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 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika" : 10 Documents clear
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) PADA MATERI SEGITIGA DAN SEGIEMPAT DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN TULANG BAWANG BARAT Irma Ayuwanti; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of the research  were to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning model, (2) which one having better mathematics learning achievement, students with climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (3) in each learning models (NHT, GI and direct) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (4) in each student AQ (climbers, campers, and quitters) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning  model.This study was a quasi-experimental research. The research design used was a 3x3 factorial design. The population of research was all VII graders of Junior High Schools throughout West Tulang Bawang Regency in the school year of 2014/2015. Meanwhile the sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample consisted of 281 students: 93 students for experiment I class, 93 for experiment II class and 95 for control class. The instruments used to collect the data were learning AQ questionnaire and  mathematics learning achievement test. From the result of research, it could be concluded as follows: (1) NHT learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than GI learning model and direct learning model, GI learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than direct learning model. (2) The learning achievement of the students with climbers AQ was better than that of those with campers and quitters AQ, and the learning achievement of the students with campers AQ was better than that of those with quitters AQ. (3) In NHT learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers  and campers AQ had better achievement than students with quitters AQ; qqqin GI learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers AQ categories had better achievement than students with quitters AQ, students with campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement; in direct learning model, students with climbers, campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement. (4) In climbers AQ, NHT learning modelqqq gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in campers AQ, NHT learning model gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in quitters AQ, NHT, GI and direct learning model gave the same achievement. Keywords: NHT, GI, Direct Learning, and Adversity Quotient (AQ).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBER HEAD TOGETHER (NHT), JIGSAW II DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL SISWA SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Stefy Erlinda Novalia; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Dewi Retno Sari S
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 purpose of this study was to determine the effect of learning models on student’s mathematics achievement viewed from emotional quotient. The learning models compared were learning model of the Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Jigsaw II, and TPS. This research was a quasi-experimental research. The population of the research was all of the eighth grade students of the State Junior High School in Sukoharjo. The instrumentsused to collect data were mathematics achievement and emotional quotient questionnaire. Technique of analyzing data that used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. From the research, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Learning by using cooperative learning model of Jigsaw II and NHT gave better mathematics learning achievement than learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS, learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT gave better mathematics learning achievement than learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS. (2) Students who have high emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have middle and low emotional quotient, students who have middle emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have low emotional quotient, (3) On the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw II, students who have high and middle emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement with the students who have low emotional quotient. On the cooperative learning model of NHT, students who have high emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement with the students who have low emotional quotient. On the cooperative learning model of TPS, students who have high, middle and low emotional quotient gave the same mathematics learning achievement. (4) On the high emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II, NHT and TPS gave the same mathematics learning achievement. On the middle emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II gave better mathematics learning achievement with learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS. On the low emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II, NHT and TPS gave the same mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Cooperative learning model, Jigsaw II, NHT, TPS, mathematics learning achievement, emotional quotient.
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.
PROSES PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA UNTUK SISWA SLOW LEARNER DI KELAS INKLUSI SMP NEGERI 7 KLATEN KELAS VIII Karina Pramitasari; Budi Usodo; 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 purposes of this research are intended to describe (1) teacher’s strategy in teaching learning activity for slow learner in the inclusive class  of SMPN 7 Klaten, (2) the teaching learning process in the inclusive class  of SMPN 7 Klaten, (3) teacher’s problems in Mathematics teaching learning process in the inclusive class of SMPN 7 Klaten. This research used a qualitative approach in the form of field research. The  subjects of the research are  four participants choosen by using  purposive sampling. They are  a mathematics teacher, a slow learner having special needs and two normal students. The research instruments consist of the researcher as the main instrument, observation sheet as the first supplementary instrumen and interview basic as the second supplementary instrumen. Based on the results of the research, it can be concluded that, as follows: (1) teacher conducted the planning step by designing lesson plan, the teaching learning step and the evaluation/follow up step in the inclusive class as same as what the teacher conducted in the regular class. The difference is situated only at the giving of special attention and the special guidance for slow learner who have special need during teaching learning process in the class, (2) the slow learner having special needs tend to participate passively in the matematics teaching learning process, they prefer to write the materials given by teacher rather than pay more attention, they prefer to like a calm class situation as same as the normal students’ class, and they have more learning time than normal students about three hours a day and they are helped by their mother when they got and finished their duties or homework, (3) teacher’s problems in mathematics teaching learning process in inclusive class is caused by two factors that are internal factor and external factor. Internal factors refers to the lack of the mathematics teacher’s understanding about the inclusive education and having less capability to teach the slow learner who have special need. External factors deals with there are no the special guide teachers and there are no special facilities which being prepared in mathematics teaching learning process for slow learner who have special needs.Keywords: mathematics learning process, inclusive class, slow learner.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, PROBLEM SOLVING, DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI SELF REGULATED LEARNING Miatun, Asih; Sujadi, Imam; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from student’s self regulated learning. The learning model compared were discovery learning, problem solving, and TPS. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population were all students at the grade VIII of Junior High School in Boyolali regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The samples were students of SMPN 4 Boyolali, SMPN 6 Boyolali, and SMPN 4 Mojosongo. The instruments used were mathematics achievement tests and self regulated learning questionnaire. The data were analyzed using unbalanced two-ways Anova. The conclusions were as follows. (1) Discovery learning model gave mathematics learning achievement better than problem solving and TPS learning model, problem solving and TPS learning model gave the same mathematics learning achievement. (2) Mathematics learning achievement of students with high self regulated learning was better than students with medium and low self regulated learning. Mathematics learning achievement of students with medium self regulated learning was better than students with low self regulated learning. (3) There was an interaction between learning models and the categories of self regulated learning towards the students mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Discovery Learning, Problem Solving, Think Pair Share (TPS), self regulated learning.
