See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/377335284

SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of

Students in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Article · November 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 117

1 author:

Junlor I CUSTODIO Dacsa

University of Makati
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Junlor I CUSTODIO Dacsa on 12 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 UNIVERSITAS

SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis:

Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus
Junlor C. Dacsa I
Higher School ng UMak, University of Makati, Makati City

[email protected]

Abstract

Error analysis in mathematics education has a long history. For the past years, many
researchers used error analysis to better understand students’ incorrect solutions
and/or answers when given mathematical word problems. This study is aimed at
exploring the SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis as means of understanding
the difficulties of students from STEM track programs when solving word problems in
Conic Sections in the senior high school setting. A descriptive-qualitative design was
used to investigate the different errors committed by the students using the Newman
Error Analysis and then describe how learners’ understanding builds while solving
word problems in Conic Sections using SOLO Taxonomy. The participants of the
study were STEM students from Higher School ng UMak of the University of Makati.
Validated open-ended questions were used to identify the level of understanding
and errors committed by the students when solving the problems in Conic Sections.
The study revealed that most students commit errors under the transformation
level when their level of understanding is between multi-structural and relational.
Implications and future research were discussed.

Keywords: SOLO Taxonomy, Newman Error Analysis, Word Problems

Introduction

Mathematics is a powerful tool and a doorkeeper for success in life. It is believed to be the mother

of all subjects. Exposure to mathematics can help students develop various skills. For instance, it

helps students to acquire better organization of ideas. Also, it enhances accuracy in expressing

their thoughts. It mainly offers a lot of 21st-century skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving,

collaboration, agility, adaptability, effective communicating, accessing and analyzing, curiosity and

imagination, and Information Technology and Communication literacy. Despite the importance of

mathematics in all human endeavors, the poor performance of students, nowadays, is becoming

alarming. In the recent report of PISA 2018, the Philippines ranked second to last than any other

Southeast Asian country in mathematics (OECD, 2019; Villegas, 2021; Gravemeijer et al., 2017;

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 87

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Adegun & Adegun, 2013; National Research Council et al., 2001). The low ranking of the Philippines

in the recent PISA 2018 can be attributed to the learning difficulties of the students in mathematics.

Difficulties in learning mathematics can be rooted in different factors. Some research reported

that difficulties in learning mathematics include mathematical terms and their related concepts,

qualification of teachers, the experience of teachers, low commitment on the part of teachers, and

the attitude of students towards mathematics. Many topics and concepts in mathematics were

found to be difficult as perceived by teachers and students. In addition, students also lacked in

many mathematical skills such as number-fact, visual-spatial, and information skills which hinder

mathematical problem-solving (Mulwa, 2015; Adegun & Adegun, 2013; Yusha’u, M. (2013); Tambychik

& Meerah, 2010; Holton, 2009).

Polya’s problem-solving is finding a way around a difficulty, around an obstacle, and finding

a solution to a problem that is unknown. To completely solve the problem, the students must

undergo different steps: (1) the students should understand the problem, (2) the students should

devise a plan to solve the problem, (3) the students should execute the plan to solve the problem,

and (4) the students should make sure that their solution and answer are correct or make sense

to the given problem. The students should explore what the problems tell them to find out. The

exploration involved using a different range of strategies to solve unfamiliar problems, as well

as the process of analyzing, reasoning, generalizing, and abstracting. In the exploration process,

students can make errors (Atteh, et al., 2017).

Errors of students in solving problems in mathematics are always the quandaries of most

mathematics teachers in the classroom. Several authors and researchers have conducted studies

on why students commit errors in solving different kinds of problems and categorized these errors

committed by the students. Some of them established well-defined and distinct theories and

categorizations to describe why such errors occur when a student attempts to solve mathematical

word problems. Different theories about how students commit errors in solving mathematical

problems were started from the research of JS Brown and Kurt VanLehn in 1980-the Repair Theory,

Anne Newman of Australia in 1977, and 1983-the Newman Error Analysis, to Clement and Ellerton

88 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

from 1980 to 1996-the modification of Newman Error Analysis.

