This study is aimed to determine whether there were the differences in the average pre-test and post-test results on students’ mathematical communication ability through the ethnomathematics-based Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) model. It was conducted using Pre-Experimental Research with the research population being all students of Grade VIIE SMP Quran Kisaran. Class sample selection is done randomly and selectively. The instrument used was a test of students’ mathematical communication ability with quadrilateral material. The data in this study were analyzed by using parametric statistical analysis. Statistical analysis of the data was carried out by using the Paired Sample T Test analysis. The results showed that (1) There was a significant difference between the results of the pre-test and post-test on students’ mathematical communication ability through Ethnomathematical-based POGIL Learning; and the average pre-test and post-test were 26.17 in.the pre-test and 34.3667 in.the post-test. The findings obtained during the research on the application of the ethnomathematical-based POGIL model showed that students who were in the fast- understanding category were more active in groups and were better able to create ideas in the form of their own arguments compared to students who still did not understand or had difficulty understanding the problem, however, the data obtained was not valid enough, researchers only conduct observation and interview to determine the category of students who understand quickly or not, so it becomes a suggestion for further researchers to pay more attention to students’ abilities in the high, medium, and low categories, so that later it will be concluded strongly that this model is more recommended for high, medium or low capabilities.

1.
S.
Heppell
and
Ultralab
,
21st Century Schools: Learning Environments of the Future
(
Building Futures
,
2004
), p.
36
.
2.
S.
Fadia
and
N.
Fitri
,
J.
Pendidik
,
Tambusai
5
(
1
), pp.
1617
1620
(
2021
),
3.
A.
Schleicher
,
Insights and Interpretations
(
Springer
,
2018
).
4.
E.R.
Putri
,
Budiyono
and
D.
Indriati
,
Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ.
9
(
2
), pp.
394
400
(
2020
).
5.
NCTM
,
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
(
NCTM
,
USA
,
2000
).
6.
A.
Anim
,
Y.D.
Prasetyo
and
E.
Rahmadani
,
Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun
7
(
2
), pp.
331
342
(
2019
).
7.
F.
Viseu
and
I. B.
Oliveira
,
Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ.
4
(
2
), pp.
287
300
(
2012
).
8.
A.
Anim
and
E.M.
Saragih
,
Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA
9
(
1
), (
2019
).
9.
K.W.
Kosko
and
Y.
Gao
,
Educ. Policy
31
(
3
), pp.
275
302
(
2017
).
10.
M.E.
Brenner
,
Biling. Res. J.
22
(
2–4
), pp.
149
174
(
1998
).
11.
C.I.
Nartani
,
R.A.
Hidayat
and
Y.
Sumiyati
,
Int. J. Innov. Res. Educ. Sci.
2
(
4
), pp.
2349
5219
(
2015
).
12.
Kaselin
,
Sukestiyarno
and
W.
Budi
,
Unnes J. Res. Math. Educ.
2
(
2
), (
2013
).
13.
R.A.
Herdini
,
H.
Suyitno
and
P.
Marwoto
,
J. Prim. Educ.
8
(
1
), pp.
85
73
(
2018
).
14.
J.B.
Lagrange
,
M.
Artigue
,
C.
Laborde
and
L.
Trouche
, “
Technology and Mathematics Education: A Multidimensional Study of the Evolution of Research and Innovation
,” In
International Handbook of Mathematics Education
2
(Springer,
2003
), pp.
237
269
.
15.
Ş.
Şen
,
A.
Yılmaz
and
Ö.
Geban
,
Probl. Educ. 21st Century
66
(
1
), pp.
54
66
(
2015
).
16.
D.M.
Hanson
,
Instructor ’ s Guide to Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning
(
Pacifi Crest
,
2014
).
17.
S.R.
Simonson
and
S.E.
Shadle
,
J. STEM Educ a tion
14
(
1
), pp.
56
64
(
2013
).
18.
J.
Kevin
,
A.
Artuz
and
D.B.
Roble
,
Am. J. Educ. Res.
9
(
7
), pp.
404
409
(
2021
).
19.
Y.C.
Ningsih
,
A.A.
Purwoko
and
S.
Hadisaputra
, “
Development of Learning-Based Pogil (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) to Improve Mastery of Base Student Concept of Acid Base Material in Senior High School
,” In
8th Annu. Basic Sci. Int. Conf., Proceeding Conference
8
(
3
) (Iosrjournals,
2018
), pp.
527
.
20.
I.
Fujiati
and
Z.
Mastur
,
Unnes J. Math. Educ.
3
(
3
), (
2014
).
21.
U.
D’Ambrosio
and
M.
Rosa
, “Ethnomathematics and Its Pedagogical Action in Mathematics Education,” In
Ethnomathematics and its Diverse Approaches for Mathematics Education
(
Hamburg
,
2017
), pp.
285
305
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.