Main Article Content
Folding back is an important element of Pirie-Kieren's theory of growth in mathematical understanding. Students do folding back to the inner level of understanding, when facing problems at a certain level of understanding. The main focus of the folding back is the thicker understanding of the deeper components. Susiswo (2015) explains that when students face problems at a certain level of understanding, they will return to the inner level of understanding, but the understanding does not become thicker. This condition is known as pseudo folding back. This study aims to describe students' pseudo folding back when solving Real Analysis problems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
(1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
(2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
(3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
2. Ciltas, A. & Tatar, E. (2011) diagnosing learning difficulties related to the equation and inequality that contain terms with absolute value. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, Volume 3, Nomor 2: 461-473.
3. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, Ed, & Nichols, D. (1996) Understanding the limit concept: beginning with a coordinated process schema. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. Vol.15: 167-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90015-2
4. Droujkova A. M., Berenson B. S., Slaten, K., & Tombes S. (2005) A conceptual framework for studying teacher preparation: The pirie-kieren model, collective understanding, and metaphor. Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 2, pp. 289-296.
5. Duru, A. (2011) Pre-Service teachers’ perception about the concept of limit. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. Vol.11, Numbers 3: 1710-1715.
6. Hiebert, J. (1986) Conceptual and prosedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Juter, K. (2007) Students’ conceptions of limits: High achievers versus low achievers. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, ISSN 1551-3440, Vol. 4, no.1, pp. 53-65.
8. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., dan Findell, B. (2001) Ading It Up Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington DC. National Research Council.
9. Lithner, Johan. (2012) Learning mathematics by creative or imitative reasoning. International Congress on Mathematical Education.
10. Martin, C., LaCroix, L. & Fownes, L. (2005) Folding back and the growth of mathematical understanding in workplace training. Adults Learning Mathematics An International Journal.Vol.1, Nomor 1.
11. Meel, E. (2003) Model and theories of mathematical understanding: Comparing pirie- kieren’s model of the growth of mathematical understanding and APOS theory. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education.Vol. 12.
12. Muzangwa, J. dan Chifamba, P. (2012) Analysis of errors and misconceptions in the learning of calculus by undergraduate students. Acta didactica napocensia. Volume 5 Nomer 2.Parameswaran, R. (2010). Expert mathematicians’ approach to understanding definitions. The mathematics educator. Volume 20, Nomor 1: 43-51.
13. Pirie, S. & Kieren, T. (1994) Growth in mathematical understanding: How we can characterize it and how we can represent it. Educational studies in mathematics, Vol. 9: 160–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2057-1_3.
14. Sidebotham, Thomas H. (2003) The a to z of mathematics: a basic guide, Hlm. 181, ISBN 9780471461630
15. Skemp, R. (1987) Psychology of learning mathematics. Lawrence erlbaum associates. New Jersey. Hillsdale.
16. Susiswo (2015) Students’ form folding back in solving limit problems. Disertasi doktor pascasarjana. universitas negeri malang, pendidikan matematika.
17. Swinyard, C. & Larsen, S. (2012) Coming to understand the formal definition of limit: insights gained from engaging students in reinvention. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Vol. 43, No. 4, 465-493.
18. Tall, D. (2002) Advanced mathematical thinking. New York : Kluwer Academic Publisher.
19. Tall, D.& Vinner, S. (1981) Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. educational studies in mathematics. Vol.12: 151–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619.
20. Vinner, S. (1997) The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational studies in mathematics. Volume 34: 97-129. 69–302. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522112x653840