Junior High School Students' Conceptual Understanding of Flat-Sided Geometric Shapes through APOS Theory: A Qualitative Study

Muh. Khaedir Lutfi(1*), Endang Cahya Mulyaning A(2), Fitri Anisa Kusumastuti(3),

(1) Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Tangerang Raya
(2) Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(3) Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Tangerang Raya
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Research on students' difficulties in geometry has mostly emphasized errors and formula mastery, while fewer studies have examined how junior high school students construct three-dimensional geometric concepts through APOS theory. This qualitative descriptive study analyzes eighth-grade students' conceptual understanding of cubes and prisms in flat-sided geometric shapes using the APOS framework. Participants were 28 eighth-grade students in Tangerang Regency who had studied cubes and prisms. Data were collected through five open-ended diagnostic questions mapped to Action, Process, Object, and Schema indicators and through semi-structured interviews. The results showed that 10 students (35.7%) were at the Action stage, 9 students (32.1%) at the Process stage, 6 students (21.4%) at the Object stage, and 3 students (10.8%) at the Schema stage. Most students could apply formulas but had difficulty explaining why formulas worked, coordinating two- and three-dimensional representations, and integrating base area, height, volume, and context. The novelty of this study lies in using APOS as a diagnostic framework for identifying were students' cognitive construction stalls in junior high school three-dimensional geometry. The findings suggest that geometry instruction should include visualization, manipulation, and reflective explanation to support transitions between APOS stages.


Keywords


APOS Theory; Conceptual Understanding; Flat-Sided Solids; Junior High School Students; Qualitative Research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ademmer, C., & Prediger, S. (2025). How can ideas be connected afterwards? Decomposing teachers’ facilitation practices for conceptual learning in a case of formal volume calculation. Cognition and Instruction, 43(4), 355-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2025.2527688

Alghadari, F., Ma’ruf, A. H., & Yundayani, A. (2024). Students’ Inconsistency when Solving a Geometry Problem in Three-Dimensional Context. International Journal of Educational Innovation and Research. https://doi.org/10.31949/ijeir.v3i1.6905

Akarsu, M. (2022). Understanding of geometric reflection: John’s learning path for geometric reflection. Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 15(1), 64-89. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.952022

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Roa Fuentes, S., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014a). From Piaget’s Theory to APOS Theory: Reflective Abstraction in Learning Mathematics and the Historical Development of APOS Theory. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6_2

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Roa Fuentes, S., Trigueros, M., & Weller, K. (2014b). Mental Structures and Mechanisms: APOS Theory and the Construction of Mathematical Knowledge. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6_3

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktaç, A., Fuentes, S.R., Trigueros, M., Weller, K. (2014c). APOS Theory: A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7966-6

Bansilal, S., Brijlall, D., & Trigueros, M. (2017). An APOS study on pre-service teachers’ understanding of injections and surjections. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.08.002

Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students’ understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 258–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/749365

Battista, M. T., Frazee, L. M., & Winer, M. L. (2018). Analyzing the Relation Between Spatial and Geometric Reasoning for Elementary and Middle School Students. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98767-5_10

Borji, V., Martínez-Planell, R., & Trigueros, M. (2024). Students’ geometric understanding of partial derivatives and the locally linear approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 115(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10242-z

Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.06.004

Cetintav, G., & Yilmaz, R. (2023). The Effect of Augmented Reality Technology on Middle School Students’ Mathematic Academic Achievement, Self-Regulated Learning Skills, and Motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(7), 1483–1504. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231176022

Chan, W. W. L., & Kwan, J. L. Y. (2021). Pathways to word problem solving: The mediating roles of schema construction and mathematical vocabulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2021.101963

Chiphambo, S. M., & Mtsi, N. (2021). Exploring Grade 8 Students’ Errors When Learning About the Surface Area of Prisms. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(8), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29333/EJMSTE/10994

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2025). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 5/E.

