Email this article Comparative Analysis of the Sine and Cosine Rules in Indonesian and Singaporean Mathematics Textbooks
Students continue to struggle with the sine and cosine rules because textbook content and questions do not fully support the development of mathematical abilities. This study aims to analyze and compare how Indonesian and Singaporean textbooks present content and question characteristics related to the sine and cosine rules. The study employed a qualitative descriptive-comparative method. The research objects were the Grade 11 Advanced Mathematics textbook based on the Merdeka Curriculum, the Grade 10 Mathematics textbook based on the 2013 Curriculum, and New Discovering Mathematics 3B from Singapore. Data were collected through document analysis and analyzed using qualitative content analysis, focusing on facts, concepts, principles, question cognitive levels based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, the availability of problem-solving questions, and alignment with the PISA framework. The results showed significant differences among the three textbooks. The Merdeka Curriculum textbook demonstrates strengths in knowledge construction through a guided discovery approach, supports problem-to-prove problem-solving, and promotes mathematical literacy through PISA questions involving the formulating and interpreting processes. The 2013 Curriculum textbook places greater emphasis on procedural skills through an expository-deductive approach and a dominance of C3-level questions. Meanwhile, the Singaporean textbook demonstrates strengths in connecting concepts through an integrative approach, supports problem-to-find problem-solving and mathematical reasoning through a dominance of C4-level questions involving geometric analysis. These findings indicate the need for textbook development that balances content presentation through concept exploration and inter-conceptual connections while supporting conceptual understanding, mathematical reasoning, mathematical literacy, and problem-solving.
Keywords: comparative analysis, cosine rule, Indonesian textbook, sine rule, Singaporean textbook.
Barumbun, M., & Kharisma, D. (2022). Procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge? Developing the so-called proceptual knowledge in mathematics learning. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 15(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v15i2.472
Bruner, J. (2009). The process of education: Revised edition. Harvard University Press.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique: du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. La Pensée Sauvage.
Chevallard, Y. (1999). L’analyse des pratiques enseignantes en théorie anthropologique du didactique. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 19(2), 221–266. https://revue-rdm.com/1999/l-analyse-des-pratiques/
Chow, W. K., Ng, K. M., & Huo, D. (2022). New discovering mathematics 3B. Star Publishing.
Dewi, A. P., Utami, W. B., Widodo, S. A., Haryono, M. B., Vaz, B. L., & Aulia, F. (2024). Students’ errors in problem-solving reviewed from the perspective of math resilience. JOHME: Journal of Holistic Mathematics Education, 8(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.19166/johme.v8i1.8230
Dhungana, S., Pant, B. P., & Dahal, N. (2023). Students’ experience in learning trigonometry in high school mathematics: A phenomenological study. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(4), 184–201. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1409234
Fan, L., Wijayanti, D., Meng, D., Li, K., & Mailizar, M. (2025). The role of textbooks in the implementation of curriculum development: A comparative study through the lens of Chinese and Indonesian teachers’ views. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 57(5), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01692-1
Fitri, N. T., Muchyidin, A., & Akbar, R. O. (2022). Mastery of trigonometry material and its effect on students’ ability to solving three-dimensional problems. Journal of Mathematics Instruction, Social Research and Opinion, 1(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v1i2.23
Fophin, T. D., Nurjanah, N., & Suryadi, D. (2024). Comparison of vector tasks in Indonesian and Singaporean mathematics textbooks. EduMatSains: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan Sains, 9(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.33541/edumatsains.v9i1.5965
Fuentes, A. B. Jr. (2024). Using the TrigOno card game for mastery learning of trigonometric identities. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 16(6), 79–98. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1464773
Hasanah, S. I., Basri, H., & Zayyadi, M. (2022). Profile of students’ mathematical representation in solving trigonometric problems based on mathematics ability. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 12(1), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v12.i1.202227
Hendriyanto, A., Suryadi, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Juandi, D. (2023). Praxeology review: Comparing Singaporean and Indonesian textbooks in introducing the concept of sets. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), Article em2229. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12953
Hidayat, W., Rohaeti, E. E., Hamidah, I., & Putri, R. I. I. (2023). How can Android-based trigonometry learning improve the math learning process? Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1101161. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1101161
Jiang, T., & Li, S. (2023). Secondary school students’ use and perceptions of textbooks in mathematics learning: A large-scale investigation in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1132184. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1132184
Kristanto, Y. D., Taqiyuddin, M., Masta, A. A., & Yulfiana, E. (2024). Matematika tingkat lanjut (Edisi revisi, SMA/MA kelas XI). Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.
