Analysis Of Mathematical Content In Junior High School Mathematics Textbooks Based On Learning Outcomes
Abstract
This study aims to describe the results of an analysis of the alignment between the mathematical content of the 2022 Merdeka Curriculum junior high school mathematics textbooks and the Learning Outcomes (LO) established in the 2024 Merdeka Curriculum, published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. This study was conducted to identify competencies that have not been adequately covered in Merdeka Curriculum mathematics teaching materials, through an analytical method that breaks down learning outcomes into more specific learning objective sequences, particularly within the mathematical content of the 2022 Grade VII, VIII, and IX junior high school textbooks. This study employed a qualitative approach using content analysis as its research type, analyzing the 2022 Merdeka Curriculum Mathematics textbooks for Grades VII, VIII, and IX, published by the Center for Publishing under the Standards, Curriculum, and Educational Assessment Agency of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia. Data were collected through careful reading and recording of the mathematical content in the textbooks by decomposing the Learning Outcomes (LO) into Learning Objective Sequences (LOS). From a total of 249 LOS, a sample of 172 indicators was drawn using purposive sampling. The research instrument consisted of an alignment analysis sheet that was semantically validated by experts and tested for reliability using Fleiss' Kappa coefficient involving three raters, yielding an average value of 0.705 (substantial agreement). Data analysis followed Krippendorff's content analysis steps, comprising unitizing, sampling, recording/coding, inferring, and narrating, with alignment level categorization based on Stufflebeam & Shinkfield's merit evaluation standards. The findings reveal that the alignment of the Merdeka Curriculum junior high school mathematics textbook content with the Learning Outcomes stands at 56.40% for subject matter exposition, 60.47% for worked examples, and 73.10% for practice exercises, all of which fall within the aligned category. The Algebra content showed the highest alignment percentage at 66.25%, followed by Number content at 61.31%, and Data Analysis and Probability content at 59.59%. These findings indicate that the depth and breadth of the junior high school mathematics textbooks differ from the LOS developed by one particular Subject Teacher Working Group (MGMP), with the latter's LOS being comparatively deeper and broader. This study recommends that mathematics teachers use the analysis results as a guide to supplement insufficiently covered material and to maximize the use of practice exercises. Further research is also recommended to examine the implementation of the textbooks in actual classroom learning using more comprehensive assessment standards.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdullah, A. H., & Shin, B. (2019). A Comparative Study of Quadrilaterals Topic Content in Mathematics Textbooks Between Malaysia and South Korea. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.3.7572.315-340
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bahr, D.L., & Bossé, M.J. (2008). The State of Balance Between Procedural Knowledge and Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics Teacher Education.
Bebhe, M. M., Qibtiyah, M., Lestari, E. P., Septiani, E., Matematika, P., Indraprasta, U., & Jakarta, P. (2024). Analisis Buku Teks Matematika Kelas IV SD/MI Kurikulum Merdeka Penerbit Erlangga Berdasarkan Kriteria Bell. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Teknologi Indonesia (JPTI), 4(1), 1–4.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher et al. (Eds.), Psychology and the real world (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
BSAKP. (2022). Panduan Pembelajaran dan Asesmen Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, Pendidikan Dasar, dan Menengah.
BSKAP. (2022). Capaian Pembelajaran Mata Pelajaran Matematika Fase A – Fase F.
Budé, L.M., van de Wiel, M.W., Imbos, T., & Berger, M.P. (2012). The effect of guiding questions on students' performance and attitude towards statistics. The British journal of educational psychology, 82 Pt 2, 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02031.x
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publishing.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
Gal, I. (2002). Adults' statistical literacy: Meanings, components, responsibilities. International Statistical Review, 70(1), 1–25.
Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An Investigation of Mathematics Textbooks and Their Use in English, French and German Classrooms: Who Gets an Opportunity to Learn What? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192022000005832
Hanifah, B. M., Amany, M., Dyaahulhaq, S. F., & Hanifah, D. P. (2023). Analisis Penerapan Kurikulum Merdeka: Kajian Buku Teks Bahasa Indonesia Kelas 4 SD/MI. Prosiding SEMAI 2: Seminar Nasional PGMI 2023, 4(2), 10–21.
Hidayah, M., & Forgasz, H. (2020). A Comparison of Mathematical Tasks Types Used in Indonesian and Australian Textbooks Based on Geometry Contents. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.11.3.11754.385-404
Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it? The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 139–151.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publishing.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
McCrory, R., & Stylianides, A. J. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving in Mathematics Textbooks for Prospective Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.003
Muhlis, A. (2024). Analisis Kesesuaian Materi Buku Teks Utama Bahasa Indonesia SMA/SMK Kelas X Dengan Capaian Pembelajaran (CP) Kurikulum Merdeka. Universitas Jambi.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Arora, A. (2011). TIMSS 2011 International Results In Mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
OECD. (2020). PISA 2018 results (Volume IV): Are students smart about money? Paris: OECD Publishing.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 8 Tahun 2016 Tentang Buku yang Digunakan Oleh Satuan Pendidikan.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 12 Tahun 2024 tentang Kurikulum pada Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar, dan Jenjang Pendidikan Menengah.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. New York: Orion Press.
Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How Well Aligned Are Textbooks to the Common Core Standards in Mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton University Press.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Houang, R. T., HsingChi, H., Wiley, D. E., & Cogan, L. S. (2001). Why Schools Matter: A Cross-national Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. Jossey-Bass.
Sievert, H., Ham, A.-K. van den, & Heinze, A. (2021). Are First Graders' Arithmetic Skills Related To The Quality of Mathematics Textbooks? Learning and Instruction, 21(101401).
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K–12 (pp. 8–19). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houng, R. T. (2002). According to The Book: Using TIMSS to Investigate The Translation of Policy Into Practice Through The World of Textbooks. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Research Monograph No. 6. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.
Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn Context-based Tasks Provided by Mathematics Textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v13i4.7441
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2026 IJMMU. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).