Generative AI dalam Pembelajaran Pembuktian Matematis: Tinjauan Sistematis terhadap Peluang, Keterbatasan, dan Implikasi Pedagogis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37630/jpm.v16i5.5237Keywords:
ChatGPT, Generative AI, Pembuktian Matematis, Penalaran Deduktif, Systematic Literature ReviewAbstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) semakin banyak dimanfaatkan dalam pembelajaran matematika, padahal pembuktian matematis menuntut ketelitian logis yang justru menjadi kelemahan model bahasa besar. Penelitian ini bertujuan memetakan karakteristik, peluang, keterbatasan, dan implikasi pedagogis pemanfaatan GenAI dalam pembelajaran pembuktian matematis. Metode yang digunakan adalah systematic literature review yang mengikuti pedoman PRISMA 2020. Pencarian pada basis data Scopus menghasilkan 140 rekaman, dan setelah penyaringan serta penilaian kelayakan, 16 studi yang terbit pada 2024–2026 dianalisis secara deskriptif dan tematik. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa studi didominasi penelitian kualitatif berskala kecil pada jenjang perguruan tinggi, dan hanya satu studi yang dilakukan pada jenjang sekolah. Penilaian kualitas dengan MMAT 2018 menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar studi (sembilan dari 16) hanya memenuhi dua kriteria atau kurang. GenAI berpeluang menjadi sumber gagasan pembuktian, pemberi umpan balik dalam skala besar, scaffold penalaran, dan sarana latihan berpikir kritis, terutama untuk fungsi komunikasi dan penemuan bukti. Namun, GenAI kerap menghasilkan bukti yang tidak sahih, memberikan umpan balik yang dangkal, dan berisiko menimbulkan ketergantungan sehingga fungsi verifikasi bukti paling terancam. Kajian ini merumuskan enam implikasi pedagogis dengan prinsip bahwa GenAI perlu diposisikan sebagai mitra belajar yang keluarannya selalu diverifikasi. Penelitian lanjutan direkomendasikan pada jenjang sekolah, konteks negara berkembang, dan desain eksperimental.
Downloads
References
Agad, A., Rocena, L. A., Cabalo, J. M. S., & Victorio, C. N. (2025). Revising with AI: Undergraduate students’ perceptions and trust in AI-generated feedback on geometric proofs. Proceedings of the 30th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM 2025).
Almarashdi, H. S., Jarrah, A. M., Abu Khurma, O., & Gningue, S. M. (2024). Unveiling the potential: A systematic review of ChatGPT in transforming mathematics teaching and learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(12), em2555. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15739
Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216–235). Hodder & Stoughton.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Botana, F., Recio, T., & Vélez, M. P. (2024). On using GeoGebra and ChatGPT for geometric discovery. Computers, 13(8), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13080187
Collins, K. M., Jiang, A. Q., Frieder, S., Wong, L., Zilka, M., Bhatt, U., Lukasiewicz, T., Wu, Y., Tenenbaum, J. B., Hart, W., Gowers, T., Li, W., Weller, A., & Jamnik, M. (2024). Evaluating language models for mathematics through interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(24), e2318124121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2318124121
Davor, I. (2026). Generative AI-supported instruction as a cognitive scaffold: Effects on senior high school students’ geometric reasoning and proof construction. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1869961. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1869961
de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17–24.
Dela Torre, J., & Sayco, J. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic literature review using the PRISMA framework. The Asian Conference on Education & International Development 2026 Official Conference Proceedings (pp. 591–606). IAFOR. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2189-101X.2026.48
Dilling, F., & Herrmann, M. (2024). Using large language models to support pre-service teachers mathematical reasoning—An exploratory study on ChatGPT as an instrument for creating mathematical proofs in geometry. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1460337. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1460337
Drushlyak, M., Lukashova, T., Sabadosh, Y., Melnikov, I., & Semenikhina, O. (2024). Using ChatGPT for the development of critical thinking in youth: Example of inequality proof. 2024 47th ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO 2024) - Proceedings, 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO60963.2024.10569759
Dykstra, N., Wesley, R., & Dougherty, R. E. (2026). On the efficacy of using large language models for automatic grading of CS theory problems. Proceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V.2 (SIGCSE TS 2026), 1311–1312. https://doi.org/10.1145/3770761.3777261
Frable, W., Trevino, A., & Dougherty, R. E. (2026). Viability of large language models as CS theory tutors. Proceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V.2 (SIGCSE TS 2026), 1335–1336. https://doi.org/10.1145/3770761.3777358
Frieder, S., Pinchetti, L., Chevalier, A., Griffiths, R.-R., Salvatori, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Petersen, P. C., & Berner, J. (2023). Mathematical capabilities of ChatGPT. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36. https://papers.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/58168e8a92994655d6da3939e7cc0918-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.html
Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1–2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012737223465
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234–283). American Mathematical Society.
Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., Vedel, I., & Pluye, P. (2018). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information, 34(4), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Kartika, H., & Clark, L. J. (2026). Comparative analysis of mathematical arguments in algebraic proofs: Generative AI vs. university students approaches. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 18(1), 281–299.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kawski, M. (2025). ChatGPT and AI enhancing undergrad math. Proceedings of the 30th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM 2025).
McGalliard, W., & Otten, S. (2025). AI responses to challenging problems and educator responses to AI availability. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-024-00167-4
Mejía-Ramos, J. P., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads, K., & Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9349-7
Muhamad Sani, N. S. A., Omar, M. A. A., & Abdullah, M. R. (2026). Exploring the role of generative artificial intelligence in transforming mathematics teaching and learning: A systematic mapping review. Innovative Teaching and Learning Journal, 10(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.11113/itlj.v10.256
Nguyen, D. T., & Pham, Q. V. (2025). The evolving landscape of AI integration in mathematics education: A systematic review of trends (2015–2025). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(10), em2714. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17078
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Patel, M., Bhattacharyya, R., Lu, T., Mehta, A., Voss, N., Norouzi, N., & Ranade, G. (2026). LeanTutor: Towards a verified AI mathematical proof tutor. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(47), 40670–40678. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v40i47.41514
Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9057-x
Poulsen, S., Sarsa, S., Prather, J., Leinonen, J., Becker, B. A., Hellas, A., Denny, P., & Reeves, B. N. (2024). Solving proof block problems using large language models. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2024), 1, 1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626252.3630928
Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034869
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tithi, S. D., Ramesh, A. K., DiMarco, C., Tian, X., Alam, N., Fazeli, K., & Barnes, T. (2025). The promise and limits of LLMs in constructing proofs and hints for logic problems in intelligent tutoring systems. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100490
Urhan, S., Gençaslan, O., & Dost, Ş. (2024). An argumentation experience regarding concepts of calculus with ChatGPT. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 7186–7211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2308093
Urhan, S., Gençaslan, O., & Dost, Ş. (2026). Is ChatGPT a rational assistant for university students during mathematical reasoning? Science & Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-026-00725-9
Yoon, H., Hwang, J., Lee, K., Roh, K. H., & Kwon, O. N. (2024). Students’ use of generative artificial intelligence for proving mathematical statements. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(7), 1531–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01629-0
Yoon, H., Lee, Y., Lee, K., & Kwon, O. N. (2026). Before or after? Beyond timing of students’ interaction with generative artificial intelligence in proving mathematical statements. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 58(5), 945–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-026-01800-9
Zhao, C., Silva, M., & Poulsen, S. (2025). Autograding mathematical induction proofs with natural language processing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(5), 3202–3232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00498-2
Zhuang, Y., Yao, X., Davis, T. J., & Nudze, W. Y. (2026). Utilizing customized ChatGPT-based chatbots to support preservice teachers’ understanding of collective mathematical argumentation. European Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18918
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yan Sando Purdatama Rija, Marnilawati Marnilawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Seluruh materi yang terdapat dalam situs ini dilindungi oleh undang-undang. Dilarang mengutip sebagian atau seluruh isi situs web ini untuk keperluan komersil tanpa persetujuan dewan penyunting jurnal ini.
- Apabila anda menemukan satu atau beberapa artikel yang terdapat dalam Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA yang melanggar atau berpotensi melanggar hak cipta yang anda miliki, silahkan laporkan kepada kami, melalui email pada Principle Contact.
- Aspek legal formal terhadap akses setiap informasi dan artikel yang tercantum dalam situs jurnal ini mengacu pada ketentuan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Semua Informasi yang terdapat di Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA bersifat akademik. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap kerugian yang terjadi karana penyalah gunaan informasi dari situs ini.
