Teachers' Multiple Representations on Teaching Fractions at Elementary School: A Commognitive Framework

Ria Norfika Yuliandari; Cholis Sa'dijah; Susiswo Susiswo; Purnomo Purnomo

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v16i2.5048

Teachers' Multiple Representations on Teaching Fractions at Elementary School: A Commognitive Framework

Ria Norfika Yuliandari, Cholis Sa'dijah, Susiswo Susiswo, Purnomo Purnomo

Abstract

This research explores how teachers utilize verbal, symbolic, pictorial, and real-life representations using a commognitive framework to support student learning. This research uses a qualitative approach with an exploratory descriptive design. The selection of research subjects was carried out through purposive sampling which was modified to achieve the research objectives. The research focuses on elementary school teachers who have education diplomas and more than 15 years of teaching experience. In this research, our data is in the form of learning video recording data. The collected data was analyzed using the cognition framework and the Lesh Model of multiple representations. The results of this research show two representations that teachers always apply to each commognitive component, namely symbolic representation and real-life representation. Symbolic representations are often used by teachers to solve mathematical problems, especially word problems. Likewise, real life representations are often used because they apply events or occurrences in everyday life. The use of diverse representations has the potential to increase students' understanding and ability to apply fraction concepts in real life.

Keywords

commognitive framework, multiple representation, fractions, elementary students

Full Text:

PDF

References

Afriyani, D., Sa’Dijah, C., Subanji, S., & Muksar, M. (2019). Students’ construction error in translation among mathematical representations. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032098

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: A view from the West. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147–164.

Anwar, R. B., & Rahmawati, D. (2017). Symbolic and Verbal Representation Process of Student in Solving Mathematics Problem Based Polya’s Stages. International Education Studies, 10(10), 20. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n10p20

Braseth, E. A. (2022). Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching Practices Alignment with Ambitious Teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 24(1), 23–38.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2016). e‐Learning and the Science of Instruction. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119239086

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

Gagatsis *, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to Translate from One Representation of the Concept of Function to Another and Mathematical Problem Solving. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000262953

Greeno, J. G., Hall, R. P., The, S., Delta, P., & Jan, N. (1997). Practicing Learning Representation with and About Representational Forms Every student ’ s educational activities should include the rich variety of experience and learning through participation in representation ,. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.

Hidayah, I. N., Irawati, S., Agung, M., Sa’dijah, C., & Sudirman, S. (2023). Creative Conjecture: Abductive Reasoning to Generate Some Ideas in Algebra. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 15(1), 108–126.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making Sense: Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Understanding. Reed Elsevier Inc.

Hiebert, J., & Tonnessen, L. H. (1978). Development of the Fraction Concept in Two Physical Contexts: An Exploratory Investigation. In Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Vol. 9, Issue 5). http://www.jstor.orgURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/748774

Inayati, U. (2022). Konsep dan Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka pada Pembelajaran Abad-21 di SD/MI. 2st ICIE: International Conference on Islamic Education, 2, 293–304.

Johnson, E. L. (2018). A New Look at the Representations for Mathematical Concepts: Expanding on Lesh’s Model of Representations of Mathematical Concepts. Forum on Public Policy Online, 1(1), 1–11.

Kim, D., Choi, S., & Lim, W. (2017). Sfard’s Commognitive Frameword as a Method of Discourse Analysis in Mathematics. 11(11), 448–452.

NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

Nithyanantham, V., Paulmony, R., & Ramadan Hasan, S. (2019). Self-Perspective of 21st Century Educators: A Challenge in The Globalised Educational World. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 4(3), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.573869

Nurrahmawati, N., Sa’dijah, C., Sudirman, S., & Muksa, M. (2019). Multiple representations’ ability in solving word problem. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(1C2), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.20-9-2019.2292114

Nurrahmawati, Sa’dijah, C., Sudirman, & Muksar, M. (2021). Assessing students’ errors in mathematical translation: From symbolic to verbal and graphic representations. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20819

Nurrahmawati, Sa’dijah, C., Sudirman, Muksar, M., As’ari, A. R., & Nusantara, T. (2018). Pre-service mathemathics teachers’ preferences in Using multiple representation of word problem solving. International Journal of Insight for Mathematics Teaching, 01(2), 141–150.

