Effectiveness of Scaffolding Strategies in Learning Against Decrease in Mathematics Anxiety Level

  • Imam Kusmaryono Universitas Islam Sultan Agung
  • Akbar Muntoha Gufron Universitas Islam Sultan Agung
  • Achmad Rusdiantoro
Keywords: Strategy; Scaffolding; Mathematical Anxiety


This study is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative with sequential explanatory designs. The study aims to (1) analyze the improvement of student achievement in learning after scaffolding, (2) evaluate the level of students 'mathematics anxiety, and (3) describe the role of scaffolding in changing students' perceptions of mathematics anxiety in classroom learning. Sampling through random sampling techniques obtained by students of class X-IPA-1 and X-IPA-2 in SMA Negeri 6 Semarang. Quantitative data analysis uses statistical test techniques: normality test, paired sample t-test, and N-gain test. Qualitative data analysis through interactive methods namely data collection, data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions. Data validation techniques through the source and method triangulation. The results showed that (1) there was an increase in student learning achievement after the application of the scaffolding strategy by 33.0% to 34.5%; (2) there was a decrease in the level of mathematics anxiety in students by 90.4%; (3) through scaffolding, students succeed in reflecting and correcting mistakes in solving previous problems. This means scaffolding can be an effective strategy to help students move across different Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD). The scaffolding strategy has also created a positive classroom environment that encourages students to learn mathematics without fear.


S. Subandi, C. Choirudin, M. Mahmudi, N. Nizaruddin, and H. Hermanita, “Building Interactive Communication with Google Classroom,” International Journal of Engineering & Technology, vol. 7, no. 2.13, pp. 460–463, Apr. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.13.18141.

K. Gravemeijer, M. Stephan, C. Julie, F. L. Lin, and M. Ohtani, “What Mathematics Education May Prepare Students for the Society of the Future?,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 15, pp. 105–123, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6.

E. Zakaria and M. Syamaun, “The Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education Approach on Students’ Achievement And Attitudes Towards Mathematics,” Mathematics Education Trends and Research, vol. 2017, no. 1, pp. 32–40, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.5899/2017/metr-00093.

M. S. Anwar, C. Choirudin, E. F. Ningsih, T. Dewi, and A. Maseleno, “Developing an Interactive Mathematics Multimedia Learning Based on Ispring Presenter in Increasing Students’ Interest in Learning Mathematics,” Al-Jabar : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 135–150, Jul. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v10i1.4445.

P. Grootenboer and M. Marshman, “The Affective Domain, Mathematics, and Mathematics Education,” in Mathematics, Affect and Learning, Springer Science+Business Media Singapore, 2016, pp. 13–24.

Z. Wang, S. L. Lukowski, S. A. Hart, and I. M. Lyons, “Is Mathematical Anxiety Always Bad for Math Learning: The Role of Math Motivation,” Psychological Science, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1863–1876, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615602471.Is.

Y. F. Zakariya, “Development of Mathematics Anxiety Scale : Factor Analysis as a Determinant of Subcategories,” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 135–144, 2018.

C. M. Ganley and A. L. Mcgraw, “The Development and Validation of a Revised Version of the Math Anxiety Scale for Young Children,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1181, pp. 1–18, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01181.

A. Dowker, A. Sarkar, and C. Y. Looi, “Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years?,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. APR, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508.

I. P. Maharani and S. Subanji, “Scaffolding Based on Cognitive Conflict in Correcting the Students ’ Algebra Errors,” International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 67–74, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2697.

K. A. Wibawa, T. Nusantara, Subanji, and I. N. Parta, “Defragmentation of Student ’ s Thinking Structures in Solving Mathematical Problems based on CRA Framework,” Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, vol. 1028, no. 12150, pp. 1–8, 2018.

I. Kusmaryono and N. Ulia, “Interaksi Gaya Mengajar dan Konten Matematika sebagai Faktor Penentu Kecemasan Matematika,” Mosharafa : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Mosharafa : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 143–154, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v9i1.634.

Choirudin, Eka Fitria Ningsih, M. Saidun Anwar, Intan Ratna Sari, and Suci Amalia, “Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran Etnomatematika Pada Situs Purbakala Pugung Raharjo,” Pi: Mathematics Education Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.21067/pmej.v3i1.3755.

Apri Wahyudi and Choirudin, “Pengembangan Alat Peraga Pembelajaran Matematika Materi Perkalian Berbasis Montessori,” Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam Al-Idarah, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 33–39, 2019.

S. Puntambekar and R. Hubscher, “Environment : What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed?,” Educational Phychologist, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001.

J. van de Pol, M. Volman, F. Oort, and J. Beishuizen, “The effects of scaffolding in the classroom : support contingency and student independent working time,” Instructional Science, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 615–641, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z.

B. Eun, “The zone of proximal development as an overarching concept: A framework for synthesizing Vygotsky’s theories,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1421941.

M. B. Miles and M. A. Huberman, Analisis Data Kualitatif: Buku Sumber Tentang Metode-Metode Baru, 11th ed., no. 1. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press), 2012.

H. Hendriana, U. rahmat Slamet, and U. Sumarmo, “Mathematical connection ability and self-confidence (an experiment on Hunior High School students through Contextual Teaching and learning with Mathematical Manipulative),” International Journal of Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.17509/IJE.V8I1.1726.

S. Sofiatun, P. Deniyanti, and L. El, “The effect of scaffolding techniques on the ability of student ’ s reasoning ability and mathematics anxiety reviewed from gender,” Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.15294/ujme.v7i1.22574.

J. Van De Pol, M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen, “Scaffolding in Teacher – Student Interaction : A Decade of Research,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 271–296, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.

B. R. Belland and E. Evidence, Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland, 2016.

I. Kusmaryono, H. Suyitno, D. Dwijanto, and N. Dwidayati, “The Effect of Mathematical Disposition on Mathematical Power Formation: Review of Dispositional Mental Functions,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 343–356, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12123a.

H. I. Van Mier, T. M. J. Schleepen, and F. C. G. Van den Berg, “Gender differences regarding the impact of math anxiety on arithmetic performance in second and fourth graders,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, no. JAN, pp. 1–13, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02690.

How to Cite
Kusmaryono, I., Gufron, A., & Rusdiantoro, A. (2020). Effectiveness of Scaffolding Strategies in Learning Against Decrease in Mathematics Anxiety Level. NUMERICAL: Jurnal Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.25217/numerical.v4i1.770