Keywords:-
Article Content:-
Abstract
Several previous studies have discussed Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) in general and still focus on the mathematical domain only. There have not been many studies that specifically develop MKT frameworks and instruments that focus on numeracy skills. In fact, numeracy is an essential skill that individuals must have in this century so numeracy is important to be taught in schools. In fact, there are still many teachers who have difficulty in teaching numeracy. Therefore, teachers need to have mathematical knowledge to teach numeracy or Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Numeracy (MKT-N) from an early age. This research aims to design a test instrument that can measure Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Numeracy (MKT-N) for prospective mathematics teachers at the secondary school level. The concept of MKT-N in this study was developed from the MKT framework which consists of six aspects and adjustments to the numeracy context according to the national framework. The preparation of the questions consists of three steps, namely analysis, design, and development. The results of the study were in the form of valid MKT-N questions based on expert validation with very good criteria (score 0.98). The design of this instrument is expected to be the basis for the development of standardized instruments to map the professional and pedagogic competencies of prospective mathematics teachers in teaching numeracy. Further research is needed to test the test instrument directly to obtain further validation.
References:-
References
O. H. Bolstad, “Lower secondary students’ encounters with mathematical literacy,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 237–253, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13394-021-00386-7.
M. . North, “Curriculum design for empowered life-preparation and citizenship: A sociological analysis of the evolution of the Mathematical Literacy curricula,” Pythagoras, vol. 45, no. 1, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://journals.co.za/doi/full/10.4102/pythagoras.v45i1.768
C. et al. Manurung, “Merdeka belajar dalam mengembangkan kemampuan numerasi siswa pada pemecahan masalah matematika dengan microsoft mathematics,” pp. 55–69, 2024.
A. P. Kurniawan, M. T. Budiarto, and R. Ekawati, “Pengembangan Soal Numerasi Berbasis Konteks Nilai Budaya Primbon Jawa,” JRPM (Jurnal Rev. Pembelajaran Mat., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 20–34, 2022, doi: 10.15642/jrpm.2022.7.1.20-34.
OECD, “PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do,” Paris: OECD Publishing, 2010.
OECD, “PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do,” Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
OECD, The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD, 2003.
OECD, “Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000,” Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001.
OECD, PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017.
OECD, “PISA 2022 Results (Volume I and II) - Country Notes: Indonesia,” 2023.
OECD, “PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do,” Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012.
A. Wijaya, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, and M. Doorman, “Teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs regarding context-based tasks and their relation with students’ difficulties in solving these tasks,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 637–662, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s13394-015-0157-8.
E. P. Astuti, A. Wijaya, and F. Hanum, “Teachers’ Belief in Ethnomathematics-Based Numeracy Learning Scale: A Rasch Model Analysis,” TEM J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 992–1006, 2024, doi: 10.18421/TEM132-14.
A. Wijaya, “Students’ Information Literacy: A Perspective from Mathematical Literacy,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 73–82, 2016, doi: 10.22342/jme.7.2.3532.73-82.
Kemdikbud, Modul Berkembang Pengetahuan Profesional Aspek Numerasi. Kemdikbud, 2022.
A. Wijaya, H. Retnawati, W. Setyaningrum, and Sugiman, “Diagnosing Students ’ Learning Difficulties in the E Yes,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 357–364, 2019.
L. S. Shulman, “Those Who Understand Knowledge,” Educ. Res., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 4–14, 1986.
D. Ball, M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps, “Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?,” J. Teach. Educ., vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 389–407, 2008, doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554.
I-MES, Panduan Penyusunan Dokumen Kurikulum S1 dan S2 Pendidikan Matematika. Indonesian Mathematics Educatiors Society, 2024.
R. Mosvold and J. Fauskanger, “Teachers’ beliefs about mathematical knowledge for teaching definitions,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 8, no. 2–3, pp. 43–61, 2013, doi: 10.29333/iejme/273.
Y. Kim, “Teaching mathematical knowledge for teaching: Curriculum and challenges,” The University of Michigan, 2013.
S. Chikiwa, L. Westaway, and M. Graven, “What mathematics knowledge for teaching is used by a grade 2 teacher when teaching counting,” South African J. Child. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi: 10.4102/sajce.v9i1.567.
Fernández & and M. Ortiz Galarza, “Contextualizing the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Framework for teachers of Emergent Bilinguals,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1146797.
N. Joyokusumo, Warisan kuliner keraton Yogyakarta. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2008.
H. Ghousseini, “Rehearsals of Teaching and Opportunities to Learn Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching,” Cogn. Instr., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 188–211, 2017, doi: 10.1080/07370008.2017.1323903.
V. Hatisaru and A. K. Erbas, “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching the Function Concept and Student Learning Outcomes,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 703–722, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9707-5.
Y. Copur-Gencturk, D. Plowman, and H. Bai, “Mathematics Teachers’ Learning: Identifying Key Learning Opportunities Linked to Teachers’ Knowledge Growth,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1590–1628, 2019, doi: 10.3102/0002831218820033.
N. Pincheira and Á. Alsina, “Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching early algebra: A systematic review from the MKT perspective,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 20, 2021, doi: 10.3390/math9202590.
O. Esendemir and R. Bindak, “Adaptation of the Test Developed to Measure Mathematical Knowledge of Teaching Geometry in Turkey,” Int. J. Educ. Methodol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 547–565, 2019, doi: 10.12973/ijem.5.4.547.
D. Martinovic and A. G. Manizade, “The challenges in the assessment of knowledge for teaching geometry,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 613–629, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11858-018-0934-4.
M. Noviyanti and D. Suryadi, “Conceptualizing mathematical knowledge for teaching of Indonesian teacher in teaching number sense to early childhood,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1157, no. 3, 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032121.
R. Avcu, “Turkish Pre-service Middle Level Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Fractions,” RMLE Online, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1–20, 2019, doi: 10.1080/19404476.2019.1681624.
Branch & Varak, Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York: Springer, 2009.
Wijaya & Dewayani, “Framework Asesmen Kompetensi Minimum (AKM),” 2021.
Widoyoko, “Evaluasi Program Pembelajaran,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2019.
Young et al., “Influence of Exam Blueprint Distribution on Student Perceptions and Performance in an Inorganic Chemistry Course,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 96, no. 10, pp. 2141–2148, 2019, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b01034.
N. Sobarningsih, J. Juariah, R. Nurdiansyah, A. R. Purwanti, and R. Kariadinata, “Pengembangan soal matematika bernuansa Islami,” J. Anal., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 109–123, 2019, doi: 10.15575/ja.v5i2.5895.
B. Utomo, “Analisis Validitas Isi Butir Soal sebagai Salah Satu Upaya Peningkatan Kualitas Pembelajaran di Madrasah Berbasis Nilai-Nilai Islam,” J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 1, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.21043/jpm.v1i2.4883.
Setiawati & Lapassau, “Aspek Bahasa Dan Konstruksi Butir Soal Evaluasi pada Buku Tematik Kelas III Sekolah Dasar,” JARSI J. Adm. RS Indones., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://www.jurnal.stikesbaptis.ac.id/index.php/jarsi/article/view/611