Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
5.39
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal MATEMATIKA Statistika Prosiding Seminar Biologi Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Elektro Komputer dan Informatika (JITEKI) Prosiding Seminar Nasional Sains Dan Teknologi Fakultas Teknik Jurnal S2 Pendidikan Matematika Journal of the Indonesian Mathematical Society AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika Jurnal Teknologi Informasi dan Ilmu Komputer Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan Suska Journal of Mathematics Education Proceedings Education and Language International Conference Indonesian Journal of Applied Statistics Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education (JMME) Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika JTAM (Jurnal Teori dan Aplikasi Matematika) International Journal of Computing Science and Applied Mathematics Journal of Education Technology M A T H L I N E : Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika Vygotsky: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan Matematika BISECER (Business Economic Entrepreneurship) Southeast Asian Mathematics Education Journal Jurnal Bumigora Information Technology (BITe) Jurnal TIKOMSIN (Teknologi Informasi dan Komunikasi Sinar Nusantara) Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education Journal (Birle Journal) Journal of Applied Data Sciences Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Proceeding Biology Education Conference Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Elektro, Sistem Informasi, dan Teknik Informatika (SNESTIK) Industrial Research Workshop and National Seminar Pancaran Pendidikan Prosiding Konferensi Nasional Penelitian Matematika dan Pembelajarannya Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education) Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA Radiant : Journal of Applied, Social, and Education Studies
Sri Subanti
Program Studi Statistika, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta 57126
Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Humanities Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Chemistry Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Control & Systems Engineering Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Earth & Planetary Sciences Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Electrical & Electronics Engineering Engineering Environmental Science Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Medicine & Pharmacology Physics Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 194 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 194 Documents
Search

 13   14   15   16   17 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING , PROBLEM BASED LEARNING, DAN THINK-TALK-WRITE DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KEMANDIRIAN BELAJAR SISWA Umi Supraptinah; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research were to find out: (1) which one that gives better mathematical problem solving abilities, among learning models of discovery learning (DL), problem based learning (PBL), or think-talk-write (TTW) using  scientific approach, (2) which one has better mathematical problem solving abilities, the students having high, medium, or low self regulated learning, (3) in each learning model, which one has better mathematical problem solving abilities, the students having high, medium, or low self regulated learning, (4) in each category of self regulated learning, which one that gives better mathematical problem solving abilities, among learning models of DL, PBL, or TTW using  scientific approach. This research was in quasi experimental. The population were all students of grade VIII State Junior High School in Sragen Regency on the second semester of 2014/2015 academic years. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling and then selected 296 students. The instruments used for data collection were a questionnaire for self regulated learning of student and mathematical problem solving ability test in the form of essay. Hypothesis testing using two-way ANOVA with unbalanced cells, with a significance level of 5%. The results of research showed as follows. (1) PBL model using scientific approach to provide mathematical problem solving abilities is better than DL and TTW models using scientific approaches, while DL model is better than TTW model; (2) Students with high self regulated learning have  mathematical problem solving abilities better than medium or low self regulated learning, while students with medium and low self regulated learning have the same mathematical problem-solving ability; (3) In the DL, PBL, and TTW models using scientific approach, students with high, medium, or low self regulated learning have the same mathematical problem-solving ability; (4) For students with high self regulated learning, the use of DL and PBL models provide the same  mathematical problem-solving ability, the DL and TTW models provide the same  mathematical problem-solving ability, but  PBL model is better  than TTW model, for students with medium self regulated learning, PBL model provides mathematical problem-solving ability better than DL and TTW models, while DL and TTW models provide the same mathematical problem-solving ability, for students with low self regulated learning, the use of DL, PBL, and TTW models provide the same  mathematical problem-solving ability.Keywords: learning model, discovery learning, problem based learning, think talk write, scientific approach, self regulated learning
ANALISIS KESALAHAN DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL CERITA PADA MATERI LUAS PERMUKAAN BANGUN RUANG BERDASARKAN NEWMAN’S ERROR ANALYSIS (NEA) DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN SPASIAL Mulyadi Mulyadi; Riyadi Riyadi; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: Newman’s Error Analysis (NEA) is a method to analyze the error occurring in the students. One of the main factors which causes the weakness of the students comprehension toward polyhedral material is spatial ability. This study aims at describing  error occurred in the students based on NEA viewed from spatial ability. The information of that error occurence can be used as a means of consideration in deciding the appropiate lesson plan. This study was a descriptive qualitative research with case study method. The subjects of research were the semester VIII  graders  of  SMPN  2  Kebonagung  in academic year of 2013/2014, there were 12 students who have hight spatial ability, 11 students who have medium spatial ability and 11 students who have low spatial ability. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling. The data were taken from the result of error diagnostic test which was followed by Certainly of Response Index (CRI) scores, spatial test and interview. The validity of data used triangulation techniques. The data was analyzed by using Miles and Huberman’s model. The result of research showed that based on NEA in the subject of hight spatial ability was 4,65% reading error, 13,95% comprehension error, 27,91% transformation error, 25,58% process skill error and 27,91% encoding  error. Medium spatial ability subjects obtain 2,94% reading error, 2,94% comprehension error, 32,35% transformation error, 29,41% process skill error and 32,35% encoding error. Subjects of low spatial ability obtain 3,03% reading error, 9,09% comprehension error, 30,30% transformation error, 27,27% process skill error and 30,30% encoding error. The errors are mainly made by the subjects because of the concept incomprehensibility, then misconception and the lowest one is the subjects comprehend the concept but they are careless in doing the assignment.Keyword: error, NEA, concept incomprehensibility, misconception, comprehend the concept 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) DAN LEARNING CYCLE 5E (LC 5E) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK DITINJAU DARI TIPE KEPRIBADIAN SISWA Rina Mahmudati; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of the learning models on learning achievement viewed from the personality type of the students. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the TPS, LC 5E, and the classical learning model with scientific approach. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test on the topic of function and questionnaire of personality type. The data was analyzed by using two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) The mathematic learning achievement of students treated with TPS learning model was as good as that of those treated with LC 5E model, and that of those treated with TPS learning model was as good as that of those treated with classical learning model with scientific approach, and that of those treated with LC 5E model was better than that of those treated with classical learning model with scientific approach; (2) The mathematic learning achievement of students with sanguine personality was better than that of those with melancholic one but was as good as that of those with choleric and phlegmatic personalities, that of those with choleric personality was better than that of those with melancholic one, and that of those with melancholic personality was as good as that of those with phlegmatic, and that of those with choleric personality was as good as that of those with phlegmatic one; (3) In each type of student personality, it could be found that the students treated with Think-Pair-Share had equally good learning achievement to those treated with LC 5E model, the students treated with TPS had equally good learning achievement to those treated with classical learning model with scientific approach, those treated with LC 5E model had better learning achievement than those treated with classical learning model with scientific approach; and (4) In each type of learning models, it could be found that the learning achievement of students with sanguine personality was better than that of those with melancholic one but was as good as that of those with choleric and phlegmatic personalities, that of those with choleric personality was better than that of those with melancholic one, and that of those with melancholic personality was as good as that of those with phlegmatic, and that of those with choleric personality was as good as that of those with phlegmatic one.Keywords: Learning Cycle 5E, Think-Pair-Share, Classical with scientific approach, personality type 
EFEKTIVITAS MODEL KOOPERATIF TIPE NHT DENGAN PMR DAN MODEL KOOPERATIF TIPE GI DENGAN PMR TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Yadi Ardiawan; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research are to know: (1) which one gives better students’ mathematics achievement, cooperative model of NHT type with RME, cooperative model of GI type with RME or conventional model, (2) which one has better students’ mathematics achievement, student having high creativity, medium or low, and (3) for any level of creativities, which one gives better students’ mathematics achievement, cooperative model of NHT type with RME, cooperative model of GI type with RME or conventional model and for any kind of models which one has better students’ mathematics achievement, student having high creativity, medium or low. The type of this research was a quasi experimental by 3x3 factorial design.The population in this research was the seventh grade students of junior high school in Pontianak in the academic year 2012/2013. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The instrument of research using mathematics achievement test and verbal creativity test. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) There is an influence of the learning model toward students’ mathematics achievement. Cooperative model of NHT type with RME provides  students’ mathematics achievement better than the cooperative model of GI type with RME and conventional model. Cooperative model of GI type with RME provides students’ mathematics achievement better than the conventional model. (2) There is an influence of the student’s creativity level toward students’ mathematics achievement. Students having high creativity have better mathematics achievement than students having medium and low creativity. Students having medium creativity have better mathematics achievement than students with low creativity. (3) For any level of creativities that the cooperative model of NHT type with RME gives better student’s mathematics achievement than cooperative model of GI type with RME and conventional model, and cooperative model of GI type with RME gives better students’ mathematics achievement than conventional model. For any kind of models, students having high creativity have better mathematics achievement than students having medium and low creativity, and students having medium have better mathematics achievement than students having low creativity. Keywords: Cooperative Model of NHT (Numbered Heads Together) type, Cooperative Model of GI (Group Investigation) type, RME (Realistic Mathematics Education) Approach, Student’s Creativity
