Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
11.716
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar KUMARA CENDEKIA Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) Journal on Mathematics Education (JME) Jurnal S2 Pendidikan Matematika Journal on Mathematics Education (JME) ASAS : Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah JURNAL JPSD (Jurnal Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar) AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia) : Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia AdMathEduSt: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Matematika Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, dan Pengembangan Jurnal Gantang KAREBA : Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi Al-Jabar : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching) International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series Proceedings Education and Language International Conference AL ISHLAH Jurnal Pendidikan QALAMUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan Agama Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education (JMME) Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia JTAM (Jurnal Teori dan Aplikasi Matematika) International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education JURNAL TARBIYAH JURNAL PENDIDIKAN TAMBUSAI Jurnal Basicedu International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia JUPE : Jurnal Pendidikan Mandala Jurnal Fundadikdas (Fundamental Pendidikan Dasar) Social, Humanities, and Educational Studies (SHEs): Conference Series Jurnal Didaktika Dwija Indria Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian JP2M (Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Matematika) TECHNO-SOCIO EKONOMIKA Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education Journal (Birle Journal) Jurnal Evaluasi dan Pembelajaran International Journal of Business, Law, and Education Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika International Journal of Social Learning (IJSL) Jurnal Riset dan Inovasi Pembelajaran TEACHING : Jurnal Inovasi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Kalam Cendekia: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan Journal of Social Research Indonesian Journal Of Educational Research and Review Jurnal Basicedu Pancaran Pendidikan Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Prosiding Konferensi Nasional Penelitian Matematika dan Pembelajarannya Jurnal Tatsqif Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi UHO : Jurnal Penelitian Kajian Ilmu Komunikasi dan Informasi JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education) Journal of Innovation in Teaching and Instructional Media International Journal of Education, Vocational and Social Science Daarus Tsaqofah Jurnal Pendidikan Pascasarjana Universitas Qomaruddin Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif Jurnal Wacana Kinerja: Kajian Praktis-Akademis Kinerja dan Administrasi Pelayanan Publik
Riyadi Riyadi
Universitas Sebelas Maret
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemistry Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Immunology & microbiology Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Mathematics Neuroscience Physics Public Health Social Sciences Veterinary Other

Published : 262 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 84 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal S2 Pendidikan Matematika

 3   4   5   6   7 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) PADA MATERI SEGITIGA DAN SEGIEMPAT DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN TULANG BAWANG BARAT Ayuwanti, Irma; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (282.879 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of the research  were to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning model, (2) which one having better mathematics learning achievement, students with climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (3) in each learning models (NHT, GI and direct) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (4) in each student AQ (climbers, campers, and quitters) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning  model.This study was a quasi-experimental research. The research design used was a 3x3 factorial design. The population of research was all VII graders of Junior High Schools throughout West Tulang Bawang Regency in the school year of 2014/2015. Meanwhile the sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample consisted of 281 students: 93 students for experiment I class, 93 for experiment II class and 95 for control class. The instruments used to collect the data were learning AQ questionnaire and  mathematics learning achievement test. From the result of research, it could be concluded as follows: (1) NHT learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than GI learning model and direct learning model, GI learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than direct learning model. (2) The learning achievement of the students with climbers AQ was better than that of those with campers and quitters AQ, and the learning achievement of the students with campers AQ was better than that of those with quitters AQ. (3) In NHT learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers  and campers AQ had better achievement than students with quitters AQ; qqqin GI learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers AQ categories had better achievement than students with quitters AQ, students with campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement; in direct learning model, students with climbers, campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement. (4) In climbers AQ, NHT learning modelqqq gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in campers AQ, NHT learning model gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in quitters AQ, NHT, GI and direct learning model gave the same achievement. Keywords: NHT, GI, Direct Learning, and Adversity Quotient (AQ).
