cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
-
Editorial Address
-
Location
Kota surakarta,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : -     EISSN : -     DOI : -
Core Subject : Education,
Mathematics
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 10 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika" : 10 Documents clear
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE JIGSAW DAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DITINJAU DARI KEMANDIRIAN BELAJAR PADA PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA PESERTA DIDIK SMA SE – KAB. MAGELANG TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012/2013 Pratiwi, Katherine Her; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
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 objectives of this research are to investigate: 1) which of the cooperative learning model of the Jigsaw type, the cooperative learning model of the Numbered Heads Together (NHT), and the direct learning  results in a better learning achievement in mathematics, 2) which of  the students with the high self-regulated learning, the students with the medium self-regulated learning, and the students with the low self-regulated learning have a better learning achievement in mathematics, 3) in each of the learning models which of the students with the high self-regulated learning, the students with the medium self-regulated learning, and the students with the low self-regulated learning have a better learning achievement in mathematics, 4) in each of the self-regulated learning, which on the cooperative learning model of the Jigsaw type, the cooperative learning model of the NHT type, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement in mathematics. The research used the experimental quasi research method with the factorial design of 3x3. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade XI of Senior High School  in Magelang regency in academic year 2012/2013. The samples of research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling. The samples of the research were the students of Taruna Nusantara senior high school, state senior high school 1 of Bandongan, and state senior high school 1 of Dukun. The hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells at the significance level of a = 0,05. The results of the research are as follows: 1) Jigsaw better than NHT and direct learning, whereas NHT equal to direct learning in mathematics achievement, 2) the high self-regulated learning better than medium  and low, whereas the medium better than low in mathematics achievement, 3) Jigsaw with the high self-regulated learning better than the medium and low, whereas the medium better than the low in mathematics achievement. NHT with the high self-regulated learning better than the medium and low, whereas the medium equal to the low in mathematics achievement. Direct learning with the high self-regulated learning better than the medium and low, whereas the medium equal to the low in mathematics achievement. 4) The high self-regulated learning with the cooperative learning model of NHT type better than Jigsaw and direct learning, whereas Jigsaw better than direct learning. The medium self-regulated learning with the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type better than NHT and direct learning, whereas NHT equal to direct learning. The Low self-regulated learning with NHT better than Jigsaw and direct learning in mathematics achievement. Keywords : Jigsaw, NHT, and self-regulated learning.
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 KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI TRIGONOMETRI DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN LOGIKA MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS X SMA DI KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Sri Hartati Ningsih; Budiyono Budiyono; Riyadi Riyadi
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 aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the student’s logical mathematical intelligence. The learning model compared were Group Investigation of cooperative learning model, Think Pair Share of coopeartive learning model, and direct instruction model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population of this research was all of the X grader of State Senior High School (SMA) in Sukoharjo Regency. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling, with 321 students as the sample consisting 108 students for first experiment class, 108 students for second experiment class, and 105 students for control classes. The result of research showed that: (1) group Investigation of cooperative learning model gave the best achievement among the models Think Pair Share of cooperative learning model and direct instruction model, and Think Pair Share of cooperative learning model gave better achievement than direct instruction model, (2) group of student with high logical mathematical intelligencehad the best achievement among the models group of student with middle logical mathematical intelligence and group of student with low logical mathematical intelligence, and group of student with middle logical mathematical intelligencehad better achievement than group of student with low logical mathematical intelligence, (3) at each logical mathematical intelligence categories (high, middle, and low), Group Investigation of cooperative learning model gave the best achievement among the models Think Pair Share of cooperative learning model and direct instruction model, and Think Pair Share of cooperative learning model gave better achievement than direct instruction model, (4) at each learning models (Group Investigation of cooperative learning model, Think Pair Share of cooperative learning model, and direct instruction model), group of student with high logical mathematical intelligencehad the best achievement among the models group of student with middle logical mathematical intelligence and group of student with low logical mathematical intelligence, and group of student with middle logical mathematical intelligencehad better achievement than group of student with low logical mathematical intelligence. Key words: Group Investigation, Think Pair Share, and Logical Mathematical Intelligence
