This study analyzes the presentation of area concepts for triangles and quadrilaterals in Indonesian and Japanese textbooks using the praxeology framework and evaluates potential learning obstacles through Didactical Design Research. The Indonesian textbook offers broader task variations but relies on limited techniques, which may potentially lead to ontogenic, didactic, and epistemological obstacles. Conversely, the Japanese textbook incorporates more comprehensive techniques, emphasizing a universal triangle-based approach and Euclidean geometry, yet excludes the area of kites, which may cause potential didactic obstacles. The findings highlight the need for educators to critically select textbooks and for policymakers to develop materials that address diverse learning needs while minimizing obstacles. This research offers valuable insights for improving mathematics education by aligning textbook content with pedagogical goals and student contexts.
AltıparmakKGürcanGGürcanG (2021) Examination of 4th grade students’ definitions for square, rectangle and triangle geometric shapes. Education Quarterly Review4(3): 1–19.
2.
ArtigueMBoschM (2014) Introduction to the anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD). In: Networking of Theories as a Research Practice in Mathematics Education. Springer, 249–265.
3.
BintaraIAPrabawantoS (2024) Learning obstacles of junior high school students on the concept of triangle. KnE Social Sciences2024(12): 500–509.
4.
BoschMGascónJ (2006) Twenty-five years of the didactic transposition. ICMI bulletin58(1): 51–65.
5.
BrousseauG (1997) Theory of Didactical Situations in Math- Ematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6.
BrousseauG (2002) Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7.
BSKAP (2022) Sistem Informasi Perbukuan Indonesia (Indonesian Book Information System). Pusat Perbukuan, Badan Standar, Kurikulum, Dan Asesmen Pendidikan.https://buku.kemendikdasmen.go.id/.
8.
ChevallardY (1989) On didatic transposition theory: some introductory notes. In: Lnternational Symposium on Selected Domains of Research and Development in Mathematics Education. ICMI, 51–62.
9.
ChevallardY (2019) Introducing the anthropological theory of the didactic. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education12: 71–114.
10.
ChevallardYBoschM (2020) Didactic transposition. In: LermanS (ed) Mathematics Education BT - Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer International Publishing, 214–218.
11.
CimattiB (2020) Definition, development, assessment of soft skills and their role for the quality of organizations and enterprises. International Journal for Quality Research10(1): 262–274.
12.
ClementsDHSaramaJJoswickC (2022) Learning and teaching geometry in early childhood. In: Special Issues in Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research. Brill, 95–131.
13.
CraineTVRubensteinRN (1993) A quadrilateral hierarchy to facilitate learning in geometry. Mathematics Teacher86(1): 30–36.
14.
CreswellJW (2015) Educational Research - Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 5th edition. Pearson.
15.
DBSIGalvãoMEELSilva A da FG (2023) The surface area of plane figures in textbooks throughout elementary school. Acta Scientiae25(1): 28–54.
16.
DeweyJ (1986) Experience and Education. Taylor & Francis Group.
17.
DunajskiM (2022) Null kähler geometry and isomonodromic deformations. Communications in Mathematical Physics391(1): 77–105.
18.
Euclid (1885) Elements of Euclid. Cornell University Library.
19.
FriedmanM (2015) Kant on geometry and experience. In: (ed. De RisiV) Kant on Geometry and Experience BT - Mathematizing Space. Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 275–309.
20.
GalitskayaVNDrigasAS (2020) Special education: teaching geometry with ICTs. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning15(6): 173–182.
21.
Gomes deMJOGalvãoMEELda Fontoura Garcia SilvaA (2018) O Conceito de Área num Processo de Formação de Professores dos Anos Iniciais. Jornal Internacional de estudos em educação matemática11(3): 261.
22.
HatchJA (2002) Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. State University of New York Press.
23.
HilbertD (1950) The Foundations of Geometry. University of Illinois.
24.
HorsmanR (2019) International perspectives on the teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools. Research in Mathematics Education21(1): 96–100.
25.
KabacaT (2017) Understanding the hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals through the ordered relation according to diagonal properties. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology48(8): 1240–1248.
26.
Klim-KlimaszewskaANazarukS (2017) The scope of implementation of geometric concepts in selected kindergartens in Poland. Problems of Education in the 21st Century75(4): 345–353.
27.
MakhsudU (2020) General concept of mathematics and its history. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research4(12): 38–42.
MelaniRHermanT (2023) Evaluation of learning media (textbooks) in area of square and rectangle to prepare student in problem solving: praxeological analysis. Prism12(1): 40.
30.
MoiseE (1965) Elementary Geometry from an Advanced Standpoint. Wesley Publishing Company.
31.
NazlıAÖvezF (2018) An anthropological analysis of the knowledge on graphics within middle school mathematics. Journal of Education and Future1(13): 95–119.
32.
OECD (2023) PISA 2022 results factsheets Indonesia. The Language of Science Education1(1): 1–9.
33.
PutraZH (2019a) Elementary teachers’ knowledge on fraction multiplication: an anthropological theory of the didactic approach. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Elementary Education (Jtlee)2(1): 47.
34.
PutraZH (2019b) Praxeological change and the density of rational numbers: the case of pre-service teachers in Denmark and Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education15(5): 1–15.
35.
PutraZHWitriG (2017) Anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD) a new research perspective on didactic mathematics in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Guru2(1): 221–227.
36.
RaniGKumarPDeviR, et al. (2023) Mathematics as a part of the real life. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology3: 409–418.
37.
Santos S dosPFariasLMS (2022) The anthr the anthropological theor opological theory of the didactic in br y of the didactic in Brazilian r azilian researches. The Mathematics Enthusiast19(2): 501–524.
38.
SerinH (2018) Perspectives on the teaching of geometry: teaching and learning methods. Journal of Education and Training5(1): 1.
39.
SiahaanEYSDasariDSuryadiD (2024) Learning obstacles hindering junior high school students understanding of surface area of a prism. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif14(1): 167–182.
SuryadiD (2019b) Landasan Filosofis Penelitian Desain Didaktis (DDR). Pusat Pengembangan DDR Indonesia.
42.
SuryadiD (2019c) Penelitian Desain Didaktis (DDR) Dan Implementasinya. Gapura Press.
43.
SzałekBZ (2016) The blurred problem of foreign funding of civil society organizations in the light of political marketing, praxiology and hybrid warfare. Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek, Available at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=563187
44.
TakeuchiHShinnoY (2020) Comparing the lower secondary textbooks of Japan and England: a praxeological analysis of symmetry and transformations in geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education18: 791–810.
45.
WinsløwC (2011) Anthropological theory of didactic phenomena: some examples and principles of its use in the study of mathematics education. Accelerating the world’s research10(1): 117–138.