One of the theories of errors in Mathematics that has been increasingly used in analyzing

errors in solving word problems is the Newman error analysis or NEA. It was developed by Anne

Newman in Australia in 1977 and was used on elementary pupils who were solving basic word

problems in Mathematics. According to Anne Newman, when students try or attempt to solve a

problem that is unfamiliar to them, the error occurs on different levels: reading error, comprehension

error, transformation error, process skill error, and an encoding error. But in 1980 and 1997, Ellerton

and Clement modified the NEA model. They said that when students attempt a second time to

solve problems and commit one of the errors in the hierarchy of Newman, other errors can occur:

carelessness and motivation errors. One of these errors may occur at any stage of Newman’s

analysis of errors in solving problems in mathematics. In this study, the original classification of NEA

was also used to identify the type of errors committed by students in solving word problems in

mathematics.

Errors of students in solving mathematical problems are not simply a result of situational

accidents but the product of previous experience in the classroom. One of the causes of errors in

students is the failure to understand certain concepts, techniques, and problems in a “scientific”

way. Many researchers have tried to use the NEA to identify errors committed by students involving

mathematical word problems and tried to describe how each error occurs while some researchers

used NEA to recommend remedial classes and interventions as their basis to minimize errors in

solving word problems in mathematics. NEA spreads widely in different regions and countries in

Asia-Pacific such as in Brunei (Mohidin, 1991), Malaysia (Marinas and Clement, 1990; Clements and

Ellerton, 1992), Thailand (Prakitipong and Nakamura, 2006), Papua New Guinea (Clarkson, 1983

and 1991), Iran (Haghverdi, 2012; Sajadi, 2013), and Philippines (San Gabriel, 2011; Siducon, 2013).

From these studies, the common errors committed by the students when solving word problems

in mathematics were either Transformation error or Process error with a percentage ranging from

almost 50% to 70%.

The use of NEA can be beneficial to the different stakeholders specifically the teachers and

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 89

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

students. But, research studies on understanding the level of thinking in mathematics problem-

solving using Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy by Biggs and Collis

(1982) have been increasing (e.g. Amar, et al., 2017; Mardiyana, et al., 2017; Upu & Bangatau, 2018;

Saputra, Nurjanah, & Retnawati, 2019, Mukuka, Balimuttajjo, & Mutarutinya, 2020). These studies used

SOLO taxonomy for the identification of abilities of students in solving problems in mathematics,

assessment, and instruction in a mathematics curriculum. The studies found out that: (1) SOLO

taxonomy can very useful to influence mathematics assessment and instructions, (2) students’

levels of thinking skills in solving mathematical problems are different because each student has

also a different level of self-efficacy and cognitive style, (3) based on SOLO taxonomy students

lack cognitive abilities and different mathematical skills such as readiness, planning, and process in

solving word problems, and (4) students’ thinking ability to solve problems is either pre-structural

or uni structural and few to none reach the extended abstract.

In SOLO Taxonomy, there are five distinct ways in which a learner might structure responses.

The SOLO Taxonomy was created by carefully analyzing student responses to assess tasks and has

been validated for use in a wide range of disciplines (Biggs & Collis, 1986 as cited by Potter & Kustra,

2012). The SOLO Taxonomy can be represented in the table below.

Table 1

The Description of Each Level in SOLO Taxonomy

Level of Understanding Biggs Description

Pre-structural Students do not understand the topic/problem.

Unistructural Students learn one relevant aspect of the topic/problem.

Multi-structural Students learn several independent aspects of the topic/problem but

cannot link them together.

Relational Students learn to link several independent aspects of the topic/problem

into a structure.

Extended – Abstract Students can generalize what they learn into new areas of knowledge.

90 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

The description of each level in SOLO taxonomy is the guide of this study to identify the ability

of the students in solving mathematical word problems but will be modified to fit in this study using

indicators (see table 2) developed by Chick (1998) and was used in the study of Mulbar, Rahman,

and Ahmar (2017) and Suptra, Nurjanah, and Retnawati (2018). These indicators were the guide of

this study to analyze students’ responses.

