The Ability to Prove Real Analysis Problems:  Investigation with APOS Conception

Muhammad Win Afgani; Retni Paradesa; Yuli Fitrianti

doi:10.22437/edumatica.v16i2.52319

Authors

Muhammad Win Afgani Raden Fatah State Islamic University Palembang
Retni Paradesa Raden Fatah State Islamic University Palembang
Yuli Fitrianti Raden Fatah State Islamic University Palembang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22437/edumatica.v16i2.52319

Keywords:

APOS conception, Proving ability, Real analysis problems

Abstract

Proving is an important ability for pre-service mathematics teachers, but previous studies have rarely examined it in Real Analysis using the APOS framework, which is essential for revealing their cognitive development in constructing mathematical proofs. Real Analysis is one of the courses that develops proving ability, but their level of ability in prove problems based on the APOS conception remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to analyze pre-service mathematics teachers’ proving ability in real analysis based on the APOS conception framework. This study uses a qualitative approach with 59 university students as participants. Data were collected from a test with four proof problems designed to represent different levels of reasoning in Real Analysis. The data were then analyzed using content and thematic analysis techniques guided by APOS indicators (action, process, object, and schema) to identify students’ cognitive structures in proving. The results indicate that students proved the problem without deep reflection. They did not recognize which method was required. They used some examples to prove a statement. They had not yet encapsulated the process of proof as a conceptual object. Thus, this study concludes that the ability of pre-service mathematics teachers to prove Real Analysis problems using the APOS conception approach was that most of them are still in the action conception, only a few have reached the process conception, and none have fulfilled the object and schema conception. These findings indicate that most students operate at the action level, relying on procedural manipulation without conceptual understanding, while only a few demonstrate process-level thinking by beginning to internalize proof structures. This suggests that students’ difficulties stem from a lack of conceptual understanding and insufficient experience in constructing formal proofs. Therefore, the curriculum should be designed to strengthen prerequisite abilities before studying Real Analysis and to develop a learning model that enables students to prove various Real Analysis problems. This condition reflects the need for instructional strategies that facilitate the transition from action to higher APOS levels.

References

Afgani, M. W., Suryadi, D., & Dahlan, J. A. (2017). Analysis of undergraduate students’ mathematical understanding ability of the limit of function based on APOS theory perspective. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895. Bandung: IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012056

Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2024). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: a framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59, 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5

Anwar, Y. S., & Abdillah, A. (2018). Penerapan teori APOS (Action, Process, Object, Schema) untuk meningkatkan pemahaman konsep program linier bagi mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika tahun akademik 2015/2016. Paedagoria: FKIP UMMat, 7(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.31764/paedagoria.v7i2.30

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Roa Fuentes, S., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6

Azira, M., Hasbi, M., & Umam, K. (2023). Analisis pemahaman konsep siswa berdasarkan teori APOS pada materi aritmatika sosial kelas VIII SMP Negeri 1 Ingin Jaya. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Matematika, 8(1), 96–104.

Bartle, R. G., & Sherbert, D. R. (2011). Introduction to real analysis (4th ed.). United States of America: John WIley & Sons, Inc.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buulele, K., Afriati, V., Desniarti, Sari, D. N., & Hutabarat, S. A. (2025). Penerapan model discovery learning untuk meningkatkan kemampuan penalaran matematis peserta didik pada materi eksponen. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 9(2), 17794–17800.

CadwalladerOlsker, T. (2011). What do we mean by mathematical proof? Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 1(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.5642/jhummath.201101.04

Chamberlain, D., & Vidakovic, D. (2021). Cognitive trajectory of proof by contradiction for transition-to-proof students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 62, 100849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100849

Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (2017). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathematics students. British Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 41–53.

Coleman, M. L., Ragan, M., & Dari, T. (2024). Intercoder reliability for use in qualitative research and evaluation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 57(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2024.2303715

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications.

DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: theory and applications (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Hanna, G. (2020). Mathematical proof, argumentation, and reasoning. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 561–566). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_102

Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: results from exploratory studies. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234–283.

Harry, A. R., & Cahya, E. (2019). Students understanding based on APOS theory in solving non-routin questions on materials number pattern. 1 St International Seminar STEMEIF (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics LearningInternational Forum), 443–449.

Herlina, E. (2013). Meningkatkan disposisi berpikir kreatif matematis melalui pendekatan APOS. Infinity, 2(2), 169–182.

Isnani, I., Waluya, S. B., Rochmad, R., Sukestiyarno, S., Suyitno, A., & Aminah, N. (2020). How is reasoning ability in learning real analysis? Proceedings of the International Conference on Agriculture, Social Sciences, Education, Technology and Health (ICASSETH 2019), 253–256. Paris, France: Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200402.059

Khairani, N. (2008). Pembelajaran matematika menggunakan teori APOS di Perguruan Tinggi. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika PARADIKMA, 1(2), 47–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24114/paradikma.v1i2.23444

Khusna, A. H. (2020). REACT: Strategi pembelajaran untuk mengembangkan kemampuan mahasiswa dalam mengkonstruksi bukti. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 9(3), 570. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v9i3.2950

Knez, M., & Cicic, Z. (2020). APOS analysis of students’ understanding of mathematical proof. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Mathematical Education (ICME 4).

Koyunkaya, M. Y., & Boz-Yaman, B. (2023). Changes in students’ mental constructions of function transformations through the APOS framework. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(4), em0747.

Langi, E. L., & Palayukan, H. (2024). Proses berpikir tahap aksi dan tahap proses dalam membangun pemahaman integral mahasiswa calon guru. Didaktika: Jurnal Kependidikan, 13(2), 1925–1934.

