Praxeological analysis of how indonesian students learn vectors in physics: A systemic and epistemic perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31349/RevMexFisE.23.020205Keywords:
Praxeological Analysis, Physics Vectors, Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD), Merdeka Curriculum, LOTS-HOTSAbstract
Vectors are fundamental in physics education, yet students frequently struggle to integrate geometric and algebraic representations. This study investigates the praxeological structures of vector content in the Physics for Senior High School/Islamic Senior High School Grade XI textbook under Indonesia’s Merdeka Curriculum using the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD). ATD conceptualizes knowledge as tasks (T), techniques (τ), technologies (θ), and theories (Θ). Data were obtained through a detailed analysis of the vector chapter (pp. 1–26) and examined from systemic and epistemic perspectives. The findings reveal that technical components (T/τ) dominate, while epistemic justification (θ/Θ) is weak. Topics such as dot and cross products are briefly mentioned but lack formal development, and connections between tasks remain fragmented. Most activities fall under Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS), though all show potential for extension into Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) through proof-based, exploratory, and multi-representational tasks. These results indicate the need to strengthen conceptual explanations, restructure content sequencing, and design coherent praxeologies to support deeper understanding. This research contributes theoretically by extending ATD applications into physics education and practically by offering insights for curriculum developers, textbook authors, and educators to create vector learning that balances procedural fluency and conceptual depth while fostering HOTS.
Downloads
References
O. D. Pranata, “Analysis of vector concept understanding and its correlation with basic mathematical abilities of prospective science teachers,” Contemp. Math. Sci. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/15723.
K. H. Fredly, T. O. Odden, and B. Zwickl, “How Computational Physics Students Improve their Computational Literacy,” in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2024, pp. 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Fredly.
S. Lippiello, M. Carli, and O. Pantano, “Enhancing integrated learning of physics and mathematics in secondary school,” in Connecting Physics Education Research and Practice, Springer, 2025, pp. 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86609-8_4.
M. J. Crowe, A history of vector analysis: The evolution of the idea of a vectorial system. Courier Corporation, 1994.
R. D. Knight, Physics for scientists and engineers. W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library, 2015.
D. C. Giancoli, Physics: principles with applications, vol. 1. Pearson Educación, 2005.
O. D. Pranata, “Students’ understanding of vector operations: With and without physics education technology simulation,” J. Math. Sci. Teach., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2024, https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/14633.
M. Carli, S. Lippiello, O. Pantano, M. Perona, and G. Tormen, “Testing students ability to use derivatives, integrals, and vectors in a purely mathematical context and in a physical context,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 10111, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010111.
H. Tairab, K. Al Arabi, L. Rabbani, and S. Hamad, “Examining Grade 11 science students’ difficulties in learning about vector operations,” Phys. Educ., vol. 55, no. 5, p. 55029, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aba107.
D. Liu and Y. Kottegoda, “Disconnect between undergraduates’ understanding of the algebraic and geometric aspects of vectors,” Eur. J. Phys., vol. 40, no. 3, p. 35702, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ab0509.
L. Bollen, P. Van Kampen, C. Baily, M. Kelly, and M. De Cock, “Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020109.
A. Shishigu, A. Hailu, and Z. Anibo, “Problem-based learning and conceptual understanding of college female students in physics,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 145–154, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/78035.
A. A. L. Jewaru, Umrotul, S. Kusairi, and N. A. Pramono, “Senior high school students understanding of vector concepts in mathematical and physical representations,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2021, vol. 2330, no. 1, p. 50024. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043433.
Z. Zainuddin and C. J. Perera, “Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom pedagogical model,” J. Furth. High. Educ., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–126, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1356916.
Sutopo and B. Waldrip, “Impact of a Representational Approach on Students’reasoning and Conceptual Understanding in Learning Mechanics,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 741–765, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9431-y.
T. A. Romansyah and M. R. A. Taqwa, “Are there differences in students’ ability to solve vector problems in mathematical and visual representations?,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2023, vol. 2569, no. 1, p. 50022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112655.