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING (CTL) PADA POKOK BAHASAN LIMIT FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN BELAJAR MATEMATIKA (Penelitian Dilaksanakan di SMA Dwi Winarni; Budiyono Budiyono; Dewi Retno Sari
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 objectives of this study were to know: (1) which one gives student better learning achievement, Numbered Heads Together learning process, Think Pair Share one  with Contextual Teaching and Learning, or conventional one, (2) which one having better learning achievement in mathematics, students who have the level of low  anxiety, medium one, or high one, (3) which level of anxiety in learning mathematics gives better learning achievements with Numbered Heads Together learning model, Think Pair Share one with Contextual Teaching and Learning approach one, or conventional one, (4) which learning model (Numbered Heads together, think pair share with contextual Teaching and Learning approach, or conventional) gives better learning achievement  in mathematics  toward the level of low anxiety, medium one , or high one.It was aquasi-experimentalstudy using twoindependent variables(model of learning andthe anxiety of learning mathematics) andonedependent variable(learning achievement of mathematics). The instruments used to collect the data were documentation,testing, andquestionnaires. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data. The sample-taking was done using Sratified Cluster Random Sampling.The results of theresearchare. (1) the learning achievement in Conventional learning model andNumberedHeads Together one areequally well, Think Pair Sharemodelis better thanconventionalone,whileNumberedHeads Togetherandthinkpair share are equally well, (2) the learning achievement in mathematics toward low anxiety and medium one are equally well, low-anxiety learning is better than  highanxiety, medium anxiety and highoneareequally well, (3) in NumberedHeads Together, Think Pair Share, andconventional model, the learning achievement in mathematics toward low anxiety and medium one are equally well, low-anxiety is better than  highanxiety, medium anxiety and highoneareequally well, and (4) the learning achievement inlow, medium, andhigh anxietyat the learning achievement in Conventional learning model andNumberedHeads Together one areequally well, Think Pair Sharemodelis better thanconventionalone,whileNumberedHeads TogetherandThinkPair Share are equally well.   Keywords: Numbered Heads Together, Think Pair Share,Conventional  
EKSPERIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION (TAI) DENGAN PENDEKATAN CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING DITINJAU DARI KEAKTIFAN BELAJAR PESERTA DIDIK SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012/2013 Sabar Santosa; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Sutrima Sutrima
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: This research aimed to reveal which have a better mathematics achievement of students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type using CTL, those taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type, or those taught by conventional learning model based on the students’ learning activeness. This research was a quasi-experimental research with the 3x3 factorial design. The population was all the 7rd grader studens of SMP Negeri in Karanganyar regency on academic year 2011/2012. The techniques of data collection were documentation, questionnaires and test method. Prior to balance test, a pre-requisite tests analysis (normality and homogenity test). The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two ways analysis of variance and multiple comparative test with the Sceffe’s test. The result indicates: (1) the mathematics achievement of students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type using CTL was better than that of students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type and that of students taught by conventional learning model, and the mathematics achievement of students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type was better than that of students taught by conventional learning model, (2) the mathematics achievement of the students wth high learning activeness was better than that of students with middle and low learning activeness, and the mathematics achievement of the students wth middle learning activeness was better than that of students with low learning activeness, (3) in the TAI using CTL, the mathematics achievement of the students with high learning activeness was as good as that of the students with the middle learning activeness or the low learning activeness, and in the TAI and in the conventional learning model, the mathematics achievement of the students with the high learning activeness was better than that of the students with the low learning activeness, but was the same that of the students with the middle learning activeness, meanwhile, the mathematics achievement of the students with the middle learning activeness was the same that of the students with the low learning activeness, and (4) in the high learning activeness, the students taught by cooperative learning of the TAI type using CTL, those taught by cooperative learning of the TAI type, and those taught by conventional learning model have the same mathematics achievement, meanwhile, in the middle learning activeness and in the low learning activeness, the mathematics achievement of the students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type using CTL was better than that of the students taught by conventional learning model, but was the same that of the students taught by cooperative learning model of the TAI type, and the mathematics achievement of the students taught by cooperative learning model of TAI type was the same that of the students taught by conventional learning model. Keywords: TAI using CTL, TAI, Conventional, Learning Activeness, Learning Achievement of Mathematics.  