Kuncoro, K. S., Suryadi, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Jupri, A. (2024). Praxeological analysis in Indonesian and Singaporean mathematics textbooks: An understanding geometrical similarity by students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1197-1218
Mickey, K. W., Kreisel, L. W., Su, S., & McClelland, J. L. (2026). Grounding mathematics in an integrated conceptual structure, part II: Intervention study demonstrating robust learning and retention through a grounded curriculum. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1507674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1507674
Mutia, M., Kartono, K., Dwijanto, D., & Wijayanti, K. (2023). Students’ analogical reasoning in solving trigonometric target problems. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 17(3), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.47836/mjms.17.3.11
Nilimaa, J. (2023). New examination approach for real-world creativity and problem-solving skills in mathematics. Trends in Higher Education, 2(3), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu2030028
Nurhikmayati, I., Darhim, D., Dahlan, J. A., & Wijaya, T. T. (2025). A comparison of Indonesia and Singapore secondary school textbooks of mathematics: A praxeological analysis of cube and cuboid task design. European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 6(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmse.6.1.65
Obeng, B. A., Banson, G. M., Owusu, E., & Owusu, R. (2024). Analysis of senior high school students’ errors in solving trigonometry. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2385119. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2385119
OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 results (Volume I and II) - country notes: Singapore. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/singapore_2f72624e-en.html
OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en
Otieno, H., & Povey, H. (2023). Mathematics textbooks and self-regulated learning: Responses from students in three Kenyan secondary schools. Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2089907
Owusu, E., Banson, G. M., Lotey, E. K., Owusu, R., Ofosua, B., & Arthur, Y. D. (2025). Students’ academic struggles in solving trigonometry problems: An investigative study on students’ programs of study. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2563166. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2563166
Patria, L., Sudarsono, S., Yuliana, Y. G. S., & Ikhsanudin. (2023). Analysing textbooks written based on Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013. Journal of English Educational Study (JEES), 6(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.31932/jees.v6i2.2465
Pavešić, B. J., & Cankar, G. (2022). Textbooks and students’ knowledge. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(2), 29–65. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1283
Pólya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press.
Sanita, E., Susanti, E., & Hiltrimartin, C. (2026). Studi komparatif topik tabung dalam buku teks Singapura dan Indonesia: Implikasi untuk literasi matematika [Comparative study of the cylinder topic in Singaporean and Indonesian textbooks: Implications for mathematical literacy]. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan Sains, 14(1), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpms.v14i1.89010
Siegler, R. S., & Oppenzato, C. O. (2021). Missing input: How imbalanced distributions of textbook problems affect mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 15(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12402
Sinaga, B., Sinambela, P. N. J. M., Sitanggang, A. K., Hutapea, T. A., Manullang, S., Sinaga, L. P., & Simanjuntak, M. (2017). Matematika (Edisi revisi, SMA/MA/SMK/MAK kelas X). Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Stovner, R. B., & Klette, K. (2022). Teacher feedback on procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and mathematical practices: A video study in lower secondary mathematics classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, Article 103593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103593
Tarim, K., & Tarku, H. (2022). Investigation of the questions in 8th grade mathematics textbook in terms of mathematical literacy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), Article em0682. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11819
Wardhani, T. A. W., & Argaswari, D. P. (2022). High school students’ errors in solving word problem of trigonometry based on Newman Error Hierarchical Model. Infinity Journal, 11(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v11i1.p87-102
Wijaya, T. T., Cao, Y., Weinhandl, R., & Tamur, M. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of e-books on students’ mathematics achievement. Heliyon, 8(6), Article e09432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09432
Wijayanti, D., Lutfi, A., Wijaya, T. T., & Bah, O. (2025). Mapping research on Indonesia’s government mathematics textbooks: Current insights and potential directions. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2560052. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2560052
Wulandari, T., Hiltrimartin, C., & Susanti, E. (2025). A comparative analysis of Indonesian and Indian mathematics textbooks on circles for secondary schools. Jurnal Gantang, 10(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v10i1.7170
Zakiah, N. E., Suryadi, D., & Suhendra. (2025). Didactic praxeological analysis of Indonesian and Singaporean mathematics textbooks: Mathematical practices in transformation geometry. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 26(2), 905–923. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v26i2.pp905-923
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats