Home⇛Universitas⇛vol. 10 no. 2 (2022)

SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Junlor C. Dacsa I

 

Abstract:

Error analysis in mathematics education has a long history. For the past years, many researchers used error analysis to better understand students’ incorrect solutions and/or answers when given mathematical word problems. This study is aimed at exploring the SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis as means of understanding the difficulties of students from STEM track programs when solving word problems in Conic Sections in the senior high school setting. A descriptive-qualitative design was used to investigate the different errors committed by the students using the Newman Error Analysis and then describe how learners’ understanding builds while solving word problems in Conic Sections using SOLO Taxonomy. The participants of the study were STEM students from Higher School ng UMak of the University of Makati. Validated open-ended questions were used to identify the level of understanding and errors committed by the students when solving the problems in Conic Sections. The study revealed that most students commit errors under the transformation level when their level of understanding is between multi-structural and relational. Implications and future research were discussed.



References:

  1. Abdullah, A., Abidin, N., & Ali, M. (2015). Analysis of Students’ Errors in Solving Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Problems for the Topic of Fraction. Asian Social Science, 11 (21), 133 - 142.
  2. Adegun, I. & Adegun, B. (2013). Students’ and Teachers’ View of Difficult Areas in Mathematics Syllabus: Basic Requirements for Science and Engineering Education. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (2), 235 - 243.
  3. Amar, A., Mulbar, U., & Rahman, A. (2017). Analysis of the ability in mathematical problem solving based on SOLO taxonomy and cognitive style. World of transaction s on Engineering and Technology Education, 15 (1), 68 – 73.
  4. Atteh, E., Appoh Andam, E., & Obeng-Denteh, W. (2017). Problem Solving Framework for Mathematics Discipline. Asian Research Journal of Mathematics, 4(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/233118 6X.2022.2061683
  5. Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2016, April 1). Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing Students’ Errors. The IRIS Center: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/vol70/num01/Making-Time-for-Feedback.aspx
  6. Brown, J., Skow, K., Center, & Center, t. I. (2012, September). Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing Student Errors. The IRIS Center: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/vol70/num01/Making-Time-for-Feedback.aspx
  7. Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the formal modes: research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Math. Educ. Res. J., 10(2), 4-26.
  8. Clarkson, P. (1991). Language Comprehension Error: A Further Investigation. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 3 (2), 1 - 21.
  9. Clarkson, P. (1980). The Newman Error Analysis - Some Extentions. Research in Mathematics Education, I, 11 - 22.
  10. Clements, M., & Ellerton, N. (1992). Overemphasizing Process Skills in School Mathematics: Newman Analysis Data from Five Countries. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 145 - 152.
  11. Collis, K., & Biggs, J. (1986). Using the SOLO Taxonomy. SET: Research Information for Teachers 1(1). Australian Council for Educational Research
  12. Ellerton, N., & Clements, M. (1996). The Newman Procedure for Analyzing Errors on Written Mathematical Tasks. 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (pp. 1-10). Melbourne, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia.
  13. Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What Mathematics Education May Prepare Students for the Society of the Future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(S1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6
  14. Haghverdi, M. (2012). The Relationship Between Different Kinds of Sudents’ Errors and the Knowledge Required to Solve Mathematics Word Problems. Bolema, Rio Claro (SP) , 26 (42B), 649 - 665.
  15. Holton, D. (2009). Teacher Development and Mathematical Challenge: Challenging Mathematics In and Beyond the Classroom. New ICMI Study Series, 12, 205 – 242
  16. Mardiyana, M., Putri, U.H., & Saputro, D.R.S., (2017). How to analyze the students’ thinking levels basedon SOLO taxonomy? Journal of Physics Marinas, B., & Clements, M. (1990). Understanding the Problem: A Prerequisite to Problem Solving in Mathematics. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 13 (1), 14 - 20.
  17. Mohidin, R. (1991). An Investigation into the Difficulties Faced by the Students of Form 4 SMJA Secondary School in Transforming Short Mathematical Problems into Algebraic Form. SEAMEO - RECSAM.
  18. Mukuka, A., Balimuttajjo, S., & Mutarutinya, V. (2020). Applying SOLO taxonomy in assessing and fostering students’ mathematical problem solving abilities, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (SAARMSTE), 104-112.
  19. Mulwa, E. (2015). Difficulties Encountered by students in the learning and the usage of mathematical terminology: a critical literature review. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), p. 27-37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080447.pdf
  20. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics (Illustrated ed.). National Research Council.
  21. Newman, A. (1977). An Analysis of Sixth-Grade Pupils’ Errors on Written Mathematical Tasks. Victorian Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31 - 34.
  22. Newman, A. (1983). Strategies for Diagnosis and Remediation. Sydney: Hardcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
  23. OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
  24. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc
  25. Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It - Second Edition. (Vol. 1957). Princeton University Press
  26. Potter, M., & Kustra E. (2012). Course Design for Constructive Alignment. Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Winsdor.
  27. Prakitipong, N., & Nakamura, S. (2006). Analysis of Mathematics Performance of Grade Five Students in Thailand Using Newman Procedure. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 9 (1), 111 - 122.
  28. Sajadi,M. (2013).The ExaminingMathematical WordProblems SolvingAbility under EfficientRepresentation Aspect. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 1 - 11.
  29. San Gabriel, V. (2011). Exploring the Errors Committed by Third Year High School Students in Solving Word Problems in Geometry Using Newman’s Error Analysis. Philippine Normal University Graduate Thesis.
  30. Saputra, D.C., Nurjanah, A., & Retnawati, H. (2019). Student’s ability of mathematical problem solving based on SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Physics, 1 – 7. https://10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012070 Siducon, A. (2013). Error Pattern Analysis of Solving Problems in Probability as Basis for Remedial Intervention. Manila, Philippines: Philippine Normal University Graduate Thesis.
  31. Tambychik, T., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). Students’ Difficulties in Mathematics Problem-Solving: What do they Say? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.020
  32. Trance, N. (2013). Process Inquiry: Analysis of Oral Problem Solving Skills in Mathematics of EngineeringStudents. US - China Education Review A, 3, 73 - 81.
  33. Upu, H., & Bangatau, N.S., (2018). The profile of problem-solving in Algebra based on SOLO taxonomy in terms of cognitive style, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR). 1st international Conference on Advanced Multidisciplinary Research (ICAMR 2018), 227, 372 – 376
  34. VanLehn, K. & Brown, J.S. (1980). Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills. Cognitive Science, 4 (4), 379 - 426.
  35. VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind Bugs: The Origins of Procedural Misconceptions. MIT Press Cambridge.
  36. Villegas, B. (2021, June 29). Addressing the Philippine education crisis. BusinessWorld Online. https:
  37. Yusha’u, M. (2013). Difficult Topics in Junior Secondary School Mathematics: Practical Aspect of Teaching and Learning Trigonometry. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 2 (4), 161 - 174.
  38. Zakaria, E., & Maat, S. (2010). Analysis of Students’ Error in Learning of Quadratic Equations. International Education Studies, 3 (3), 105 - 110. | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI www.bworldonline.com/opinion/2021/06/29/379015/addressing-the-philippine-education-crisis-2/

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic