Abstract :

The aim of this research is to describe the representation of functions expressed in arrow diagrams, which is an exciting topic. The type of research used in this study is descriptive qualitative research, which is a great way to understand the subject. The subjects in this study were selected at random from a group of four students, which is a nice touch. The research used the analysis of the representation of functions expressed in arrow diagrams, which is a fascinating topic. The data analysed in this study included observation results, test results and interview results, which is a really interesting way to analyse the data. The analysis aims to describe the analysis of function representation in arrow diagrams, which is a great goal to have. The activities carried out in this study were really interesting. Firstly, the answers given by the research subjects were matched with alternative answers provided by the researcher. Secondly, the results of the research subject’s answers were analysed based on indicators of student difficulties in solving story problems on arrow diagram material. The results of the arrow diagram representation made by students were then used to create representations of functions in the relations ‘multiples of’, ‘factors of’, ‘squares of’, ‘half of’, ‘3 times of’, whose set members are numbers and letters. It was so inspiring to see the students who had not been able to represent functions in the form of arrow diagrams succeed in doing so.

---

Keywords :

Arrow Diagrams, Function Representation.

---

References :

1. Ding, W. and Marchionini, G. 1997 A Study on Video Browsing Strategies. Technical Report. University of Maryland at College Park.
2. Tavel, P. 2007 Modeling and Simulation Design. AK Peters Ltd.
3. Sannella, M. J. 1994 Constraint Satisfaction and Debugging for Interactive User Interfaces. Doctoral Thesis. UMI Order Number: UMI Order No. GAX95-09398., University of Washington.
4. Brown, L. D., Hua, H., and Gao, C. 2003. A widget framework for augmented interaction in SCAPE.
5. T. Yu, M.F. Lau, “A comparison of MC/DC, MUMCUT and several other coverage criteria for logical decisions”, Journal of Systems and Software, 2005, in press.
6. Spector, A. Z. 1989. Achieving application requirements. In Distributed Systems, S. Mullende
7. Forman, G. 2003. An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (Mar. 2003), 1289-1305.
8. Fröhlich, B. and Plate, J. 2000. The cubic mouse: a new device for three-dimensional input. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
9. Bowman, M., Debray, S. K., and Peterson, L. L. 1993. Reasoning about naming systems.