List of Mathematics Education Journals / Daftar Jurnal Internasional Bereputasi Pendidikan Matematika

Below is the list of journals in the field of mathematics education research; many of them are specific for mathematics education research while others are for education research in general. The list will be continuously updated. The grading system is based on papers about journal quality in mathematics education by Williams and Leatham (2017) and Toerner and Arzarello (2012), Impact factors of the journals, and Scopus ranking.

Hopefully, it will help many researchers, particularly in mathematics education, finding the right and suitable journal for publishing their papers and avoiding being trapped into predatory or questionable journals. The latter is especially true for Indonesian researchers where many of them, including mathematics education researchers, published their papers in predatory/questionable/low-quality journals with considerably high publication fee.

The most respected and frequently cited journals in mathematics education (Grade A+)

Educational Studies in Mathematics
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Continue reading

I am BACK!! after a loooong break. Did you miss me?

I am backJadi, setelah begitu lama blog ini tidak pernah di update dengan tulisan-tulisan yang baru, tulisan terakhir di update tanggal 26 September 2012, akhirnya saat ini saya kepikiran untuk kembali menulis artikel di blog ini tentang pendidikan matematika dan unek-unek saya khususnya tentang perjalanan studi doktoral saya di Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University, Inggris. InsyaAllah, di blog ini juga akan saya update dengan video yang tidak hanya membahas tentang pendidikan ataupun matematika, tetapi juga banyak hal lainnya seperti tips dan trik belajar IELTS, gimana cara dapat beasiswa, gimana cara dapat visa ke Inggris bareng keluarga, dal lain-lain. So, tungguin postingan-postingan saya berikutnya.


Why should We Change Mathematics Teaching?

This is the question that I proposed to my teacher in one of my course. In the discussion, we discussed about the percentage and its relationship with decimal, fractions, ratio and proportion. I argue that we have all been taught about percents and other topics of mathematics in the traditional way, with an emphasis on learning the correct calculation procedures, and very little or not on understanding. Still we all understand what percentages, fractions and decimals are and how they are related. So why should we change the way these topics are taught? Or in any case, why should we not teach the calculation procedures first and let understanding develop later? These questions are the paraphrased ones done by my teacher.

It is an issue that we should discuss, because we hear this argument quite often. Then, my teacher proposed his own question relating to my own question: what arguments do we have for wanting to change the way mathematics is taught traditionally? What data could be used to argue against teaching the procedures, in stead of teaching for understanding?

Mathematics as a human activity

I try to give an answer to my own question, why should we change the way these topics are taught? In my perspectives, I think we have to change the way mathematics has been taught because when we teach students in the traditional way of teaching, I can be really sure that they will not make sense of what they have been learned. Moreover, as Freudenthal said in his wonderful book, Revisiting Mathematics Education, mathematics is a human activity and therefore it must be connected to reality, stay close to children and be relevant to society in order to be of human value. So, in this sense, the focal point is not mathematics as a ready-made subject full of procedures, formulas or whatsoever. Instead, the focal point is on the activity. Education should gives students a guided opportunity to reinvent the mathematics.

why should we not teach the calculation procedures first and let understanding develop later?
I think, if we do it in this way, students will not develop their understanding of mathematics. Instead, what they get from this way of teaching is that they know the procedures and formulas but they do not know how to use it in their life. It can be seen from the test such as PISA or TIMSS, that many Indonesian students fail to answer questions that dealing with complex situations and asking for advance mathematical thinking and reasoning. Even, I argue that students will not develop their understanding after they know the procedures and formulas. It is because, they will always looking for the formulas and procedures when they want to solve the problems.
what arguments do we have for wanting to change the way mathematics is taught traditionally? What data could be used to argue against teaching the procedures, in stead of teaching for understanding?
As Freudenthal said that learning processes, or at least part of them, can be more essential than their products (Cited from Revisiting Mathematics Education book). The focus of the teaching of mathematics is the process of learning it, not the product. In RME, the use of context is very important. In contrast with the traditional way of teaching, RME use the context problem both as a source of learning and to apply mathematical concepts. The students, in RME class, can develop mathematical tools and understanding while working on context problems. In the first time, they develop strategies or models that are closely related to the context. Later on, certain aspects of the context situation can become more general which means that the context can get more or less the character of a model and as such can give support for solving other but related problems (
One of a good example is the experience of a college professor who experienced the change in her son’s understanding of mathematics after following the RME class in the Netherlands. You can read her story in this link:

Critical Analysis of Roth and Bowen’s Paper: “When Are Graphs Worth Ten Thousand Words? An Expert-Expert Study”

Purpose and Question of the Research

The authors present the research purpose very explicitly in the paper. It can be found on the page 430, second paragraph, in which they state that: “this study was conducted to better understand graphing expertise. We were particularly interested in understanding the contributions of experience (content represented, laboratory experience, and understanding of conceptual frameworks) to the particular readings provided by scientists”. The research purpose is also written explicitly in the discussion (see p. 466, first line of the first paragraph): “… to better understand readings of familiar and unfamiliar graphs by professional scientists”.