Table 2

The Indicators of Each Level in SOLO Taxonomy

Level of Understanding Biggs Description

Pre-structural • The student uses incorrect data or processes so that his/her conclusion
obtained is incorrect or irrelevant
• The student only has little information that is not even related, so it
does not form a unified concept at all and does not have any meaning.

Unistructural • The student can use at least one piece of information and use one
concept or process.
• The student uses a process based on selected data to solve the word
problem but the conclusion obtained is not relevant.

Multi-structural • Students use multiple data/information, but find no relationship

between the data, so they cannot draw relevant conclusions.
• Students can make some connections between several data/
information sources, but these relationships are not appropriate so the
conclusions obtained are irrelevant.
Relational • Students use multiple data/information to the applied concept/process
and provide interim results then connect the data or other processes
so that they can draw relevant conclusions.
• Students associate the concept/process so that all relevant information
is connected and relevant conclusions are obtained.
Extended – Abstract • Students use multiple data/information, then, apply the concept/
process and provide interim results and, then, connect the data or
other processes, so that they can draw conclusions that are relevant
and can generalize about the results obtained.
• Students think conceptually and can generalize in a domain/area of
knowledge and experience of others.

Since there are little empirical data on the study of Newman error analysis and SOLO taxonomy

in understanding the responses of the students when they solve mathematical word problems, this

study aimed to explore the SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis as means of understanding

the difficulties of students from STEM track program when solving word problems in Conic Sections

in a senior high school setting in the University of Makati.

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 91

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Methodology

The study used a descriptive-quantitative method of research as it intended to describe and

classify the errors of the students in solving problems involving Conic Sections.

The researcher used a purposive sampling technique to select the respondents of the study

to answer the eight open-ended word problems since the purpose of the study is to look for

common errors of senior high school students in solving word problems. The respondents of the

study were senior high school students of the University of Makati who were enrolled in a Pre-

Calculus specialized subject. Only 49 students out of 70 from the two sections, G12-02STM and

G12-05STM, participated in the study.

There were two instruments used in the study namely, the diagnostic test, and the rubric-

score guide. The diagnostic test and the rubric were developed by the researcher. In this study, the

researcher developed a diagnostic test composed of eight mathematical word problems in Pre-

Calculus specifically in word problems involving Parabolas, Circles, Ellipses, and Hyperbolas. These

mathematical word problems were used to identify the common errors committed by the students

in solving word problems.

The diagnostic test was validated using rubrics developed by the researcher. The experts rated

the diagnostic test and rubric using a 3-point scale. Based on the collected data, it was revealed

that all the mathematical word problems involving the application of conic sections are acceptable

with a grand mean of 2.86. Only eight out of thirteen validated moderate and difficult mathematical

word problems were chosen in this study. The answer sheets for solving word problems involving

conic sections were also provided. Each answer sheet is composed of the steps to solve the word

problem involving the application of conic sections.

The rubric for scoring the students’ solutions was also an instrument. It was composed of 5

indicators and a 5-point level of performance. Each point represents the type of error that attempted

to solve each of the mathematical word problems. For example, if a student answered one of the

mathematical word problems and meets all the indicators, he/she will receive five points. The rubric

was also validated by the same experts. The data revealed that the rubric for scoring the students’

92 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

solutions was acceptable with a grand mean of 3.00. It also includes indicators to identify the level

of understanding of students in solving the word problem involving Conic Sections.

The conduct of the study underwent two stages. The first stage of the study involved the

writing of items for the diagnostics test in word problems involving the application of conic sections.

Writing of items was based on the competencies in the Pre-Calculus curriculum guide that was given

by the Department of Education. After the writing of items, the diagnostic test was validated by

the experts and then revised and finalized based on the expert’s comments and recommendations.

This was followed by the development of rubrics for the interpretation of students’ solutions to the

word problems in the application of conic sections. This was again content validated by the experts

and modified the content of the rubrics using the expert’s recommendation or suggestions. The

second stage of the conduct of the study was the administration of the diagnostic test involving

the application of conic sections (Parabola, Circle, Ellipse, Hyperbola) to the selected groups of

participants who volunteered and gave their consent to participate in the study.

The percentage is used to summarize the common errors committed by students in solving

word problems in Pre-Calculus and identify the level of understanding using SOLO Taxonomy.

