Praxeological analysis of junior secondary students’ epistemological obstacles in algebraic operations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v10i4.13374Keywords:
Algebra learning, Epistemological obstacles, Praxeology Equality conception, Didactical Design ResearchAbstract
This study investigates junior secondary students’ epistemological obstacles to learning algebraic operations through a praxeological framework grounded in the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD), with Didactical Design Research (DDR) as the conceptual orientation. Diagnostic algebra tasks and semi-structured interviews were administered to six seventh-grade students in Indonesia to examine their algebraic techniques and justifications. Students’ written and verbal responses were analysed by reconstructing tasks (T), techniques (τ), technologies (θ), and theories (Θ). The findings reveal that students generally exhibit procedural fluency in routine tasks, such as simplification and distributive expansion. However, substantial epistemological obstacles arise in tasks that require justification, relational interpretations of equality, variable generalisation, and contextual transfer. These obstacles are characterised by a misalignment between students’ correct techniques and weak or absent justificatory discourse, indicating that procedural correctness does not consistently reflect conceptual understanding. This study contributes to mathematics education by offering a fine-grained praxeological analysis that makes epistemological obstacles often overlooked in error-based analyses visible. By distinguishing students’ actions from their justifications, the study clarifies the structural nature of algebraic difficulties and identifies instructional directions that emphasise relational equality, explicit justification, and stable conceptions of variables to support deeper structural and theoretical understanding of algebra.
References
Abou-Hayt, I. (2024). A critical look at the anthropological theory of the didactic. Research in Mathematics Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2024.2344754
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370
Agustito, D., Kuncoro, K. S., Kusumaningrum, B., & Wijayanti, D. (2025). Praxeological analysis of linear algebra content presentation: A case study of Indonesian mathematics textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(6), em2648. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16508
Ayala-Altamirano, C., & Molina, M. (2021). Fourth-graders’ justifications in early algebra tasks involving a functional relationship. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(2), 359-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10036-1
Booth, J. L., McGinn, K. M., Barbieri, C., & Young, L. K. (2016). Misconceptions and learning algebra. In And the rest is just algebra (pp. 63–78). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45053-7_4
Booth, J. L., Oyer, M. H., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., Elliot, A. J., Barbieri, C., Augustine, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2015). Learning algebra by example in real-world classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 530-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1055636
Bosch, M. (2015, July). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 51–69). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_4
Bosch, M. (2015, July). Doing research within the anthropological theory of the didactic: The case of school algebra. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 51-69). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_4
Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 87–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034843
Chamundeswari, S. (2014). Conceptual errors encountered in mathematical operations in algebra among students at the secondary level. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 1(8), 24–38. https://www.ijiset.com/v1s8/IJISET_V1_I8_04.pdf
Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.131
Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 53–61). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100034
Chevallard, Y., & Sensevy, G. (2014). Anthropological approaches in mathematics education, French perspectives. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 38–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_9
Chevallard, Y., Bosch, M., & Kim, S. (2015, February). What is a theory according to the anthropological theory of the didactic? In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 9 – Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2614–2620). Charles University in Prague. https://hal.science/hal-01289424/
Cosan, D. D. (2024). Praxeological differences in institutional transition: The case of school algebra. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives: Revue internationale de didactique des mathématiques, 29, 217–238. https://doi.org/10.4000/12ym6
Dassa, A., Akbar, F., Assagaf, S. F., & Arsyad, N. (2024, December). Students’ misconception on algebraic form using the certainty of response index at junior high school in Tana Toraja District. In International Conference on Sciences, Technology and Education (ICSTE 2024) (pp. 160–173). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-335-1_15
Demonty, I., Vlassis, J., & Fagnant, A. (2018). Algebraic thinking, pattern activities and knowledge for teaching at the transition between primary and secondary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9820-9
Dewi, R. A., & Juandi, D. (2025, August). PRAXEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF 8th GRADE MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOK. In The Fifth International Conference on Innovations Social Sciences Education and Engineering (Vol. 5, pp. 005-005). https://conference.loupiasconference.org/index.php/ICoISSEE-5/article/view/669/628