PENGEMBANGAN MODEL INTUITION BASED LEARNING (IBL) DENGAN SCIENTIFIC APPROACH UNTUK MENINGKATKAN HASIL BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS XI SMA NEGERI 2 SRAGEN Heryaningsih, Nok Yeni; Riyadi, Riyadi; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (270.756 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to produce Intuition Based Learning (IBL) model and supporting learning with Scientific Approach in solving problems to increase mathematics students’ achievement that valid, practical and effective. The type of the research was a Research and Development (R&D). The subjects of the research were grade XI MS 6 and XI MS 4 students of SMAN 2 Sragen, Central Java on Academic year 2014/2015. IBL model development process was adopt from Plomp and Borg & Gall development model. They were (1) Collect the informations and studying of theories in Preliminary Investigations Phase, (2) Design of IBL model and supporting learning material (Lesson Plan, Worksheet, Problem sheet, and learning paper) and then design research instruments, (3) Realize the IBL model and supporting learning material that was design to be First Draft, (4) Do validation of the first draft, testing the IBL model in the classroom, and then do revisions, (5) Conduct Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to evaluate the result of IBL model testing in the classroom, then will be revised to the next IBL model testing. The results of the reasearch were produce IBL model and supporting learning material (Lesson Plan, Worksheet, Problem sheet, and learning paper) with scientific approach in solving problems to increase mathematics students’ achievement that valid, practical and effective. These are steps of IBL model in the classroom, (1) Opening with apperception, motivations and build students’ positif perceptions, (2) Students divided into several groups, (3) Teacher explains the material generally, (4) Group discussion with 5M activity (based on Scientific approach), (5) Exercise to solve open ended problem individually with steps that could appear students’ intuition: Preparations, Inkubation, Ilumination and Verification, (6) Closure with review of students have learned or giving homework.Keywords: Development of model, Learning model, intuition, scientific approach, students’ achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN RESOURCE BASED LEARNING (RBL)DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIK PESERTA DIDIK KELAS XI SMA SEKABUPATEN KUDUS TAHUN 2013/2014 Apriliana, Arifa; Riyadi, Riyadi; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (443.391 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the students mathematical communication skills. The learning models compared were RBL, PBL and Direct learning model. Data analysis techniques used to test the hypothesis was two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. 1) RBL and PBL learning models have produced the same mathematics achievement, but RBL and PBL learning models have produced the mathematics learning achievement better than Direct Learning. 2) learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and learners with medium and low mathematical communication skills also have the same mathematics achievement. But, learners with high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills. 3) learners with high mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with medium mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL and PBL have had the same mathematics achievement, and who are learning by using PBL and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement, but learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL have had a better mathematical achievement than who are learning by using  Direct learning model. 4) In the RBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement. In the PBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement. In the Direct learning model, learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and in the Direct learning model, learners who have medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement, but in the Direct learning model, learners who have high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills.Keywords: Learning model, RBL, PBL, Direct learning model, Mathematical communication skills, and Mathematics achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PROBLEM POSING PADA POKOK BAHASAN PELUANG DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SISWA KELAS XI SMK DI KABUPATEN BOYOLALI Bahktiar, Hidayat; Usodo, Budi; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (244.452 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to find out: (1) which one gives better in mathematics learning achievement, learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS) with Problem Posing, Think Pair Share (TPS) or conventional, (2) which one have better in mathematics learning achievement, students having climbers, campers or quitters of Adversity Quotient, (3) in each learning model, which one have better mathematics learning achievement, students having climbers, campers or quitters of Adversity Quotient, (4) in each student’s level of Adversity Quotient which one gives better in mathematics learning achievement, learning model of TPS with Problem Posing, TPS or conventional. This research was a quasi-experimental research with 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of the research was all students class XI majors group technology, health and agriculture of SMK in Boyolali. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments that were used to collect the data were the documentation of mathematics achievement, questionnaire of Adversity Quotient and test of mathematics achievement. The technique of analyzing the data was two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The result of research showed as follows: (1) learning model of TPS with Problem Posing provided better learning achievement than model of TPS and conventional, learning model of TPS provided better learning achievement than conventional, (2) the students having climbers and campers had same achievement, and the students having climbers and campers had better  achievement than those having quitters, (3) in each learning model, the students having climbers and campers had the same achievement, and the students having climbers and campers had better achievement than those having quitters, (4) in each Adversity Quotient, learning model of TPS with Problem Posing provided better learning achievement than TPS and conventional, learning model of TPS provided better learning achievement than conventional.Keywords: Think Pair Share (TPS), Problem Posing, and Adversity Quotient (AQ)
