Building Relational Understanding through Hypothetical Learning Trajectory of Probability

Authors

  • Fathur Rahmi Institut Agama Islam Negeri Bukittinggi
  • Pinta Deniyanti Sampoerno Universitas Negeri Jakarta
  • Lukita Ambarwati Universitas Negeri Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v5i1.34588

Keywords:

Probability, Hypothetical Learning Trajectory, RME

Abstract

Many researchers found that students had difficulty in understanding probability material. Students mostly focus on applying formulas to find solutions to problems without knowing what the concept is and why the formula works. This underlies the researcher to design probability learning as a hypothetical learning trajectory. The study aims to describe a series of learning activities designed to build relational understanding skills in probability material. This study uses a design research method consisting of three stages, namely preparation and design, teaching experiment, and retrospective analysis. Data collection techniques were carried out using a video recorder, documentation, and test questions. The data collected is in the form of qualitative data. The collected data is interpreted by peers, teachers, and supervisors to reduce the subjectivity of the researcher's point of view. All data that has been collected were analyzed retrospectively. The results of the research conducted showed that students experienced an increase and gave a good response in solving problems. Teachers are expected to use a learning design with a realistic mathematical approach because it helps students understand learning and apply their knowledge in everyday life.

References

Andrews, P., Ryve, A., Hemmi, K., & Sayers, J. (2014). PISA, TIMSS and Finnish mathematics teaching: An enigma in search of an explanation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9545-3.

Ang, L. H., & Shahrill, M. (2014). Identifying students’ specific misconceptions in learning probability. International Journal of Probability and Statistics, 3(2), 23–29. https://www.academia.edu/download/51830440/Identifying_Students_Specific_Misconcep20170216-29151-ly0s1w.pdf.

Bakker, A. (2004). Design Research in Statistics Education. On Symbolizing and Computer Tools. Wilco Press.

Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2012). Children’s Understanding of Probability a Literature Review (Full Report). Nuffield Foundation.

Decuypere, M., & Simons, M. (2016). Relational thinking in education: Topology, sociomaterial studies, and figures. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(3), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1166150.

Dickinson, P., & Houg, S. (2012). Using Realistic Mathematics Education in UK Classrooms. Manchester Metropolitan University.

Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuitions? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380436.

Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44–63. https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/19/1/article-p44.xml.

Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How Emergent Models May Foster the Constitution of Formal Mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0102_4.

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design Research From The Learning Design Perspective. Educational Design Research. Routladge.

Heyvaert, M., Deleye, M., Saenen, L., Van Dooren, W., & Onghena, P. (2018). How do high school students solve probability problems? A mixed methods study on probabilistic reasoning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2017.1279138.

Jaber, L. Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.569959.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028572900163.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–245.

Karakonstantis, J., & Patronis, T. (2010). Relational Understanding and Paths of Reasoning Through a Boolean Lattice Classification of Quadrilaterals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(3), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903477434.

Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 59–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_3.

Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in students’ reasoning about probability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(5), 392–414. https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/24/5/article-p392.xml.

Koparan, T. (2015). Difficulties in learning and teaching statistics: teacher views. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.941425.

Koparan, T., & Koparan, E. T. (2019). Empirical approaches to probability problems: An action research. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(10), 100–117. https://www.oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/2250.

Makonye, J. P. (2014). Teaching functions using a realistic mathematics education approach: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890228.

Nilsson, P. (2003). Experimentation as a tool for discovering mathematical concepts of probability. Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90(4), 339. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-03103-001.

Shaughnessy, J. M. (1977). Misconceptions of probability: An experiment with a small-group, activity-based, model building approach to introductory probability at the college level. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8(3), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00385927.

Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing Mathematics Pedagogy from a Construction Perspective. Jounal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 114–145.

Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_2.

Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77(1), 20–26. http://www.davidtall.com/skemp/pdfs/instrumental-relational.pdf.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/185/4157/1124.abstract.

Watkins, A. E., Scheaffer, R. L., & Cobb, G. W. (2004). Statistics in action: Understanding a World of Data. Key Curriculum Press.

Wijaya, A. (2012). Pendidikan Matematika Realistik. Suatu Alternatif Pendekatan Pembelajaran Matematika. Graha Ilmu.

Yuberta, K. R., Zulkardi, Z., Hartono, Y., & van Galen, F. (2011). Developing Students Notion of Measurement Unit For Area. IndoMS. JME, 2(2), 173–184. https://repository.unsri.ac.id/6323/.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-20

How to Cite

Rahmi, F., Sampoerno, P. D., & Ambarwati, L. (2021). Building Relational Understanding through Hypothetical Learning Trajectory of Probability. International Journal of Elementary Education, 5(1), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v5i1.34588

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2021): February

Section

Article

License

Authors who publish with the International Journal of Elementary Education agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (See The Effect of Open Access)