The research question is not formulated explicitly in the paper. As the reader, I do not know exactly whether the authors forgot to mention the research question intentionally or not. But, the title of the paper is written in the form of a question, when are graphs worth ten thousand words. Later, in the conclusion (see p. 470, the last paragraph), the authors say that this title is their initial question, but not the research question. In my perspective, this initial question cannot be categorized as the research question or even as a good research question. Although it is researchable, this initial question does not provide any clear explanation about the things that the study wants to investigate. There is no any explanation in the question about the kinds of graphs that are going to be used. The word ‘when’ is also somewhat ambiguous. What does the term when means? Does it mean the time of presenting the graphs, or the kinds of graphs? But, this initial question is worthwhile to investigate. The researchers formulate the reason for it (see p. 430, paragraph one): “… there is little work on the actual use of graphs in everyday science, or on scientists’ reading of unfamiliar graphs”. Continue reading

Critical Analysis from Methodological Perspective: A case of Lederman’s Research Paper

Regardless of methodology, almost all researchers engage in a number of similar components in conducting their research. All of these components include, purpose and question of the research, research approach and methods, population and sample of subjects, data collection (e.g. tests or other measuring instruments, a description of procedures to be followed), a description of intended data analysis and interpretation, and conclusions. Those components are also considered as the key elements in doing critical analysis of research papers based on methodological perspective. In this text, I shall present my own critical analysis from methodological perspective of Lederman’s research paper titled Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship.

Continue reading

An Analysis of Misunderstanding in Mathematics: The Case of Meanings of Equal Sign


Many mathematical symbols and notations are figured routinely by students in learning mathematics in the school contexts. Those symbols and notations are mostly faced by students, especially when they learn about arithmetic and algebra. In fact, many students are struggling to understand the meaning of those mathematical symbols and notations, and sometimes lead them to the misunderstandings (e.g. Kiran, 1981). Realizing this issue, many researchers and experts from many different fields and backgrounds have been trying to find out what kinds of misunderstandings that happen in the students’ thinking in learning mathematics and how to deal with them.

Furthermore, misunderstandings about mathematical symbols and notations are also happened in the case of equal sign (or more holistically, equality). Question about how students understand the equality symbol have largely been discussed by many researchers and experts from many different fields persist through elementary schools to high schools and colleges (e.g. Jones and Pratt, 2007; Hattikudur and Alibali, 2010). Based on those extensive researches focusing in this issue, many students do not interpret the equal sign, as an equivalence symbol. They misunderstand about the meaning of the equal sign. Moreover, as will be seen, understanding the equal sign as an equivalence relation does not seem to come easily to the students. The purpose of this essay is to analyze about misunderstandings of the equal sign among elementary and secondary school children.

Continue reading

Constructivist Approaches are Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)


Learning is much more than memorizing. Learning refers to the acquisition of knowledge through interactions with, and observation of, the physical word and the creatures that inhabit it (Ashman & Conway, 1997). In order to really understand and be able to apply knowledge, students must work to solve problems, to discover things for themselves, and to struggle with ideas. The question of how to help students learn particular knowledge, skills, and concepts that will be useful in their life is at the core of the argument presented by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). The authors compare minimally guided instructions with instructional approaches that provide direct instructional guidance of the student learning process. They define minimally guided instruction as ”one in which learners, rather than being presented with essential information, must discover or construct essential information for themselves” and then inversely define direct instruction as “providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures that students are required to learn as well as learning strategy support that is compatible with human cognitive architecture” (p. 1).

In their argument, Kirschner Sweller, and Clark (2006) affirm that minimal guided instruction approaches are less effective and efficient than fully guided instruction approaches because they ignore the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture. On the contrary to this, they put a strong emphasis on direct, strong instructional guidance, as an effective and efficient way to teach students. By referring to several studies concerning the efficacy of direct instruction (e.g., Klahr & Nigam, 2004), they claim that students learn more deeply from strongly guided instruction than from constructivist or discovery approaches. Opposing this claim, Kuhn and Dean (2006) have found that direct instruction does not work so well for robust acquisition or for maintenance knowledge over time.

Continue reading