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE JIGSAW DAN TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) PADA MATERI KUBUS DAN BALOK DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN MATEMATIKA PESERTA DIDIK SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII SE-KOTA METRO Rosyidah, Ummi; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (339.719 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of the research were to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement the cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type, TGT or direct learning model, (2) in the student mathematical reasoning abilities, which one having better mathematics learning achievement, the students with the high, moderate or low mathematical reasoning abilities, (3) in each learning models (jigsaw, TGT or direct learning model) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the students with the high, moderate or low mathematical reasoning abilities, (4) in each student mathematical reasoning abilities (high, moderate, or low) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type, TGT, and the direct learning model. This research used the quasi experimental research. Its population was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools in Metro City. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique and consisted of 243 students. The instruments to collect the data were test of Mathematics learning achievement and test of achievement in mathematical reasoning abilities. Technique of analyzing data that used was unbalanced two way analysis of variance. The results of the research were as follows. 1) The cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type results better Mathematics learning achievement than the cooperative learning model of the TGT type and the direct learning model, the cooperative learning model of the TGT type results better learning achievement in Mathematics than the direct learning model. 2) The students with the high mathematical reasoning abilities have better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the moderate mathematical reasoning abilities and those with the low mathematical reasoning abilities, the students with the moderate mathematical reasoning abilities have better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low mathematical reasoning abilities. 3) In the cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type and TGT, the students with the high mathematical reasoning abilities have same achievement in Mathematics as those with the moderate mathematical reasoning abilities and those with the low mathematical reasoning abilities. In the direct learning model, the students with the high mathematical reasoning abilities have  better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low mathematical reasoning abilities. 4) In each of the mathematical reasoning abilities of students which are high and moderate, the cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type results same learning achievement in Mathematics as the cooperative learning model of the TGT type and the direct learning model. In addition, in the low mathematical reasoning abilities, the cooperative learning model of the jigsaw type results better learning achievement in Mathematics than the direct learning model.Keywords: Jigsaw, TGT, Direct Learning, and Mathematical Reasoning Abilities
PROSES METAKOGNISI DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA PADA SISWA KELAS XI DI SMA NEGERI BANYUMAS Kartika, Dwiani Listya; Riyadi, Riyadi; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (219.856 KB)

Abstract

Abstract : The purposes of this research were to describe: (1) metacognition process in mathematical problem solving linear programming subject matter of grade XI students with high academic ability in Banyumas State Senior High School, (2) metacognition process in mathematical problem solving linear programming subject of grade XI students with medium academic ability in Banyumas State Senior High School, and (3) metacognition process in mathematical problem solving linear programming subject matter of grade XI students with low academic ability in Banyumas State Senior High School. This research was a qualitative descriptive research and the subjects were grade XI students of Banyumas State Senior High School in academic year 2014/2015.  The subjects were selected based on specific criteria by using  snowball sampling technique. Data was collected by using interview based on problem solving tasks  and validity of the data was done by using time triangulation. Data validity was used to determine the metacognition process in mathematical problem solving from each research subject in each component metacognition process. The components were arranging the  strategy or action plan, controlling or monitoring the actions, and evaluating  the action. Results showed that students with high, medium, and low academic ability realized their thinking process by identifying the information of the problem when arranged the action plan. However, there are students with low academic ability can not recall their prior knowledge previously required. They also can not make the  plan solutions are used. The plans solution are knowing the concepts that will be used and estimating the time required to complete it. Furthermore, when monitored the actions, all of subjects from high, medium, and low academic ability had tried to realize their thinking process when explained the problem solving procedures by verifying and clarifying the results of their written work and identifying the  strategies while expressing the reason of the strategies are used. The students with high and  medium academic ability developed their plan action solutions prepared in accordance with the plan. However, there are students with low academic ability  who have not been able to develop all plans prepared solution according to their plans. Furthermore, only students with high academic ability who are able to evaluate or assess the results of their written work properly despite there are some  students with low academic ability  who can do it too.Keywords: Metacognition Process, Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Ability
