Published date: Apr 26 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2022): Learning Models and Teaching Approaches

Pages: 395–407

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i13.15940

Dwi Fitriani Rosalidewirosali@upi.eduDepartment of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia

Didi SuryadiDepartment of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia

Suhendra SuhendraDepartment of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung 40154, Indonesia

This qualitative research employed a phenomenological approach with the aim of describing students’ learning obstacles in computational thinking related to the lesson on number patterns. This study took place at one of the MTsN schools in Makassar, involving 74 students of grade 8th , out of which 12 students were selected for interviews. The research employed tests, questionnaires, and interview guidelines as research instruments. The results revealed that students faced various learning obstacles, including (a) ontogenical obstacles such as instrumental ontogenical obstacle, psychological ontogenical obstacle, and conceptual ontogenical obstacle; (b) epistemological obstacles, encompassing difficulties in pattern recognition, abstraction, and generalization due to limitations in students’ contextual abilities to solve problems related to number patterns; and (c) didactical obstacles, including limitations in the teaching of number pattern lesson. The learning process fails to involve students in the process of abstraction and , resulting in incomplete material presentation. Moreover, it lacks emphasis on students’ thinking process during abstraction and generalization process, and places less emphasis on problem decomposition and algoritmic thinking.

Keywords: computational thinking, junior high school, learning obstacles, number pattern lessons

[1] Allen CE, Froustet ME, LeBlanc JF, Payne JN, Priest A, Reed JF, et al. National council of teachers of mathematics. Arith Teach. 2020;29(5):59.

[2] Pradani SL, Nafi’an MI. Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal matematika tipe Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS). Kreano, Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif. 2019;10(2):112–8.

[3] Umrana U, Cahyono E, Sudia M. Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematis ditinjau dari gaya belajar siswa. Jurnal Pembelajaran Berpikir Matematika. 2019;4(1):67–76.

[4] L.D. English and J. Gainsburg. “12 Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum.,” In: Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education. pp. 313 (2015).

[5] Hunsaker E. “Computational thinking.,” In: The K-12 Educational Technology Handbook (2020).

[6] Wing JM. “Computational thinking benefits society.,” 40th anniversary blog of social issues in computing. vol. 2014, p. 26, 2014.

[7] Mohaghegh DM, McCauley M. “Computational thinking: the skill set of the 21st century.,” (IJCSIT). Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol. 2016;7(3):1524–30.

[8] Papert S. “Children, computers and powerful ideas.,” New York: Basic Books. vol. 10, no. 1990, p. 1095592, 1990.

[9] Wing JM. Computational thinking. Commun ACM. 2006;49(3):33–5.

[10] Lye SY, Koh JH. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: what is next for K-12? Comput Human Behav. 2014;41:51–61.

[11] Maharani S, Kholid MN, Pradana LN, Nusantara T. Problem solving in the context of computational thinking. Infinity Journal. 2019;8(2):109–16.

[12] Pisa O. Mathematics Framework. Draft; 2021.

[13] Dagiene V. Competition in information technology: An informal learning. EuroLogo; 2005. pp. 228–34.

[14] Weintrop D, Beheshti E, Horn M, Orton K, Jona K, Trouille L, et al. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol. 2016;25(1):127–47.

[15] Agustina S, Patimah S. Analisis hasil belajar matematika siswa kelas viii pada materi pola bilangan di Kota Cimahi. UNION: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika. 2019;7(2):201–8.

[16] Brousseau G. Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.

[17] Nelson G, Powell SR. Computation error analysis: students with mathematics difficulty compared to typically achieving students. Assess Eff Interv. 2018;43(3):144– 56.

[18] Bakar MT, Suryadi D, Darhim D. “Learning obstacles on linear equations concept in junior high school students: Analysis of intellectual need of DNR-based instructions.,” In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. pp. 32104. IOP Publishing (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032104.

[19] Noto MS, Pramuditya SA, Handayani VD. Exploration of learning obstacle based on mathematical understanding of algebra in junior high school. Eduma: Mathematics Education Learning and Teaching. 2020;9(1):14–20.

[20] Suryadi D. Monograf 2: Didactical Design Research (DDR. Gapura Press, Bandung, 2019.

[21] Simon MA. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. J Res Math Educ. 1995;26(2):114–45.

[22] Sari NI, Subanji S, Hidayanto E. Diagnosis kesulitan penalaran matematis siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah pola bilangan. Jurnal Kajian Pembelajaran Matematika. 2018;2(2):64–9.

[23] Brousseau G. Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.

[24] Agustini WT, Salayan M. Efektifitas pembelajaran daring pada mata pelajaran matematika selama pandemi Covid-19 di MTs. Swasta Nurul Amaliah Tanjung Morawa; 2021.