CONTENT ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS' ARGUMENTS BASED ON MATHEMATICAL LITERACY AND CREATION ABILITY
ANALISIS ISI ARGUMEN SISWA BERDASARKAN LITERASI MATEMATIKA DAN KEMAMPUAN KREASI
Abstract
This study aims to show the content of students' argumentation in building their creative reasoning and the relationship between argumentation content and students' mathematical literacy skills. The type of research applied is descriptive qualitative research involving 27 junior high school students in Toli-Toli City, Central Sulawesi. The research instrument used was a like-mathematical literacy test and an assessment rubric. The collected data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis which was used to analyze text data. The results of the research show that 1) The content of students' arguments in building their creative reasoning is supported by using simple statements, complex statements, completed by syntax or no syntax in building mathematical arguments, and 2) the ability of students to show their argumentation in the problem solving is the level of their capacity to interpret and to represent their knowledge and learning experience related with the problem. The breadth and depth of content of students' mathematical literacy give them the flexibility to argue. Students' mathematical literacy ability by simply giving simple statements has a different breadth and depth than those who are able to give complex statements. Likewise with the shrewdness of using syntax in constructing problem-solving plans.
Downloads
References
Anderson, D. D. (2008). The elementary persuasive letter: two cases of situated competence, strategy, and agency. Research In The Teaching Of English, 42(3), 270–314. Retreived from https://works.swarthmore.edu/faceducation/3.
Barnard-Brak, L., Lan, W. Y., & Yang, Z. (2018). Differences in mathematics achievement according to opportunity to learn: A 4pl item response theory examination. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.002.
Budd, R., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content analysis of communications. England: Macmillan.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816306400801.
Cogan, L. S., & Schmidt, W. H. (2014). The concept of opportunity to learn (OTL) in international comparisons of education. In Assessing Mathematical Literacy, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10121-7_10.
Cross, D. I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: Combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 905–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006.
Eerde, D., & Galen, F. H. J. (2019). Mathematical investigations for primary schools. Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University. Retreived from http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/en/impome/documents/2019_impome_investigations.pdf.
Garcia, F. J., Perez, J. G., Higueras, L. R., & Casabo, M. B. (2006). Mathematical modelling as a tool for the connection of school mathematics. ZDM: Zentralblatt Fur Didaktik Der Mathematik, 38(3), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652807.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/651193.
Graham, M., & Lesseig, K. (2018). Back-pocket strategies for argumentation. The Mathematics Teacher, 112(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.112.3.0172.
Hidayat, W, Wahyudin, & Prabawanto, S. (2018). Improving students’ creative mathematical reasoning ability students through adversity quotient and argument driven inquiry learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 948, 12005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012005.
Hidayat, Wahyu, Wahyudin, W., & Prabawanto, S. (2018). The mathematical argumentation ability and adversity quotient (AQ) of pre-service mathematics teacher. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.2.5385.239-248.
His, S., Linn, M. C., & Bell, J. E. (1997). Role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.21689830.1997.tb00278.x.
Idris, N., & Nor, N. M. (2010). Mathematical creativity: usage of technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1963–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.264.
Johnson, G. B. (2013). Student perceptions of the flipped classroom. The University Of British Columbia.
Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(4), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3.
Kuihara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097.
Laycock, M. (1970). Creative mathematics at nueva. The Arithmetic Teacher, 17(4), 325–328. Retreived from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41186201.
Lin, P. J. (2018). The development of students’ mathematical argumentation in a primary classroom t - o desenvolvimento da argumentação matemática por estudantes de uma turma do ensino fundamental. Educação & Realidade, 43(3), 1171–1192. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623676887.
Lindkvist, K. (1981). Approaches to textual analysis. Advances in Content Analysis, 9(1), 23–42.
Martin, J., & Martin, J. R. (1989). Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. England: Oxford University Press.
McTavish, D. G., & Pirro, E. B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity, 24(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259.
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: some definitions and characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.056.
Nasrullah, & Baharman. (2018). Exploring practical responses of m3lc for learning literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 954, 12007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/954/1/012007.
OECD. (2010). Learning mathematics for life: a view perspective from pisa. OECD ILibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264075009-en.
Scherff, L., & Piazza, C. (2005). The more things change, the more they stay the same: A survey of high school students’ writing experiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(3), 271–304. Retreived from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171667.
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian classrooms through RME. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 40(6), 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0125-9.
Stacey, K. (2011). The pisa view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.2.2.746.95-126.
Taskin, N., & Tugrul, B. (2014). Investigating Preschool Teacher Candidates’ Mathematics Literacy Self-sufficiency Beliefs on Various Variables. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3067–3071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.708.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research—analysis types and software protocols. Amazon: The Falmer Press.
Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002998529016.
Walter, J. G., & Barros, T. (2011). Students build mathematical theory: Semantic warrants in argumentation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9326-1.
Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983488.
Yackel, E. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Copyright (c) 2022 Nasrullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
