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 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika" : 10 Documents clear
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) PADA MATERI ARITMATIKA SOSIAL DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SEKABUPATEN PACITAN Anggraheni, Retno; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
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 objectives of research were to find out: (1) which learning model provided better student learning achievement, Problem based Learning (PBL) or Numbered Heads Together (NHT) type of Cooperative Learning or direct learning model, (2) which students had better mathematics learning achievement, those with auditory, or visual, or kinesthetic learning style,  (3) in each learning model, which one had mathematics learning achievement better, whether the students with auditory, those with visual or those with kinesthetic learning style, (4)  in each learning style, which one provided better mathematics learning achievement, Problem based Learning (PBL) or Numbered Heads Together (NHT) type of Cooperative Learning or direct learning model. This study was a quasi experimental research with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of research was all of the VII graders of Junior High Schools in Pacitan Regency. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample of research consisted of 242 students: 82 students for the experiment 1, 80 students for experiment 2 and 80 students for control classes. Considering the result of hypothesis testing, the following conclusions could be drawn. (1) The Problem Based Learning, the NHT type of cooperative learning, and direct learning models provided equal mathematics learning achievement. (2) The students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one. Those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one. Those with kinesthetic learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one. (3) In PBL learning model, the students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one, but those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one, and those with auditory learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one. In NHT type of cooperative learning model, the students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with auditory one and those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one, but those with auditory learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with kinesthetic one. In direct learning model, the results of the three learning style provided equal learning achievement. (4) In the students with visual learning style, PBL model provided learning achievement equal to the NHT type of cooperative learning one, PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In auditory learning style, PBL model provided the learning achievement equal to the NHT type, while PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In those with kinesthetic learning style, PBL model provided learning achievement equal to the NHT type of cooperative learning one, PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In auditory learning style, PBL model provided the learning achievement equal to the NHT type, PBL provided learning achievement equal to the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. Keywords: Problem Based Learning (PBL), Numbered Heads Together (NHT), student learning style. 
EKSPERIMENTASI PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK (PMR) DAN OPEN ENDED PADA MATERI SEGITIGA DAN SEGIEMPAT DITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN PACITAN Putra, Aji Permana; Riyadi, Riyadi; Sujadi, Imam
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 objectives of this research were to find out on  the topic of circumference and area of triangles and quadrangles: (1) which one produce better learning achievement among Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach, open ended approach or a mechanistic approach; (2) which had better learning achievement between field dependent cognitive style students or field independent cognitive style students; (3) at each cognitive styles, which was better learning achievement among RME approach, open ended approach or mechanistic approach, and (4) at each learning approach, which had better learning achievement between field dependent cognitive style students or field independent cognitive style students. This research was a quasi-experimental with 3×2 factorial design. The population was all students in seventh grade of state Junior High School in Pacitan Regency on Academic Years 2012/2013. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The total of sample was 238 students. Statistical tests using the method Lilliefors test for normality, homogeniety of the Bartlett method, anava test with F test (Fisher) and post hoc test using the Scheffe’ method. The significance level was 0,05. Based on hypothesis test, it could  be concluded that: (1) RME approach produce better learning achievement than open ended approach and mechanistic approach, open ended approach produce better learning achievement than mechanistic approach; (2) the field independent cognitive style students have a better learning achievement than field dependent cognitive style students; (3) at each of cognitive styles, RME approach produce better learning achievement than open ended approach and mechanistic approach, open ended approach produce better learning achievement than mechanistic approach; (4) at each learning approach, field independent cognitive style students have better learning achievement than field dependent cognitive style students.Keywords: Field Dependent, Field Independent, Mechanistic, Open Ended, Realistic Mathematics Education (RME).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DENGAN PENDEKATAN ILMIAH (NHT-PI) DAN TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALLIZATION (TAI) PADA MATERI POKOK BARISAN DAN DERET DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS XI SMK NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN KLATEN Ambar Nurhayati; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi
