Phenomenology of mathematics learning in high school students on relations and functions: An innovative approach based on conceptual innovation
Keywords:
Learning experience, Relations and functions, Mathematics learning, Henomenology, High school studentsAbstract
This study aims to explore the learning experiences of high school students in studying the topic of relations and functions in mathematics. Employing a qualitative approach grounded in phenomenological methodology, the research focuses on students’ subjective understanding of the classroom learning process. Data were collected through elicitation techniques, direct classroom observation, and documentation, involving four informants: three 11th-grade students and one mathematics teacher at SMA 1 Muhammadiyah Ponorogo. Data analysis was conducted thematically following the Miles and Huberman model, which includes the stages of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The findings reveal three main themes that shape students’ learning experiences: (1) the meaning of learning mathematics for students, and (2) interaction and participation in the learning process. Students interpret mathematics learning differently depending on their level of understanding and their comfort with social interactions in the classroom. Students who understand the material tend to feel more confident during the learning process, whereas those who experience difficulties are more likely to be passive and hesitant to ask questions. In conclusion, meaningful mathematics learning should not only emphasize cognitive aspects but also consider the emotional and social dimensions of students’ learning experiences.
References
H. Evendi, Y. Umayah, and S. Mulyati, “Pembelajaran Matematika Melalui Media Game Quizizz Untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Matematika di SMP,” Lppm Pros. Semin. Nas. Univ. Islam Syekh Yusuf, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 163–171, 2020.
2. N. W. R. K. Asih and dkk, “Analisis Kesalahan Siswa Kelas VIII Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Kontekstual Pada Materi SPLDV Berdasarkan Teori Nolting,” J. Pendidik. Mat. Undiksha, vol. 14, no. 1, 2023.
3. A. C. Wantah and H. Prastyo, “Analisis Hambatan Belajar Siswa di Salah Satu SMP Swasta dalam Memahami Konsep Garis dan Sudut,” J. Pedagog., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 54–73, 2022.
4. R. Yilmaz, “Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Cognitive Competencies on Realistic Mathematics Education,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 17–44, 2020.
5. M. A. Almulla, “The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as a way to engage students in learning,” SAGE Open, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2020.
6. B. Acharya, “Factors Affecting Difficulties in Learning Mathematics by Mathematics Learners International Journal of Elementary Education,” vol. 6, no. 2. pp. 8–15, 2017. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170602.11.
7. H. Basris, D. Wibowo, B. Juliardi, T. M. Yuherman, M. G. P. Edi, and Susilowati, Filsafat Pendidikan. Sumatera Barat: Yayasan Tri Edukasi Ilmiah, 2025.
8. D. Silviana and D. Mardiani, “Perbandingan Kemampuan Pemahaman Matematis Siswa melalui Mood-Understand-Recall-Digest-Expand-Review dan Discovery Learning,” Plusminus J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 1, pp. 291–302, 2021.
9. I. Muhammad, F. Yolanda, D. Andrian, and S. Rezeki, “Pengembangan media interaktif menggunakan adobe flash CS6 profesional pada materi relasi dan fungsi,” J. Authentic Res. Math. Educ. (JARME, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 128–140, 2022.
10. E. I. Pornamasari, “Pengembangan modul pembelajaran berbantu flipbook maker dengan model pembelajaran numbered heads together (NHT) berbasis teori Vygotsky materi pokok relasi dan fungsi,” AKSIOMA J. Mat. dan Pendidik. Mat., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 74–83, 2016.
11. F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, and J. Cai, “Problem-posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2013.
12. C. Moustakas, Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc, 1994.
13. N. H. A. Hardani et al., Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Dan Kuantitatif, vol. 5. Yogyakarta: CV. Pustaka Ilmu, 2020.
14. Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2014.
15. W. M. Lim, “What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines,” Australas. Mark. J., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 199–229, 2024, doi: 10.1177/14413582241264619.
16. M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative Data Analysis, 4th ed. United States of America: SAGE Publications, 2020.
17. A. Effendi, A. T. Fatimah, and A. Amam, “Analisis Keefektifan Pembelajaran Matematika Online Di Masa Pandemi Covid-19,” Teorema Teor. Dan Ris. Mat., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 250–59, 2021.
18. M. Heron and D. M. Palfreyman, Exploring higher-order thinking in higher education seminar talk. College Teaching, 2021.
19. C. Stefanou, J. D. Stolk, M. Prince, J. C. Chen, and S. M. Lord, “Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 109–122, 2013.
20. R. Jailani et al., “A phenomenological study of challenges that prospective mathematics teachers face in developing mathematical problems that require higher-order thinking skills,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 10, p. 2339, 2023.
21. P. M. Newton, A. Silva, and L. G. Peters, “A pragmatic master list of action verbs for Bloom’s taxonomy,” Front. Educ., vol. 5, pp. 1–6, 2020.
22. D. S. Rohmaniah, K. A. Mudrikah, M. H. Ardani, M. I. Maulana, Y. N. M. Hoiriyah, and M. Mu’alimin, “Strategi Penciptaan Iklim Kelas Kondusif melalui Pengelolaan Kelas dan Penguatan Etos Kerja Guru dalam Meningkatkan Kinerja Pembelajaran,” Harmon. Pendidik. J. Ilmu Pendidik., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 120–136, 2025.
23. P. R. da. B. Burden and D. M, Methods for Effective Teaching. USA: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Downloads
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.