Trend Paradigma dalam Pendidikan Matematika

  • Andes Safarandes Asmara Universitas Buana Perjuangan Karawang
  • Iwan Junaedi Universitas Negeri Semarang
Keywords: curriculum paradigm, learning theory, mathematics learning


The current mathematics education is the fruit of past educational debates. First, we examine the past attempts to change the way mathematics is being taught and argue that education is always based on a traditional paradigm. Next try to explain the emergence of a new paradigm that grew out of a combination of theories from cognitive psychology, awareness of the importance of culture for learning, and the belief that students must get meaningful learning. This article discusses theories about paradigms that underlie the learning theory in general education, especially mathematics education. These paradigms include behaviourism, constructivism, critical theory, cognition theory. We discuss some of the implications of this reform related to how mathematics educators might work with math teachers.


Download data is not yet available.


Arthur, L. E. (1950).Diagnosis of disabilities in arithmetic essentials, Mathematics Teacher 43, 197‐202.

Baumert, J. Et al. (2010). Teacher’s mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Calssroom, and student Progres. American education Research Journal, vol47/1,pp. 133-180.

Bredekamp, S. & Copple, S. (1997). Depelopmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Washington DC. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Cobb, P. (2007). Putting philosophy to work.Coping with multiple theoretical perspectives.In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 3–38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Cockroft, W.H. (1982). Mathematics Counts. Report of Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in schools under the Chairmanship of Dr.WH Cockroft. London: her majesty’s Stationnery Office.

Ellis, Mark w. (2005). The Paradigm Shift in Mathematics Education: Explanations and Implication of Reforming Conceptions of teaching and Learning. The Mathematics educator. 2005, vol 15, No 1, 7-17

Gagne, R. M., (1965). The Conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gardner, H. (1985). The mindʹs new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self‐identity: Self and society in the late modern age.Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Howard, H. (2010). Neuromimetic Semantics: Coordination, quantification, and collective predicates. New York: Elsevier.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical constructivism primer. New York: Peter Lang.

Klein, P. D. (2007). The challenges of Scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education,28(2), 143‐178.

Kusmaryono, Imam. (2014). Trend Pendidikan Matematika Masakini: Mathematical Power Sebagai Kemampuan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi. Disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional PMAT_FKIP Unissula Semarang. 15 Nopember 2014.

Lester, F. K. (2010). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education.In B. Sriraman and L. English (Eds.) Theories of mathematics education (pp. 67‐85). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Martin, D. (2010, March). Not‐so‐strange bedfellows: Racial projects and the mathematics education enterprise. In Proceedings of the Mathematics Education and Society 6th International Conference (pp. 57‐79).

Nagataki, S., & Hirose, S. (2007). Phenomenology and the third generation of cognitive science: towards a cognitive phenomenology of the body. Human Studies, 30(3), 219‐232.

Oakes, J., Muir, K. & Joseph, R. (2000).Coursetaking and achievement in mathematics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. Madison, WI: National Institute of Science Education.

Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It: a new aspect of mathematical method, ed. London: Penguin.

Radatz, H. (1979). Error analysis in mathematics education.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 10 (3), 163‐172.

Raffan, J. (1993). The experience of place: Exploring land as teacher. Journal of Experiential Education, 16(1), 39–45.

Roberts, G. H. (1968). The failure strategies of third grade arithmetic pupils, Arithmetic Teacher 15(5), 442‐446.

Shadiq, F. (2010). Effective Mathematics Teaching Strategies Inspiring Progressive Student. Disajikan pada “Pemaparan Hasil Pelatihan RECSAM2”. Yogyakarta: PPPG Matematika.

Skovsmore, O. & Valero, P. (2008).Democratic access to powerful mathematical L.D. English (ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 383–408), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Stoilescu, Dorian. (2016). Aspect of Theories, Framework and Paradigms in Mathematics Education Research. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Vol 4, No. 2, 2016. 140-154.

Sutarto, Hadi. (2003). Pendidikan Realistik: Menjadikan pelajaran Matematika Lebih Bermakna Bagi Siswa. Disampaikan pada Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika “Perubahan Paradigma dari Paradigma Mengajar ke paradigma Mengajar. Universitas Sanata Dharma, yogyakarta.

Thorndike, E. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. New York, USA: Macmillan.

Valero, P. (2004). Socio‐political perspectives on mathematics education. In P. Valero & R. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Researching the socio political dimensions of mathematics education (pp. 5‐23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. D. Davis, In C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (JRME Monograph 4) (pp. 19–29). Reston, VA, USA: NCTM.

Watson, J. B. (1926). Behaviourism: a psychology based on reflex‐action. Philosophy, 1 (04), 454‐466.
How to Cite
Asmara, A., & Junaedi, I. (2018). Trend Paradigma dalam Pendidikan Matematika. Scholaria: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 8(3), 309-314.