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF GROUP INVESTIGATION(GI) DAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI DIMENSI TIGA DENGAN PENDEKATAN PMRI DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Y Noenoek Andrijanti; Budiyono Budiyono; Dewi Retno Sari
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 purpose of this research are to know: 1) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach, or conventional learning model, 2) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, student who was high creativity, middle creativity, or low creativity, 3) for each category of student’s creativity (high, middle, and low), which one produces better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach or conventional learning model. This research is quasi-experimental research with the research plan using factorial 3´3. The population of this research was all students in class X in SMA/MA Surakarta academic year 2012/2013. The sample-taking was done using stratified cluster random sampling.  The instrument which was applied to obtain the data of the research was test, questionnaires, and documentation. The test instrument was used to know the mathematics achievement on three- dimensional material. Hence, questionnaires instrument was used to know the student’s creativity. The questionnaires instrument includes content validity, internal consistency and reliability. The test instrument includes content validity, level of difficulty, different power and reliability. The  results of  the  research  are (1) GI type of cooperative learning model with IRME approach provides better learning achievement than the TPS type with IRME approach, conventional learning in mathematic learning in three dimension material. The TPS type of cooperative learning provides the learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning, (2) the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with medium creativity level, the students with medium creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with low creativity level, and the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement better than those with low creativity level, (3) at each creativity level, the GI type of cooperative learning model application with IRME provided learning achievement better than both TPS type with IRME and conventional learning did. The TPS type of learning model with IRME approach provided learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning. Keywords:GIlearning model, TPS, IRME, creativity.
PROSES BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA SMP DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI TIPE KEPRIBADIAN SISWA Hidayatulloh Hidayatulloh; Budi Usodo; Riyadi Riyadi
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: This research is aimed at describing the creative thinking process of students with rational personality type, idealist personality type, guardian personality type, and  artisan personality type in solving mathematics problems. It was a descriptive qualitative research. The subject of this research was taken by using a purposive sampling. The subject of this research were 4 of the eighth grade students at SMP Negeri 2 Jenar, Sragen Regency, consisting of 1 student with rational personality type, 1 student with idealist personality type, 1 student with guardian personality type, and 1 student with artisan personality type. The techniques of collecting the data in this research were questionnaire, written test, and interview on plane geometri subject. The techniques of validating the data were time triangulation and sufficient references. The technique of analyzing the data was Miles and Huberman concept, namely, data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. The findings of the research show that (1) the student with rational personality type has creative thinking process level 1 (less creative); (2) the student with idealist personality type has creative thinking process level 3 (creative); (3) the student with guardian personality type has creative thinking process level 3 (creative); (4) the student with artisan personality type has creative thinking process level 0 (not creative). Keywords: Creative Thinking Process, Mathematics Problem Solving, Personality Type
PERBANDINGAN KEMAMPUAN REPRESENTASI DAN KEMAMPUAN PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIK PADA SISWA YANG MENDAPAT PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF DISERTAI QUANTUM LEARNING DENGAN SISWA YANG MENDAPAT PEMBELAJARAN KONTEKSTUAL DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN AWAL SISWA Wicaksono, Bintang; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sutrima, Sutrima
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 objectives of this research are to investigate the effect of learning models on representation and mathematical problem solving ability viewed from the student prior knowledge. The learning models compared were cooperative combined with quantum learning and contextual learning. The samples of this research were taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The populations were all of the students in grade VII of State Primary Schools in Sukoharjo regency 2012/2013. The number of the samples was 142 students, in which 72 students in the experimental class one, and 72 students in the experimental class two. The instrument used to collect the data were test of the representation ability and test of the problem solving ability. The data was analyzed by using multivariate analysis of variance. The results of the research are: (1) the students taught by using contextual learning have better on both the representation and the mathematical problem solving ability than the students taught by using cooperative combined with quantum learning, (2) the students having high prior knowledge category have better on both the representation and the mathematical problem solving ability than the students having medium prior knowledge category, and the students having medium prior  knowledge category have better on both the representation and the mathematical problem solving ability than students having low prior knowledge category, (3) there was no interactions between the learning model and the prior knowledge toward the students’ representation and mathematical problem solving ability. It means that the use of either of contextual learning model or cooperative combined with quantum learning model, the students having high prior knowledge category have better on both the representation and mathematical problem solving ability than the students having  medium  prior knowledge category, and the students having medium prior knowledge category have better on both the representation and the mathematical problem solving ability than the students with low prior knowledge category. The students having high, medium, or the low prior knowledge taught by using contextual learning have better on both the representation and the mathematical problem solving ability than the students taught  by using cooperative combined with quantum learning. Keywords: cooperative combined with quantum learning, contextual learning, students prior knowledge, representation ability, mathematical problem solving ability.