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 determine: (1) which gives better learning achievement, NHT-PI type, the type of TAI, or direct instruction learning model (2) which is learning achievement better, students who have a visual, auditory or kinesthetic learning style (3) In each type of learning model, which better learning achievement, students who have a visual learning style, auditory or kinesthetic (4) In each learning style, which is learning achievement better, students who applied learning models NHT-PI, TAI, or direct instruction learning. This study was a quasi exsperimental research. The sample of research consisted of 280 students: 90 students in experiment 1 class, 90 students in experiment 2 class, and 100 students in control class. The data was taken from the result of mathematics learning achievement test and student learning style questionnaire. The data obtained was then analyzed using a two-way ANAVA with unbalanced cells. Considering the result of hypothesis testing, the following conclusions could be drawn. (1) The learning achievement of the students treated with NHT-PI type of learning model was better than that of those treated with TAI type and direct learning; that of those treated with TAI was same as that of those treated with direct learning. (2) The learning style did not provide significant difference in learning achievement. (2)  Either in NHT-PI and TAI types of cooperative learning model or in direct learning, the different learning style did not provide significantly different learning achievement. (4) In the students with visual learning style, the three learning models did not provide significantly different learning achievement; in the students with auditory learning style, NHT-PI was as good as the TAI types, the TAI type was a good as the direct learning, and NHT-PI was better than the direct learning; in the students with kinesthetic learning style, the three learning model had equal effectiveness. Keywords: Numbered Head Together Scientific Methode Approach (NHT-PI), Team Assisted Individuallization (TAI), Student 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 THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN GUIDED NOTE TAKING (GNT) PADA MATERI PERSAMAAN GARIS LURUS DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN BEKERJA SAMA SISWA KELAS VIII SMP/MTs NEGERI DI KOTA SURAKARTA TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Nindia Elisie Anggraini; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Budi Usodo
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 objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which of the TPS-GNT learning model, the TPS learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better mathematics learning achievement; (2) which of the students with high, mediun, and low team work have a better mathematics learning achievement; and (3) which of team work of the students result in a better learning achievement for each learning models; and (4) which of the TPS-GNT, TPS and direct learning models result in a better learning achievement for each level of team work of the students.This research used the quasi-experimental method. The population of this research was all students of the junior secondary schools in Surakarta in the academic year of 2013/2014. The samples of this research consisted of 288 students who were divided into three experiment groups. The three groups consisted of group 1, group 2, and group 3. Both of group 1 and group 2 consisted of 193 students whereas group 3 consisted of 95 students. The data of this research were gathered from test of learning achievement in mathematics, questionnaire, and documentation. The data were then analyzed by using umbalanced Two-way Analysis of Variance. According to the research results, it can be concluded: (1) the learning model of Modified TPS was better than that of the TPS and direct learning models while the learning model of TPS was better than the direct learning model; (2) the students with high team work had a better learning achievement than those with medium and low team work while the students with medium team work was better than the low team work; and (3) in each team work, student with high team work, medium team work, and low team work,  the mathematics learning achievement of the students taught with TPS-GNT learning model, TPS learning model, and direct learning model was as good as that of those; (4) in each learning model, the TPS-GNT, TPS and direct learning models, the learning achievement of the student with high team work, medium team work, and low team work, was as good as that of those.Keywords: TPS-GNT learning model, TPS learning model, direct learning model, team work and learning achievement.