Diskin, K., & Hutchinson, P. (2024). Critical praxeological analysis: Respecifying critical research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 21(4), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2365862
Donevska-Todorova, A. (2016, March). Procedural and conceptual understanding in undergraduate linear algebra. In First Conference of International Network for Didactic Research in University Mathematics. https://hal.science/hal-01337932/
Doukhan, C., Gueudet, G., & Quéré, P. V. (2024). Teaching mathematics to non-specialists at university: a praxeological approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2337949
Fardian, D., Suryadi, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2025). A praxeological analysis of linear equations in Indonesian mathematics textbooks: Focusing on systemic and epistemic aspect. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(1), 225-254. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i1.pp225-254
Fardian, D., Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., Putri, A. D., & Qamariah, N. (2024). A half century of didactic design in mathematics education: A bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Gantang, 9(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v9i1.6905
Fauziah, E., Lidinillah, D. A. M., & Apriani, I. F. (2023). Obstacle to learning algebra in elementary schools. AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.30595/alphamath.v9i2.18612
Fitriasari, P., Suryadi, D., & Nurlaelah, E. (2025). Textbook analysis of integers content using the praxeology framework. Jurnal Elemen, 11(3), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i3.29859
Fuadiah, N. F., Suryadi, D., & Turmudi, T. (2017). Analysis of didactical contracts on teaching mathematics: A design experiment on a lesson of negative integers operations. Infinity Journal, 6(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v6i2.p157-168
Gascón, J. (2024). Contributions of the anthropological theory of the didactic to the epistemological programme of research in mathematics education. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(6), 1319–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01563-1
Harbour, K. E., Karp, K. S., & Lingo, A. S. (2016). Inquiry to action: Diagnosing and addressing students’ relational thinking about the equal sign. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(2), 126-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916673310
Haspekian, M., Artigue, M., & Rocha, K. (2023). Networking of theories: An approach to the development and use of digital resources in mathematics education. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. R. Tchoshanov, & A. Leung (Eds.), Handbook of digital resources in mathematics education (pp. 1–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95060-6_4-1
Hausberger, T. (2018). Structuralist praxeologies as a research program on the teaching and learning of abstract algebra. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-017-0063-4
Herscovics, N. (2018). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 60–86). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044378-6
Herscovics, N. (2018). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 60-86). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044378-6
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (2013). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Conceptual and procedural knowledge (pp. 1-27). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203063538-1
Hochmuth, R., & Peters, J. (2021). On the analysis of mathematical practices in signal theory courses. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 7(2), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-021-00138-9
Hodgen, J., Oldenburg, R., & Strømskag, H. (2018). Algebraic thinking. In T. Dreyfus, M. Artigue, D. Potari, S. Prediger, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Developing research in mathematics education (pp. 32–45). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315113562-4
Jatisunda, M. G., Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., & Umbara, U. (2025). Pre-service mathematics teacher conducting prospective analysis: A case study on practice didactical design research. Infinity Journal, 14(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i1.p21-44
Jöckel, K. H., & Stang, A. (2013). Cohort studies with low baseline response may not be generalisable to populations with different exposure distributions. European journal of epidemiology, 28(3), 223-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9782-2
Jones, I., Inglis, M., Gilmore, C., & Dowens, M. (2012). Substitution and sameness: Two components of a relational conception of the equals sign. Journal of experimental child psychology, 113(1), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.05.003
Jupri, A., Drijvers, P., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2014). Difficulties in initial algebra learning in Indonesia. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 683–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-013-0097-0
Kabadaş, H., & Mumcu, H. Y. (2024). Examining the process of middle school math teachers diagnosing and eliminating student misconceptions in algebra. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 17(3), 563–591. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1323295
Kaput, J. J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602619-10
Kieran, C. (2013). The false dichotomy in mathematics education between conceptual understanding and procedural skills: An example from algebra. In Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 153-171). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6977-3_7
Kieran, C. (2016). Mathematical concepts at the secondary school level: The learning of algebra and functions. In Learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 133–158). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315784939-9