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TEAM GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) DAN JIGSAW DENGAN PENDEKATAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN MENGHADAPI TES SISWA KELAS VII SMP KABUPATEN BREBES TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012/2013 Budi Santosa; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the TGT type learning model, the Jigsaw type learning model approach, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement; (2) which students of those with the high anxiety, those with medium anxiety level, and those with the low anxiety level to deal with test have a better learning achievement in Mathematics; (3) in the students with the low, medium, and high anxiety levels to deal with test, which learning model of the TGT type learning model, the Jigsaw type learning model, and the direct learning results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics; and (4) In the TGT type learning model, the Jigsaw type learning model, and the direct learning model, which students of those with the high anxiety, those with medium anxiety level, and those with the low anxiety level to deal with test have a better learning achievement in Mathematics. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3 x 3. It was conducted at Class VII of Junior Secondary Schools of Brebes regency in Semester II in Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling. The data of the research were gathered through multiple choice test and questionnaire anxiety level to deal with test. The data were analyzed by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells at the significance level of α = 0.05. The results of the research are as follows: 1) The Jigsaw learning model results in a better learning achievement than both the TGT type learning model and the direct learning model, and the TGT type learning model results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. 2) The learning achievement of the students with the low anxiety level is better than those with those with high anxiety level and those with the medium anxiety level, but the learning achievement of the students with the high anxiety level is the same as that of the students with the medium anxiety level. 3) In the students with the high anxiety level to deal with test, the Jigsaw learning model results in a better learning achievement than the TGT learning model. In the students with the medium anxiety level to deal with test, the Jigsaw learning model results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. Other than those, in each anxiety level, the three learning models result in the same learning achievement. 4). In the TGT learning model, the learning achievement of the students with the low anxiety level to deal with test is better than that of those with the high anxiety level. Other than those, in each learning model, the students with the high, medium, and low anxiety levels have the same learning achievement in Mathematics.Keywords: Anxiety to deal with test, TGT learning model, Jigsaw, and realistic Mathematics.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM POSING DAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM SOLVING DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII KOTA SURAKARTA Giant Aprisetyani; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the Problem Posing, Problem Solving, and Direct Instruction results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics;  (2) which students of those with the visual learning style, those with the auditorial learning style, and those with the kinesthetic learning style have a better learning achievement in Mathematics; (3) in each learning model, which learning style of the visual learning style, the auditory learning style, and the kinesthetic learning style results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics; (4) in each learning style, which learning model of the the Problem Posing, the Problem Solvingand the Direct Instruction results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics.This research used the quasi experimental research with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools in Surakarta in Academic Year 2013/2014. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of three schools, namely: State Primary School 3, State Primary School of Surakarta, State Primary School 10 of Surakarta, and State Primary School21 of Surakarta. The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using the two-way analysis of variance (ANAVA) with unbalanced cells with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The results of the research are as follows: (1) the students instructed with the Problem Solving model have a better learning  achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the Problem Posing type learning model and those instructed with the Direct Instruction, and the students instructed with the Problem Posing type learning model have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the Direct Instruction;  (2) the students with the visual learning style have a better  learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the auditory learning style  and those with the kinesthetic learning style, and the students with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the kinesthetic learning style; (3a) in the Problem-Posing type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the auditory learning style  is the same as that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, but the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is better than that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, (3b) in the Problem Solving type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the auditory learning style is the same as that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, but the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is better than that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, and (3c) in the  Direct Instruction, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style and that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style; and (4a)  in the students with visual learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem possing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to problem possing type learning model is better than that of the students exposed to the direct instruction, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem solving is better than that of the students exposed to direct instruction, (4b) in the students with the auditory learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem posing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model and that of the students exposed to the direct instruction, and (4c) in the students with the kinesthetic learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem possing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model, and that of the students exposed to the learning instruction.Keywords:  Problem Posing, Problem Solving, Direct Instruction, learning styles, and learning achievement in Mathematics.