International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020


IJSTR >> Volume 10 - Issue 2, February 2021 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

Patterns Of Thinking Errors In Construction Mathematical Proof With Cognitive Map

[Full Text]



Anton Prayitno, Febi Dwi Widayanti



thinking error, mathematical proof, cognitive map, pattern of thinking error, rasional number, mixed methods.



This study aims to capture students' thinking error in the construction of mathematical proof, therefore this research is classified as a mixed methods. Student errors in mathematical proof are a reflection of her thinking. If these errors are not resolved, it will have an impact on students' thinking when working on further mathematical proof. This research was conducted on mathematics education students by asking students to complete proof of rational numbers. The results showed that the proof of thinking error occurs when students provide proof by providing a number or an example of a certain number. Actually students are able to do the proof that is given at the beginning of completing, but the resulting proof of the answer changes by entering numbers into the proof. The mistakes made by students are not only limited to corrections, but must be followed up by strengthening concept understanding and mastery of techniques and mathematical proof strategies.



[1] A. Samkof, Y. Lai, and K. Weber, “On The Different Ways That Mathematicians Use Diagrams In Proof Construction,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49–67, 2012.
[2] D. Köğce, M. Aydın, and C. Yıldız, “The views of high school students about proof and their levels of proof (The case of Trabzon),” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2544–2549, Jan. 2010.
[3] G. Hanna, “ICMI Study 19: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education (Discussion Document),” in Proceedingof The ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, Volume 1, 2009.
[4] Y.-H. Cheng and F.-L. Lin, “Developing Learning Strategies for Enhancing Below Average Students’Ability in Constructing Multi-Step Geometry Proof,” in Proceeding of The ICMI Study 19 Conference: Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education, Volume 1, 2009.
[5] D. Tall, “The transition to formal thinking in mathematics,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 5–24, Sep. 2008.
[6] D. Tall, The Historical & Individual Development of Mathematical Thinking: Ideas that are Set-Before and Met-Before. 2018.
[7] A. Prayitno, “Characteristics of Students’ Critical Thinking In Solving Mathematics Problem,” Online J. New Horizons Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 46–55, 2018.
[8] L. Alcock, “Interactions Between Teaching and Research: Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Real Analysis,” in Learning Through Teaching Mathematics, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2010, pp. 227–245.
[9] A. Prayitno, E. F. Nurjanah, and F. Khasanah, “Characterization of Scaffolding Based on The Students’ Thinking Error In Solving Mathematic Problem,” J. Kependidikan, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 50–66, 2017.
[10] Subanji and T. Nusantara, “Karakterisasi Kesalahan Berpikir Siswa Dalam Mengonstruksi Konsep Matematika,” J. Ilmu Pendidik., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 208–217, 2013.
[11] K. Weber, “Theorems in School: From History, Epistemology, and Cognition to Classroom Practice,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 289–294, Oct. 2009.
[12] A. Prayitno and F. D. Widayanti, “Identification of Student Thinking Error Patterns in Construction of Mathematical Proof,” Üniversitepark Bülten, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7–14, 2020.
[13] A. Gutiérrez, A. Jaime, and J. M. Fortuny, “An An Alternative the Paradigm To Evaluate the Acquisition of the Van Hiele Levels,” J. Res. Math. Educ., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 237–251, 1991.
[14] F. Ackermann, C. Eden, S. Cropper, and S. Cropper, “Getting Started with Cognitive Mapping,” in The 7th Young OR Conference, 2004, pp. 1–14.
[15] A. Pena, H. Sossa, and A. Gutierrez, “Cognitive Maps: an Overview and their Application for Student Modeling,” Comput. y Sist., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 230–250, 2007.
[16] L. F. Jacobs and F. Schenk, “Unpacking the Cognitive Map: The Parallel Map Theory of Hippocampal Function,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 285–315, 2003.
[17] S. C. Perdikaris, “Using the Cognitive Styles to Explain an Anomaly in the Hierarchy of the van Hiele Levels,” J. Math. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 35–43, 2011.
[18] A. Prayitno and N. W. Suarniati, “Construction Students ’ Thinking in Solving Mathematics Problem Using Cognitive Map,” Glob. J. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 2735–2747, 2017.
[19] V. Steinle, E. Gvozdenko, B. Price, and K. Stacey, “Investigating Students’ Numerical Misconceptions in Algebra Students’ understanding of mathematical concepts View project Intelligent Tutoring Systems View project,” in Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2009.
[20] A. Prayitno and F. D. Widayanti, “Identification of Student Thinking Error Patterns in Construction of Mathematical Proof,” Üniversitepark Bülten, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7–14, 2020.
[21] T. Breiteig and B. Grevholm, “THE TRANSITION FROM ARITHMETIC TO ALGEBRA: TO REASON, EXPLAIN, ARGUE, GENERALIZE AND JUSTIFY,” in Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educatio, 2006, vol. 2, pp. 2–225.