Main Article Content
The PISA study measures the mathematical literacy of reasoning, arguing, and problem-solving skills. The research question is how the ability of mathematics literacy of mathematics education students viewed from process components. This research uses qualitative approach using documentation, observation, and interview. The results showed that 60 students or 100% were below level 1, with a score of less than 358. In the process component, communication skills obtained an average score of 3.29. Mathematising got an average score of 2.71. Representation got an average score of 3.08. Reasoning and argument got an average score of 2.54. Devising strategies for solving problems got an average score of 2.83. Using symbolic, formal and technical language and operation earned an average score of 3.16. Ability to use mathematics tools get an average score of 3.16. Based on the results of the study concluded that the literacy ability of mathematics education students viewed from the components of the process is very low.
UJME is a peer reviewed and open access journal that publishes significant and important research from all area of mathematics education. This journal provides immediate open access to its content that making research publish in this journal freely available to the public that supports a greater exchange of knowledge.
Submission of a manuscript implies that the submitted work has not been published before (except as part of a thesis or report, or abstract); that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that its publication has been approved by all co-authors. If and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the author(s) still hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions. Authors or others are allowed to multiply article as long as not for commercial purposes. For the new invention, authors are suggested to manage its patent before published. The license type is CC-BY-SA 4.0.
No responsibility is assumed by publisher and co-publishers, nor by the editors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a result of any actual or alleged libelous statements, infringement of intellectual property or privacy rights, or products liability, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any ideas, instructions, procedures, products or methods contained in the material therein.
Draper, R. J. (2002). School Mathematics Reform, Constructivism, and Literacy: A Case for Literacy Instruction in The Reform-Oriented Math Classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 46 No. 6.
OECD. (2010). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/15/46241909.pdf (diunduh 5 Oktober 2013).
Ojose, B. (2011). “Mathematics Literacy: Are We Able To Put The Mathematics We Learn Into Everiday Use?”. Journal of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 No.1 Hal. 89-100.
Stacey, K. (2010). “Mathematical and Scientific Literacy Around The World”. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, Vol. 33 No. 1 Hal. 1-16.
Sugiyono. (2010). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Wong, P. (2005). “Mathematical Literacy of Hong Kong’s 15 Year Old Students in PISA”. Education Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1.
Zubaidah. 2006. “Efek Pembelajaran Konstruktivisme Melalui Pembelajaran Matematika di SMP”. Jurnal Pendidikan, Vol. 7 No. 2 Hal. 89-101.