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN REALISTIC MATHEMATICS EDUCATION (RME) DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP/MTs DI KABUPATEN SRAGEN Nyoto, Nyoto; Usodo, Budi; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (410.365 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which one had a better mathematics achievement, students instructed with the cooperative learning of Think Pair Share (TPS) type with Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach, the cooperative learning of TPS type, or the direct learning model; (2) which one had a better mathematics achievement, students who had visual learning style, auditorial learning style, or kinesthetic learning style; (3) on each type of learning model, which one had a better mathematics achievement, students who had visual learning style, auditorial learning style, or kinesthetic learning style; (4) on each learning style, which one had a better mathematics achievement, students instructed with the cooperative learning of TPS type with Realistic Mathematics Education approach, the cooperative learning of TPS type, or the direct learning model. This research was quasi experimental with 3×3 factorial design. The population was all students of the grade VIII State Junior High Schools/Islamic State Junior Secondary School in Sragen Regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The sample consisted of 308 students. The instrument used to collect data was mathematics achievement test and questionnaire of students learning style. Balance test used unbalanced one way analysis of variance. The hypothesis test used unbalanced two ways analysis of variance at the significance level of 0,05. Based on hypothesis test, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach had the same mathematics achievement as students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type. Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach and the cooperative learning model of TPS type had better mathematics achievement than students intructed with the direct learning model. (2) Students with visual learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with auditorial learning style. Students with visual learning style had better mathematics achievement than student with kinesthetic learning style, and students with auditorial learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with kinesthetic learning style. (3) On the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach, the cooperative learning model of TPS type, and the direct learning model, students with visual learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with auditorial learning style. Students with visual learning style had better mathematics achievement than student with kinesthetic learning style, and students with auditorial learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with kinesthetic learning style. (4) On students with visual learning style, auditorial learning style, and kinesthetic learning style, students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach had the same mathematics achievement as students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type. Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach and the cooperative learning model of TPS type had better mathematics achievement than students intructed with the direct learning model.Keywords: TPS, RME, students learning style
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, PROBLEM SOLVING, DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI SELF REGULATED LEARNING Miatun, Asih; Sujadi, Imam; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (471.297 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from student’s self regulated learning. The learning model compared were discovery learning, problem solving, and TPS. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population were all students at the grade VIII of Junior High School in Boyolali regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The samples were students of SMPN 4 Boyolali, SMPN 6 Boyolali, and SMPN 4 Mojosongo. The instruments used were mathematics achievement tests and self regulated learning questionnaire. The data were analyzed using unbalanced two-ways Anova. The conclusions were as follows. (1) Discovery learning model gave mathematics learning achievement better than problem solving and TPS learning model, problem solving and TPS learning model gave the same mathematics learning achievement. (2) Mathematics learning achievement of students with high self regulated learning was better than students with medium and low self regulated learning. Mathematics learning achievement of students with medium self regulated learning was better than students with low self regulated learning. (3) There was an interaction between learning models and the categories of self regulated learning towards the students mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Discovery Learning, Problem Solving, Think Pair Share (TPS), self regulated learning.
ANALISIS PROSES DAN TINGKAT BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA SMP DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH BENTUK SOAL CERITA MATERI LINGKARAN DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN MATEMATIKA Machromah, Isnaeni Umi; Riyadi, Riyadi; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (246.622 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to analyze the process and level of creative thinking of junior high school students based on mathematics anxiety’s students. The subjects of this research were taken by using purposive sampling. The Subjects of this research were six 9th grade students of SMP N 3 Colomadu Karanganyar regency. The data were collected by questionnaire and task-based interview technique and validated by using time triangulation. The data were analyzed by collection, reduction, presentation, and conclusion. The results of this research were: (1) students with high mathematics anxiety had level 1 (almost not creative) and the processes were at preparation stage, students feel difficult to understand and identify the problem; at the incubation stage, students found the idea from picture’s observation; at illumination stage, students could not  make mathematics statement based on the problem enough; at verification stage, students read or counted again for investigating the answer and they could resume the result appropriate the reality of the problem, (2) students with medium mathematics anxiety had level 1 (almost not creative) and level 2 (quite creative), and the processes were at preparation stage, students could understand and identify the problem well; at the incubation stage, students found the idea from picture’s observation; at illumination stage, students could make mathematics statement based on the problem well; at verification stage, students counted again for investigating the answer and they could resume the result appropriate the reality of the problem, (3) students with low mathematics anxiety had level 2 (quite creative), and the processes were at preparation stage, students could understand and identify the problem so well; at the incubation stage, students found the idea from picture’s observation and from the knowledge before; at illumination stage, students could make mathematics statement based on the problem so well; at verification stage, students counted again for investigating the answer and they could resume the result appropriate the reality of the problem.Keywords: creative thinking processes; creative thinking level; word problem solving; mathematics anxiety. 