Kieran, C. (2020). Algebra teaching and learning. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 36–44). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_6
Kuncoro, K. S., Suryadi, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Jupri, A. (2024). Praxeological analysis in Indonesian and Singaporean mathematics textbooks: An understanding geometrical similarity by students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1197-1218. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1197-1218
Lammers, J., Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 776-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.008
Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and learning, 7(3), 231-258. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0703_3
Llanos, V. C., & Otero, M. R. (2024, July). Analysis of a Praxeology in the Last Eighty Years. In Extended Abstracts 2022: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (CITAD7) (Vol. 16, p. 335). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55939-6
Ma, A., & Norwich, B. (2007). Triangulation and theoretical understanding. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701541878
Malisani, E., & Spagnolo, F. (2009). From arithmetical thought to algebraic thought: The role of the “variable”. Educational studies in mathematics, 71(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9157-x
Marek, S., & Laumann, T. O. (2025). Replicability and generalizability in population psychiatric neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology, 50(1), 52-57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-024-01960-
Martinez, M. V., & Castro Superfine, A. (2012). Integrating algebra and proof in high school: Students' work with multiple variables and a single parameter in a proof context. Mathematical thinking and learning, 14(2), 120-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2012.657956
Muchoko, C., Jupri, A., & Prabawanto, S. (2019, February). Algebraic visualization difficulties of students in junior high school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 3, p. 032108). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032108
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and instruction, 9(4), 329-389. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0904_2
Ningrum, Y., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2019, April). Analysis problem solving about contextual problem of algebraic in junior high school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1211, No. 1, p. 012102). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1211/1/012102
Oktaviani, W. R., Herman, T., & Darhim, D. (2022, July). Didactic design to improve mathematical reasoning ability of high school students on derivative application materials. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2577, No. 1, p. 020047). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0096139
Panjaitan, M. A., Naufal, N., & Herman, T. (2025). Analysis of seventh-grade junior high school mathematics textbooks on algebra using the praxeology approach. Journal of Authentic Research on Mathematics Education, 7(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.37058/jarme.v7i2.13231
Pauji, I., Suryadi, D., Setambah, M., & 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
Poon, K. K., & Leung, C. K. (2010). Pilot study on algebra learning among junior secondary students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903236434
Powell, S. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Does early algebraic reasoning differ as a function of students’ difficulty with calculations versus word problems?. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(3), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12037
Puig, L., & Rojano, T. (2004). The history of algebra in mathematics education. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 187–223). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8131-6_8
Putra, Z. H., & Aljarrah, A. (2021). A Praxeological Analysis of Pre-Service Elementary Teacher-Designed Mathematics Comics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(3), 563-580. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.3.14143.563-580
Radford, L. (2010). Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800903569741
Rohimatunnisa, D., Jatisunda, M. G., & Santoso, E. (2025). From learning obstacles to instructional design: Bridging theory and practice in algebra education through didactical design research. International Journal of Educational Innovation and Research, 4(2), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.31949/ijeir.v4i2.15308
Rudi, R., Suryadi, D., & Rosjanuardi, R. (2020). Teachers’ perception as a crucial component in the design of didactical design research-based teacher professional learning community in Indonesia. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 9(3), 642–652. https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/6089/pdf
Ruli, R. M., Prabawanto, S., & Mulyana, E. (2019, February). Didactical design research of quadratic function based on learning obstacle and learning trajectory. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 4, p. 042060). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042060
Schmidt, R. (2016). The methodological challenges of practising praxeology. In G. Spaargaren, D. Weenink, & M. Lamers (Eds.), Practice theory and research (pp. 59–75). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131565690-13
Sibgatullin, I. R., Korzhuev, A. V., Khairullina, E. R., Sadykova, A. R., Baturina, R. V., & Chauzova, V. (2022). A systematic review on algebraic thinking in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11486
Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90036-X