Cui, J., Yang, F., Peng, Y., Wang, S., & Zhou, X. (2024). Differential cognitive correlates in processing symbolic and situational mathematics. Infant and Child Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2500

Dubinsky, E. (2001). Using a Theory of Learning in College Mathematics Courses. MSOR Connections, 1(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.11120/msor.2001.01020010

Dubinsky, E., & Mcdonald, M.A. (2001). APOS: A Constructivist Theory of Learning in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Research. In: Holton, D., Artigue, M.,

Kirchgräber, U., Hillel, J., Niss, M., Schoenfeld, A. (eds) The Teaching and Learning of

Mathematics at University Level. New ICMI Study Series, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47231-7_25

Ellis, A. B., Lockwood, E., Tillema, E., & Moore, K. (2022). Generalization across multiple mathematical domains: Relating, forming, and extending. Cognition and Instruction, 40(3), 351-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2000989

Ergene, B. C., & Bostan, M. I. (2025). Nurturing Pre-Service Teachers’ Professional Noticing Skills Through Pedagogies of Practice: Ergene and Bostan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(5), 1309-1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10519-6

Firdaus, A. M., Lestari, N. D. S., Murtafiah, W., Ernawati, T., Lukitasari, M., & Widodo, S. A. (2023). Generalization of Patterns Drawing of High-Performance Students Based on Action, Process, Object, and Schema Theory. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(1). 421-433. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.1.421

Gilligan-Lee, K. A., Hawes, Z., & Mix, K. S. (2022). Spatial thinking as the missing piece in mathematics curricula. NPJ Science of Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00128-9

Gulkilik, H. (2022). Representational fluency in calculating volume: an investigation of students’ conceptions of the definite integral. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 53(11), 3092-3114. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1958943

Hasanah, A. N., & Yulianti, K. (2020). Error analysis in solving prism and pyramid problems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032035

Jones, K. (2001). Spatial Thinking and Visualisation. Royal Society. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/38485/

Kinach, B. M. (2012). Fostering Spatial vs. Metric Understanding in Geometry. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK–12, 105(7), 534–540. https://doi.org/10.5951/MATHTEACHER.105.7.0534

Kurt, G., Önel, F., & Çakıoğlu, Ö. (2023). An investigation of Middle School Students’ Spatial Reasoning Skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 16(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.319

Kania, N., Saepudin, A., & Gürbüz, F. (2025). Assessing Cognitive Obstacles in Learning Number Concepts: Insights from Preservice Mathematics Teachers. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v10i3.8638

Lakin, J. M., Wai, J., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Corwith, S., Rothschild, D., & Uttal, D. H. (2024). Spatial Thinking Across the Curriculum: Fruitfully Combining Research and Practice. Gifted Child Today. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175241242722

Lavicza, Z., Abar, C. A. A. P., & Tejera, M. (2023). Spatial geometric thinking and its articulation with the visualization and manipulation of objects in 3D. Educação Matemática Pesquisa. https://doi.org/10.23925/1983-3156.2023v25i2p258-277

Lutfi, M. K., Herman, T., & A, E. C. M. (2025). Discriminant Analysis of Students ’ Spatial Ability in Understanding Flat-Sided Geometric Shapes. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v9i1.98297

Lutfi, M. K., & Jupri, A. (2020). Analysis of junior high school students’ spatial ability based on Van Hiele’s level of geometrical thinking for the topic of triangle similarity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032026

Lutfi, M. K., Kusumastuti, F. A., Akib, I., & Rohmawati, A. (2022). Media E-Learning Bangun Ruang Sisi Datar: Kelayakan pada Pembelajaran Daring. Edu Komputika Journal, 9(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.15294/edukomputika.v9i2.54743

Lutfi, M. K., Kusumastuti, F. A., Akib, I., & Rohmawati, A. (2023). Media E-Learning Bangun Ruang Sisi Datar: Kelayakan pada Pembelajaran Daring. Edu Komputika Journal, 9(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.15294/edukomputika.v9i2.54743

Lutfi, Muh. K., Cahya Mulyaning, E., & Annisa Kusumastuti, F. (2024). Analysis of Students’ Geometrical Thinking from Geometry Task Related to HOTS from PISA. KnE Social Sciences, 2024, 943–952. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.16020

Lutfi, Muh. K., Herman, T., & Mulyaning, E. C. (2025). Discriminant Analysis of Students’ Spatial Ability in Understanding Flat-Sided Geometric Shapes. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v9i1.98297

Lutfi, Muh. K., Mulyaning, E. C., & Kusumastuti, F. A. (2024). Analysis of Students’ Geometrical Thinking from Geometry Task Related to HOTS from PISA. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i13.16020

Matheou Argyrou, A., & Panaoura, R. (2021). Young Students’ Ability on Understanding and Constructing Geometric Proofs. 121–133. https://doi.org/10.37256/SER.222021784

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage.

