Question analysis of mathematics textbook for 2013 curriculum and IB curriculum on quadratic equations
Abstract
The goal of this study is to compare the types of questions between the 2013 Curriculum Mathematics textbooks and the IB Curriculum on quadratic equations. The approach used in this research is a six-dimensional analysis method consisting of: mathematical activity, the difficulty level of the questions, the types of answers expected, the contextual situation, the types of responses, and the stages of the mathematical questions. The data collection technique is conducted by evaluating and explaining the types of questions. The types of questions were obtained from the 2013 Curriculum Mathematics textbook and the IB Curriculum based on a six-dimensional analysis, namely: mathematical activity, question complexity, type of answer, contextual situation, type of response, and mathematical questions. Based on the type, the results of this study show that the questions in the 2013 curriculum mathematics textbooks are more varied than the questions in the IB curriculum mathematics textbooks on the subject of quadratic equations. However, based on the number, there are more questions in the IB curriculum mathematics textbook than the questions in the 2013 curriculum mathematics textbook.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Barcelos Amaral, R., & Hollebrands, K. (2017). An analysis of context-based similarity tasks in textbooks from Brazil and the United States. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1166–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1315188
Boyer, C. B., & Merzbach, U. C. (2011). A history of mathematics (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284.
Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633–646.
Gracin, D. G. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003–1024.
Kurniawan, H., Putri, R. I. I., & Hartono, Y. (2018). Developing open-ended questions for surface area and volume of beam. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.1.4640.157-168
Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.2307/749754
Özgeldi, M., & Esen, Y. (2010). Analysis of mathematical tasks in Turkish elementary school mathematics textbooks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2277–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.322
Patricia, F. A. (2019). Analisis kesalahan mahasiswa dalam menyelesaikan persamaan kuadrat pada mata kuliah aljabar elementer. PRISMATIKA: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Riset Matematika, 1(2), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.33503/prismatika.v1i2.430
Yeap, B. H. (2005). Building foundations and developing creativity: An analysis of Singapore mathematics textbooks. Third East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education in Shanghai, China.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/djm.v4i1.7501
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Desimal: Jurnal Matematika
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Desimal: Jurnal Matematika is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