Perkins, D. (1998). Teaching for understanding. In The Teaching for Understanding Guide (Vol. 17). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed079p775

Prayitno, L. L., Purwanto, P., Subanji, S., Susiswo, S., & As’ari, A. R. (2020). Exploring student’s representation process in solving ill-structured problems geometry. Participatory Educational Research, 7(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.17275/PER.20.28.7.2

Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation and mathematical giftedness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305075

Purnomo, P. (2021). Analisis Persepsi Kemampuan Transferable Skills Guru Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Program Keahlian Ganda Ditinjau Dari Usia dan Jenis Bidang Keahlian. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, 6(12), 1907. https://doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v6i12.15168

Rahayuningsih, S., Sirajuddin, S., & Ikram, M. (2021). Using open-ended problem-solving tests to identify students’ mathematical creative thinking ability. Participatory Educational Research, 8(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.66.8.3

Rahmawati, D., Purwanto, Subanji, Hidayanto, E., & Anwar, R. B. (2017). Dwi R dkk. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 367–381.

Raj Acharya, B. (2017). Factors Affecting Difficulties in Learning Mathematics by Mathematics Learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170602.11

Ramadani, F., & Desyandri. (2022). Konsep Kurikulum Merdeka Belajar terhadap Pandangan Filsafat Progresivisme. Pendas : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 7(2), 1239–1251.

Rau, M. A., & Matthews, P. G. (2017). How to make ‘more’ better? Principles for effective use of multiple representations to enhance students’ learning about fractions. ZDM, 49(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0846-8

Rosita, E. (2019). The effectiveness of multiple representation-based learning to improve students’ mathematical problem-solving ability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

Sa’adah, N., Faizah, S., Sa’dijah, C., Khabibah, S., & Kurniati, D. (2023). Students’ Mathematical Thinking Process in Algebraic Verification Based on Crystalline Concept. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 15(1), 90–107.

Sa’dijah, C., Murtafiah, W., Anwar, L., & Sa’diyah, M. (2023). Exploring the content knowledge of prospective mathematics teacher students in designing HOTS questions. 040017. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0113669

Santulli, T. (2009). Representations from the Real World. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(8), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.14.8.0466

Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530000400102

Setyaningrum, W. (2017). Analisis kesalahan siswa SD dalam menyelesaikan soal pecahan ditinjau dari faktor kognitif. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 36(6).

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as Communicating. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944

Shuard, H., & Rothery, A. (1984). Childern Reading Mathematics. J. Murray.

Sunarni, S., & Karyono, H. (2023). Persepsi Guru Terhadap Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka Belajar di Sekolah Dasar. Journal on Education, 5(2), 1613–1620. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i2.796

Tomkelski, M. L., Baptista, M., & Richit, A. (2023). Physics teachers’ learning on the use of multiple representations in lesson study about Ohm’s law. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12906

Tripathi, P. N. (2008). Developing Mathematical Understanding through Multiple Representations. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(8), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.13.8.0438

You, Z., & Quinn, R. J. (2010). Prospective Elementary and Middle School Teachers’ Knowledge of Linear Functions: A Quantitative Approach. Journal of Mathematics Education © Education for All, 3(1), 66–76.

Zayyadi, M., Nusantara, T., Hidayanto, E., Sulandra, I. M., & Sa’dijah, C. (2020). Content and Pedagogical Knowledge of Prospective Teachers in Mathematics Learning: Commognitive. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young, 8(1), 515–532.

Zayyadi, M., Nusantara, T., & Lanya, H. (2022). The commognitive perspective of teaching skills of prospective mathematics teachers in microteaching subjects. Jurnal Elemen, 8(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v8i1.4129

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v16i2.5048