Morales Méndez, G., & Lozano Avilés, A. B. (2025). Augmented reality and GeoGebra 3D for improving spatial intelligence in teaching volumetric geometry. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 25(82). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.644051

Muhtadi, D., & Saleh, H. (2020). The Role of Progressive Mathematics in Geometry Learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1613(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1613/1/012042

Noor, N., & Alghadari, F. (2021). Case of Actualizing Geometry Knowledge in Abstraction Thinking Level for Constructing a Figure. 8(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.17278/IJESIM.797749

Ramírez-Uclés, R., & Ruiz-Hidalgo, J. F. (2022). Reasoning, representing, and generalizing in geometric proof problems among 8th grade talented students. Mathematics, 10(5), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10050789

Safitri, G., Darhim, D., & Dasari, D. (2023). Student’s obstacles in learning surface area and volume of a rectangular prism related to mathematical representation ability. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(1), 55-69.

https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v14i1.16281

Şahin, E. K., Gülkılık, H., & Uğurlu, H. H. (2020). The role of concept images in solving geometric word problems. Ilkogretim Online, 19(3), 1321-1336. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.729658

Scheiner, T., & Pinto, M. M. F. (2014). Cognitive processes underlying mathematical concept construction: The missing process of structural abstraction. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 105. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED600022.pdf

Seah, R., & Horne, M. (2020). The Influence of Spatial Reasoning on Analysing About Measurement Situations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(2), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13394-020-00327-W

Setiawati, H., Juniati, D., & Khabibah, S. (2019). Student’s Geometric Thinking in Understanding Volume with Three-Dimensional Images of Cubes and Nets. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012053

Sudirman, S., Kusumah, Y. S., Martadiputra, B. A. P., & Runisah, R. (2023). Epistemological Obstacle in 3D Geometry Thinking: Representation, Spatial Structuring, and Measurement. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(4), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.04.34

Surif, J., Md Noor, N., & Mokhtar, M. (2012). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Problem Solving. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2012.09.671

Tan Sisman, G., & Aksu, M. (2016). A Study on Sixth Grade Students’ Misconceptions and Errors in Spatial Measurement: Length, Area, and Volume. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1293–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9642-5

Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Tsafe, A. K. (2024). Effective mathematics learning through APOS theory by dint of cognitive abilities. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 4(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.29333/mathsciteacher/14308

Torres-Peña, R. C., Peña-González, D., Lara-Orozco, J. L., Ariza, E. A., & Vergara, D. (2025). Enhancing numerical thinking through problem solving: A teaching experience for third-grade mathematics. Education Sciences, 15(6), 667. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060667

Urbano-Urbano, I. F., Gaviria-Garcés, N. F., & Prada Núñez, R. (2021). Difficulties in Learning the Concept of Area and Problem Solving. Mundo Fesc, 11(S6), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.61799/2216-0388.1114

Weckbacher, L. M., & Okamoto, Y. (2018). Predictability of Visual Processes on Performance in Geometry. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(6), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5539/JEL.V7N6P25

Widdiharto, R., Prahmana, R. C. I., Isaeni, N., Widodo, S. A., Mayangwuri, S., & Pramudiani, P. (2025). The theoretical framework of GEMBIRA learning model: An impactful insight for Indonesian numeracy movement. Union: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 13(3), 721-733. https://doi.org/10.30738/union.v13i3.20353

Wright, V., & Smith, K. (2017). Children’s schemes for anticipating the validity of nets for solids. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(3), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0219-1

Yao, X. (2022). Characterizing Learners’ Construction of Geometry Diagrams in Dynamic Geometry Environments. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v29.4.04




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30738/indomath.v0i0.192

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Muh. Khaedir Lutfi, Endang Cahya Mulyaning A, Fitri Anisa Kusumastuti

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View My Stats