Main Article Content


Students' mathematical literacy abilities are important to master, especially to formulate mathematical concepts that can be used in everyday life. Mathematical literacy has become an important issue lately to be developed in the study of mathematics learning. However, mathematical literacy has not become the main goal in the implementation of the learning carried out. The purpose of this study was to examine the comparison of students 'mathematical literacy skills with Adobe Flash Professional CS6-based RME learning with conventional learning and to examine the comparison of improvement in students' mathematical literacy skills with Adobe Flash Professional CS6-based RME learning with conventional learning. The research method used in this study was quasi-experimental with the design of a non-equivalent control group design. The results of the two research hypotheses were accepted. It is possible that the increase in students' mathematical literacy skills is triggered by the Adobe Flash Professional CS6-based RME learning which in the implementation of learning always focuses on self regulated learning.


Adobe Flash Profesional CS 6 Mathematical Literacy RME

Article Details

Author Biography

Uba Umbara, STKIP Muhammadiyah Kuningan

Department of Mathematical Education


  1. Cañas, A. J., Novak, J. D., González, F. M., & Hammond, A. K. N. (n.d.). Synchronous Collaborative Concept Mapping Via ICT: Learning Effectivness and Personal and Interpersonal Awareness. Online< Http://Cmc. Ihmc. Us/Papers/Cmc2004-212. Pdf>, Acessado Em, 28, 8–9.
  2. Chotimah, S., Bernard, M., & Wulandari, S. M. (2018). Contextual approach using VBA learning media to improve students’ mathematical displacement and disposition ability. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 948, p. 12025).
  3. Colwell, J., & Enderson, M. C. (2016). When I hear literacy: Using pre-service teachers’ perceptions of mathematical literacy to inform program changes in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 63–74.
  4. De Lange, J. (2003). Mathematics for literacy. Quantitative Literacy: Why Numeracy Matters for Schools and Colleges, 85, 75–89.
  5. 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, 45(6), 502–529.
  6. Fitriani, N., Suryadi, D., & Darhim, D. (2018). The students’mathematical abstraction ability through realistic mathematics education with vba-microsoft excel. Infinity Journal, 7(2), 123–132.
  7. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471.
  8. Hidayat, R., & Iksan, Z. H. (2015). The Effect of Realistic Mathematic Education on Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Linear Progamming. Creative Education, 6(22), 2438.
  9. Julie, C. (2006). Mathematical Literacy: Myths, further inclusions and exclusions. Pythagoras, 12(1), 62–69.
  10. Kurz, T., Middleton, J., & Bahadir Yanik, H. (2004). Preservice Teachers Conceptions of Mathematics-Based Software. In International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 313–320).
  11. Lestari, L., & Surya, E. (2017). The Effectiveness of Realistic Mathematics Education Approach on Ability of Students’ Mathematical Concept Understanding. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 34(1), 91–100.
  12. Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, C. S., & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405–423.
  13. Maryanti, E. (2012). Peningkatan literasi matematis siswa melalui pendekatan metacognitive guidance. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
  14. Mills, J. D. (2003). A theoretical framework for teaching statistics. Teaching Statistics, 25(2), 56–58.
  15. Mkhwanazi, T. W., & Bansilal, S. (2014). Mathematical literacy teachers’ engagement with contextualised income tax calculations. Pythagoras, 35(2), 1–10.
  16. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). National Council of Teachers of.
  17. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving, revised edition. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publishing, Paris, France. Web site:
  18. Oktavianingtyas, E., Salama, F. S., Fatahillah, A., Monalisa, L. A., & Setiawan, T. B. (2018). Development 3D Animated Story as Interactive Learning Media with Lectora Inspire and Plotagon on Direct and Inverse Proportion Subject. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1108, p. 12111).
  19. Pesonen, M. E. (2003). Experiments on using interactive web-based mathematics problem sets based on dynamic geometry applets. In Mathematics and Natural Science Education in the North-East of Europe: History, Traditions, Contemporary Issues. Proceedings of the Sixth Inter-Karelian Conference. Sortavala, Russia (Vol. 11, p. 14).
  20. Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602.
  21. Rohendi, D. (2012). Developing e-learning based on animation content for improving mathematical connection abilities in high school students. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 9(4), 1.
  22. Ruseffendi, E. T. (2005). Dasar-dasar penelitian pendidikan dan bidang non-eksakta lainnya. Bandung: Tarsito.
  23. Sáenz, C. (2009). The role of contextual, conceptual and procedural knowledge in activating mathematical competencies (PISA). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(2), 123–143.
  24. Salim, K., & Tiawa, D. H. (2015). The Student ’ s Perceptions of Learning Mathematics using Flash Animation Secondary School in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(34), 76–80.
  25. Sandström, M., Nilsson, L., & Lilja, J. (2013). Displaying Mathematical Literacy--Pupils’ Talk about Mathematical Activities. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(2), 55–61.
  26. Sembiring, R. K. (2010). Pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia (PMRI): perkembangan dan tantangannya. IndoMS. J.M.E, 1(1), 11–16.
  27. Siebert, D., & Draper, R. J. (2012). Reconceptualizing literacy and instruction for mathematics classrooms. Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies, 172–198.
  28. Suartama, I. K. (2010). Pengembangan mutimedia untuk meningkatkan kualitas pembelajaran pada mata kuliah media pembelajaran. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 43(3).
  29. Sumirattana, S., Makanong, A., & Thipkong, S. (2017). Using realistic mathematics education and the DAPIC problem-solving process to enhance secondary school students’ mathematical literacy. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 307–315.
  30. Taylor, M. J., Pountney, D. C., & Baskett, M. (2008). Using animation to support the teaching of computer game development techniques. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1258–1268.
  31. Umbara, U. (2015). Efektivitas pembelajaran realistic mathematic education (RME) terhadap kemampuan representasi matematis siswa. JUMLAHKU: Jurnal Matematika Ilmiah STKIP Muhammadiyah Kuningan, 1(1), 1--No.
  32. Umbara, U. (2017). Psikolgi Pembelajaran Matematika (Melaksanakan Pembelajaran Matematika Berdasarkan Tinjauan Psikologi). Yogyakarta: Deepublish.
  33. Venkat, H. (2010). Exploring the nature and coherence of mathematical work in South African Mathematical Literacy classrooms. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 53–68.
  34. Venkat, H., Graven, M., Lampen, E., Nalube, P., & Chitera, N. (2009). ‘Reasoning and Reflecting’ in Mathematical Literacy. Learning and Teaching Mathematics, 7(July), 47–53.
  35. Zakaria, E., & Syamaun, M. (2017). The Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education Approach on Students’ Achievement and Attitudes towards Mathematics. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 1(1), 32–40.