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 8 - Issue 7, July 2019 Edition

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

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

Direct Proportion Or Inverse Proportion? The Occurrence Of Student Thinking Interference

[Full Text]



Muhammad Irfan, Toto Nusantara, Subanji, Sisworo



inverse proportion, proactive interference, APOS theory



Proportional problem is a complex issue. What attracts the attention of researchers is the matter of direct proportion and inverse proportion. The two problems are different, but there are similarities that make the student has trouble while solving the problem. The purpose of this study is to describe the interference of students in solving the problem of inverse proportion based on APOS theory. The type of this research is qualitative-explorative research, that is, the researcher explores how the student's interference in solving the problem of inverse proportion. Selection of research subjects using purposive technique, namely by considering the answers of students written test. The data collection procedure uses problem-solving and in-depth interviews. The results of this study indicate that students experiencing proactive interference caused by failure to coordinate the knowledge they have with the problems faced. As a result, when resolving the problem of inverse proportion, students are actually using the concept of direct proportion to solve inverse proportion problem.



[1] A. K. Jitendra, M. R. Harwell, S. R. Karl, S. C. Slater, G. R. Simonson, and G. Nelson, “A Replication Study to Evaluate the Effects of Schema-Based Instruction on Middle School Students’ Proportional Problem-Solving Performance,” SREE Spring Conf., no. 612, pp. 1–10, 2016.
[2] J. Lobato, A. B. Ellis, R. I. Charles, and R. M. Zbiek, Developing Essential Understanding of Ratios, Proportions, and Proportional Reasoning for Teaching Mathematics in Grades 6–8. 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191-1502: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2010.
[3] L. Parish, “Facilitating the Development of Proportional Reasoning through Teaching Ratio,” Math. Educ. Res. Gr. Australas., pp. 469–476, 2010.
[4] S. Subanji, “Proses Berpikir Pseudo Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Proporsi,” J-TEQIP, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 207–226, 2013.
[5] C. Fernández, S. Llinares, W. Van Dooren, D. De Bock, and L. Verschaffel, “The Development of Students use of Additive and Proportional Methods along Primary and Secondary School,” Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 421–438, 2012.
[6] M. Irfan, S. Sudirman, and R. Rahardi, “Characteristics of students in comparative problem solving,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 948, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2018.
[7] M. Irfan, T. Nusantara, Subanji, Sisworo, Z. Wijayanto, and S. A. Widodo, “Why do pre-service teachers use the two-variable linear equation system concept to solve the proportion problem ? Why do pre-service teachers use the two-variable linear equation system concept to solve the proportion problem ?,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1188, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2019.
[8] W. Van Dooren, D. De Bock, M. Evers, and L. Verschaffel, “Students’ overuse of proportionality on missing-value problems: How numbers may change solutions,” J. Res. Math. Educ., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 187–211, 2009.
[9] W. Van Dooren, D. De Bock, A. Hessels, D. Janssens, and L. Verschaffel, “Students’ Overreliance on Proportionality: Evidence from Primary School Pupils Solving Arithmetic Word Problems,” in International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2004, pp. 385–392.
[10] D. De Bock, W. Van Dooren, and L. Verschaffel, “Students’ understanding of proportional, inverse proportional, and affine functions: two studies on the role of external representations,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 47-69., 2013.
[11] M. S. Pelen and P. . D. Artut, “Seventh Grade Students’ Problem Solving Success Rates on Proportional Reasoning Problems Seventh Grade Students ’ Problem Solving Suc cess Rates on Proportional Reasoning Problems,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30–34, 2016.
[12] J. W. Son, “How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 49–70, 2013.
[13] N. C. Jordan, N. Hansen, L. S. Fuchs, R. S. Siegler, R. Gersten, and D. Micklos, “Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures,” J. Exp. Child Psychol., vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2013.
[14] G. Valverde and E. Castro, “Prospective Elementary School Teachers ’ Proportional Reasoning,” Pna, vol. 7, no. 2005, pp. 1–19, 2012.
[15] M. Irfan, T. Nusantara, S. Subanji, and Sisworo, “Why Did the Students Make Mistakes in Solving Direct and Inverse Proportion Problem ?,” Int. J. Insights Math. Teach., vol. 01, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2018.
[16] M. C. Anderson and J. H. Neely, Interference and Inhibition in Memory Retrieval, no. March. 1996.
[17] R. E. Slavin, Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 8th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.
[18] J. R. Sternberg and K. Sternberg, “Cognitive Psychology,” Science (80-. )., p. 609, 2011.
[19] M. C. Anderson, Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the mechanisms of forgetting, vol. 49, no. 4. 2003.
[20] M. Irfan, C. Sa’dijah, N. Ishartono, S. A. Widodo, and A. A. Rahman, “Interference in Solving Mathematical Problems,” in ICSTI 2018, 2019, pp. 1–10.
[21] I. Öztekin and B. McElree, “Proactive interference slows recognition by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity,” J. Mem. Lang., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 126–149, 2007.
[22] J. Jonides and D. E. Nee, “Brain mechanisms of proactive interference in working memory,” Neuroscience, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 181–193, 2006.
[23] T. Mercer, “Wakeful rest alleviates interference-based forgetting,” Memory, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 127–137, 2015.
[24] J. M. Cumming and M. a. De Miranda, “Reducing Retroactive Interference through the Use of Different Encoding Techniques: An Exploration of Pre-Test/Post-Test Analyses,” Int. J. High. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–31, 2012.
[25] I. Arnon et al., APOS Theory: A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Mathematics Education. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 2014.
[26] E. Dubinsky, “Reflective Abstraction in Advanced Mathematical Thinking,” Adv. Math. Think., pp. 95–126, 2002.
[27] E. Dubinsky, I. Arnon, and K. Weller, “Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of the Relation Between a Fraction or Integer and its Decimal Expansion: The Case of 0.9 and 1,” Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 232–258, 2013.
[28] I. Bloem and W. La Heij, “Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production,” J. Mem. Lang., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 468–488, 2003.
[29] Y. G. Glaser, R. C. Martin, J. A. Van Dyke, A. C. Hamilton, and Y. Tan, “Neural basis of semantic and syntactic interference in sentence comprehension,” Brain Lang., vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 314–326, 2013.
[30] N. Kompridis, “So we need something else for reason to mean,” Int. J. Philos. Stud., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 271–295, 2000.
[31] S. Sukoriyanto, T. Nusantara, S. Subanji, and T. D. Chandra, “Students’ Errors in Solving the Permutation and Combination Problems Based on Problem Solving Steps of Polya,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 11, 2016.