After the students attempted to solve problems involving the application of conic sections, the

researcher checked the solutions of the students using the indicators written in the rubric. In

checking the students’ solutions, the researcher used indicators to score each word problem. After

the researcher gave the score for each word problem solved by the students, he interpreted the

score to the type of error committed by the students and identify the level of understanding using

the SOLO Taxonomy.

Results and Discussion

Tables 3 to 6 showed the descriptive analysis of the level of understanding using SOLO

Taxonomy and types of error committed by the Grade 11 students in solving word problems involving

conic sections: circle, parabola, ellipse, and hyperbola using the Newman Error analysis (NEA).

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 93

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Table 3

Descriptive Analysis on Level of Understanding using SOLO Taxonomy and the Errors Committed
by the Grade 11 Students in Solving Word Problems in Conic Sections (Circle) Using the NEA

PROBLEM Level of TYPES OF ERROR USING NEWMAN ERROR ANALYSIS

SET Understanding
Using SOLO RE CE TE PE EE NE
Taxonomy
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Circle 1* Pre-Structural
(N=46)
Unistructural 7 15.22
Multi-structural 39 84.78
Relational
Extended
Abstract
Circle 5** Pre-Structural 3 7.32
(N=41)
Unistructural
Multi-structural 16 39.02
Relational 1 2.44
Extended 21 51.22
Abstract
note: re - reading error, ce - comprehension error, te - transformation error, Pe - Process error, ee - encoding
error, ne - no error
*Moderate level, **difficult level

The data showed that out of 47 students, 46 solved problem 1, 39 (84.78%) students

committed errors that are classified as Transformation error with multi-structural as their level of

understanding, and 7 (25.22%) students committed errors that are classified as Comprehension error

with uni structural as their level of understanding. However, one student did not answer problem

1. In addition, 41 students solved word problem 5, 16 (39.02%) students committed errors that are

classified as Transformation error with multi-structural as their level of understanding, 3 (7.32%)

students committed errors that are classified as Reading error with pre-structural as their level of

understanding, and only 1 (2.44%) student committed error which is classified as Encoding error

with relational as his level of understanding. It can be interpreted that almost 85% of the students

who solved moderate word problems committed a Transformation error with multi-structural as

their level of understanding while more than 39% committed a Transformation error with multi-

structural as their level of understanding in the difficult word problem involving circle. Moreover,

94 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

21 (51.22%) students did not commit errors in difficult problems and their level of understanding is

under the extended abstract. This confirms the results of the study by Abdullah et al. (2015) that

students commit Transformation error in word problems involving Higher Order Thinking Skills. In

addition, more than 25% of the students who committed errors are classified as Comprehension

error. San Gabriel (2011) found that students working with the higher levels committed most errors

in Comprehension.

Table 4

Descriptive Analysis on Level of Understanding using SOLO Taxonomy and the Errors Committed
by the Grade 11 Students in Solving Word Problems in Conic Sections (Ellipse) Using the NEA

PROBLEM Level of TYPES OF ERROR USING NEWMAN ERROR ANALYSIS

SET Understanding
Using SOLO RE CE TE PE EE NE
Taxonomy
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Ellipse 2** Pre-Structural
(N=47)
Unistructural 2 4.26
Multi-structural 11 23.40
Relational 15 31.91
Extended 19 40.43
Abstract
Ellipse 8* Pre-Structural
(N=39)
Unistructural
Multi-structural 16 41.03
Relational 1 2.56 22 56.41
Extended
Abstract
note: re - reading error, ce - comprehension error, te - transformation error, Pe - Process error, ee - encoding
error, ne - no error
*Moderate level, **difficult level

The data showed that out of 47 students who solved problem 2, 15 (31.91%) students committed

errors that are classified as Process error with a relational level of understanding, 11 (23.40%) students

committed errors that are classified as Transformation error with multi-structural as their level of

understanding, and 2 (4.26%) students committed errors that are classified as Comprehension error

with uni structural as their level of understanding. Only 39 students solved problem 8. In this problem,

16 (41.03%) students committed errors that are classified as Transformation error with a multi-

