Main Article Content

Ratu Sarah Fauziah Iskandar
Aji Raditya
Trisna Roy Pradipta


Several factors influence the success of learning; one of them is the quality of textbooks. Textbooks have a pivotal role in learning, namely, representing the teacher's explanation in front of the class. Curricula have continuously changed because they are far from the expectations. In Indonesia, many schools have implemented an international curriculum to improve school quality. One of the curricula used is the Cambridge curriculum. This study analyzed the types of problems in the Cambridge and 2013 curriculum mathematics textbooks, especially on quadratic equations. This research utilized a six-dimensional analysis method which consists of mathematical activities, complexity level, answer form, contextual features, response types, and mathematical features. Furthermore, the data collection technique was carried out by analyzing and describing the types of questions in the 2013 curriculum and the Cambridge curriculum mathematics textbooks. The analysis focused on the quadratic equation topic in the 2013 curriculum and the Cambridge curriculum mathematics textbooks. The results shows that there is no difference between the types of problems in the 2013 curriculum and the Cambridge curriculum mathematics textbooks for quadratic equation topics. The framework of this study could be a reference for further research and used by mathematics textbook writers to create more diverse types of questions.              

Article Details

How to Cite
Ratu Sarah Fauziah Iskandar, Aji Raditya, & Pradipta, T. R. (2021). ANALYSIS OF MATHEMATICS PROBLEMS IN THE 2013 CURRICULUM AND CAMBRIDGE CURRICULUM MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS. Kalamatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1), 99-110.
Author Biography

Trisna Roy Pradipta, Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA

Dosen Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof.DR.HAMKA


Brändström, A. (2005). Differentiated Tasks in Mathematics Textbooks an Analysis of the Levels of Difficulty. Dissertation, 1–97.

Fan, L, & Kaeley, G. S. (1998). Textbook use and teaching strategies: An empirical study. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, 13, p2-9 ST—Textbook use and teaching strategies: Retrieved from

Fan, Lianghuo. (2011). Textbook Research as Scientific Research : Towards a Common Ground for Research on Mathematics Textbooks (October). pp. 1–11.

Fan, Lianghuo, Mailizar, M., Alafaleq, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). A Comparative Study on the Presentation of Geometric Proof in Secondary Mathematics Textbooks in China, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. In Lianghuo Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources: Advances and Issues (pp. 53–65). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Gene, K., Zacharos, K., Lavidas, K., & Koustourakis, G. (2018). An Analysis of School Mathematics Textbooks in Terms of Their Pedagogical Orientation. Open Journal for Educational Research, 2(1), 1–18.

Gracin, D. G. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003–1024.

Houang, R. T., & Schmidt, W. H. (2008). TIMSS International Curriculum Analysis and Measuring Educational Opportunities. 3rd IEA International Research Conference TIMSS, 1–18. Retrieved from

Johansson, M. (2003). Textbooks in mathematics education: A study of textbooks as the potentially implemented curriculum. Thesis.

Lai, Y. C. (2011). Designing Information and Communication Technology Textbooks for Senior Secondary Students: A Case Study in Hong Kong. The International Journal of the Book, 8(3), 33–50.

Lessani, A., Yunus, A. S. M., Tarmiz, R. A., & Mahmud, R. (2014). Why Singaporean 8th grade students gain highest mathematics ranking in TIMSS (1999-2011). International Education Studies, 7(11), 173–181.

Levin, B., Connelly, G. A. M., & Lundgren, U. P. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction, 7–24.

Li, Y. (2000). A Comparison of Problems That Follow Selected Content Presentations in American and Chinese Mathematics Textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 234–241.

Mailizar, M., Alafaleq, M., & Fan, L. (2014). A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia. Inovacije u Nastavi, 27(3), 58–68.

Mesa, V. (2004). Characterizing Practices Associated with Functions in Middle School Textbooks: An Empirical Approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 255–286.

O’Keeffe, L., & O’Donoghue, J. (2015). a Role for Language Analysis in Mathematics Textbook Analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education13(3), 605–630.

Okeeffe, L. (2013). A Framework for Textbook Analysis. International Review of Contemporary Learning Research, 2(1), 1–13.

Österholm, M. (2006). Characterizing Reading Comprehension of Mathematical Texts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 325–346.

Pramesti, S. L. (2017). Analisis Materi Dan Penyajian Buku Teks Matematika Sebagai Sumber Belajar Matematika. Delta: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 5(1), 25.

Purnomo, M. (2015). Integrasi Kurikulum Cambridge dalam Kurikulum 2013 pada Mata Pelajaran Matematika Sekolah Menengah Pertama (Perspektif Pengembangan Prosedur). Prosiding Seminar Nasional Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika UMS 2015, 246–254.

Raditya, A., Iskandar, R., & Suwarno, S. (2020). Questions Analysis in Mathematics Textbook from Competency-Based Curriculum up to Curriculum 2013. DJM, 3(2), 89–98.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching.

Samson Sunday, A. (2014). Mathematics Textbook Analysis: a Study on Recommended Mathematics Textbooks in School Use in Southwestern States of Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 1(September), 1857–7881.

Stacey, K., & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 271–288.