SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2020 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Mathematical Argumentation Ability: Error Analysis in Solving Mathematical Arguments

Nonik INDRAWATİNİNGSİH
Abdur AS'ARİ
Purwanto -
Cholis SA'DİJAH
Pages
711–721
Publication Date
2020-06-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that only 31% of students pass the test while 69% of students fail.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to analyze errors made by students in solving mathematical arguments based on Bloom’s Taxonomy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As many as 72 students of a senior secondary school were involved as the participants.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that only 31% of students pass the test while 69% of students fail.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Errors · Mathematical Argumentation Ability · Mathematical argument

Abstract

This study aims to analyze errors made by students in solving mathematical arguments based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. It is a quantitative descriptive study. As many as 72 students of a senior secondary school were involved as the participants. The Mathematical Argumentation Ability Test (TKAM) was developed based on the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (C1 to C6), and later distributed to the participants. The scores obtained from the test were analyzed. The results show that only 31% of students pass the test while 69% of students fail. Many students do not pass the test due to procedural errors and conceptual errors in solving the problems. Furthermore, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, students who able to solve the problems only achieve the C3 level of cognitive domain, namely the ability to draw conclusion arguments

🔖

Cite This Article

INDRAWATİNİNGSİH, N., AS'ARİ, A., -, P., SA'DİJAH, C. (2020). Mathematical Argumentation Ability: Error Analysis in Solving Mathematical Arguments. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 711–721. https://ajindex.com/articles/262470

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). Taxonomy for Learning Teaching and Asswssing. New York: David McKay Company. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of Effective Teaching of Mathematics: A View from the West, 2(2), 147–164.
  2. Ayalon, M., & Hershkowitz, R. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ attention to potential classroom situations of argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49(May), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.010
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., Phelps, G., & Ball, D. L. (2008). What Makes It Special ? https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  4. Chamundeswari. (2014). Conceptual Errors Encountered in Mathematical Operations in Algebra among Students at the Secondary Level. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 1(8), 24–38
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge. Conner, A. M., Singletary, L. M., Smith, R. C., Wagner, P. A., & Francisco, R. T. (2014). Teacher support for collective argumentation: A framework for examining how teachers support students’ engagement in mathematical activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 86(3), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9532-8
  6. Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills - Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Creswell, J. (2012). Educational Research. New: Pearson. Deane, P. D. (2014). A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills. Psicología Educativa, 20(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.10.001
  7. Elbrink, M. (2007). Analyzing and Addressing Common Mathematical Errors in Secondary Education. Undergraduate Mathematics Exchange, 5(1), 2–4.
  8. Foster, D. (2007). Chapter 12 Making Meaning in Algebra Examining Students ’ Understandings and Misconceptions, 53, 163–176.
  9. Graydon, P. J., & Holloway, C. M. (2017). An investigation of proposed techniques for quantifying confidence in assurance arguments. Safety Science, 92, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.014
  10. Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining Teachers’ Instructional Moves Aimed at Developing Students’ Ideas and Questions in Learner-Centered Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 769–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9237-0
  11. Herholdt, R., & Sapire, I. (2014). An error analysis in the early grades mathematics – A