Trigonometry was a new mathematical material that was studied by high school students in X class. Trigonometry was important to understand by the students because the material was not only used in mathematics but also science, engineering, and other fields. An important component in proving the quality of learning was assessment. Therefore, this research aimed to describe student errors that arose when solving trigonometry problems. This research used a qualitative approach with a descriptive method. The subjects of this research were 32 high school students grade X in Semarang City, Indonesia in the academic year 2019/2020. The grouping of student error types was based on Movshovitz-Hadar, Zaslavsky, and Inbar categories. Classification of student errors includes misused data, misinterpreted language, logically invalid inference, distorted theorem or definition, unverified solution, and technical error. The analysis showed that the mistakes made by the students were writing information was not following information in the problem, using the value of a variable for another variable, error in copying the details of the question to the answer sheet, error using symbols from other concepts, error when using rules or formula, error checking the result, erroneous in the calculation, and error manipulating algebraic symbols or operations.

1.
Ministry of Education and Culture
,
Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 3 Tahun 2017 tentang Penilaian Hasil Belajar oleh Pemerintah dan Penilaian Hasil Belajar oleh Satuan Pendidikan
(
2017
).
2.
Ministry of Education and Culture
,
Lampiran Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan 21 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Isi Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah
(
2016
).
3.
M. J.
Sterling
.
Trigonometry for dummies
.
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey
(
2014
).
4.
L. C.
Schnepper
and
L. P.
Mccoy
.
Netw. Online
J. Teach. Res.
15
,
1
7
(
2013
).
5.
M. D.
Miller
,
R. L.
Linn
, and
N. E.
Grondlund
.
Measurement and assessment in teaching
.
Pearson Education, Boston
(
2008
).
6.
A. J.
Nitko
and
S. M.
Brookhart
.
Educational assessment of students
.
Pearson, London
(
2011
).
7.
S. M.
Brookhart
.
How to give effective feedback to your students. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development
,
Alexandria, VA
(
2008
).
8.
M. A.
Newman
.
Vic. Inst. Educ. Res. Bull.
39
,
31
43
(
1977
).
9.
H.
Radatz
.
J. Res. Math. Educ.
10
,
163
172
(
1979
).
10.
H.
Ahmad
,
Febryanti
,
Muthmainnah
,
A. A.
Yakin
and
S.
Sarbi
.
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.
1114
,
1
9
(
2018
).
11.
D.
Fahrudin
,
Mardiyana
and
I.
Pramudya
.
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.
1188
,
012044
(
2019
).
12.
J. W.
Creswell
.
Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
.
SAGE Publications, Inc
,
United States of America
(
2014
).
13.
N. S.
Sukmadinata
.
Metode Penelitian Pendidikan
.
Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung
(
2011
).
14.
N.
Movshovitz-Hadar
,
O.
Zaslavsky
,
S.
Inbar
.
J. Res. Math. Educ.
18
,
3
14
(
1987
).
15.
R.
Nurmeidina
and
D.
Rafidiyah
.
Analysis of Students’ Difficulties in Solving Trigonometry Problems. Proc. 4th Progress
.
Fun Educ. Int. Conf., Profunedu
2019
, 6-8 August 2019, Makassar, Indonesia (
EAI Publishing, Wells Avenue
,
Newton MA
, 2019).
16.
N. S.
Wahyuni
and
E.
Widayanti
.
IndoMath: Indones. Math. Educ.
3
,
78
86
(
2020
).
17.
E.
Rawley
.
Trigonometry Teacher's Edition - Common Errors
.
CK-12 Foundation, US
(
2012
).
18.
S.
Wulandari
and
M. U.
Gusteti
.
Math Educa J.
4
,
64
80
(
2020
).
19.
M. D.
Dewanto
,
B.
Budiyono
, and
H.
Pratiwi
.
Adv. Soc. Sci. Educ. Humanit. Res.
218
,
195
200
(
2018
).
20.
M. H.
Usman
and
M. M.
Hussaini
.
IOSR J. Math.
13
,
1
4
(
2017
).
21.
R. H. Y.
Sari
and
D. U.
Wutsqa
.
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.
1320
,
012056
(
2019
).
22.
U.
Hidayati
.
J. Math. Educ.
5
,
54
60
(
2020
)
23.
S. W.
Siyepu
.
Int. J. STEM Educ.
2
,
1
16
(
2015
)
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.