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DAN JIGSAW DENGAN PENDEKATAN KONTEKSTUAL TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN MAJEMUK SISWA SMP NEGERI KOTA MADIUN Retno H, Rosa Rosdiana; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Suyono, Suyono
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: This research aims to find out: (1) which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: conventional, Numbered Heads Together, or Jigsaw with contextual approach learning model, (2) which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: the students with linguistic, logical-mathematics, or interpersonal intelligence, (3) in each multiple intelligence, which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: conventional, Numbered Heads Together, or Jigsaw with contextual approach learning model, and in each learning model, which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: the students with linguistic, logical-mathematics, or interpersonal intelligence. This study was a quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of this research was the seventh-year-students of State Junior High Schools of Madiun Municipality in the school year of 2012/2013 with the students of SMPN 4 Madiun, SMPN 6 Madiun, and SMPN 10 Madiun as the sample. The research instrument used was mathematics learning achievement test and questionnaire of multiple intelligence. The hypothesis test used was unbalanced two way analysis of variances. The test on the hypothesis revealed that: (1) learning model of Jigsaw with contextual approach provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional and Numbered Heads Together learning model, while learning model of Numbered Heads Together provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional learning model, (2) there was no difference in mathematics learning achievement between students with linguistic, logical-mathematics and interpersonal intelligence, (3) in each multiple intelligence, learning model of Jigsaw type with contextual approach provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional and Numbered Heads Together learning model, while learning model of  Numbered Heads Together provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional learning model, and in each learning model, there was no difference in mathematics learning achievement between students with linguistic, logical-mathematics and interpersonal intelligence. Keywords: Learning Model, Jigsaw, Contextual Approach, Numbered Heads Together, Multiple Intelligence.
MAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIS DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA SESUAI DENGAN GAYA KOGNITIF PADA SISWA KELAS IX SMP NEGERI 1 SURAKARTA TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012/2013 Pratiwi, Dona Dinda; Sujadi, Imam; Pangadi, Pangadi
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 purpose of this research was describing the ability of mathematical communication in solving the mathematics problem. This research was include of study case situation analysis research. The subjects of this research consisted of four students of Class IXb of the ninth grade SMPN 1 Surakarta in the second semester of the academic year 2012/2013.  They were two students who had field dependence cognitive style and two students who had field independence cognitive style. The subjects were taken by using the purposive sampling technique. The data of this research were gathered through think aloud method. The data were then analyzed by using the technique with the procedureas follows: (1) the data were classified on the basis of the indicators of mathematical communication after the data had been obtained from the first and the second collections; (2) the data were presented in table form; and (3) the conclusions were drawn. The validity of the data was conducted by using time triangulation. The result of this research were analyzed by using constant comparison in which subject in i (i= 1, 2) with the j (j= 1, 2) cognitive style which was already valid as well compared with subject in k (k= 1, 2) with the the j (j= 1, 2) cognitive style which was already valid as well. The equal ability of mathematical communication was made the main finding wheares the different ability of mathematical communication was made the other finding. The result of this research valid because of the dependability proved. The ability of mathematical communication of the students with the field dependence cognitive style is different from that of those with the field independence cognitive style. The students with the field dependence cognitive style can communicate the ideas in written way well but they have difficulties in communicating ideas in spoken way as well as inclination to receive information without reorganizing it in such a way that the problem-solving ideas presented cannot reveal the actual problem solution. Meanwhile, the students with the field independence cognitive style can communicate the ideas well in both spoken and written ways and process as well as reorganize information in such a way that the problem-solving ideas presented can reveal the actual problem solution. Keywords: Mathematical Communication. Problem Solving. Cognitive Style.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 10

 1 

Filter by Year

2013 2013


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 5, No 3 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 2 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 1 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 7 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika More Issue