Investigation of documentation processes of students with low and high level of mathematical literacy: A case study

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the documentation processes of students with low and high mathematical literacy levels. To this aim, a qualitative research design was adopted. Participants in this case study consisted of two students studying at the 9 th grade who were selected through the criterion sampling method considering the mathematical literacy levels (low and high). The participants were asked to draw and explain a schematic representation of the resource system that they employed in their mathematics learning process. They also completed 30-day mathematics learning diaries, which required them to explain the activities they did and the resources they used. Interviews were scheduled as the secondary data collection tool. Both content analysis and descriptive analysis were used to analyze the data. As a result, differences in resource usage schemes were found in the mathematics learning processes of two the participants. Compare to the student with low mathematical literacy, the objective of the action component of the utilization scheme for the student with high mathematical literacy was determined to be to associate mathematical knowledge with daily-life.

Unlocking the secrets of students’ mathematical literacy to solve mathematical problems: A systematic literature review

“…Based on the results of a systematic review with PRISMA process, collected 20 review articles from seven countries. Turkey dominates the distribution of research location with a percentage of 40% (Aksu et al, 2017;Aksu & Guzeller, 2016;Altun, 2017;Canbazoglu & Tarim, 2020;Kozakli Ulger et al, 2022;Ozgen, 2019;Tapan Broutin et al, 2021;Yenmez & Gokce, 2023), followed by Indonesia with a percentage of 35% (Dewantara et al, 2015;Fauzi & Chano, 2022;Firdaus & Herman, 2017;Jailani et al, 2020;Kholid et al, 2022;Kusuma et al, 2022;Zainiyah & Marsigit, 2019), and 5% of each in Korea (Hwang & Ham, 2021), South Africa (Botha et al, 2013), Saudi Arabia (Almarashdi & Jarrah, 2023), Norway (Haara, 2018), and Slovenia (Kolar & Hodnik, 2021). The distribution of countries can be seen clearly in Figure 3.…”

“…Based on the 20 articles obtained, the majority of students still need to improve their mathematical literacy, and 19 articles show low-quality mathematical literacy. From some countries (Figure 3), Turkey is the dominating country with eight studies (Aksu et al, 2017;Aksu & Guzeller, 2016;Altun, 2017;Canbazoglu & Tarim, 2020;Kozakli Ulger et al, 2022;Ozgen, 2019;Tapan Broutin et al, 2021;Yenmez & Gokce, 2023), followed by Indonesia with six studies (Dewantara et al, 2015;Fauzi & Chano, 2022;Firdaus & Herman, 2017;Jailani et al, 2020;Kholid et al, 2022;Kusuma et al, 2022), and South Korea with one study (Hwang & Ham, 2021), South Africa (Botha et al, 2013), Saudi Arabia (Almarashdi & Jarrah, 2023), Norway (Haara, 2018), and Slovenia (Kolar & Hodnik, 2021). Then, one of the studies located in Indonesia had high mathematical literacy results (Zainiyah & Marsigit, 2019).…”

“…From 19 studies, it can be observed that the quality of mathematical literacy is low. 14 studies revealed that students had difficulty formulating mathematical problems (Aksu et al, 2017;Aksu & Guzeller, 2016;Altun, 2017;Botha et al, 2013;Canbazoglu & Tarim, 2020;Fauzi & Chano, 2022;Firdaus & Herman, 2017;Haara, 2018;Hwang & Ham, 2021;Jailani et al, 2020;Kholid et al, 2022;Kolar & Hodnik, 2021;Ozgen, 2019;Tapan Broutin et al, 2021), three studies revealed that students had difficulty implementing formulas (Almarashdi & Jarrah, 2023;Dewantara et al, 2015;Kusuma et al, 2022), and the rest revealed difficulties in developing mathematical problems (Kozakli Ulger et al, 2022;Yenmez & Gokce, 2023;Zainiyah & Marsigit, 2019).…”

“…Internal factors obtained are beliefs, motivation (Altun, 2017), motivation (Altun, 2017), motivation, the quantity of training (Dewantara et al, 2015;Kozakli Ulger et al, 2022), gender (Almarashdi & Jarrah, 2023), self-efficacy (Aksu & Guzeller, 2016), anxiety (Aksu & Guzeller, 2016), learning discipline (Aksu et al, 2017), reading literacy habit (Zainiyah & Marsigit, 2019), academic value (Yenmez & Gokce, 2023), age (Jailani et al, 2020), and students experience in working on problems (Ozgen, 2019). Then external factors cover the learning process (Botha et al, 2013;Canbazoglu & Tarim, 2020), student and teacher ratios (Aksu et al, 2017), learning models (Firdaus & Herman, 2017), mathematical modeling (Tapan Broutin et al, 2021;Yenmez & Gokce, 2023), learning approaches, teacher support (Kolar & Hodnik, 2021), ICT (Kolar & Hodnik, 2021), textbooks (Kolar & Hodnik, 2021), school level (Jailani et al, 2020), meaningful learning (Fauzi & Chano, 2022), culture (Haara, 2018), local resources (Haara, 2018), and teacher experience (Botha et al, 2013). This distribution can be seen in Figure 6.…”

“…One of the instruments used to measure mathematical literacy is mathematical problems. Based on Figure 7, there are several types of mathematical problems, and researchers get PISA problems that dominate based on the number of articles used as a research instrument, namely 13 articles (Aksu et al, 2017;Aksu & Guzeller, 2016;Almarashdi & Jarrah, 2023;Altun, 2017;Botha et al, 2013;Dewantara et al, 2015;Hwang & Ham, 2021;Jailani et al, 2020;Kholid et al, 2022;Kusuma et al, 2022;Tapan Broutin et al, 2021;Yenmez & Gokce, 2023;Zainiyah & Marsigit, 2019). Meanwhile, four articles use contextual problems (Fauzi & Chano, 2022;Firdaus & Herman, 2017;Haara, 2018; (Kozakli Ulger et al, 2022;Ozgen, 2019), and 1 article uses HOTS problems (Canbazoglu & Tarim, 2020).…”