DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERTISE OF MATHEMATICS EDUCATION LECTURERS AT RIAU ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY BASED ON PUBLICATION WORKS: SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Mathematical Errors; Story Problems; Relationships; Polya Stages
Keywords:
Kepakaran dosen; publikasi ilmiah; systematic literature review; pendidikan matematikaAbstract
This study aims to analyze the types of errors made by female students in solving mathematical story problems on the topic of relations using Polya’s problem-solving stages. Employing a qualitative descriptive approach, the research involved 30 eighth-grade students from SMP Al-Faruqi. Data were collected through written tests and interviews, then analyzed through data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The findings revealed that errors occurred in all stages of Polya’s framework, with 50% of students making errors in understanding the problem (moderate category), 47.7% in planning (moderate), 63.3% in implementing the plan (high), and 26.7% in rechecking (low). The most frequent error was found in the implementation stage, indicating that while students could generally comprehend and plan problem solutions, they often faced difficulties in accurately executing those plans. This suggests that female students still need to strengthen their procedural understanding and problem-solving execution skills to improve overall mathematical performance, particularly in applying strategies effectively and verifying their solutions.
Downloads
References
[1] C. C. McKnight, The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing US School Mathematics from an International Perspective. A National Report on the Second International Mathematics Study. ERIC, 1987.
[2] P. E. Peterson, L. Woessmann, E. A. Hanushek, and C. X. Lastra-Anadón, “Globally Challenged: Are US Students Ready to Compete? The Latest on Each State’s International Standing in Math and Reading. PEPG 11-03.,” Progr. Educ. policy governance, Harvard Univ., 2011.
[3] M. Santos-Trigo, “Problem solving in mathematics education: tracing its foundations and current research-practice trends,” ZDM – Math. Educ., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 211–222, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-024-01578-8.
[4] A. Wahyuni, Y. S. Kusumah, B. A. P. Martadiputra, and Z. Zafrullah, “Tren penelitian kemampuan pemecahan masalah pada pendidikan matematika: Analisis bibliometrik,” JPMI (Jurnal Pembelajaran Mat. Inov., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 337–356, 2024, doi: 10.22460/jpmi.v7i2.22329.
[5] L. S. Shulman, “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,” J. Educ., vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2013.
[6] K. Hyland, “Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge,” 2016.
[7] P. Istiana, “Peran luas pustakawan dalam mendukung visibilitas publikasi institusi berkelanjutan,” Media Pustak., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2017.
[8] H. Uğraş, M. Uğraş, S. Papadakis, and M. Kalogiannakis, “ChatGPT-Supported Education in Primary Schools: The Potential of ChatGPT for Sustainable Practices,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 22. 2024, doi: 10.3390/su16229855.
[9] J. Conklin, “A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives complete edition.” JSTOR, 2005.
[10] G. Maulani et al., Evaluasi Pembelajaran. Sada Kurnia Pustaka, 2024.
[11] F. H. Wada et al., Buku ajar metodologi penelitian. PT. Sonpedia Publishing Indonesia, 2024.
[12] L. A. Bero, R. Grilli, J. M. Grimshaw, E. Harvey, A. D. Oxman, and M. A. Thomson, “Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings,” Bmj, vol. 317, no. 7156, pp. 465–468, 1998.
[13] K. D. Snyder, “Ropes, poles, and space: Active learning in business education,” Act. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 159–167, 2003.
[14] M. Dimyati, Metode Penelitian untuk Semua Generasi. Universitas Indonesia Publishing, 2022.
[15] K. Witara et al., Metodologi Penelitian Bidang Pendidikan: Panduan Praktis. PT. Green Pustaka Indonesia, 2023.
[16] D. Cabrera and L. L. Cabrera, “The steps to doing a systems literature review (SLR),” J. Syst. Think. Prepr., 2023.
[17] D. Juandi, “Heterogeneity of problem-based learning outcomes for improving mathematical competence: A systematic literature review,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, vol. 1722, no. 1, p. 12108.
[18] A. Booth, “Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review,” Syst. Rev., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 74, 2016.
[19] A. Pollock and E. Berge, “How to do a systematic review,” Int. J. Stroke, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 138–156, 2018.
[20] N. Bin Ali and M. Usman, “Reliability of search in systematic reviews: Towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 99, pp. 133–147, 2018.
[21] J. Garzón, J. Pavón, and S. Baldiris, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings,” Virtual Real., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 447–459, 2019.
[22] M.-B. Ibáñez and C. Delgado-Kloos, “Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 123, pp. 109–123, 2018.
[23] C. Redecker and Ø. Johannessen, “Changing assessment—Towards a new assessment paradigm using ICT,” Eur. J. Educ., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 79–96, 2013.
[24] H. S. Barrows, “A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods,” Med. Educ., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 481–486, 1986.
[25] W. Hung, D. H. Jonassen, and R. Liu, “Problem-based learning,” in Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, Routledge, 2008, pp. 485–506.
[26] C. A. Tomlinson, How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Ascd, 2001.
[27] A.-W. Harzing and S. Alakangas, “Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 787–804, 2016.
[28] D. Kushwaha and F. Talib, “A bibliometric analysis of Quality 4.0: current status, trends and future research directions,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 474–503, 2025.
[29] A. Sezgin, K. Orbay, and M. Orbay, “Educational research review from diverse perspectives: A bibliometric analysis of Web of Science (2011–2020),” Sage Open, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 21582440221141628, 2022.
[30] I. Rafols, L. Leydesdorff, A. O’Hare, P. Nightingale, and A. Stirling, “How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1262–1282, 2012.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2025 Endang Istikomah, Abdurrahman, Nurvani Yulia Dewi, Sevilla Atita Azzahra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright @Author. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium. Copyrights of all materials published in the Mathematics Research and Education Journal are freely available without charge to users or / institutions.
Accepted 2025-10-29
Published 2025-11-14
