A few years of experience of teaching mathematics make us notice that the same types of mistakes are done repeatedly by students. This paper presents an insight into categories of mistakes, how male and female students differ in terms of mistakes that are commonly done and the ability of the students to identify the mistakes. Sample of mistakes were taken from Calculus 1 final exam answer scripts, then it was listed and analyzed. Data analysis revealed that students’ misconceptions fall into four categories. The first category is misunderstanding the meaning of brackets, followed by misconception of basic mathematics rules, misconception in notation and misconception in properties of trigonometry. A mistake identification test which consists of ten false mathematical statements was designed based on the mistake done by the previous batch of students that covered topics algebra, trigonometry, index, limit, differentiation and integration. Then, the test was given to students who enrolled in Calculus I course. Respondents of this study were randomly selected among two hundreds engineering students. Data obtained were analyzed using basic descriptive analysis and Chi Square test to capture gender differences in the mistake done for each category. Findings indicate that thirty five percent of the students have the ability to identify the mistakes and make a proper correction for at most two statements. Thirty one percent of the students are able to identify the mistakes but unable to make proper correction. Twenty five percent of the students failed to identify the mistakes in six out of ten false statements. Female students’ misconception is more likely in basic mathematics rules compared to male. The findings of this study could serve as baseline information to be stressed in improving teaching and learning mathematics.

1.
E. M.
Ozken
,
J. Soc. and Beh. Sc.
15
,
120
127
(
2011
)
2.
C. S.
Peng
and
C. P.
Eng
, “Analisa kesilapan-kesilapan matematik dalam skrip jawapan dikalangan pelajar UiTM yang mengambil kursus MAT141/2,”
Research Report, Institut Penyelidikan, Pembangunan dan Pengkomersialan Universiti Teknologi MARA
,
2004
.
3.
F.
Kazemi
and
M.
Ghoraishi
.
J. Soc. and Beh. Sc.
46
,
3852
3856
(
2012
)
4.
J.
Sweller
,
Learning and Instruction
.
4
(
4
),
295
312
(
1994
).
5.
K.S.
Sofronos
,
T.C
DeFranco
,
C.
Vinsonhaler
,
N.
Gorgievski
,
L.
Schroeder
and
C.
Hamelin
.
J. Maths. Beh.
30
,
131
148
(
2011
)
6.
Secolsky
,
C.
,
Judd
,
T.P.
,
Magaram
,
E.
,
Levy
,
S.H.
,
Kossar
,
B.
,
Reese, G. Numeracy
9
(
1
),
6
(
2016
)
7.
K.
Durkin
and
B.
Rittle
.
Learning and Instruction.
37
,
21
29
(
2015
)
8.
J.
Muzangwa
and
P.
Chifamba
.
Acta Didactica Napocensia
,
5
(
2
) (
2012
)
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.