Epistemological obstacle on the topic of prism: A phenomenological study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30862/jhm.v7i3.674Keywords:
Bloom's Taxonomy, Epistemological Obstacle, Phenomenological Methodology, PrismAbstract
Mathematics learning is often hindered by epistemological obstacles that affect students’ conceptual understanding. In geometry, students frequently struggle to identify and analyze fundamental properties of prisms, despite instructional efforts to improve comprehension. Prior research has primarily focused on procedural fluency rather than the cognitive barriers students face in interpreting mathematical definitions. Addressing this gap, this study investigates the epistemological obstacles eighth-grade students encounter in understanding prisms. Specifically, it examines students’ ability to determine whether a geometric figure qualifies as a prism based on definitional characteristics and to analyze the relationship between two figures with equal volumes. This qualitative study employs a phenomenological approach, involving six purposively selected eighth-grade students. Data were collected through written tests and semi-structured interviews, then analyzed in three stages: identifying core ideas from student responses, categorizing these ideas into conceptual groupings, and thematizing the categorized data into key discussion themes. Findings reveal that students struggle to identify prisms due to difficulties recognizing defining characteristics and determining bases, resulting from didactic transposition issues such as oversimplified definitions, misinterpretation of concepts, and curricular limitations. At the C4 level of Bloom’s Taxonomy, students also struggle to analyze mathematical statements due to reliance on teacher-provided examples. This study contributes to mathematics education by highlighting cognitive barriers in geometric reasoning. The findings emphasize the need for instructional strategies that enhance conceptual clarity and adaptive problem-solving, ultimately fostering deeper geometric understanding.
References
Adler, J., Hossain, S., Stevenson, M., Clarke, J., Archer, R., & Grantham, B. (2014). Mathematics for teaching and deep subject knowledge: Voices of Mathematics Enhancement Course students in England. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 129-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9259-y
Angraini, P., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2019). Misconceptions of seventh grade students in solving geometry problem type national examinations. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012101
Artigue, M. (2009). Didactical design in mathematics education. In Nordic research in mathematics education (pp. 5-16). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087907839_003
Aziiza, Y. F., & Juandi, D. (2021). Student’s learning obstacle on understanding the concept of prism surface area. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1806, No. 1, p. 012115). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012115
Balacheff, N., Cooper, M., Sutherland, R., & Warfield, V. (2002). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2
Bozkurt, A., & Koc, Y. (2012). Investigating First Year Elementary Mathematics Teacher Education Students' Knowledge of Prism. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2949-2952.
Brousseau, G. (2002). The didactical contract: The teacher, the student and the milieu. In Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics (pp. 226–249). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2_13
Brousseau, G. P. (1976). Les obstacles épistémologiques et les problèmes en mathématiques. La Problématique et l’enseignement de La Mathématique, 101–117. Retrieved from https://hal.science/hal-00516569
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). Didactic Transposition in Mathematics Education. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 214–218). New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48
Cho, Y. M., & Park, H. N. (2011). A scheme of the instruction of prism definition for 5th grade students. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 15(2), 317-332.
Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153-166). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_10
Double, K. S. (2025). Survey measures of metacognitive monitoring are often false. Behavior Research Methods, 57(3), 97. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02621-6
Fauzi, I., & Suryadi, D. (2020). Learning obstacle, the addition and subtraction of fraction in grade 5 elementary schools. MUDARRISA: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Islam, 12(1), 51-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/mdr.v12i1.50-67
Fitzpatrick, R. (2008). Euclid’s elements of geometry. Nature, 61(1581), 365–365. https://doi.org/10.1038/061365a0
Fuster Guillen, D. E. (2019). Qualitative research: Hermeneutical phenomenological method. Journal of Educational Psychology-Propositos y Representaciones, 7(1), 217-229.
Hamzah, H., Hamzah, M. I., & Zulkifli, H. (2022). Systematic literature review on the elements of metacognition-based higher order thinking skills (HOTS) teaching and learning modules. Sustainability, 14(2), 813.
Hendriyanto, A., Suryadi, D., Juandi, D., Dahlan, J. A., Hidayat, R., Wardat, Y., ... & Muhaimin, L. H. (2024). The didactic phenomenon: Deciphering students’ learning obstacles in set theory. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 517-544.
