Content and Pedagogical Knowledge of Prospective Teachers in Mathematics Learning: Commognitive Framework

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to describe the content and pedagogical knowledge skills of prospective teacher in learning mathematics from a commognitive perspective. This type of research is qualitative research. The subjects of this study were the 7th-semester students of mathematics education at Madura University who were taking a Field Experience (PPL) course. Students do teaching and recording is done in the form of video recordings. Teaching video recordings were analyzed by researchers to observe the ability of pedagogical and content knowledge of prospective teacher from a commognitive perspective. Data analysis in this study is inductive, that is an analysis based on data obtained, researchers present the data that has been reduced which then concludes. In this study, there are fundamental differences in the commognitive components of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of prospective teacher. All commognitive components both word use, visual mediator, routine and narrative occur in the content knowledge of prospective teacher in the learning process.The narrative component in commognitive emphasizes more on the knowledge content of prospective teacher, this is the finding of this study.  

Keywords

• commognitive,content knowledge,pedagogical knowledge

References

1. Aritonang, K. T. (2008). Minat dan motivasi dalam meningkatkan hasil belajar siswa. Jurnal pendidikan penabur, 7(10), 11-21.
2. As’ari, A.R., Kurniati, D., Abdullah, A.H., Muksar, M., & Sudirman, S. (2019). Impact of Infusing Truth Seeking and Open-Minded Behaviors on Mathematical Problem-Solving. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 1019-1036. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.606031
3. Ball, D.L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
4. Ball, D.L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group, (3-14). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/GCEDM.
5. Ball, D. L. & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511
6. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?, Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
7. Berger, M. (2013). Examining mathematical discourse to understand in-service teachers’ mathematical activities. Pythagoras. 34 (1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v34i1.197
8. Briand-Newman, H., Wong, M. & Evans, D. (2012). Teacher subject matter knowledge of number sense. J Dindyal, L P Cheng, S F Ng. 130-137. Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