PROSES BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN MATEMATIKAPADA SISWA KELAS X MIA SMAN 6 SURAKARTA Wulantina, Endah; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (200.044 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The research aims to describe the students’ creative thinking process of tenth grade of MIA of SMAN 6 Surakarta in solving mathematics problems towards students who have high, medium and low ability in mathematics. The researcher choosed qualitative research in case study design. The results showed that 1). Students’ creative thinking process in the tenth grade of MIA of SMAN 6 Surakarta with high ability in Mathematics are (a) Preparation, the students identify the prior knowledge about the assignment carefully than the students select the information in solving the problem appropriately; (b) Incubation, the students turn silent when they are thinking about how to solve the problem, the students memorize the way to solve the problem; (c) Illumination, the students continue the first idea which is found before; (d) Verification, the students recheck the problem solving before taking the conclusion, the students test the result by suiting to the data from the assignment. 2) The students’ creative thinking process in the tenth grade of MIA of SMAN 6 Surakarta with medium ability in Mathematics are (a) preparation, the students identify well the problem which is being asked select the information appropriately but they need some stimulus from another person; (b) Incubation, the students turn silent when they are thinking about how to solve the problem, the students memorized the way to solve the problem; (c) Illumination, the students only focus on the relevant information and could not explore the idea to find out the idea, here students also need the stimulus from another person; (d) verification, the students recheck the result before taking conclusion; 3) the students’ creative thinking process in the tenth grade of MIA of SMAN 6 Surakarta with low ability in Mathematics are: (a) Preparation, the students identify well the problem which is being asked, the students select the information recursively by comprehending the assignment. They also still need the stimulus in the form of question; (b) Incubation, the students memorize the appropriate pattern to solve the problem but sometimes they hesitate so they ask the problem to the researcher; (c) Illumination, the students solve the problem from what they already learnt from the previous way, the students focus on the relevant information and tent to avoid the complex information so that the student could not explore the idea to find out another idea, they tent to solve the problem with one idea; (d) Verification, the students recheck the result before taking conclusion but there are many corrections in the final answer.Keywords: Ability in Mathematics,  Creative Thinking Process, Mathematics Problem Solving.
