Common Pitfalls in Mathematical Induction

Ratnah Lestary, Heri Apriyanto

Abstract


Many students encounter difficulties when learning the material on mathematical induction. A lack of understanding of the principles of mathematical induction leads students to make errors when attempting to prove mathematical statements repeatedly. To help students avoid these pitfalls, it is essential to analyze common pitfalls that frequently occur in the proof process using mathematical induction. This study employed a qualitative approach, utilizing a case study design, to analyze the answer sheets of 56 students from the first semester of the Mathematics Education program. The answers were categorized into five groups based on the types of difficulties encountered. From each category, one information-rich case was selected for further interviews. The research revealed several common pitfalls in mathematical induction: (1) failure to write the complete mathematical statement to be proven, (2) misunderstanding the importance of defining the domain of numbers, (3) using examples to prove the mathematical statement, (4) pitfall due to lack of metacognitive control, and (5) performing operations on both the left and right sides of the mathematical statement in the second stage

Keyword: Error Analysis; Mathematical Proof; Mathematical Induction; Pitfall


Full Text:

PDF

References


Arikunto, S. (1998). Prosedur penelitian suatu pendekatan praktek. PT. Rineka Cipta.

Baiduri, B. (2017). Kesalahan mahasiswa pendidikan matematika Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang dalam pembuktian induksi matematika. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika, 1.

Baker, J. D. (1996). Students’ difficulties with proof by mathematical reasoning. The American Educational Research Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396931

Bani, Y., & Ate, D. (2020). Analisis Kesalahan Siswa SMAN 1 Kota Tambolaka Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Matematika Pada Pokok Bahasan Induksi Matematika Dengan Panduan Criteria Polya. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Matematika Sumba, 2(1), 196–205.

Dogan, H. (2016). Mathematical Induction : Deductive Logic Perspective. 4(3).

Dubinsky, E., & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of induction and compactness. In The Journal of Mathematical Behavior (Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 55–92). Elsevier Science.

Ernawati, E., & Ilhamuddin, I. (2020). Deskripsi Kesalahan Siswa dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Matematika Pokok Bahasan Induksi Matematika. Delta-Pi: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.33387/dpi.v9i2.2274

Fitriani, D., Halini, & Suratman, D. (2021). Analisis Kesalahan Siswa Dalam Pembuktian Pernyataan Matematika Menggunakan Induksi Matematika Di Sekolah Menengah Atas. FKIP Untan Pontianak.

Handayani, P. (2021). Identifikasi Kesalahan Peserta Didik Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Induksi Matematika Dengan Teknik Analisis Melalui Pendekatan Saintifik. Jurnal Pendidikan Sultan Agung, 1(3), 178. https://doi.org/10.30659/jp-sa.v1i3.17659

Harel, G. (2024). The Development of Mathematical Induction as a Proof Scheme: A Model for DNR-Based Instruction 1, 2, 3. Learning and Teaching Number Theory, 185–212. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216976448.0012

Heller, J. I., Curtis, D. A., Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Verboncoeur, C. J. (2007). The Effects of “Math Pathways and Pitfalls” on Students’ Mathematics Achievement: National Science Foundation Final Report. Online Submission. http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED498258&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Kandemir, M. A., & Karadeniz, I. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ cognitive and metacognitive processes in integrated STEM modeling activity. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 7(2), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.832574

Khisty, L. L., & Radosavljevic, A. (2010). A descriptive analysis of math pathways and pitfalls in a Latina/o bilingual classroom. National Science Foundation, 1–27.

Nardi, E., & Iannone, P. (2003). The rough journey towards a consistent mathematical proof: the P(n+1)-P(n+1) step in mathematical induction. Proceedings of the 3rd Mediterranean Conference on Mathematical Education, 621–628.

NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.

Öztürk, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). Cognitive analysis of constructing algebraic proof processes. Education and Science, 44(197), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7504

Palla, M., Potari, D., & Spyrou, P. (2012). Secondary school students’ understanding of mathematical induction: Structural characteristics and the process of proof construction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1023–1045.

Papadopoulos, I., & Kyriakopoulou, P. (2022). Reading Mathematical Texts as a Problem-Solving Activity: The Case of the Principle of Mathematical Induction. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.881

Raman, M. (2003). Key ideas: What are they and how can they help us understand how people view proof? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024360204239

Relaford-doyle, J. (2020). Characterizing students ’ conceptual difficulties with mathematical induction using visual proofs. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1–20.

Rusdiantoro, A. (2020). Identifikasi Kesalahan Peserta Didik dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Induksi Matematika dengan Teknik Analisi Miles dan Hubberman. Jurnal Inovasi Pembelajaran Karakter (JIPK), 5(2), 1–8.

Sanjaya, W. (2014). Penelitian pendidikan: Jenis, metode dan prosedur. Kencana.

Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034698

Shadiq, F. (2016). Apa dan mengapa matematika begitu penting? 1–23.

Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 314–352. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40539339

Stylianides, G., Stylianides, A., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking stock and moving forward. Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education, 237–266.

Sutini, S. (2019). Kemampuan Metakognitif dan Komunikasi Matematis dalam Pemecahan Masalah Matematika. JRPM (Jurnal Review Pembelajaran Matematika), 4(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.15642/jrpm.2019.4.1.32-47

Thompson, D.R.& Rubenstein, R. N. (2000). Learning Mathematics Vocabulary : Mathematics Teacher, 93(7), 568–574.

UYGUN-ERYURT, T. (2020). Conception and development of inductive reasoning and mathematical induction in the context of written argumentations. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 13(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.13.2.5

Weber, K. (2001). tudent difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101–119.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/j-pimat.v8i1.6252

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-NonKomersial 4.0 Internasional.