Students' obstacles in solving mathematical literacy problems using the onto-semiotic approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v11i1.8066Keywords:
learning obstacles, mathematical literacy, proportion, onto-semiotic approachAbstract
Mathematical literacy is crucial for students, requiring both an understanding of mathematical concepts and the ability to apply them in solving diverse problems. However, students frequently encounter difficulties with mathematical literacy tasks, particularly those involving proportions, which may constitute learning obstacles. This study aims to identify and analyze students' learning obstacles in the context of mathematical literacy on the topic of proportions using an onto-semiotic approach. Qualitative research with a phenomenological approach was employed in this study, involving 27 eighth-grade students at a State Junior High School in Ngoro. Data collection techniques include tests, interviews, and documentation studies. Data analysis consisted of three stages: reduction, presentation, and conclusion. This study reveals three types of learning obstacles among students: (1) epistemological obstacles, which arise from students' limited understanding of concepts related to proportion; (2) ontogenic obstacles, which occur due to a leap in students' cognitive transition; and (3) didactical obstacles, which are caused by procedural teaching methods. Based on the onto-semiotic approach, the students had difficulty understanding mathematical language, defining mathematical ideas, applying the property of proportion, and performing appropriate procedures. This study provides insights that may assist teachers in designing more effective instructional strategies.
Downloads
References
Akkaya, Y. B., & Dilekli, Y. (2025). How procedural and conceptual knowledge in math courses drive the development of analytical thinking. Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches (JESMA), 5(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.51383/jesma.2025.124
Ambarwati, B. T., & Ekawati, R. (2022). Analisis literasi matematika siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal higher order thinking skills (hots) proporsi. MATHEdunesa, 11(2), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.26740/mathedunesa.v11n2.p390-403
Aswin, Jupri, A., & Prabawanto, S. (2025). Learning obstacles of high school students in computational thinking on a two-variable linear inequality system. Jurnal Gantang, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v10i1.6920
Avcu, R., & Avcu, S. (2010). 6th-grade students' use of different strategies in solving ratio and proportion problems. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1277–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.320
Azmi, M. P., Purwanto, P., Anwar, L., & Muksar, M. (2025). Epistemological obstacles in solving 2d geometry problems using adversity quotient. TEM Journal, 14(1), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM141-19
Barumbun, M., & Kharisma, D. (2022). Procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge? Developing the so-called proceptual knowledge in mathematics learning. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 15(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v15i2.472
Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B.-S. (2012). Ratio and proportion: Research and teaching in mathematics teachers’ education. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-784-4
Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2
Byrne, T. (2025). An introduction to phenomenology in qualitative education research: A critical reading of ‘Understanding things from within.’ Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10086-3
Cai, J., & Rott, B. (2024). On understanding mathematical problem-posing processes. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01536-w
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth edi). California: SAGE Publications.
Domondon, C. S., Corpuz, M. J., Carranza, M. P., Moroki, I., Ching, F., & Elipane, L. (2024). Lesson study reflections: Enhancing ratio and proportion instruction in a Philippine school setting. Diversitas Journal, 9(1), 438–453. https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9i1_Special.2834
Drew, S. V. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the Common Core State Standards: Preparing students for 21st-century literacy—now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00145
Erbay, G. (2024). Navigating mathematical obstacles: Eighth-grade students' journey in overcoming learning challenges in mathematics. Global Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.55640/gjhss-social-326
Fauziah, N., & Cahya M.A, E. (2021). Students' difficulties in solving problems involving ratios and proportional relationships. Proceedings of The 6th Asia-Pacific Education And Science Conference. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-12-2020.2309147
Febriyanti, R., Mustadi, A., & Jerussalem, M. A. (2021). Students’ learning difficulties in mathematics: How do teachers diagnose and how do teachers solve them? Mathematics Education Journal, 15(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.15.1.10564.23-36
Font, V., Godino, J. D., & Gallardo, J. (2013). The emergence of objects from mathematical practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9411-0
Fyfe, E. R., Mcneil, N. M., & Borjas, S. (2015). Benefits of “concreteness fading” for children’s mathematics understanding. Learning and Instruction, 35, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.004
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(1–2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Roa, R. (2005). An onto-semiotic analysis of combinatorial problems and the solving processes by university students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-5893-3
Godino, J. D., Font, V., Wilhelmi, M. R., & Lurduy, O. (2011). Why is the learning of elementary arithmetic concepts difficult? Semiotic tools for understanding the nature of mathematical objects. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9278-x
Graybeal, C. D., & Strickland, T. K. (2018). The trouble with kissing and other mnemonic devices. Ohio Journal of School Mathematics, 78(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.18061/ojsm.4124
Hechter, J., Stols, G., & Combrinck, C. (2022). The reciprocal relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge —a case study of two calculus problems. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2101271
