Comparing the Inculcation of the Value of Rationalism from the Australia and Malaysia Mathematics Textbooks

Year 2018, Volume: 9 , 261 - 268, 18.08.2018

Mohd Uzi Dollah Wanty Wıdjaja

Abstract

This research seeks to compare the
inculcation of the value of rationalism through the form four mathematics
textbooks from Victoria (Australia) and Malaysia. One textbook is analyzed from
each of the countries. Two chapters were chosen from both of the textbooks,
namely Linear Equations and Trigonometry. Contents analysis was used to analyse
evidence of the value of rationalism. Five characteristics of the value of
rationalism are identified namely reason, explanation, abstraction, logical
thinking and theorem. We found inculcation of the value of rationalism was
moderate. However, the value of rationalism with characteristics of
hypothetical reasoning was missing from both of the textbooks. Both textbooks
inculcate   the value of rationalism with
characteristics of reasons  fairly
moderately.  The inculcation of the value
of rationalism with the characteristic of explanation appeared significantly in
both textbooks. In contrast, the inculcation of the value of rationalism with
characteristics of abstraction and theorem appeared only in the Mathematics
Form 4 of the Malaysian textbook. This study highlights the need to inculcate
the value of rationalism more thoroughly, especially the value of rationalism
with characteristics of reason, hypothetical reasoning and logical thinking.
The inclusion of the value of rationalism in the mathematics textbooks will
enable students to understand mathematical concepts more deeply and
meaningfully.

Keywords

Mathematical values, Value of rationalism, Reason, Explanation, Abstraction, Logical thinking, Theorem and hypothetical reasoning

References

• Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematics education in its cultural context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 179-191. Bishop, A. J., Clarke, B., Corrigan, D. & Gunstone, D. (2006). Values in mathematics and science education: researchers’and teachers’ views on the similarities and differences. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26, 1, 7 – 11. Bishop, A. J. (2008). Values in Mathematics and Science Education: similarities and differences. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, Vol. 5, no.1, pp. 47-58. Bishop, A. J., Clarkson, P., FitzSimons, G., & Seah, W. T. (2000). Why study values in mathematics teaching: Contextualising the VAMP project? Australia: Values And Mathematics Project (VAMP). Retrieved November 16, 2001, from http://www.education.monash.edu.au/projects/vamp/mav98.html. Bonner, A. J. (1988). A Logic for Hypothetical Reasoning. AAAI-88 Proceedings. Copyright ©1988, AAAI (www.aaai.org), 480 – 484. Cao, Z., Seah, W. T. & Bishop, A. J. (2006). A comparison of mathematical values conveyed in mathematics textbooks in China and Australia. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D. Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions – A comparative study of East Asia and the West, 484 – 493. New York, N.Y.: Springer. Durant-Law, G. (2013). Logical thinking. Seminar paper University of Canberra, Australia. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Gamier, H., Giwin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Statistics. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychol., 109-135. Retrieve 15 Mei 2018 from http://matt.colorado.edu/teaching/highcog/fall8/j99.pdf. Mitchelmore, M. & White, P., (2004). Abstraction in mathematics and mathematics learning. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol 3 pp 329–336. Dollah, M. U. (2007). Penerapan nilai dalam pengajaran guru matematik sekolah menengah: Satu kajian kes. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Dollah, M. U., Saad, N. S. & Abdullah, M. F. N. L. (2014). Nilai matematik dalam pengajaran matematik pjj sekolah rendah. A monograph of research grant 2012-0136-107-01, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia. Ruben, D. H. (1992). Explaining explanation. NY: Routledge. Schroeder-Heister, P., (2014). CfP Hypothetical Reasoning. Conference on Hypothetical Reasoning, 23-24 August 2014 in Tübingen, Germany. Retrieve on 8 Nov, 2015 from http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2014-April/017953.html Richeson, D. (n. d.). What is the difference between a theorem, a lemma, and a corollary? Retrieved on 18 January 2016 from file:///D:/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20DIFFERENCE%20BETWEEN%20A%20THEOREM,%20A%20LEMMA%20AND%20OTHER%20TERMS.pdf Seah, W. T., & Bishop, A. J. (2000). Values in mathematics textbooks: A view through two Australasian regions. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 24-28. Stacey, K. & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 271-288. Study.com, (2015). Logical Thinking: Definition & Process. Retrieve on 19 Disember 2015 from http://study.com/academy/lesson/logical-thinking-definition-process-quiz.html Ward, M. (2003). A Definition of Abstraction. Computer Science Dept Science Labs South Rd Durham DH1 3LE. Retrieved on 18 Jan 2016 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.65.3973&rep=rep1&type=pdf.