### Routines’ Errors when Solving Mathematics Problems Cause Cognitive Conflict

#### Abstract

Cognitive conflict is a mismatch that occurs in two things: the difference between components – for example, ideas and beliefs – of a person's cognitive structure. Many studies show that cognitive conflict often occurs in learning and when solving mathematics problems. However, very few studies have looked at cognitive conflicts in solving mathematics problems, incredibly improper fraction problems. This study aims to analyze and describe students' errors in solving math problems using a commognitive perspective. The data was collected using a test sheet instrument, where students do the test think aloud. The answers on the student test sheets were analyzed by adjusting the think-aloud that was carried out, and then the interview process was carried out as a form of triangulation of the method in the study. The data analysis results show that there is a routine error that causes cognitive conflict when solving the improper fraction problem. The error that occurs indicates that the routine can and cannot resolve the cognitive conflict that occurs. This study's findings indicate the importance of routine procedures to be understood so that their use is appropriate for solving mathematical problems.

#### Keywords

#### References

A. H. Abdullah, N. L. Z. Abidin, and M. Ali, “Analysis of students’ errors in solving Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) problems for the topic of fraction,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 133–142, 2015, doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n21p133.

Y. M. Alghazo and R. Alghazo, “Exploring Common Misconceptions and Errors about Fractions among College Students in Saudi Arabia,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 10, no. 4, p. 133, 2017, doi: 10.5539/ies.v10n4p133.

B. Bentley and M. J. Bossé, “College Students’ Understanding of Fraction Operations,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 233–247, 2018, doi: 10.12973/iejme/3881.

A. W. I. Nanna and E. Pratiwi, “Students ’ Cognitive Barrier in Problem Solving : Picture -based Problem-solving,” Al-Jabar J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 72–82, 2020, doi: doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v11i1.5652.

R. S. Siegler, L. K. Fazio, D. H. Bailey, and X. Zhou, “Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development,” Trends Cogn. Sci., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 13–19, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.004.

J. Tian and R. S. Siegler, “Fractions Learning in Children With Mathematics Difficulties,” J. Learn. Disabil., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 614–620, 2017, doi: 10.1177/0022219416662032.

E. Pratiwi, T. Nusantara, S. Susiswo, and M. Muksar, “Textual and contextual commognitive conflict students in solving an improper fraction,” J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.17478/jegys.678528.

Y. Ay, “A Review of Research on the Misconceptions in Mathematics Education,” Educ. Res. Highlights Math., pp. 21–31, 2017.

D. F. Duit, Reinders & Treagust, “Conceptual change - A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning,” Struct. Dyn. Networks, vol. 9781400841, no. 2002, pp. 9–19, 2011, doi: 10.1201/9780203486061-17.

H. Roselizawati Hj Sarwadi and M. Shahrill, “Understanding Students’ Mathematical Errors and Misconceptions: The Case of Year 11 Repeating Students,” Math. Educ. Trends Res., vol. 2014, no. June, pp. 1–10, 2014, doi: 10.5899/2014/metr-00051.

Irawati, C. M. Zubainur, and R. M. Ali, “Cognitive conflict strategy to minimize students’ misconception on the topic of addition of algebraic expression,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1088, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012084.

I. P. Maharani and S. Subanji, “Scaffolding Based on Cognitive Conflict in Correcting the Students’ Algebra Errors,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 67–74, 2018, doi: 10.12973/iejme/2697.

M. A. Tolga Kabaca, Zekeriya Karadag, “Misconception, cognitive conflict, and conceptual change: a case study with pre-service teachers,” no. 1, pp. 6–8, 2003, doi: 10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004.

G. Lee and J. Kwon, “What Do We Know about Students’ Cognitive Conflict in Science Classroom: A Theoretical Model of Cognitive Conflict Process.,” Proc. 2001 AETS Annu. Meet., pp. 309–325, 2001.