Y. Chevallard, “Steps towards a new epistemology in mathematics education,” in Proceedings of the IV congress of the European society for research in mathematics education, 2006, pp. 21–30.
M. Bosch and J. Gascón, “Introduction to the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD),” in Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education, Springer, 2014, pp. 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05389-9_5.
J. S. S. Goulart, L. M. S. Farias, and H. Chaachoua, “An Analysis of the Influences of a Hybrid Learning Environment in the Solution of Vector Tasks according to the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (ATD),” Mont. Math. Enthus., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 669–700, 2021, https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1540.
D. Wijayanti and C. Winslow, “Mathematical practice in textbooks analysis: Praxeological reference models, the case of proportion,” REDIMAT, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 307–330, 2017, https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2017.2078.
K. S. Kuncoro, D. Suryadi, J. A. Dahlan, and A. Jupri, “Praxeological analysis in Indonesian and Singaporean mathematics textbooks: An understanding geometrical similarity by students,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1197–1218, 2024, https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1197-1218.
D. Agustito, K. S. Kuncoro, B. Kusumaningrum, and D. Wijayanti, “Praxeological analysis of linear algebra content presentation: A case study of Indonesian mathematics textbooks,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 21, no. 6, p. em2648, 2025, https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16508.
D. Suryadi, “Didactical design research (DDR) dalam pengembangan pembelajaran matematika,” in Prosiding seminar nasional matematika dan pendidikan matematika, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 3–12.
D. Suryadi, Ontologi dan epistemologi dalam penelitian desain didaktis (DDR) [Ontology and epistemology in didactic design research (DDR)]. Departemen Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2018.
D. Suryadi, Landasan Filosofis Penelitian Desain Didaktis (DDR) [Philosophical foundations of didactic design research (DDR)]. Bandung: Pusat Pengembangan DDR Indonesia, 2019.
F. J. García, B. Barquero, I. Florensa, and M. Bosch, “Diseño de tareas en el marco de la Teoría Antropológica de lo Didáctico [Task design within the framework of the Anthropological Theory of Didactic],” Av. Investig. en Educ. Matemática, no. 15, pp. 75–94, 2019, https://doi.org/10.35763/aiem.v0i15.267.
S. Sahara, D. Suryadi, T. Turmudi, A. Hendriyanto, and L. H. Muhaimin, “Institutional Relativity of Reduction within Arithmetical Fractions: An Analysis of Japanese, Indonesian, and Malaysian School Textbooks,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., pp. 1–29, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10554-x.
Y. Chevallard and M. Bosch, “Anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD),” Encycl. Math. Educ., pp. 53–61, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100034.
T. Hausberger, M. Zandieh, and Y. Fleischmann, “Abstract and Linear Algebra,” in Research and Development in University Mathematics Education, Routledge, 2021, pp. 147–168. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346859-11.
U. Wutchana, “Effectiveness of tutorial worksheet for promoting basic vector concepts: dot product and cross product,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, vol. 1719, no. 1, p. 12090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1719/1/012090.
M. Bosch, Y. Chevallard, F. J. García, and J. Monaghan, “Working with the anthropological theory of the didactic in mathematics education,” Routledge, vol. 97804, p. 29198, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198168.
A. Pansell, “Mathematical knowledge for teaching as a didactic praxeology,” in Frontiers in Education, 2023, vol. 8, p. 1165977. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1165977.
J. Gascón and P. Nicolás, “On the Theory of Praxeologies BT - Extended Abstracts 2022,” 2024, pp. 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55939-6_13.
F. E. Chandra, D. Suryadi, J. A. Dahlan, S. Hayuningrat, and S. Rahman, “Derivative in Indonesian textbook curricula: A praxeological analysis of learning obstacles in Indonesian mathematics textbooks,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 21, no. 5, p. em2627, 2025, https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16256.
D. Suryadi and T. Itoh, “A Prospective Mathematics Teacher’s Lesson Planning: An In-Depth Analysis from the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 723–740, 2023, https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i4.pp723-740.