PROSES BERPIKIR REFLEKTIF SISWA SMA DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH PADA MATERI TURUNAN FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI EFIKASI DIRI (Studi Kasus pada Siswa Kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri Punung) Genarsih, Tunjung; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Mardiyana, Mardiyana
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 purpose of this study is to describe the process of reflective thinking in solving the problem of high school students on the material terms of the derivative function viewed from self-efficacy. This research is classified in the qualitative descriptive study with the case study method. The subjects in this study were students of class XI IPA SMAN I Punung Pacitan in the second semester of academic year 2014/2015. The determination of the subject is by using purposive sampling, which is based on high, medium, and low self-efficacy. The research data taken from the test results of student works  and interviews of  students. Test of the credibility of the data is done by time triangulation. The data analysis technique is qualitative descriptive by Miles and Huberman. The results showed that (1) students with high self-efficacy using reflective thinking processes in a) stages of understanding the problem, able to select science, believing the truth, and actively create a consideration of the chosen solution; b) planning phase troubleshooting, make certain considerations, believing the truth, and select science; c) the stage of implementing the plan problem solving, able to explain the problem solving, linking information obtained by the problems encountered, deliberation, aware of the error and correct it, believing the truth; d) phase re-examine, re-examine, capable of linking the knowledge, correcting the error, explaining the final conclusion. (2) students with moderate self-efficacy use reflective thinking process in a) understand the problem, believing the truth, actively make judgments, and able to select science; b) the stage of implementing the plan problem solving, able to explain the solution of the problem, select the science that has been owned, believing the truth of solving the problem (3) students with low self-efficacy only use reflective thinking process in understanding the problem by being active characteristics in making judgments, be sure it is a correct problem-solving solutions.Keywords: reflective thinking, problem solving, mathematics, self-efficacy.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, PROBLEM BASED LEARNING, DAN THINK PAIR SHARE DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK TERHADAP KOMPETENSI PENGETAHUAN DAN SIKAP SOSIAL DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Pinahayu, EK Ajeng Rahmi; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Slamet, Isnandar
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 aim of this research was to find out the different effects of Discovery Learning (DL), Problem Based Learning (PBL), and Think Pair Share (TPS) models with scientific approach towards students knowledge and social attitude competency viewed from the students learning styles. This study was a quasi-experimental research. The population of research was all of the 8th grade of the State Junior High School in Puworejo Regency on the second semester of 2014/2015 academic year. The hypothesis testing of research were conducted using a two-ways multivariate analysis of variance with different cells. The conclusions of this research were as follows. (1) DL provided better knowledge competency than PBL and TPS, while PBL and TPS was same. (2) DL and TPS provided same social attitude competency, and both provided better social attitude competency than PBL. (3) The knowledge competency of visual students was better than auditory and kinesthetic, and the knowledge competency of students in those types was same. (4) The social attitude competency of visual and auditory students was same, the social attitude competency of visual students was better than kinesthetic, the social attitude competency of auditory and kinesthetic students was same. (5) In DL, the knowledge competency of visual students was better than auditory, the knowledge competency of visual students was better than kinesthetic, the knowledge competency of auditory and kinesthetic students was same. In PBL and TPS, the knowledge competency of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic students was same. (6) In DL and TPS, the social attitude competency of those three types was same. In PBL, the social attitude competency of visual students was better than auditory, the social attitude competency of visual and kinesthetic students was same, the social attitude competency of auditory and kinesthetic students was same. (7) In visual, DL provided better knowledge competency than PBL and TPS, PBL and TPS  provided same knowledge competency. In auditory and kinesthetic, DL, PBL, and TPS provided same knowledge competency. (8) In visual and kinesthetic, DL, PBL, and TPS provided same social attitude competency. In auditory, DL and PBL provided same social attitude competency, DL and TPS was same, and TPS provided better social attitude competency than PBL.Keywords: Discovery Learning, Problem Based Learning, Think Pair Share, Scientific Approach, Knowledge Competency, Social Attitude Competency, Learning Styles.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, GROUP INVESTIGATION, DAN THINK TALK WRITE DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK TERHADAP PRESTASI DAN KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN SISWA Nuraya, Naufalia; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Slamet, Isnandar
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: This research aims to know the different effect among learning models used i.e, Discovery Learning (DL) with scientific approach, Group Investigation (GI) with scientific approach, and Think Talk Write (TTW) with scientific approach. The research method was quasi experimental. The population was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School of district Tegal year of 2014/2015. Sample was taken by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The hypothesis test used two way MANOVA with unbalanced cell. The results of the research were as follows: (1) a. Learning achievement of students treated by DL with scientific approach is better than those treated by GI and TTW with scientific approach, and learning achievement of student treated by GI with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by TTW with scientific approach; b. Mathematics learning creativity of student treated by DL and GI with scientific approach is better than those treated by TTW with scientific approach, and mathematics learning creativity of student treated by DL with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by GI with scientific approach; (2) a. Learning achievement of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and learning achievement of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; b. Mathematics learning creativity of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and mathematics learning creativity of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; (3) a. In the high, medium, and low reasoning ability, learning achievement of students treated by DL with scientific approach is better than those treated by GI and TTW with scientific approach, and learning creativity of student treated by GI with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by TTW with scientific approach; b. In the high, medium, and low reasoning ability, mathematics learning creativity of students treated by DL and GI with scientific approach is better than those treated by TTW with scientific approach, and learning creativity of students treated by DL with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by GI with scientific approach; (4) a. In DL, GI, and TTW with scientific approach, learning achievement of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and learning achievement of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; b. In DL, GI, and TTW with scientific approach, mathematics learning creativity of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and mathematics learning creativity of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability.Keywords: DL, GI, TTW, Scientific Approach, Reasoning Ability, Learning Achievement, Mathematics Learning Creativity.
PENGEMBANGAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS INTUISI UNTUK MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN BERPIKIR KREATIF DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS X SMA NEGERI 2 SRAGEN Lestari, Mulyaningrum; Riyadi, Riyadi; Usodo, Budi
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: This research aimed to product model of learning based on intuition to improve the creative thinking ability in solving mathematics problems in the students of SMA N 2 Sragen validly, practically, and effectively. The learning model produced included syntax and learning tools such as teaching material, lesson plan, worksheet, and problem sheet. This type of the research was a Research and Development (R&D). Subjects of this research were students class of X MS (Mathematic Science) 4 and class X MS 5 of SMA N 2 Sragen, Central Java. The process of developing an learning model based on intuition referred to development model of Plomp and Borg & Gall including : (1) studying and collecting information in preliminary investigation stage, (2) designing an learning model based on intuition, created learning tools (teaching material, lesson plan, worksheet, and problem sheet), (3) realizing model and learning tools organized into first draft, (4) validating the first draft against validator, revising, and then trying out the model, and revising again, and (5) holding FGD to evaluate the results of tryout that had been conducted and revising it for the next tryout. This research  produced syntax and learning tools (teaching material, lesson plan, worksheet, and problem sheet) of learning model based on intuition to improve the creative thinking ability in solving  mathematics problems of students validly, practically, and effectively. The procedure of syntax in an learning model based on intuition: (1) The teacher made introduction such as preparing the students psychically and physically, apperception, providing motivation and learning objectives, (2) Teacher divided the students heterogeneously into some groups of two, (3)The students were given worksheet to discuss in group and there were five activities observing; questioning; exploring; associating; and communicating, (4) The students were given problems individually in the problem sheet to work on with stages that could appear intuition and improve their creative thinking ability including beginning, incubation, illumination, and verification, (5) Closing such as included reflection and homework.Keywords : model development, learning model, intuition, creative thinking ability
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE PAIRS CHECK (PC), THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS), DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) PADA MATERI KUBUS DAN BALOK DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA SURAKARTA Suci Irawati; Budiyono Budiyono; Isnandar Slamet
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: This study aimed at determining the effect of learning models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from the students’ Learning Style. The learning models compared were learning model Pairs Check (PC), Think Pair Share (TPS) and Problem Based Learning (PBL). This research was a quasi-experimental research with 3×3 factorial design. The population of research was all grade VIII students of Junior High School (SMP) in Surakarta. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments used were achievement test and questionnaire of learning styles. The technique of analyzing the data was two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The results of research showed as follows. (1) The PC resulted better learning achievement than the TPS and PBL. TPS resulted learning achievement as good as PBL, (2) The students having visual learning style resulted better learning achievement than did those having auditorial learning style. The students having visual learning style resulted better learning achievement than  those having kinesthetic learning style. The students having auditorial learning style resulted better learning achievement than those having kinesthetic learning style.  (3) At the students having visual learning style, PC resulted better learning achievement than that TPS and PBL, TPS and PBL resulted the same learning achievement. At the students having auditorial learning style, PC and TPS resulted the same learning achievement, PC resulted better learning achievement than that PBL, TPS resulted better learning achievement than that PBL. At the students having auditorial learning style, PC, TPS and PBL resulted the same learning achievement, (4) In PC, the students having visual learning style resulted learning achievement as good as those having auditorial learning style, the students having visual learning style resulted better learning achievement than did those having auditorial learning style, The students having auditorial learning style resulted learning achievement as good as those having kinestetik learning style. In TPS and PBL, The students having visual learning style resulted learning achievement as good as those having auditorial and kinestetik learning style.Keywords :  Pairs Check (PC), Think Pair Share (TPS), Problem Based Learning (PBL),  Learning Style.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 10

 1 

Filter by Year

2015 2015


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