J. A. Shahbari and I. Peled, “Resolving Cognitive Conflict in a Realistic Situation with Modeling Characteristics: Coping with a Changing Reference in Fractions,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 891–907, 2015, [Online]. Available: http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1720057235?accountid=14749%250Ahttps://usc-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01USC/01USC_SP??url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%25.

S. F. Assagaf, “Cognitive Conflict Supported by Context to overcome misconception in Mathematics Classroom,” Introd. to Sci. Educ. Commun. Theor., no. April, 2013.

S. N. Ross, “Examining the role of facilitated conflict on student learning outcomes in a diversity education course,” Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn., vol. 7, no. 1, p. Article 9, 2013, doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070109.

J. M. Watson, “Inferential reasoning and the influence of cognitive conflict,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 225–256, 2002, doi: 10.1023/A:1023622017006.

R. Juwita and A. Fauzan, “Preliminary Reasearch Development of Mathematics Learning Device Based on Cognitive Conflict to Improve Critical Thinking Ability of 1st Grade Senior High School Students,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1554, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1554/1/012018.

G. Lee, J. Kwon, S. S. Park, J. W. Kim, H. G. Kwon, and H. K. Park, “Development of an instrument for measuring cognitive conflict in secondary-level science classes,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 585–603, 2003, doi: 10.1002/tea.10099.

A. F. Wyrasti, C. Sa, and L. Anwar, “The Assessment of Students ’ Cognitive Conflict by Using Student ’ s Cognitive Map in Solving Mathematics Problem,” no. 2006, pp. 72–82, 2016.

D. Halim, S. Nurhidayati, M. Zayyadi, H. Lanya, and S. I. Hasanah, “Commognitive analysis of the solving problem of logarithm on mathematics prospective teachers,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1663, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012002.

A. Sfard, Thinking As Communicating Human Development, The Growth of Discourse, and Mathematizing. 2008.

T. Tabach, M & Nachlieli, “Combining Theories To Analyze Classroom Discourse : a Method To Study Learning Process,” no. March 2015, 2011.

M. Ioannou, “Commognitive Analysis of Undergraduate Mathematics Students’ Responses in Proving Subgroup’s Non-Emptiness,” Open. up Math. Educ. Res. (Proceedings 39th Annu. Conf. Math. Educ. Res. Gr. Australas., pp. 344–351, 2016.

M. Ioannou, “Commognitive analysis of undergraduate mathematics students’ first encounter with the subgroup test,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 117–142, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s13394-017-0222-6.

O. Viirman, “Explanation, motivation and question posing routines in university mathematics teachers’ pedagogical discourse: a commognitive analysis,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1165–1181, 2015, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2015.1034206.

D.-J. Kim, S. Choi, and W. Lim, “Sfard’s Commognitive Framework as a Method of Discourse Analysis in Mathematics,” nternational J. Cogn. Lang. Sci., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 481–485, 2017.

R. Toscano, J. M. Gavilán-Izquierdo, and V. Sánchez, “A study of pre-service primary teachers’ discourse when solving didactic-mathematical tasks,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 11, 2019, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/108631.

M. Berger, “Examining mathematical discourse to understand in-service teachers’ mathematical activities,” Pythagoras, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2013, doi: 10.4102/pythagoras.v34i1.197.

D. Hammer, “Student resources for learning introductory physics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 68, no. S1, pp. S52–S59, 2000, doi: 10.1119/1.19520.

A. Elby and D. Hammer, “On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology,” Sci. Educ., vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 554–567, 2001, doi: 10.1002/sce.1023.

V. Mudaly and S. Mpofu, “Learners’ views on asymptotes of a hyperbola and exponential function: A commognitive approach,” Probl. Educ. 21st Century, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 734–744, 2019, doi: 10.33225/pec/19.77.734.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i2.21911

### Refbacks

- There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science

**International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)**p-ISSN: 2252-8822, e-ISSN: 2620-5440

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.