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK DISERTAI DENGAN STRATEGI PETA KONSEP PADA MATERI BILANGAN DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA METRO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Wihasti Imas Priyandani; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to know: (1) which one of the learning models gave a better achievement between TPS concept maps, TPS, or clasical, (2) which one of the students with types of learning style had a better achievement between students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, (3) at each learning style types, which one of the learning models gave a better achievement between TPS concept maps, TPS, or clasical, (4) at each the learning models, which one of the students with types of learning style had a better achievement between students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. The population of the research was the eighth class students of Junior High School at Metro regency on academic year 2013/2014 and the sample was students from SMP Negeri 2 Metro, SMP Negeri 6 Metro and SMP Negeri 5 Metro which was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. This was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The data analysis technique used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. Based on the data analysis, it was concluded as follows. 1) TPS concept maps gave the same achievement as TPS and clasical, 2) The students with auditory had better achievement than the students with visual and kinesthetic, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with kinesthetic, 3) In TPS concept maps, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with auditory, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with kinesthetic, and the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic. In TPS, the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with visual, the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic, the students with visual had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic. In clasical model, the students with visual had the same achievement as the students with auditory and kinesthetic. 4) At the students with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. TPS concept maps gave the same achievement as TPS and clasical.Keywords: TPS concept maps, TPS, Learning Style, 
PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS PENEMUAN TERBIMBING (GUIDED DISCOVERY) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SOMATIC, AUDITORY, VISUAL, INTELLECTUAL (SAVI) PADA MATERI POKOK PELUANG KELAS IX SMP TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Yusnita Rahmawati; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract : The purposes of this study were to: (1) develop a valid learning device based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) especially on Probability, and (2) know the effectiveness of learning device which was developed based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI). The study was an educational research and development used 4D model with the steps of model: (1) defining, that consists of: starting and ending analysis, student analysis, learning analysis, task analysis, and learning objectives specification; (2) designing; (3) developing; and (4) disseminating. Test for knowing the effectiveness of the learning device was conducted with the population of this study was all students in grade IX of SMP Negeri 6 Surakarta. Before carrying out the study, balanced test was performed using t – test on two groups of populations. The data analysis technique which was used to test the hypothesis was t – test. Pre-requisite test was performed with Lilliefors method to test the normality and Bartlett methods to test the homogeneity. The results of this study were as follows. (1) A valid learning device based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) have been developed that consists of (a) Lesson Plan, (b) Student’s Worksheet, (c) Student’s Book, (d) Teacher’s Handbook, and (e) Test of Learning Result; (2) The result of the effectiveness test showed that the mathematics learning result of the students who attended on guided discovery learning with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) by using the learning device was better than that of students who attended on learning by method which was usually used by the teacher.Keywords : Development, Learning Device, Guided Discovery, Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TWO STAY TWO STRAY (TSTS), NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT), DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI LINGKARAN DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Ratih Kusumaningrum; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): 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 the effect of Two Stay To Stray (TSTS), Numbered Heads Together (NHT), and Think Pair Share (TPS) types of cooperative learning model on the student learning achievement viewed from mathematics learning creativity. This study was a quasi experimental research with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of research was all of the 8th graders of Junior High Schools in Sukoharjo Regency. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments used for collecting data were mathematics learning achievement test and mathematics learning creativity questionnaire. Considering the hypothesis testing, the following conclusions could be drawn. 1) TSTS learning model provide better learning achievement then NHT and TPS learning model did, and NHT and TPS learning model provided equally good learning achievement. 2) The students with high mathematics learning creativity had mathematics learning achievement better than those with medium and low learning creativity did, and those with medium and low learning creativities had equally good learning achievement. 3) In high and low mathematics learning creativity levels, the students treated with TSTS, NHT, and TPS learning model had equally good mathematics learning achievement. At medium mathematics learning creativity level, the students treated with TSTS  and NHT learning models had equally good mathematics learning achievement, those treated with NHT and TPS learning models had equally good mathematics learning achievement, those treated with TSTS learning model had better mathematics learning achievement than those treated with TPS learning model. 4) In TSTS learning model, the students with high and medium learning creativity had equally good mathematics learning, those with medium and low learning creativity had equally good mathematics learning, those with high learning creativity had learning achievement better than the students with low mathematics learning creativity. In NHT and TPS learning model, the students with high, medium, and low mathematics learning creativity had better mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS), Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), Mathematics Learning Creativity.
PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH (PROBLEM BASED LEARNING) DENGAN PENDEKATAN ILMIAH (SCIENTIFIC APPROACH) PADA MATERI SEGITIGA KELAS VII SMP SE-KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Titik Yuniarti; Riyadi Riyadi; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Absrtact: The aims of this research were: (1) to describe the Problem Based Learning process with using of  the valid and practical scientific approach to the main subject of  triangle for the VII degree of junior high school, (2) to describe the effectiveness of Problem Based Learning tools by using scientific approach which had been developed. This research run in two phases. The first phase was the process of the development of learning tools used 4-D model. This model consisted of four phases namely, (1) defined phase, (2) designed phase, (3) developed  phase, and (4) disseminated phase. The second phase was the test of the effectiveness of the learning tools that has been developed using experiment method. The population was the students of the VII degree of Tasikmadu junior high school. The sampling was conducted randomly, the one was as the experiment class and the other was as control class. The results of this research were as follows. (1) The development of the learning tools conducted was valid and practical because the equipment that was developed based on the strong rational theory, it had internal consistency, and the learning equipment implicated in the learning process, (2) This learning used Problem Based Learning process with the scientific approach was better than the direct learning. Keywords: Development of learning, problem based learning, scientific approach
Co-Authors A.A. Ketut Agung Cahyawan W Abdul Aziz Abdul Aziz Abdul Aziz Hidayat Achmad Nurrofiq Achmad Nurrofiq Adi Wicaksono, Nanda Adigama Tri Nugraha Aflich Yusnita Fitrianna Aflich Yusnita Fitrianna Agus Supriyanto Ahmad Abdul Mutholib Aji Susanto Amalia Zulvia Widyaningrum Amanda, Nabila Tri Ambarawati, Mika Amiratih Siti Aisyah Andhika, Niken Dwi Anggraira, Attilah Suci Annisa Swastika Annur, M. Firman Anwar Ardani Aprilia, Nabila Churin Arianto, Febri Arif Rahman Hakim Arif Rahman Hakim Arif Rahman Hakim Arif Rahman Hakim Arifa Apriliana Arifa Apriliana, Arifa Ariska Yuliana Putri Ariska Yuliana Putri Arsita Anggraeni Pramesti Arum Dwi Rahmawati Dwi Rahmawati, Arum Dwi Rahmawati Dwi Assyifa Lala Pratiwi Hamid Astuti, Arinda Tri Astuti, Indra Puji Atika Amalia Attilah Suci Anggraira Aulia Rizki Destarani Ayu Rahmawati Bastian Al Ravisi Brilliyanti, Fanny Brilliyanti, Fanny Budi Santosa Budi Santosa Budi Santosa Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budi Usodo Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono Budiyono, Budiyono Budiyono, Budiyono Danar Supriadi Desi Tri Utami, Desi Tri Diana Tri Purnamasari Dini Yuniarti Dwi Ambarwati, Dwi Dwi Retnowati Dwi Retnowati Dyah Auliya Agustina Endang Widiyastuti Era Hervilia Etika, Erdyna Dwi Exacta, Annisa Prima Fajar Suryatama Farida Nurhasanah Fhadilla, Nahdatul Fitri Apriyani Pratiwi, Fitri Apriyani