
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akib, I. (2016). Implementation of Robert Gagne's Learning Theory in Learning Mathematical Concepts (An Alternative to Teaching and Learning Mathematics Concepts) [in Bahasa]. Makassar: PT. Berkah Utami. ISBN: 978-602-8187-54-1.
  2. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). Framework for Learning, Teaching and Assessment [in Bahasa]. Alih Bahasa: Agung Prihantoro. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.
  4. Buchbinder, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2019). Strengths and inconsistencies in students’ understanding of the roles of examples in proving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.06.010.
  5. Carrillo-Yañez, J., Climent, N., Montes, M., Contreras, L. C., Flores-Medrano, E., Escudero-Ávila, D., ... & Ribeiro, M. (2018). The mathematics teacher’s specialised knowledge (MTSK) model. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1479981.
  6. Demirok, M. S., & Baglama, B. (2018). Examining technological and pedagogical content knowledge of special education teachers based on various variables. TEM Journal, 7(3), 507-512. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM73-06
  7. Delaney, S., Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Zopf, D. (2008). “Mathematical knowledge for teaching”: Adapting US measures for use in Ireland. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 171-197.
  8. De Villiers, M.D.. (1998). To teach definitions in geometry or to teach to define? In A. Olivier, & K. Newstead (Eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 248–255).
  9. De Villiers, M.D.. (2009). To Teach Definitions in Geometry or Teach to Define?. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/255605686
  10. De Villiers, M.D. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of the quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 11-18.
  11. Fernández-León, A., Gavilán-Izquierdo, J. M., González-Regaña, A. J., Martín-Molina, V., & Toscano, R. (2019). Identifying routines in the discourse of undergraduate students when defining. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1-19.
  12. Fuadiah, N. F., & Suryadi, D. (2017). Some Difficulties in Understanding Negative Numbers Faced by Students: A Qualitative Study Applied at Secondary Schools in Indonesia. International Education Studies, 10(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p24.
  13. Garner, B. K. (2011). Getting to. Got It!”–Helping Struggling Students Learn How to Learn, 1. ISBN-13: 978-1416606086.
  14. Govender & De Villiers. (2002). Constructive Evaluation of Definitions in a Sketchpad Context. AMESA Durban South Africa.
  15. Haj-Yahya, A., & Hershkowitz, R. (2013). When visual and verbal representations meet the case of geometrical figures. Proceedings of PME (vol. 37, pp. 409-416).
  16. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371– 406. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312042002371.
  17. Heinze, A., & Ossietzky, C. (2002). “…Because a square is not a rectangle” students‟ knowledge of simple geometrical concepts when starting to learn proof. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of The 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 81-88).
  18. Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. (2012). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching High School Geometry. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Springer: Research Trends in Mathematics Teacher Education (pp.23-46). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02562-9_2.
  19. Isiksal, M. & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). The nature of prospective mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: The case of multiplication of fractions. Journal Math Teacher Education. 14(3), 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9160-x.
  20. Knapp, A., Bomer, M., & Moore, C. (2008). Lesson study as a learning environment for mathematics coaches. Proceedings of the 32nd International conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 257-263).
  21. Kose, N. Y., Yilmaz, T. Y., Yesil, D., & Yildirim, D. (2018). Middle school students’ interpretation of definitions of the parallelogram family: Which definition for which parallelogram?. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 157-175.
  22. Levenson, E. Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool Geometry. Theory, Research, and Practical Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  23. Paksu, Asuman Duatepe., Pakmak, Gul Sinem., & Iymen, Esra. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ identification of necessary and sufficient conditions for a rhombus. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 46(2012), 3249-3253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.045.
  24. Purnomo, D. (2019). Characteristics of students' metacognition process in solving calculus problems [in Bahasa]. Paradigma: Jurnal Filsafat, Sains, Teknologi, dan Sosial Budaya, 25(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.33503/paradigma.v25i1.477.
  25. Prahmana, R.C.I., Hendrik, Sopaheluwakan, A, van Groesen, B. (2008). Numerical Implementation of Linear AB-Equation Model using Finite Element Method, Technical Report. Bandung: LabMath-Indonesia
  26. Prahmana, R.C.I. (2012). Designing of Number Operation Learning Using the Traditional Game of "Tepuk Bergambar" for Three-Grade Students of Elementary School [in Bahasa]. Unpublished Thesis. Palembang: Sriwijaya University.
  27. Rosken & Rolka. (2007) The Role of Concept Image and Concept Definition for Student’s Learning Integral Calculus. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast 3.
  28. Sahidin, L., Budiarto, M. T., & Fuad, Y. (2019). Developing vignettes to assess mathematical knowledge for teaching based conceptual. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 551-564.
  29. Soedjadi, R. (2000). Tips for Mathematics Education in Indonesia (constrain the present situation towards the hope in the future) [in Bahasa]. Jakarta: Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of National Education.
  30. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD.
  31. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational studies in mathematics, 12(2), 151-169.
  32. Tiro, M. A. (2010). Effective Ways To Learn Mathematics [in Bahasa]. Makassar: Andira Karya Mandiri.
  33. Türnüklü, E., & Yesildere, S. (2007). The Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Mathematics: Pre-Service Primary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives in Turky. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers (IUMPS): The Journal, 1, 1-13.
  34. Van Dormolen, J., & Zaslavsky, O. (2003). The many facets of a definition: The case of periodicity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00006-3.
  35. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65–81). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  36. Vinner, S (2020). "Concept development in mathematics education." Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 123-127.
  37. Winicky-Landman, G., & Leikin, R. (2000). On equivalent and nonequivalent definitions I. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20(1), 17–21.
  38. Yeo, K. K. J., (2008). Teaching Area and Perimeter: Mathematics-Pedagogical-Content Knowledge-in-Action. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Procceding of the 31th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Merga (pp.621-627).
  39. Zaslavsky, O., & Shir, K. (2005). Students’ conceptions of a mathematical definition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 317–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035043.
  40. Zandieh & Rasmussen, (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress form informal to more formal ways of reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(2), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.01.001.
  41. Zandieh & Rasmussen. (2004). A dynamic approach to quadrilateral definitions. Pythagoras, 58, 34-45.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.