Main Article Content


This research aims to investigate the enhancement of students’ mathematical communication under metacognitive scaffolding approach. This research used a quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control. The subjects were pre-service elementary school teachers in Bandung. In this study, there were two groups of subjects: experimental and control groups. The experimental group consists of 60 students under metacognitive scaffolding approach, while the control group consists of 58 students under direct approach. Based on the prior mathematical ability, the students were classified into three levels, namely high, midlle, and low. Data collection instrument used mathematical communication test. The conclusions of the research are: (1) there is a significant difference in enhancing mathematical communication ability between students who attended the course under metacognitive scaffolding approach and those under direct approach, and (2) there was no significant interaction effect between teaching approaches and ability levels based on prior knowledge in enhancing students’ mathematical communication.


Mathematical Communication Metacognitive Approach

Article Details


  1. Carpenter, J & Gorg, S, (2000), Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  2. Clark, K. K., Jacobs, J., Pittman, M. E., & Borko, H. (2005). Strategies for building mathematical communication in the middle school classroom: Modeled in professional development, implemented in the classroom. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 11(2), 1-12.
  3. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional RI (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006 tentang Standar Isi untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Lampiran 3: Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar Mata Pelajaran Matematika untuk SMA/MA.
  4. Hecox, C. C. (2010). Cooperative learning and the gifted student in elementary mathematics. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from
  5. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American educational research journal, 42(2), 371-406.
  6. Iqbal, M. (2004). Effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of secondary school students in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Arid Agriculture).
  7. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467.
  8. OECD. (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
  9. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 results. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
  10. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
  11. Passos, A. F. J. (2009). A comparative analysis of teacher competence and its effect on pupil performance in upper primary schools in Mozambique and other SACMEQ countries (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
  12. Peters, G. (2011). Advantages & Disadvantages of Scaffolding in the Classroom. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
  13. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.
  14. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 207-212.
  15. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
  16. Yee, F.P. (2002). Using Short Open-ended Mathematics Questions to Promote Thinking and Understanding, Singapore: National Institute of Education.