9. Ding, L., He, J., & Leung, F. K. S. (2014). Relations between subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A study of Chinese pre-service teachers on the topic of three-term ratio. The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 50-76.
10. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(2), 94-116. DOI: 10.2307/749215.
11. Fauzi, T.C. Nusantara,T., Hidayanto, E., (2019). Kesulitan Siswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Materi Teorema Pythagoras: Perspektif Commognition. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan. 4(12).
12. Hamalik, O. (2009). Teknologi dalam Pendidikan. Bandung: Yayasan Partisipasi Pembangunan Indonesia.
13. Hannula, J. (2017). Subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in the learning diaries of prospective mathematics teachers. In T. Dooley, & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 3312-3319.
14. Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Tabach, M. & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Opportunities for learning given to prospective mathematics teachers: Between ritual and explorative instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(6), 547–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9311-1
15. Inah, E. N. (2015). Peran komunikasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa. Al-Ta'dib, 8(2), 150-167
16. Khan, A., Khan, S., Zia-ul-islam, S., & Khan, M. (2017). Communication Skills of a Teacher and Its Role in the Development of the Students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 18–21.
17. Lee, Y., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2018). Mathematics Teachers' Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Problem Posing. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(2), 75--90. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2698.
18. Martino, A. M., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher Questioning to Promote Justification and Generalization in Mathematics : What Research Practice Has Taught Us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00017-6
19. Metzuyanim, E. H., & Tabach, M. (2017). The Commognitive Theory Framework: From Theory to Implementation. In K-12 Mathematics Education in Israel, Issues and Innovations. 343–350.
20. Mulyasa. (2008). Menjadi Guru Profesional. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
21. Nardi, E., Ryve, A., Stadler, E., & Viirman, O. (2014). Commognitive analyses of the learning and teaching of mathematics at university level: The case of discursive shifts in the study of Calculus. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2). 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2014.918338
22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2007) Mathematics Teaching Today: Improving Practice, Improving Student Learning. Reston, VA: NCTM.
24. Nurfuadi. (2012). Profesionalisme Guru. Porwokerto: Penerbit STAIN Press.
25. Park, J. (2013). Is the derivative a function? If so, how do students talk about it? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(5), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.795248
26. Sagala, S. (2009). Konsep dan Makna Pembelajaran. Bandung: CV. ALFABETA.
27. Sahabuddin, C. (2016). Hubungan Komunikasi Belajar Mengajar terhadap Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik di Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Negeri I Kabupaten Majene. Pepatudzu: Media Pendidikan dan Sosial Kemasyarakatan, 10(1), 17-30.
28. Setyaningrum, D. (2009). Pengaruh Kemampuan Guru dalam Berkomunikasi dan Pengelolaan Kelas Terhadap Motivasi Belajar Akuntansi Siswa Kelas XI IPS di SMA Negeri 8 Semarang Tahun Ajaran 2008/2009. (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Negeri Semarang)
29. Sfard. A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 46(1-3). 13-57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014097416157
30. Sfard, A. (2007). When the Rules of Discourse Change, but Nobody Tells You: Making Sense of Mathematics Learning From a Commognitive Standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 16(4). 565-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701525253
31. Sfard, A. (2008). Learning in doing: social, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
32. Sfard, A. (2012). Introduction: Developing mathematical discourse-Some insights from communicational research. International Journal of Educational Research,51-52 (3). 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.013
33. Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: Rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1). 42–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0801_04
34. Shabtay, G., & Heyd-metzuyanim, E. (2017). Teachers’ Discourse On Students' Conceptual Understanding And Struggle. The 41th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol 4. 177-184. Singapore: PME.
35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3–36). New York, NY: Macmillan.
36. Subanji, S. (2015) Peningkatan Pedagogical Content Knowledge Guru Matematika Dan Praktiknya Dalam Pembelajaran Melalui Model Pelatihan Teqip. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Malang, 21(1),71-79
37. Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2016). Communicational perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics: prologue. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 91(3). 299-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9638-7
38. Tasara, I (2018) Commognitive analysis of a teacher’s mathematical discourse on the derivative. In: Curtis, F, (ed.) BSRLM Proceedings. BSRLM 2017: British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Conference, 11 Nov 2017, Liverpool, UK. BSRLM.
39. Turnuklu, E.B., & Yesildere, S. (2007). The pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics: Pre-service primary mathematics teachers' perspectives in Turkey. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, The Journal, 1(1), 1-13.
40. Tuset, G. A. (2018). A commognitive lens to study pre-service teachers’ teaching in the context of achieving a goal of ambitious mathematics teaching. In Proceeding, Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.
41. Viseu, F., & Oliveira, I. B. (2012). Open-ended tasks in the promotion of classroom communication in Mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 287-300.
42. Voss, T., Kunter, M,. & Baumert, J., (2011). Assessing Teacher Candidates’ General Pedagogical/Psychological Knowledge: Test Construction and Validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3). 952–969. DOI: 10.1037/a0025125.
43. Viirman, O. (2015). Explanation, motivation and question posing routines in university mathematics teachers’ pedagogical discourse: a commognitive analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 46(8). 1165-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1034206
44. Weingarden, M., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E. & Nachlieli, T. (2017). The realization tree assessment tool: Assessing the exposure to mathematical objects during a lesson, in The Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME )10, Dublin, Ireland.
45. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S. & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 Different Ways of Knowing: Representations of Knowledge in Teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teachers' Thinking. London: Cassess.
46. Zayyadi, M., Nusantara, T., Hidayanto, E., Sulandra, I. M., & As’ari, A.R. (2019). Exploring prospective student teacher’s question on mathematics teaching practice. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(2), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.46
47. Zayyadi, M., Nusantara, T., Subanji., Hidayanto, E., & Sulandra, I. M. (2019). A Commognitive Framework: The Process of Solving Mathematical Problems of Middle School Students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 18(2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.2.7