Holenstein, M., Bruckmaier, G., & Grob, A. (2021). Transfer effects of mathematical literacy: an integrative longitudinal study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 799–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00491-4
Huan, C., Meng, C. C., & Suseelan, M. (2022). Mathematics learning from concrete to abstract (1968-2021): A bibliometric analysis. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9(4), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.99.9.4
Hwang, J., & Ham, Y. (2021). Relationship between mathematical literacy and opportunity to learn with different types of mathematical tasks. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(2), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.2.13625.199-222
Kalder, R. S. (2012). Are we contributing to our students’ mistakes? The Mathematics Teacher, 106(2), 90–91. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.106.2.0090
Kamariah. (2022). Onto-semiotik siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah kombinatorik (State University of Malang). State University of Malang. Retrieved from http://repository.um.ac.id/id/eprint/271874
Kandaga, T. (2022). Epistemological obstacle in transformation geometry based on van hiele's level. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11914
Kaur, T., Mcloughlin, E., & Grimes, P. (2022). Mathematics and science across the transition from primary to secondary school : A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(13), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00328-0
Kemendikbud. (2019). Hasil PISA Indonesia 2018: Akses makin meluas, saatnya tingkatkan kualitas. Retrieved February 25, 2025, Retrieved from https://www.kemdikbud.go.id/main/blog/2019/12/hasil-pisa-indonesia-2018-akses-makin-meluas-saatnya-tingkatkan-kualitas
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2020). AKM dan implikasinya pada pembelajaran. Jakarta: Pusat Asesmen dan Pembelajaran. Retrieved from http://repositori.kemendikdasmen.go.id/id/eprint/19690
Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: The contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(5), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017973827514
Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Relationships between students’ conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies. Instr Sci, 36, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9065-6
Martinovic, D. (2024). Algebra and modeling in mathematics school curricula. In Mathematics for Social Sciences and Arts (pp. 65–86). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37792-1_4
Masfufah, R., & Afriansyah, E. A. (2021). Analisis kemampuan literasi matematis siswa melalui soal PISA. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v10i2.825
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (second ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
Miller, G., & Obara, S. (2017). Finding meaning in mathematical mnemonics. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(3), 13–18. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1155926
Nurhayati, L., Priatna, N., Herman, T., & Dasari, D. (2023). Learning obstacle pada materi integral (antiderivative) dalam teori situasi didaktis. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 12(1), 984–993. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v12i1.6470
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Mathematics Framework. In PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework (pp. 73–96). Paris: OECD Publisher. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Oogarah-Pratap, B., Bholoa, A., & Ramma, Y. (2025). Stage theory of cognitive development—Jean Piaget. In B. Akpan & T. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Science Education in Theory and Practice (pp. 125–142). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_8
Pauji, I., Suryadi, D., Setambah, M. A. B. B., & Hendriyanto, A. (2023). Learning obstacle in the introduction to number: A critical study within didactical design research framework. Indonesian Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.24042/ijsme.v6i3.19792
Prabowo, A., Suryadi, D., Dasari, D., Juandi, D., & Junaedi, I. (2022). Learning obstacles in the making of lesson plans by prospective mathematics teacher students. Education Research International, 7592(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2896860
Prasetyawan, E., Kusumah, Y. S., & Prabawanto, S. (2025). Students’ learning obstacles in systems of linear equations in two variables related to mathematical computational thinking skills. Jurnal Gantang, 10(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v10i1.7168
Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Hendrik, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21320
Serin, H. (2023). The significance of mathematical literacy in today’s society. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(2), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i2p396
Sevinc, S., & Lizano, C. (2024). Bar model method as a problem-solving heuristic: an investigation of two preservice teachers’ solution paths in problems involving ratio and percentage. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 36(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00427-9
Stacey, K., & Turner, R. (2015). Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10121-7
Sumarni, E., Jupri, A., & Juandi, D. (2025). Research trends in mathematical literacy and self-regulated learning : A scoping review using bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Gantang, 10(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v10i1.6916
Suryadi, D. (2019). Landasan filosofis penelitian desain didaktis (DDR). Bandung: Gapura Press.
Wardani, A. K., Prabawanto, S., & Jupri, A. (2024). How students’ obstacle in solving ratio and proportion problem? Focusing on mathematical literacy process. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 13(2), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v13i2.1933
Warli, D., Fatimah, S., Wicaksono, A., & Kaha, M. J. (2025). Exploration of student learning obstacles in solving propotional problems in junior high school. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(1), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v16i1.26478
Wong, K. P. (2003). Mathematical literacy of Hong Kong’s 15 year old students in PISA. Education Journal, 32(1), 91–120.
Wulandary, V., & Kawai, N. (2024). The efficacy of mnemonic strategies in improving the basic multiplication facts retrieval. Journal of Education for Sustainability and Diversity, 3(1), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.57142/jesd.v3i1.614
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Gantang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