PENGARUH MODEL PROBLEM POSING SETTING KOOPERATIF TERHADAP PRESTASI DAN MINAT BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS X SMA DI KABUPATEN MERAUKE DITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF SISWA Irene Endah Tri Winihati; Budiyono Budiyono; Budi Usodo
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 aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement and learning interest viewed from the student cognitive style. The learning models compared were conventional model, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem posing, and Problem Posing model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population were the students of Senior High School in Merauke regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 213 students consisted of 71 students in control group, 71 students in the first experimental group and 71 students in the second experimental group. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test, quesioner, and Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT). The data was analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows.  (1) Both  the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing and Problem Posing learning model result in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model, and the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing result in a better learning achievement than the Problem Posing learning model. (2) The conventional learning model, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing, and Problem Posing learning model results in the same learning interest. (3) The   field independent students have a better learning achievement than the field dependent students. (4) The field independent students have a better learning interest  than the  field dependent students. (5) For the field dependent students, the setting cooperatif learning model of Problem Posing gives  better learning achievement than the Problem Posing model, and Problem Posing learning model gives better learning achievement than the conventional learning model, and the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing gives the same learning achievement with the Problem Posing model.  For the field independent students, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing and the Problem Posing model gives  better learning achievement than the conventional learning model. (6) For the field dependent students, each learning models gives the same learning interest. For the field independent  students, each learning models gives the same learning interest.Keywords: Problem Posing,Setting cooperative, Learning achievement, learning interest, cognitive style.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TAPPS DAN TSTS TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN MENYELESAIKAN SOAL CERITA MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI TIPE KEPRIBADIAN Robia Astuti; Budiyono Budiyono; Budi Usodo
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 aim of this research was to determine the effect of learning models toward the ability to solve mathematical word problem viewed from the personality types. This research used the quasi-experimental research method by 3 x 4 factorial design. The population of this research was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior High School of Tanggamus Regency in the 2013/2014 Academic Year. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of 283 students, and they were divided into three groups, 96 students in TAPPS class, 95 students in TSTS class, and 92 students in direct instruction class. The data was analyzed by using analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research showed as follows. (1) The students exposed to the TAPPS and TSTS learning models have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems. However, the students exposed to the both models have the ability to solve a better mathematical word problems than the students exposed to the direct instructional model. (2) The students with idealist type have the ability to solve a better mathematical word problems than artisan type. However, guardian type, artisan type and rational type, they have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems, as well as guardian type, idealist type and rational type, they also have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems. (3) At group of rational type, the students exposed to the TAPPS learning model have the ability to solve a better mathematical word problems than the students exposed to the direct instructional model. However, the students exposed to the TAPPS and TSTS learning models have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems, and the students exposed to the TSTS and direct instructional models have the same ability to solve mathematical word problem. At group of guardian type, artisan type, and idealist type, all models (TAPPS, TSTS, and direct instructional) have provided the same ability to solve mathematical word problems. (4) In the class that using the cooperative TAPPS learning model, rational type have the ability to solve a better mathematical word problems than guardian type, while artisan type, idealist type, and rational type, they have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems, as well as guardian type, idealist type, and artisan type, they also have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems. In the class that using the cooperative TSTS and direct instuctional models, guardian type, artisan type, idealist type, and rational type, they also have the same ability to solve mathematical word problems.Keywords:  word problem, TAPPS, TSTS, personality type. 