Co-Authors Abdul Aziz Hidayat Abdul Razak Abi Fadila Achmad Ridwan, Achmad Adeyanto, Rizki Adi Soeprijanto Ahmad Ahmad Ahmad Syawaludin Ahmad, Ahmad Aip Badrujaman Aisyah Senja Mustika Aji Permana Putra Ali Fakhrudin Ali Fakhrudin, Ali Ali Imron Amiratih Siti Aisyah Andi Setiawan Andriawan Nurcahyo, Andriawan Anesa Surya Anggraheni Marsella Bella Astuti Anggreini, Dewi Anita Dewi Utami Anna Setyowati Annisa Ayu Kuserawati Annisa Fatiah Aprianif, Aprianif Ardiantoro, Gigih Ardiyani, Shila Majid Arifa Apriliana, Arifa Arinta Rara Kirana Ariska Yuliana Putri Ariyanto, Stefanus Timonora Wahyu Arsa’ad Kurniadi Arum Dwi Rahmawati Dwi Rahmawati, Arum Dwi Rahmawati Dwi Arumingtyas, Pramesti Asih Duwi Mawartini Asrowi Asrowi Asy’ari Asy’ari Asy’ari, Asy’ari Atik Wahyuni Aulia Musla Mustika Aulia Musla Mustika author Ari Suningsih Awaluddin Tjalla Berti Dyah Permatasari Broto Apriliyanto Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono, Budiyono Budiyono, Budiyono Burhan Mustaqim Cahyaningsih, Eny Chanthoeurn, Dock Darmono, Prasetiyo Budi Desy Nur Wulandari Desy Nur Wulandary Dewi Ariyanti Dewi Kurniasari, Dewi Dewi Retno Sari S Dewi Retno Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno Diana Tri Purnamasari Diananda, Amita Diari Indriati Dinny Devi Triana Dita Qondiyana Djumaliningsih, Nosa Putri Dwi Isna Wardani Dwi Yuni Pramugarini Dwiani Listya Kartika, Dwiani Listya E.P.U, Moertiningsih Edi Irawan Edi Irawan Edi Irawan Eka Agustina Khairunnisa Eka Nur Azizah Endah Asmarawati, Endah Endah Wulantina, Endah Endang Sri Handayani ERLAN SISWANDI Erni Susanti Ernie Novriyanti Ersam Mahendrawan Evi Novitasari Farah Heniati Santosa, Farah Heniati Ferdian Achmad Fika Widya Pratama Fitri Andika Nurussafa’at, Fitri Andika Fitriani, Nur Syarifah Fransiska Januarti Gusman Gatut Iswahyudi Gesti Ayu Diah Asera Gunarhadi Gunarhadi Gunarhadi Gunarhadi Gunarhadi Gunarhadi, Gunarhadi Gunawansyah Gunawansyah, Gunawansyah Guritno Ari Wibowo Hadi Mulyono Hadiyah Hadiyah Hadiyah Hadiyah Halimah Halimah Hanafiah, Anis Hapsari, Alfonsa Maria Sofia Hartono Hartono Hartono, Edy Hasan Mahfud Hasan, Aiza Nabila Hasanah, A.K Uswatun Hasrullah Hasrullah, Hasrullah Hendrayanto, Dhani Nur Hermawan, Yudi Hesa Resti Arumanda Hesti Yuni Ayu Lestari Hidayat Bahktiar, Hidayat Hidayat, Edisut Taufik Hidayat, Edisut Taufik Hidayatulloh Hidayatulloh I.R. Widianto Atmojo Ibnu Sadono Idam Ragil Widianto Atmojo Idam Ragil Widianto Atmojo Ikhsan Abdul Latif Ikrar Pramudya Ikrar Pramudya Ikrar Pramudya, Ikrar Imam Sujadi Imam Sujadi Imam Wijaya, Henry Putra Indah Slamet Budiarti Indar Diasmi Aulianisa Indriana Dewi Irawan, Edi Irma Ayuwanti Irnistisia, Firna Isnaeni Umi Machromah Iswahyudi, Gatut Iswanti, Partia Iva Sarifah Ivan Hanafi Ivana Ivana Ivana Jeanny Maria Fatimah Jeany Maria Fatima, Jeany Maria Joko Daryanto Joko Daryanto Joko Susilo Juitaning Mustika Juliana Nasution Karsono Karsono Kartika Chrysti Suryandari Kartono - Kuncara, Adi Wahyu Kurniasari Elsya Rosyana Kurniasari, Dewi Kurniawan, Sandra Bayu Kurniawati, Rina Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo Kusuma, Elisabet Dyah Laili Mas Ulliyah Hasan Lenny Puspita Dewi