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 95

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

structural level of understanding, and only 1 (2.56%) student committed an error which is classified

as Process Skill error with relational as their level of understanding. It can be seen that more than

40% of the students who answered moderate and difficult problems did not commit error and their

level of understanding is under the extended abstract. Furthermore, 22 (56.41%) students and 19

(40.43%) students did not commit errors in moderate problems and difficult problems, respectively,

with extended abstract as their level of understanding. It can be interpreted that the majority of the

students who committed errors solving difficult problems involving ellipses committed a Process

skill error with relational as their level of understanding while the majority of the students who

committed errors in solving moderate problems involving ellipses committed a Transformation error

with multi-structural as their level of understanding. The result is similar to the study of Zakaria and

Maat (2010) that the students who made errors in solving word problems in quadratic equations

committed Transformation and Process Skill errors. The data showed that out of 47 students, only

Table 5

Descriptive Analysis on Level of Understanding using SOLO Taxonomy and the Errors Committed
by the Grade 11 Students in Solving Word Problems in Conic Sections (Hyperbola) Using the NEA

PROBLEM Level of TYPES OF ERROR USING NEWMAN ERROR ANALYSIS

SET Understanding
Using SOLO RE CE TE PE EE NE
Taxonomy
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Hyperbola Pre-Structural
3**
(N=43) Unistructural
Multi-structural 41 95.35 2 4.65
Relational
Extended
Abstract
Hyperbola Pre-Structural
6*
(N=43) Unistructural 19 44.19
Multi-structural 4 9.30
Relational
Extended 20 46.51
Abstract
note: re - reading error, ce - comprehension error, te - transformation error, Pe - Process error, ee - encoding
error, ne - no error
*Moderate level, **difficult level

96 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

43 solved problem 3, 41 (95.35%) students committed errors that are classified as Transformation

error with multi-structural as their level of understanding. Also, only 43 out of 47 students solved

problem 6, 19 (44.19%) students committed errors that are classified as Transformation error

with multi-structural as their level of understanding, and 4 (9.30%) students committed errors

that are classified as Process error with relational as their level of understanding. Also, it can be

seen that 20 (46.51%) students in solving moderate problems did not commit error with extended

abstract as their level of understanding. The results can be interpreted that more than 95% of the

students who committed errors when solving a difficult problem involving hyperbola committed a

Transformation error with multi-structural as their level of understanding while less than 45% of the

students who committed errors when solving a moderate problem involving hyperbola committed

a Transformation error with uni structural as their level of understanding. These results concur with

the findings of San Gabriel (2011) that students committed most errors in Transformation.

Table 6

Descriptive Analysis on Level of Understanding using SOLO Taxonomy and the Errors Committed
by the Grade 11 Students in Solving Word Problems in Conic Sections (Parabola) Using the NEA

PROBLEM Level of TYPES OF ERROR USING NEWMAN ERROR ANALYSIS

SET Understanding
Using SOLO RE CE TE PE EE NE
Taxonomy
f % f % f % f % f % f %
Parabola Pre-Structural 2 4.26
4*
(N=47) Unistructural
Multi-structural 22 46.81
Relational 2 4.26
Extended 21 44.68
Abstract
Parabola Pre-Structural 3 7.89
7**
(N=43) Unistructural
Multi-structural 35 81.4
Relational 2 4.65
Extended 3 6.98
Abstract
note: re - reading error, ce - comprehension error, te - transformation error, Pe - Process error, ee - encoding
error, ne - no error
*Moderate level, **difficult level

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 97

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

The data showed that out of 47 students who solved problem 4, 22 (46.81%) students

committed errors that are classified as Transformation error with multi-structural as their level of

understanding, 2 (4.26%) students committed errors that are classified as Reading error with pre-

structural as their level of understanding, and 2 (4.26%) students committed errors that are classified

as Encoding error with relational as their level of understanding. Only 43 out of 47 students solved

problem 7. In problem 7, 35 (81.40%) students committed errors that are classified as Transformation

error with multi-structural as their level of understanding, 3 (7.89%) students committed errors that

are classified as Reading error with pre-structural as their level of understanding, and 2 (4.65%)

students committed errors that are classified as Process Skill error with relational as their level of

understanding. In addition, 21 (44.68%) students did not commit error with extended-abstract as

their level of understanding. The results can be interpreted that almost 50% of the students who

solved a moderate problem involving a parabola committed a Transformation error with multi-

structural as their level of understanding while more than 80% of the students who solved a difficult

problem involving a parabola committed a Transformation error with multi-structural as their level

of understanding, and only a few students (~8%) committed a Reading error with a pre-structural

level of understanding. This is similar to the findings of Trance (2013) that students frequently made

errors in Transformation and very few students committed a Reading error.

