Ontogenic learning obstacles in the learning of functional graph topic form two

Qamarina Dayana Shahrul

Ontogenic learning obstacles in the learning of functional graph topic form two

AVAILABLE Article 70 Views

Back to search

Scan QR Code to share or view item link:

Digital Assets & Download Files

General Information

Title

Ontogenic learning obstacles in the learning of functional graph topic form two

Type

Article

Main Author

Qamarina Dayana Shahrul

Additional Authors

Nurihan Nasi
Didi Suryadi

Subject

QA Mathematics

ISSN

2289-7070 / e-ISSN 2462-2451

Language Code

eng

Bibliographic Details

Place of Production

Tanjong Malim

Publisher

UPSI Press

Year of publication

2025

Notes

EDUCATUM JSMT Vol. 12 SPECIAL ISSUE (2025)

Degree Type

Others

Corporate Name

Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun

Abstract

The textbooks used are now the primary reference for teachers and students in following the learning system that the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) has set up. This study explored students' ontogenic learning obstacles in learning Functional Graph Topic Form Two which is in the textbook. The researcher used a qualitative design by conducting semi-structured interviews with six students form two students who had undergone learning the Functional Graph Topic. The interviews were based on the student's experiences and answers to the written test sessions. Six respondents were selected from 22 students based on the criteria of the written test who studied the Functional Graph Topic with the same teacher. After the selection, interviews were conducted with the six respondents. Some aspects of ontogenic learning obstacles are psychological ontogenic learning obstacles, instrumental ontogenic learning obstacles, and conceptual ontogenic learning obstacles. In this research, the aspect of psychological ontogenic learning obstacles, there were 33.33% student face the obstacle in the preparation for learning the Functional Graph Topic, while for interest in the Functional Graph Topic was 83.33%, and 66.66% for motivation to learn the Functional Graph Topic. Students also face instrumental ontogenic learning obstacles which 50% students face obstacle in student's existing knowledge, while the elements seen in the conceptual ontogenic learning obstacles involve 66.66% of the student's learning experience. This data found that students experienced varying ontogenic learning obstacles, but some faced all elements of ontogenic learning obstacles, while others only experienced certain elements. In conclusion, every student faces at least one aspect of the ontogenic learning obstacles. Based on the conclusion of the data, this research can assist teachers in creating an alternative to reduce the chances of students experiencing ontogenic learning obstacles when learning the Functional Graph Topic Form Two like teachers can use different teaching methods by providing different learning materials for students with different skill levels, such as more challenging worksheets for more advanced students. Keywords: ontogenic learning obstacles, psychological ontogenic learning obstacles, instrumental ontogenic learning obstacles, conceptual ontogenic learning obstacles, Functional Graph topics

References

Brousseau G. Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Kluwer Academi Publisher 1997.

Mangiante-Orsola C, Perrin-Glorian M-J, Strømskag H. Theory of didactical situations as a tool to

understand and develop mathematics teaching practices. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences

Cognitives 2018:145–74. https://doi.org/10.4000/adsc.334.

Hansen EKS, Naalsund M. The role of teacher actions for students’ productive interaction solving

a linear function problem. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022;17.

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11921.

Bintara IA, Suhendra. Analysis toward learning obstacles of junior high school students on the

topic of direct and inverse proportion. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1882, IOP Publishing Ltd; 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012083.

Sidik GS, Suryadi Di, Turmudi. Learning Obstacle of Addition Operation Whole Number in

Elementary Schools. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1842, IOP Publishing Ltd; 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012070.

Wahyuningrum AS, Suryadi D, Turmudi T. Learning Obstacles among Indonesian Eighth Graders

on Ratio and Proportion. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1320, Institute of Physics Publishing; 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012046.

Kusumaningsih W, Supandi S, Ariyanto L. Ethnomathematics for congruence concept: A

didactical design in a mathematics classroom. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1663, IOP Publishing Ltd;

2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012036.

HastiYunianta TN, Suryadi D, Dasari D, Herman T. Textbook praxeological-didactical analysis:

Lessons learned from the Indonesian mathematics textbook. Journal on Mathematics Education

2023;14:503–24. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp503-524.