Lapele, D. A., Buton, I., & Sopamena, P. (2024). Analisis pemahaman konsep matematis siswa dalam pemecahan masalah berdasarkan teori APOS. JRPM (Jurnal Review Pembelajaran Matematika), 9(2), 110–128.

Mahfudhoh, Saniya, S., & Kohar, A. W. (2023). Students’ new concept construction process based on APOS theory: introvert versus extrovert. Journal of Mathematical Pedagogy, 4(2), 84–96.

Maullina, E. S., & Setyaningsih, N. (2023). Students’ ability to solve arithmetic problems based on APOS theory in cognitive styles differences. Numerical: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 7(13–26). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25217/numerical.v7i1

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2018). qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications.

Morgan, H. (2024). Using triangulation and crystallization to make qualitative studies trustworthy and rigorous. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6071

Mukuka, A., & Tatira, B. (2025). Analysis of pre-service mathematics teachers’ proof comprehension through Toulmin’s argumentation model. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i1.pp111-130

Mulyono, M. (2011). Teori APOS dan implementasinya dalam pembelajaran. Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.20961/jmme.v1i1.9924

Nurlaelah, E., Pebrianti, A., Taqiyuddin, M., Dahlan, J. A., & Usdiyana, D. (2024). Improving mathematical proof based on computational thinking components for prospective teachers in abstract algebra courses. Infinity Journal, 14(1), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i1.p85-108

Oflaz, G., Bulut, N., & Akcakın, V. (2016). Pre-Service classroom teachers’ proof schemes in geometry: a case study of three pre-service teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(63), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.63.8

Özden, M. (2024). Content and thematic analysis techniques in qualitative research: purpose, process and features. Qualitative Inquiry in Education: Theory & Practice, 2(1 SE-Review Article), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.59455/qietp.20

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Palla, M., Potari, D., & Spyrou, P. (2012). Secondary school students’ understanding of mathematical induction: structural characteristics and the process of proof construction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1023–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9311-2

Rizos, I., & Gkrekas, N. (2023). Is there room for conjectures in mathematics? The role of dynamic geometry environments. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13204

Rocha, H. (2019). Mathematical proof: from mathematics to school mathematics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377(2140), 20180045. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0045

Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Cervantes-Barraza, J. A., & Font Moll, V. (2023). Exploring mathematical connections in the context of proof and mathematical argumentation: A new proposal of networking of theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(5), em2264. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13157

Sefik, Ö., Erdem Uzun, Ö., & Dost, Ş. (2021). Content analysis of the APOS theory studies on mathematics education conducted in turkey and internationally: A meta-synthesis study. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 15(2), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1020526

Septiati, E. (2024). Desain pembelajaran berdasarkan teori APOS untuk mendukung pembelajaran berbasis bukti materi sistem bilangan real. Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang.

Sevgi Moralı, H., & Filiz, A. (2023). Incorrect theorems and proofs: An analysis of pre-service mathematics teachers proof evaluation skills. Journal of Pedagogical Research. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202318840

Shinariko, L. J., Hartono, Y., & Darmawijoyo, D. (2022). Developing proof-based learning using APOS theory aproach in exponential for enhancing students’ reasoning ability. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 11(4), 2903. https://doi.org/10.24127/ajpm.v11i4.6155

Sommerhoff, D., Kollar, I., & Ufer, S. (2021). Supporting mathematical argumentation and proof skills: comparing the effectiveness of a sequential and a concurrent instructional approach to support resource-based cognitive skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572165

Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289–321.

Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2022). Introducing students and prospective teachers to the notion of proof in mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66, 100957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100957

Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Moutsios-Rentzos, A. (2024). Proof and proving in school and university mathematics education research: a systematic review. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01518-y

Suwanto, F. R., Aprisal, Misnasanti, Putra, W. D. P., & Sari, R. H. Y. (2017). APOS theory towards algebraic thinking skill. Proceedings of Ahmad Dahlan International Conference on Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 52–58.

Syamsuri, S. (2016). Analysis of false-semantic proof production in undergraduate mathematics learning based on APOS theory. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(5), 44–49.

Syamsuri, S., & Marethi, I. (2018). APOS analysis on cognitive process in mathematical proving activities. International Journal on Teaching and Learning Mathematics, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.18860/ijtlm.v1i1.5613

Takom, L., Menggat, R., & Talib, R. (2025). Using content validity index to estimate instrument validity in social sciences research.

Tatira, B. (2023). Students’ cognition of the induction step in proving inequality propositions. Journal of Medives : Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 7(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.31331/medivesveteran.v7i2.2571

Tirosh, D. (1999). Forms of mathematical knowledge: learning and teaching with understanding (D. Tirosh, Ed.). Dordrecht/Boston/Londo: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ubah, I. J. A., & Bansilal, S. (2018). Pre-service primary mathematics teachers’ understanding of fractions: An action–process–object–schema perspective. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v8i2.539

Umgelter, K., & Geisler, S. (2023). Analysing the quality of advanced mathematics lectures regarding the presentation of theorems and proofs – the case of real analysis lectures. Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4(July), 291–298. Haifa: PME 46.

Urhan, S., & Dost, Ş. (2018). The analysis of pre-service math teachers’ level of understanding the derivative concept within the context of APOS theory. SHS Web of Conferences, 48, 01064. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184801064

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: the need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015535614355

Windasari, I. Y., Prasetyowati, D., & Shodiqin, A. (2020). Analisis pemahaman konsep berdasarkan teori APOS pada materi barisan geometri di kelas XI SMA Negeri 1 Godong. Imajiner: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 2(5), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.26877/imajiner.v2i5.6664

Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal, 11, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6

Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Cronbach’s alpha in mathematics education research: Its appropriateness, overuse, and alternatives in estimating scale reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074430