Conclusion

Most of the Grade 11 students who solved the moderate and difficult word problems involving

the applications of Conic Sections have learning difficulties when they committed a Transformation

error with multi-structural as their level of understanding. Applying appropriate methods and

transforming the word problem into conic sections are the most difficult procedures for students

in solving the word problems involving the applications of Conic Sections. Furthermore, the use

of error analysis and SOLO Taxonomy can be beneficial in the learning process for teachers to

understand the mathematical difficulties of their students since a large number of errors in solving

98 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI
 UNIVERSITAS

the applications of conic sections can be reflected in the PISA results.

Recommendation

A more comprehensible study of error analysis in Conic Sections with a larger sample may

be conducted for a more conclusive and accurate result. SOLO Taxonomy and Error analysis on

students’ solutions to word problems may be done by teachers to identify and understand the

difficulties of students in learning mathematics. Remedial intervention programs must be done to

minimize the different errors committed by students under the Transformation level and improve

students’ level of understanding.

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

DACSA, J. (2022). SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of
Students in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus. UNIVERSITAS, 10(2), pp. 87-102. ISSN:

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 99

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A., Abidin, N., & Ali, M. (2015). Analysis of Students’ Errors in Solving Higher Order Thinking Skills
(HOTS) Problems for the Topic of Fraction. Asian Social Science, 11 (21), 133 - 142.
Adegun, I. & Adegun, B. (2013). Students’ and Teachers’ View of Difficult Areas in Mathematics Syllabus:
Basic Requirements for Science and Engineering Education. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (2),
235 - 243.

Amar, A., Mulbar, U., & Rahman, A. (2017). Analysis of the ability in mathematical problem solving based on
SOLO taxonomy and cognitive style. World of transaction s on Engineering and Technology Education,

Atteh, E., Appoh Andam, E., & Obeng-Denteh, W. (2017). Problem Solving Framework for Mathematics
Discipline. Asian Research Journal of Mathematics, 4(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/233118
6X.2022.2061683

Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2016, April 1). Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing Students’
Errors. The IRIS Center: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/vol70/
num01/Making-Time-for-Feedback.aspx

Brown, J., Skow, K., Center, & Center, t. I. (2012, September). Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing
Student Errors. The IRIS Center: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept12/
vol70/num01/Making-Time-for-Feedback.aspx

Chick, H. (1998). Cognition in the formal modes: research mathematics and the SOLO taxonomy. Math.
Educ. Res. J., 10(2), 4-26.
Clarkson, P. (1991). Language Comprehension Error: A Further Investigation. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, 3 (2), 1 - 21.
Clarkson, P. (1980). The Newman Error Analysis - Some Extentions. Research in Mathematics Education,
I, 11 - 22.
Clements, M., & Ellerton, N. (1992). Overemphasizing Process Skills in School Mathematics: Newman
Analysis Data from Five Countries. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on the
Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 145 - 152.

Collis, K., & Biggs, J. (1986). Using the SOLO Taxonomy. SET: Research Information for Teachers 1(1).
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Ellerton, N., & Clements, M. (1996). The Newman Procedure for Analyzing Errors on Written Mathematical
Tasks. 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (pp. 1-10).
Melbourne, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia.