Jamilah, Suryadi, D., & Priatna, N. (2021). Analysis of Didactic Transposition and HLT as a Rationale in Designing Didactic Situation. In 4th Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference (SULE-IC 2020) (pp. 567-574). Atlantis Press. 10.2991/assehr.k.201230.164
Kandaga, T., Rosjanuardi, R., & Juandi, D. (2022). Epistemological Obstacle in Transformation Geometry Based on van Hiele's Level. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11914
Levenson, E., Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2011). Preschool Geometry: Theory, Research, and Practical Perspectives. Preschool Geometry: Theory, Research, and Practical Perspectives (pp. 1–134). Leiden: Brill.
Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Students' improper proportional reasoning: A result of the epistemological obstacle of “linearity”. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 75-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410601061462
Moru, E. K. (2009). Epistemological obstacles in coming to understand the limit of a function at undergraduate level: A case from the national university of lesotho. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9143-x
Mujahidah, A. S., & Rosjanuardi, R. (2024). Students' Ontogenic and Epistemological Obstacles on the Topic of Pyramid Volume. KnE Social Sciences, 460-470. http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.15948
Mumu, J., & Tanujaya, B. (2019). Measure reasoning skill of mathematics students. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(6), 85-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p85
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
Prihandhika, A., Fatimah, A. E., & Sujata, T. (2023). Studi transposisi didaktik terhadap mahasiswa calon guru matematika: Tinjauan pada konteks knowledge to be taught dalam konsep turunan. Journal of Didactic Mathematics, 4(3), 168-179. Doi: 10.34007/jdm.v4i3.1966
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing Mathematics Knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 184–190. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12229
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2019). Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics learning and instruction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (pp. 124–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.007
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a One-Way Street: Bidirectional Relations Between Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge of Mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
Robutti, O. (2020). Meta-didactical transposition. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 611-619). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100012
Safitri, G., Darhim, D., & Dasari, D. (2023). Student’s obstacles in learning surface area and volume of a rectangular prism related to mathematical representation ability. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(1), 55-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v14i1.16281
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional science, 26(1), 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Ricardo, H. J., & Schwartzman, S. (1995). The Words of Mathematics: An Etymological Dictionary of Mathematical Terms Used in English. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102(6), 563. https://doi.org/10.2307/2974781
Sierpińska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational studies in Mathematics, 18(4), 371-397.
Sunariah, L., & Mulyana, E. (2020). The didactical and epistemological obstacles on the topic of geometry transformation. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3), 032089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032089
Supandi, S., Suyitno, H., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., & Dwijanto, D. (2021). Learning barriers and student creativity in solving math problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1918(4), 042088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/4/042088
Suryadi, D. (2019a). Landasan filosofis penelitian desain didaktis (DDR). Jakarta: Pusat Pengembangan DDR Indonesia.
Suryadi, D. (2019b). Penelitian desain didaktis (DDR) dan implementasinya. Bandung: Gapura Press.
Tuffour, I. (2017). A critical overview of interpretative phenomenological analysis: A contemporary qualitative research approach. Journal of healthcare communications, 2(4), 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2472-1654.100093
Türnüklü, E. B. (2005). The relationship between pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge of pre-service mathematics teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 21, 234-247.
Ulusoy, F. (2019). Early-years prospective teachers' definitions, examples and non-examples of cylinder and prism. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 20(2), 149-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.4256/ijmtl.v20i2.213
Unlu, M., & Horzum, T. (2018). Mathematics Teacher Candidates' Definitions of Prism and Pyramid. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 670-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.21890/ijres.438373
Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 65-81). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_5
Fried, M. N. (2006). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. ZDM, 38(2), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02655890
Vaughan, G. (2022). Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning. Opus et Educatio, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3311/ope.501
Winsløw, C. (2007). Didactics of mathematics: an epistemological approach to mathematics education. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 523-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170701687969
Yuen, A. H., Law, N., & Wong, K. C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of educational Administration, 41(2), 158-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230310464666
Yuliani, R. E. (2016). Perspective of theory of didactical situation toward the learning obstacle in learning mathematics. Sriwijaya University Learning and Education International Conference, 2(1), 911-928.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Universitas Papua
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal. Please also carefully read Journal of Honai Math Posting Your Article Policy at http://journalfkipunipa.org/index.php/jhm/about
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with Journal of Honai Math agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- 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.