Jatisunda MG, Suryadi D, Prabawanto S. Development of competencies for teaching geometry

through an analysis learning obstacle. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1806, IOP Publishing Ltd; 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012114.

Ardi Z, Rangka IB, Ifdil I, Suranata K, Azhar Z, Daharnis D, et al. Exploring the elementary

students learning difficulties risks on mathematics based on students mathematic anxiety,

mathematics self-efficacy and value beliefs using rasch measurement. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1157,

Institute of Physics Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032095.

Farisal S, Sudihartinih E, Sumiaty E. Kajian Learning Obstacle pada Keliling Segiempat Ditinjau

dari Literasi Matematis oleh PISA 2021. Jurnal Cendekia : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika

2022;6:2895–907. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v6i3.1145.

Lutfi MK, Juandi D, Jupri A. Students’ ontogenic obstacle on the topic of triangle and

quadrilateral. J Phys Conf Ser, vol. 1806, IOP Publishing Ltd; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-

6596/1806/1/012108.

Hajar Y, Suryadi D, Usdiyana D. Learning Obstacles of Islamic Junior High School Students on

Angle Concepts. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability 2023;3:268–85.

https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i2.236.

Yeh CYC, Cheng HNH, Chen ZH, Liao CCY, Chan TW. Enhancing achievement and interest in

mathematics learning through Math-Island. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 2019;14.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0100-9.

Basri H, Purwanto, As’ari AR, Sisworo. Investigating critical thinking skill of junior high school

in solving mathematical problem. International Journal of Instruction 2019;12:745–58.

https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12345a.

Glen L, Zazkis R. On Linear Functions and Their Graphs: Refining the Cartesian Connection. Int J

Sci Math Educ 2021;19:1485–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10113-6.

Dilling F, Witzke I. The Use of 3D-Printing Technology in Calculus Education: Concept

Formation Processes of the Concept of Derivative with Printed Graphs of Functions. Digital

Experiences in Mathematics Education 2020;6:320–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-

00062-8.

Wang Y, Fan L. Investigating students’ perceptions concerning textbook use in mathematics: a

comparative study of secondary schools between Shanghai and England. Journal of Curriculum

Studies 2021;53:675–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1941265.

Azzahra N, Herman T, Dasari D. Analysis of Inverse Proportion in Mathematics Textbook Based

on Praxeological Theory. Jurnal Analisa 2022;8:152–67. https://doi.org/10.15575/ja.v8i2.22679.

Triana M, Zubainur CM, Bahrun B. Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability through the

Brain-Based Learning Approach using Autograph. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and

Advances in Mathematics Education) 2019;4:1–10.

https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v4i1.6972.

Cawley A, Ström A, Mesa V, Watkins L, Duranczyk I, Kimani P. Investigating Mathematical

Errors and Imprecisions in Content and Language in The Teaching of Algebra. In: Graven M.,

Venkat H., Essien A. A, Vale P., editors. Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International

Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education , 2019.

Martins R, Viseu F, Rocha H. Functional Thinking: A Study with 10th-Grade Students. Educ Sci

(Basel) 2023;13:335. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040335.

Alamri WA. Effectiveness of Qualitative Research Methods: Interviews and Diaries. International

Journal of English and Cultural Studies 2019;2:65. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijecs.v2i1.4302.

Bekele WB, Ago FY. Sample Size for Interview in Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A

Guide to Novice Researchers. Research in Educational Policy and Management 2022;4:42–50.

https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2022.3.

Williams H. The Meaning of “Phenomenology”: Qualitative and Philosophical Phenomenological

Research Methods. The Qualitative Report 2021. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4587.

Bakioğlu A, Keser S, Korumaz M, Didin Ala Ş. A phenomenological research on the role of

emotional orientation in academics professional lives. Journal of Pedagogical Research 2022.

https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2022175848.

Chevallard Y, Bosch M. Didactic Transposition in Mathematics Education. Encyclopedia of

Mathematics Education, Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020, p. 214–8.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.

https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Volungevičienė A, Teresevičienė M, Ehlers UD. When is open and online learning relevant for

curriculum change in higher education? Digital and network society perspective. Electronic

Journal of E-Learning 2020;18:88–101. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.1.007.