Why do students struggle to understand composition functions? Analysis of learning obstacles in vocational education

Dwika Saputri; Reni Wahyuni; Dedek Andrian; Nofriyandi Nofriyandi

doi:10.30821/axiom.v15i1.29352

Why do students struggle to understand composition functions? Analysis of learning obstacles in vocational education

Dwika Saputri, Reni Wahyuni, Dedek Andrian, Nofriyandi Nofriyandi

Abstract

Difficulties in understanding abstract mathematical concepts, particularly functions and function composition, are still commonly experienced by students, especially those in Vocational High Schools (SMKs). This study aimed to identify the learning obstacles experienced by eleventh-grade Vocational High School (SMK) students in learning functions and function composition. This study employed a qualitative descriptive approach as the initial stage of Didactical Design Research (DDR). Data were collected through diagnostic tests, semi-structured interviews, and documentation to identify learning obstacles related to function composition. The results indicate that students experienced various learning obstacles. They had difficulty understanding the concepts of functions and function composition, as reflected in their inability to distinguish between the two concepts and their dependence on examples provided by teachers, indicating epistemological obstacles. In addition, students experienced difficulty performing substitutions, determining the order of function composition, and applying solution procedures systematically, indicating instrumental ontogenic obstacles. The interview results also revealed that learning practices oriented toward memorization contributed to these difficulties, indicating didactical obstacles. Therefore, students’ difficulties in learning function composition were influenced by epistemological, instrumental ontogenic, and didactical obstacles. These findings provide a basis for developing more effective learning designs that emphasize conceptual understanding.

Keywords

Compositional function; Didactical obstacle; Epistemological obstacle; Learning obstacle; Ontogenic obstacle

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adnyana, K. P., Hartawan, I. G. N. Y., & Suparta, I. N. (2021). Pengaruh pendekatan visual thinking terhadap keterampilan pemecahan masalah matematika siswa kelas xi sma negeri 1 tejakula. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Indonesia, 10(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.23887/jppmi.v10i1.1025

Aini, S. N., Waluya, S. B., Prabowo, A., Zaenuri, Z., Walid, W., & Pratiwi, M. D. (2023). Analisis learning obstacle dalam pembelajaran matematika kelas viii smp it nurul islam tengaran. Phenomenon: Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 13(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2023.13.2.20914

Aprilianti, P. K. (2022). Desain bahan ajar berbasis representasi matematis pada materi fungsi komposisi dan fungsi invers. Journal of Research in Science and Mathematics Education (J-RSME), 1(2), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.56855/jrsme.v1i2.57

Ario, M., & Jupri, A. (2025). Students ’ errors and learning obstacles in solving algebraic word problems : Hermeneutic phenomenology. Education Sciences, 15, 1–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121674

Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Springer.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. In Writing Center Talk over Time. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429469237-3

Fadli, M. R. (2021). Memahami desain metode penelitian kualitatif. HUMANIKA, 21, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.21831/hum.v21i1.38075

Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed). Sage Publications.

Hendriyanto, A., Suryadi, D., Juandi, D., Dahlan, J. A., Hidayat, R., Wardat, Y., Sahara, S., & Muhaimin, L. H. (2024). The didactic phenomenon: Deciphering students’ learning obstacles in set theory. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp517-544

Herman, T., Suryadi, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2022). Concept of polygon : Case study of elementary students’ difficulties. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 14(5), 34–47. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1382281

Hidayati, N., & Juandi, D. (2025). Eksplorasi learning obstacle siswa dalam pembelajaran matematika : Systematic literature review. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika Jakarta, 7(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.21009/jrpmj.v7i1.27427

Konnova, L., Lipagina, L., Postovalova, G., Rylov, A., & Stepanyan, I. (2019). Designing adaptive online mathematics course based on individualization learning. Education Sciences, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030182

Marlinda, S., & Effendi, K. N. S. (2024). Epistemological obstacle siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal pada pokok bahasan persamaan kuadrat. Radian Journal: Research and Review in Mathematics Education, 2(4), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.35706/rjrrme.v2i4.12091

Morgan, H. (2024). Using triangulation and crystallization to make qualitative studies trustworthy and rigorous. Qualitative Report, 29(7), 1844–1856. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6071

Munawwaroh, A. G., Pramudya, I., & Nurhasanah, F. (2025). Epistemological obstacles in the process of learning mathematical abstraction : a systematic literature review. KnE Social Sciences, 10 No 11(1), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v10i11.18749

Pramesti, P., & Ferdianto, F. (2021). Analisis kesulitan siswa belajar matematika pada materi fungsi komposisi dan fungsi invers kelas x sma negeri 1 rajagaluh. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan Sains, 7(2), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpms.v7i2.25243

Pratiwi, S., Kesumawati, N., & Fahriza Fuadiah, N. (2024). Kajian learning obstacle pada materi konsep integral kelas XI SMA. Laplace : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.31537/laplace.v7i1.1784

Rahman, A., Munandar, S. A., Fitriani, A., Karlina, Y., & Yumriani. (2022). Pengertian pendidikan, ilmu pendidikan dan unsur-unsur pendidikan. Al Urwatul Wutsqa: Kajian Pendidikan Islam, 2(1), 1–8. https://journal.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/alurwatul/article/view/7757

Riastuti, A., Juandi, D., & Suryadi, D. (2023). Kecenderungan hasil tentang penelitian learning obstacle pada materi aljabar dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir. Jurnal Math-UMB.EDU, 10, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.36085/mathumbedu.v10i3.5261

Ruli, R. M., Juandi, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Yugni, S. (2025). From arithmetic to algebra : Students’ epistemological obstacles universitas singaperbangsa Karawang , Indonesia. SJME: Supremum Journal of Mathematics Education, 09(02), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.35706/sjme.v9i2.205

Saputri, F. O. D. (2025). Analisis kemampuan pemahaman konsep matematis siswa pada materi operasi hitung bentuk aljabar melalui pendekatan matematika realistik. [Skripsi]. Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang.

Sari, H. J., Kusaeri, A., & Mauliddin, M. (2020). Analisis kemampuan representasi matematis siswa dalam memecahkan masalah geometri. JPMI (Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia), 5(2), 56–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jpmi.v5i2.1813

Schlunegger, M. C., Zumstein-Shaha, M., & Palm, R. (2024). Methodologic and data-analysis triangulation in case Studies: A scoping review. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 46(8), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459241263011

Stahl, B. N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45381095

Sugiyono, P. (2022). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Suryadi, D. (2013). Didactical design research (DDR) dalam pengembangan pembelajaran matematika. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 1, 3–12.

Suryadi, D. (2018). Ontologi dan epistemologi dalam penelitian desain didaktis (DDR). Departemen Pendidikan Matematika UPI.

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30821/axiom.v15i1.29352