ANALISIS BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI PELUANG DITINJAU DARI GENDER SISWA KELAS XI IPA SMA NEGERI 1 KOTA BANJARBARU KALIMANTAN SELATAN Nina Nurmasari; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Riyadi Riyadi
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: This research used qualitative approach which aims to describe the factors of student’s creative thinking in mathematical problem solution on probability for male students and female students. The methods used in this study were interviews and tests. The data validation has done by triangulation. The data was obtained from interviews and tests of creative thinking skills in mathematics learning. This tests was composed of five categories: fluency, flexibility, originality,  elaboration, and redefinition which are the factors of the creativity. The research was conducted in SMA Negeri 1 Banjarbaru City, South Kalimantan in October until November 2013. The task-based interviews and tests were conducted to collect data from the 11th grade students of SMA Negeri 1 Banjarbaru City, South Kalimantan grade XI Program IPA. Selection of subjects was based on male student and female student. Snowball method was used to determine subject research. Subjects were seven students grade XI Program IPA on SMA Negeri 1 Banjarbaru City, South Kalimantan academic year 2013/2014. The result showed that the male students had the factors of creative thinking ability on fluency, flexibility, originality, and redefinition. The male students did not have enough the factor of creative thinking ability on elaboration. The female students had the factors of creative thinking ability on fluency, flexibility and originality. The female students did not have the factors of creative thinking ability on elaboration and redefinition.Keywords:  student’s creative thinking, factors of creative thinking, gender.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TTW DAN TPS PADA PERSAMAAN GARIS LURUS DITINJAU DARI KARAKTERISTIK CARA BERPIKIR SISWA SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN PRINGSEWU Suningsih, Ari; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
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 the research were to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from students mind  style. The learning model compared were TTW (Think Talk Write), TPS (Think Pair Share) and conventional. The kind of research was a quasi experimental research. The population was the students of Junior high school in Pringsewu regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 286 students, consisted of 98 students in the first experimental group, 105 students in second experimental group and 84 students in control group. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and questionnaire. Hypothesis analysis test used two ways analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions were as follow. (1) TTW model gave the same effect as TPS, but TTW model  was better than conventional and TPS model gave the same effect as conventional. (2) For all types of students mind style gave the same effect for mathematics learning achievement of students. (3) In each model of learning, students with mind style types concrete sequential, abstract sequential, concrete random, or abstract random have the same effect for mathematics learning achievement. (4) In each mind style, TTW model gave the same effect as TPS, but TTW model was better than conventional and TPS model gave the same effect as conventional.Keywords: TTW, TPS, Conventional, Mind Style, Mathematics Learning Achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TWO STAY TWO STRAY (TSTS) DAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI PERSAMAAN DAN PERTIDAKSAMAAN LINEAR SATU VARIABEL DITINJAU DARI KARAKTERISTIK CARA BERPIKIR SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN PACITAN Kusuma, Fitriana Anggar; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
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 objective of research was to find out: (1) which learning models provided the better mathematics learning achievement, Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS), Think Pair Share (TPS) or direct learning, (2) which category of thinking pattern characteristics provided the better mathematics learning achievement, concrete sequential (SK), abstract sequential (SA), random concrete (AK) or abstract concrete (AA), (3) in each learning model, which category provided the better mathematics learning achievement SK, SA, AK or AA thinking patterns, and (4) in each category of student thinking pattern characteristics, which learning model provided the better mathematics learning achievement, TSTS, TPS or direct learning models. This study was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x4 factorial design. The population of research was all of the VII graders of Junior High Schools in Pacitan Regency. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The sample of research consisted of 237 students 81 students for experimental class 1 and 77 students for experimental class 2 and 79 students for control class.  Considering the hypothesis test, the following conclusions could  be drawn. (1) The learning using TSTS model provided the better mathematics learning achievement than the one using TPS, and the TSTS and TPS models provided learning achievement as good as the direct learning model did in one-variable equation and disequation material. (2) The learning achievement of the students with SK type of thinking pattern characteristics was better than that of those with SA and AK types, but that of those with SK type was as good as that of those with AA type, that of those with SA type as good as that of those with AK, and that of those with AA was better than that of those with SA and AK types of thinking pattern characteristics. (3) In TSTS, TPS and direct learning models, the mathematics learning achievement of the students with SK type was better than that of those with SA and AK types, but that of those with SK was as good as that of those with AA, that of those with SA was as same as that of those with AK, and that of those with AA was better than that of those with SA and AK types of thinking pattern characteristics. (4) In the thinking pattern characteristics of SK, SA, AA, and AK types, the TSTS learning model provided the better mathematics learning achievement than the TPS model and the TSTS and TPS provided better learning achievement than direct learning model in one-variable linear equation and disequation material.Keywords: Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS), Think-Pair-Share (TPS), Student’s Thinking Pattern Characteristics. 

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 10

 1 

Filter by Year

2014 2014


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