H. Strømskag and Y. Chevallard, “Didactic transposition and the knowledge to be taught: Towards an archeorganisation for concave/convex functions,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., pp. 1–28, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2305879.
J. L. D. Palencia, A. N. Redondo, and P. V. Caballero, “Elements of the anthropological theory of didactics in the selection of contents in a course of fluid mechanics in engineering, a case study in Spanish universities,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 7, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04894-w.
V. Topphol and H. Strømskag, “Analysis of a University Student’s Construction of a Praxeology for Integration Tasks,” Caminhos da Educ. Matemática em Rev., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1–25, 2024.
M. Gök and A. Erdoğan, “Didactic praxeologies employed by mathematics teachers in teaching the inverse function,” J. Comput. Educ. Res., vol. 11, no. 22, pp. 1089–1112, 2023, https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1361502.
E. A. Khaled, “Systemic Thinking Skills: Relationship to Epistemological Beliefs and Mathematical Beliefs,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1887–1896, 2022, https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1887.
A. Peters, “Using the TIMSS curriculum model to develop a framework for coherence and its role in developing mathematical connections,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 300–324, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2024.2371026.
S. Hußmann, F. Schacht, and M. Schindler, “Tracing conceptual development in mathematics: epistemology of webs of reasons,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 133–149, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0245-7.
F. F. Nurjannah and A. Wijaya, “Mathematical epistemology in mathematics learning: Its definition, role and implementation,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2022, vol. 2575, no. 1, p. 50011. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0107784.
D. Selvianiresa and S. Prabawanto, “Contextual Teaching and Learning Approach of Mathematics in Primary Schools,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 895, no. 1, pp. 0–7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012171.
M. Bosch, T.-H. Vu-Nhu, and D. Wijayanti, “Curriculum Reforms and the Construction of the Knowledge to Be Taught,” in Mathematics Curriculum Reforms Around the World: The 24th ICMI Study, Springer International Publishing Cham, 2023, pp. 101–111. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13548-4_7.
I. K. Sukarma, M. G. Isnawan, and N. M. Alsulami, “Research on nonroutine problems: A hybrid didactical design for overcoming student learning obstacles,” Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol., vol. 2024, no. 1, p. 5552365, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5552365.
J. Castellví, “Epistemological Obstacles to Social Studies Education,” Trends High. Educ., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1072–1080, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3040062.
G. S. Sidik, D. Suryadi, and T. Turmudi, “Learning obstacle on addition and subtraction of primary school students: Analysis of algebraic thinking,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2021, no. 1, p. 5935179, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5935179.
S. Susiswo, T. R. Murniasih, C. Sa’dijah, M. Muksar, and W. Murtafiah, “The development of an instrument on negative fractions to measure the cognitive obstacle based on mental mechanism stages,” TEM J., vol. 10, no. 3, p. 1357, 2021, https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM103-44.
U. Gellert, J. Barbé, and L. Espinoza, “Towards a local integration of theories: codes and praxeologies in the case of computer-based instruction,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 303–321, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9427-5.
S. Hasanah and H. Retnawati, “Assessment of contextual learning in mathematics education,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, 2022, vol. 2575, no. 1, p. 40018. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0111142.
OECD, PISA Results 2022 (Volume III) - Factsheets: Indonesia. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2024.
H. L. Johnson and M. Ohtani, “Advances in Task Design in Mathematics Education,” ZDM – Math. Educ., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 651–664, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01690-3.
Z. Özaydın and Ç. Arslan, “Assessment of mathematical reasoning competence in accordance with PISA 2021 mathematics framework,” J. Theor. Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 453–474, 2022, https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1027601.
G. S. Sidik, D. Suryadi, and T. Turmudi, Learning obstacle on addition and subtraction of primary school students: Analysis of algebraic thinking, Educ. Res. Int. 2021 (2021) 5935179, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5935179
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 D. Agustito, K. Singgih Kuncoro, B. Kusumaningrum, D. Wijayanti, S. Yunior Erlangga, R. Sebastian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Revista Mexicana de Física E right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