Siregar, R., Siagian, M. D., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023). Exploration of students' epistemological obstacles in understanding the concept of variables and expressions. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.24815/jdm.v10i1.30694
Sleeman, D. (1984). An attempt to understand students’ understanding of basic algebra. Cognitive Science, 8(4), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(84)80008-7
Strømskag, H., & Chevallard, Y. (2024). Didactic transposition and the knowledge to be taught: Towards an archeorganisation for concave/convex functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2305879
Subroto, T., & Suryadi, D. (2018, November). Epistemological obstacles in mathematical abstraction on abstract algebra. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1132, No. 1, p. 012032). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1132/1/012032
Subroto, T., & Suryadi, D. (2018, November). Epistemological obstacles in mathematical abstraction on abstract algebra. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1132, No. 1, p. 012032). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1132/1/012032
Sukarma, I. K., Isnawan, M. G., & Alsulami, N. M. (2024). Research on nonroutine problems: A hybrid didactical design for overcoming student learning obstacles. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1), 5552365. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5552365
Supriadi, S. (2019). Didactic design of Sundanese ethnomathematics learning for primary school students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(11), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.11.9
Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., & Itoh, T. (2017). A reflective framework of didactical design research in mathematics and its implication. Riset Kolaborasi Project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321747364_A_Reflective_Framework_of_Didactical_Design_Research_in_Mathematics_and_Its_Implication
Utami, N. S., & Prabawanto, S. (2023, October). Student obstacles in learning early algebra: A systematic literature review. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2734, No. 1, p. 090031). AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0155592
Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Priatna, N. (2022). A didactical design for introducing the concepts in algebraic forms using the theory of praxeology. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 15(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v15i1.508
Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Suryadi, D. (2023). Students’ learning obstacles in solving early algebra problems: A focus on functional thinking. International Society for Technology, Education, and Science. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED655429.pdf
Utami, N. S., Prabawanto, S., & Suryadi, D. (2024). How do Indonesian students learn function concepts? A praxeological analysis of textbook. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp451-472
Van Dooren, W. (2025, August). From the laboratory to the classroom and back: Reflections on the relation between mathematics education research and practice. In Proceedings of the 48th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 71-93). PME. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/f48e9a58-08ea-4377-aa41-ee5f3a09024b
Welder, R. M. (2012). Improving algebra preparation: Implications from research on student misconceptions and difficulties. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00136.x
Wilujeng, H., & Alvarez, J. I. (2025). Students’ misconceptions in algebraic concepts: A four-tier diagnostic test approach. Jurnal Elemen, 11(1), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i1.27604
Winsløw, C. (2007). Didactics of mathematics: an epistemological approach to mathematics education. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 523-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170701687969
Winsløw, C. (2011). Anthropological theory of didactic phenomena: Some examples and principles of its use in the study of mathematics education. In Un panorama de TAD, CRM Documents (Vol. 117, pp. 138–152). https://www.academia.edu/download/30687861/FMSERA_Tampere_2010_CarlWinslow.pdf
Wladis, C. (2019, January). The complex relationship between conceptual understanding and procedural fluency in developmental algebra in college. In Proceedings of the forty-first annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10188680
Wladis, C., Verkuilen, J., Mccluskey, S., Offenholley, K., Dawes, D., Licwinko, S., & Lee, J. K. (2019, February). Relationships between procedural fluency and conceptual understanding in algebra for postsecondary students. In Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (No. 26). Freudenthal Group; Freudenthal Institute; ERME. https://hal.science/hal-02416499/
Ying, C. L., Osman, S., Kurniati, D., Masykuri, E. S., Kumar, J. A., & Hanri, C. (2020). Difficulties that students face when learning algebraic problem-solving. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 5405–5413. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081143
Zakiah, N. E., Suryadi, D., & Suhendra, S. (2025). Didactic Praxeological Analysis of Indonesian and Singaporean Mathematics Textbooks: Mathematical Practices in Transformation Geometry. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 26(2), 905-923. http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa.v26i2.pp905-92
Žanko, Ž., Mladenović, M., & Boljat, I. (2019). Misconceptions about variables at the K-12 level. Education and information technologies, 24(2), 1251-1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9824-1
Downloads
Submitted
Accepted
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohamad Gilar Jatisunda, Teoh Sian Hoon, Jamilah Jamilah, Dela Rohimatunissa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