Lestari, Hesti Yuni Ayu Lies Lestari Lies Lestari Lina Utami Lis Maryani Luthfiana Mirati, Luthfiana Luthfiyah Nanda Bertha Armelia M Ismail Sriyanto M Ismail Sriyanto M Ismail Sriyono M. Ismail Sriyanto M. Ismail Sriyanto Maghfiroh Yanuarti Makmun , Lutfan Mania Roswitha Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana, Mardiyana Matsuri Matsuri Matsuri, Matsuri Maya Novita Sari Merrydian, Siska Miftachudin, Miftachudin Mubarokah, Wida Wahidah Mufarrihah, Iftitaahul Muhamad Ismail Sriyanto Muhammad Gazali Muhammad Ismail Sriyanto Muhammad Ismail Sriyanto Muhammad Ismail Sriyanto Muhammad Ismail Sriyanto Muhammad Syarif Hidayatussalam Muhammad Tareh Aziz Mulyadi Mulyadi Mulyaningrum Lestari, Mulyaningrum Mustamimah, Siti Mustika, Aisyah Senja Najmul Laila Nanang Adie Setyawan Nia Apriyanti Niendya Ashiefa Parahita Nina Nurmasari Nindya Ashiefa Parahita Ningroom, Rita Arfi Astuti Nisra, Nisraeni Nok Yeni Heryaningsih, Nok Yeni Noor Hidayati Noor Hidayati Nosa Putri Djumaliningsih Noviah, Ema Novita Dwi Ashohib Noviyanti, Ika Nurma Nur Ainsah H. Saleh Nur Insani Nuraini Muhassanah Nurcahya, Fikri Nurudin, M. Nurul Amalia K W Nyoto Nyoto Nyoto Nyoto, Nyoto Ocy, Dwi Rismi Oka Tamaraningtyas Oktavia Oktavia Patrisius Afrisno Udil, Patrisius Afrisno Peduk Rintayati Prabowo, Haniftia Haqqiendini Pratama, Riska Widya Pratiwi, Rani Prestanti Hayuningtyas Priyogo, Adi Puji Ayuni Puji Ayuni Purwono, Edi Rahmawati, Via Fitri Rany Widyastuti Rejeki, Suprapti Rima Aksen Cahdriyana Rima Aksen Cahdriyana Rini, Indah Mustika Rintayati, Peduk Riska Widya Pratama Riswandha, Septian Henry Rizqi Aditya Nugraha Rosyida, Entyka Mayhasti S Retnowati S Siswanto S Subanti Sajidan Sajidan Samsi Suryanjani Sandra Bayu Kurniawan Saptianing, Saptianing Saptono, Ari Saputri, Alinggi Nindi Saputri, Dwi Yuniasih Selvi Marcellia Septi Triyani Sheptian, Riky Sherly Mayfana Panglipur Yekti Shila Majid Ardiyani Shila Majid Ardiyani Sigit Pamungkas Sigit Rimbatmojo Siswanto Siswanto Siswanto Siswanto Siti Kamsiyati Siti Kamsiyati Siti Kamsiyati Siti Kamsiyati Siti Komsatun Sonny Ari Wibowo Sri Hartati Ningsih Sri Mardani Sri Marmoah Sri Subanti Sri Wahyuni Sri Yamtinah Sriyati, Sriyati Sudiyanto Sudiyanto Sudiyanto Sudiyanto Sugeng Priyanto, Sugeng Sugihardjo Sugihardjo Sujadi, Imam Sujadi, Imam Sukarmin Sukma Perdana Prasetya Sulaiman Sulaiman Sumanah Sumanah Sunardi Sunardi Suprapti Rejeki Susilawati, Dyah Suwardi Suwardi Syarifah, Triana Jamilatus T A Kusmayadi T Dwi Hastuti Tambunan, Rifka Paulina Tanti Listiani, Tanti Tarmo, Tarmo Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi Tri Silaningsih Triana Jamilatus Syarifah Triyanto . Triyanto . Triyanto . Triyanto, Triyanto Tunggu Biyarti Twiningsih, Anik Tyas, Wahyu Handining Ulfa Masamah, Ulfa Ummi Rosyidah, Ummi V Kartikaningtyas Veronika Yusnita Andriani Prastika Via Yustitia Vita Purnamasari Vivi Fenty Anggraeny Wahyu Prihatiningrum Wahyumiarti Wahyumiarti, Wahyumiarti Wardani Rahayu Wibowo, Sonny Ari Widodo Widodo Wuryandari, Dwi Yekti Putri Kusumaningtyas Yogi Bagus Dwi Cahyono Yuliana Yuliana Yulianti Yulianti Yulianti Yulianti Yuniarti, Titik Zara Mertiana RZ Zulfa, Faradina Nilam