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What Mathematics Education May
Prepare Students for the Society of the Future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 15(S1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

Haghverdi, M. (2012). The Relationship Between Different Kinds of Sudents’ Errors and the Knowledge
Required to Solve Mathematics Word Problems. Bolema, Rio Claro (SP) , 26 (42B), 649 - 665.
Holton, D. (2009). Teacher Development and Mathematical Challenge: Challenging Mathematics In and
Beyond the Classroom. New ICMI Study Series, 12, 205 - 242.
Mardiyana, M., Putri, U.H., & Saputro, D.R.S., (2017). How to analyze the students’ thinking levels based

100| UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI

 UNIVERSITAS

on SOLO taxonomy? Journal of Physics

Marinas, B., & Clements, M. (1990). Understanding the Problem: A Prerequisite to Problem Solving in
Mathematics. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 13 (1), 14 - 20.

Mohidin, R. (1991). An Investigation into the Difficulties Faced by the Students of Form 4 SMJA Secondary
School in Transforming Short Mathematical Problems into Algebraic Form. SEAMEO - RECSAM.

Mukuka, A., Balimuttajjo, S., & Mutarutinya, V. (2020). Applying SOLO taxonomy in assessing and fostering
students’ mathematical problem solving abilities, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of
the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
(SAARMSTE), 104-112.

Mulwa, E. (2015). Difficulties Encountered by students in the learning and the usage of mathematical
terminology: a critical literature review. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(15), p. 27-37. https://files.
d d

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics (Illustrated
ed.). National Research Council.

Newman, A. (1977). An Analysis of Sixth-Grade Pupils’ Errors on Written Mathematical Tasks. Victorian
Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31 - 34.

Newman, A. (1983). Strategies for Diagnosis and Remediation. Sydney: Hardcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It - Second Edition. (Vol. 1957). Princeton University Press.

Potter, M., & Kustra E. (2012). Course Design for Constructive Alignment. Center for Teaching and Learning,
University of Winsdor.

Prakitipong, N., & Nakamura, S. (2006). Analysis of Mathematics Performance of Grade Five Students in
Thailand Using Newman Procedure. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 9 (1), 111 - 122.

Sajadi, M. (2013). The Examining Mathematical Word Problems Solving Ability under Efficient Representation
Aspect. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 1 - 11.

San Gabriel, V. (2011). Exploring the Errors Committed by Third Year High School Students in Solving Word
Problems in Geometry Using Newman’s Error Analysis. Philippine Normal University Graduate Thesis.

Saputra, D.C., Nurjanah, A., & Retnawati, H. (2019). Student’s ability of mathematical problem solving
based on SOLO taxonomy. Journal of Physics, 1 – 7. https://10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012070
Siducon, A. (2013). Error Pattern Analysis of Solving Problems in Probability as Basis for Remedial
Intervention. Manila, Philippines: Philippine Normal University Graduate Thesis.

Tambychik, T., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). Students’ Difficulties in Mathematics Problem-Solving: What do they
Say? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.020

Trance, N. (2013). Process Inquiry: Analysis of Oral Problem Solving Skills in Mathematics of Engineering

ISSN: 2243-8602 | E-ISSN 2945-445X | 101

 SOLO Taxonomy and Newman Error Analysis: Understanding the Difficulties of Students
in Solving Word Problems in Pre-Calculus

Students. US - China Education Review A, 3, 73 - 81.

Upu, H., & Bangatau, N.S., (2018). The profile of problem-solving in Algebra based on SOLO taxonomy in
terms of cognitive style, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR).
1st international Conference on Advanced Multidisciplinary Research (ICAMR 2018), 227, 372 – 376.

VanLehn, K. & Brown, J.S. (1980). Repair Theory: A Generative Theory of Bugs in Procedural Skills.
Cognitive Science, 4 (4), 379 - 426.

VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind Bugs: The Origins of Procedural Misconceptions. MIT Press Cambridge.

Villegas, B. (2021, June 29). Addressing the Philippine education crisis. BusinessWorld Online. https:
d n n n n add n n d a n

Yusha’u, M. (2013). Difficult Topics in Junior Secondary School Mathematics: Practical Aspect of Teaching
and Learning Trigonometry. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 2 (4), 161 - 174.

Zakaria, E., & Maat, S. (2010). Analysis of Students’ Error in Learning of Quadratic Equations. International
Education Studies, 3 (3), 105 - 110.

102 | UNIVERSITY OF MAKATI

View publication stats