Fitri Era Sugesti Fitria, Camelina Fitriana Anggar Kusuma Fitriana, Laila Getut Pramesti Giant Aprisetyani Giant Aprisetyani H Hartatik, H Hendriyanto, Agus Hervilia, Era Husna Afanyn Khoirunissa Iffah, Rona Dhiya Layli Ikrar Pramudya Ikrar Pramudya, Ikrar Imam Sujadi Imam Sujadi Imam Sujadi Imam Sujadi Indra Raditya , Dionisius Intan Novia Sari Intan Novia Sari Irwan Susanto Irwan Susanto Isnaini, Bayutama Isnandar Slamet Isnandar Slamet Isnandar Slamet Isnandar Slamet, Isnandar Iwan Kurnianto Kadar, Jimmy Abdel Karina Pramitasari Karina Pramitasari, Karina Kartikaningtyas, Nafiqoh Elsa Katherine Her Pratiwi Khafittulloh Viqriah Khafittulloh Viqriah, Khafittulloh Khoiriyah, Nor Kumarahadi, Brigitta Melati Kurniasih, Rini Kurniati, Edy Dwi Lestari, Fajar Lina Muawanah, Lina Mahmudah Titi Muanifah Mahmudah Titi Muanifah Mahmudati, Rina Maratu Shalikhah Maratu Shalikhah, Maratu Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana Mardiyana, Mardiyana Mardiyana, Mardiyana Marfuah, Ismiyati Mida Nurani Mika Ambarawati Mohamad Nur Fauzi Muhammad Bayu Nirwana Muhammad Wildan Fadilah Mulyadi Mulyadi Mulyadi Mulyadi Nais Qonita Salsabila Ningsih, Maya Kristina Nirwana, Muhammad Bayu Nopiana, Medi Nor Khoiriyah Novi Dya Meylasari Nugraha, Titis Jati Nugroho, Purwo Setiyo Nuraini, Latifah Nurudin, M. Pardede, Hilman Ferdinandus Permatasari, Dinda Agnes Prabowo, Haniftia Haqqiendini Pramesti, Arsita Anggraeni Prasasti, Berlyana Ayu Pratiwi, Fitri Apriyani pratiwi, hasih Proborini, Ellen Purna Bayu Nugroho Purnamasari, Anita Pusaka, Semerdanta Putra Adi Wibowo Putra Adi Wibowo Rachmawati, Intan Rahmita Ika Sari Raodatul Jannah Raodatul Jannah Rara Sugiarti Ratih Kusumaningrum Ratih Kusumaningrum Reka Pramukti Reka Pramukti, Reka Respati wulan Retno Anggraheni Ria Wahyu Wijayanti Rina Mahmudati Riyadi Riyadi Riyadi Riyadi Riyanto, Nandyar Fisthi Riyanto, Nandyar Fisthi Rizky Wahyudi Sandhy Prasetyo Tito Kurniawan Sandhy Prasetyo Tito Kurniawan, Sandhy Prasetyo Satrio Wicaksono Sudarman Savitri, Maria Endah Savitri, Maria Endah Septiana Wijayanti Setiaputra, Felix Indra Sri Adiningsih Sri Sulistijowati Handajani Sugesti, Fitri Era Sugianto Sugianto Sugiyanto - Sugiyanto Sugiyanto Sugiyanto Sugiyanto Sugiyanto, Sugiyanto Sujadi, Imam Sujadi, Imam Sujadi, Imam Sulandari, Winita Sumantri, Astri Wiliastri Susilotomoa, Dhestahendra Citra Titik Yuniarti Triyazulfa, Azkiya Umi Fadlilah, Umi Umi Supraptinah Umi Supraptinah, Umi Veronica Sri Wigiyanti Veronica Sri Wigiyanti Very Hendra Saputra Virlina Zuhanisani Wahyuni, Fina Tri Wahyuni, Fina Tri Wahyuningtyas, Widyana Wardani, Endang Purwati Wardani, Endang Purwati Widyana Wahyuningtyas Wihasti Imas Priyandani Wihasti Imas Priyandani, Wihasti Imas Winita Sulandari Winita Sulandari Winita Sulandari Winita Sulandari Wulandari, Lina Yadi Ardiawan Yadi Ardiawan Yudho Yudhanto Yudho Yudhanto Yudho Yudhanto, Yudho Yuliana Susanti Yuliana Susanti, Yuliana Yuniarti, Titik Yusnita Rahmawati Yusnita Rahmawati Zainal Arifin Zuhanisani, Virlina Zuhdha Basofi Nugroho Zuhdha Basofi Nugroho, Zuhdha Basofi Zukhronah, Etik