Imam Sujadi
Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Pascasarjana UNS

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

POLA INTERAKSI GURU DAN SISWA TUNANETRA DALAM PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DI SMPLB A YKAB SURAKARTA (Studi Kasus Pada Siswa Kelas IX SMPLB A YKAB Surakarta Semester Ganjil Tahun Pelajaran 2012/2013) Siti Khoiriyah; Imam Sujadi; Pangadi Pangadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

with visual impairment in mathematics teaching learning on a conceptual and procedural knowledge in class IX SMPLB A YKAB Surakarta. This research was a qualitative case study, investigating deeply about the interaction of the teacher and the students in order that the interaction pattern can be described in the mathematics teaching learning. The subjects of this research were a mathematics teacher and all students of class IX SMPLB A YKAB Surakarta. The data in this study were in the form of teacher and students interactions obtained from transcriptions of the teaching learning recordings during twice observations. The transcription results were the teacher and the students’ conversations that are further reduced in order to obtain certain conversation related to the teaching learning of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Furthermore, labeling speech act and speech interaction was conducted in the conversation of conceptual and procedural teaching learning. Based on the labeling, speech interaction were categorized into three, namely: 1) speech interaction that was begun with speech act of giving information (BIn), 2) speech interaction that was begun with speech act of performing information (UIn), and 3) speech interaction that was begun with speech act of stimulating information (TIn). Each of the categories was analyzed so that the subjects that are interacting can be examined. The result of the analysis became the data of teacher and students interaction. The technique used to validate the data was time triangulation done by matching the data of the teacher and the students’ interaction taken from the first observation and the data of the teacher and the students’ interaction taken from the second observation.The results of the matching process were used to describe the interaction pattern. The findings of this research were: 1) the interaction pattern of the teacher and the students with visual impairment in mathematics teaching learning on a conceptual knowledge in class IX SMPLB A YKAB Surakarta was a two-way interaction pattern with inter-students interactions.Two-way interactionwith studentteachersis dominatedby theactivities ofthe teacherto giving information (BIN) and the performing information (TIN) to the students. While theinteractionbetween studentsis dominatedbythe activities ofthe studentsto performanceinformation(UIN). 2) the interaction pattern of the teacher and the students with visual impairment in mathematics teaching learning on a procedural knowledge in class IX SMPLB A YKAB Surakarta was a multiple-way interaction pattern (optimal result). Teacherinteractionwith studentsis dominatedby theactivities ofthe teacherto giving information(BIN), andstimulating information(TIN) to the students. Whilestudent interactionwith studentsspreadis dominated bythe performanceof information(UIN).Keywords:interactionpattern, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, mathematics teachinglearning, students with visual impairment
EKSPRIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STAD DAN TPS DENGAN PENDEKATAN CTL PADA MATERI POKOK SISTEM PERSAMAAN LINEAR DUA VARIABEL DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Zamroni Zamroni; Budiyono Budiyono; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of research was to find out: (1) which ones having better achievement, the students using TPS (Think Pair Share) learning with CTL approach or STAD (Students Teams Achievement Divisions) cooperative learning model with CTL approach or direct learning, (2) which ones having better learning achievement, the students with kinesthetic or visual or auditory learning style, (3) in each learning style, which ones having better achievement, the students using TPS (Think Pair Share) learning with CTL approach or STAD (Students Teams Achievement Divisions) cooperative learning model with CTL approach or direct learning, and (4) in each learning model, which ones having better learning achievement, the students with kinesthetic or visual or auditory learning style. The population of research was all VIII graders of Public Junior High schools in Bojonegoro Regency consisting of 55 schools. The sample was taken using cluster random sampling. The sample consisted of 304 students divided into experiment I, experiment II, and control groups. The conclusions of research were: (1) TPS CTL learning provided learning achievement better than STAD CTL and direct, but STAD CTL learning provided learning achievement as same as the direct learning did. (2) The students with kinesthetic learning style had learning achievement better than those with visual and auditory learning styles. But, the students with visual and those with auditory learning styles had equal learning achievement. (3) a. In kinesthetic learning style, all learning models provided the same learning achievement. b. In visual learning style, TPS CTL learning provided learning achievement better than STAD CTL. Meanwhile, direct learning provided the learning achievement as same as the TPS CTL and STAD CTL learning models did. c. In auditory learning style, all learning models provided the same learning achievement. (4) a. In TPS CTL learning model, the students with kinesthetic learning style had better achievement than those with auditory learning style. The students with visual learning style had learning achievement equal to those having kinesthetic and auditory learning styles, b. In STAD CTL learning model, the students with kinesthetic learning style had better achievement than those with visual and auditory learning styles. However, the students with visual learning style had learning achievement equal to those with auditory learning style, c. In direct learning, the three learning styles had the equal learning achievement.Keywords:TPS-CTL, STAD-CTL, Learning Style, learning achievement