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 347 Documents
 8   9   10   11   12 
PENGEMBANGAN MEDIA PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA BERBANTUAN KOMPUTER DENGAN LECTORA AUTHORING TOOLS PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR KELAS VIII SMP/MTS Kintoko Kintoko; Imam Sujadi; Dewi Retno Sari S
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research is aimed to: 1) describe the Lectora Authoring Tools (LAT)-based learning media application product design for computer-based Mathematics learning with the topic on geometry; 2) find out which media helped for better learning achievements: a Lectora Authoring Tools (LAT)-based learning or without employing any media.This research is a Research and Development model (R & D). The development was done by referring to the 4-D model found by Thiagarajan which were then modified into 3-D consisting of ‘defining’, ‘designing’, and ‘developing’. The product evaluation was done by the learning material expert covering the following aspects, namely the learning material completeness, learning material quality, linguistic quality, and visual quality, then, the learning media expert evaluated the following aspects, namely the readability, the image quality, the compatibility, the audio quality, the layout, and the animation. There were four teachers and four peers evaluated the content and display aspects. The subjects of the tryout were Grade VIII students in SMP PGRI Kasihan Bantul: 15 students for the limited tryout and 30 others for the field tryout. The data were collected through questionnaires, observation sheets, and learning achievement tests The equilibrium test was conducted using t-test, with α = 0.05, thereby it could be concluded that the experimental and control groups were in equilibrium. The prerequisite test included normality one using Liliefors test and homogeneity test using Bartlett method. With α = 0.05, it could be concluded that the sample derived from the homogeneous and normally distributed population..The research findings show that: 1) the media produced were in the form of Compact Disk (CD) as well as the Exe extension media which can be run in all computer operating system. This media was developed by employing Thiagarajan’s development model which consisted of ‘defining’, ‘designing’, and ‘developing’, whereas, the computer-assisted Mathematics learning media by employing the Lectora Authoring Tools (LAT) development resulted in better learning quality based on the validity, practicality, and effectiveness aspects. Those aspects showed a very good learning outcome as the developed learning media were able to display a learning material with easily understood animation graphics; 2) learning by employing the Lectora media presented higher achievements than those without it. It was proven by the mean value of the LAT This is evidenced by the results of hypothesis testing indicated on achievement tests of two classes, the value of test t = 2.236 with a t-table value = 1.960, while for DK = {t | t <-1960 or t> 1.960} tcount DK Thus, the means H0 is rejected so it can be concluded achievement test results in the experimental class with the control group there was a difference class-based learning as much as 77.78, which was better than that without the LAT with the mean value of 72.38.Keywords: developments, learning media, geometry, Lectora Authoring Tools software, concept mastery, achievements
PROSES BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA SMP DALAM PENGAJUAN MASALAH MATEMATIKADITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF SISWA (Studi Kasus pada Siswa Kelas VIII-H SMP Negeri 1 Sukoharjo Tahun Pelajaran 2012/2013) Komarudin Komarudin; Imam Sujadi; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed to describe the process of creative thinking of students of SMP Negeri 1 Sukoharjo who have the type of cognitive style field-independent (FI) and field-dependent (FD) in the mathematics problems posing on Wallas steps, namely preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. This research was a case study. The data collection techniques conducted by using think aloud method. The results showed that the process of creative thinking on: (1) the FI students, namely (a) the preparation, students read silently APP (assignment problem posing), observe the instructions and image information carefully, and students can know the things that are known on first reading of APP; (b) incubation, the students tend to be silent for a moment, it is as a start in developing a mathematical problem; (c) illumination, the students determine the attributes and the things that will be proposed to the problem, students verbalize the problem as he bowed his head, after that, the students write the problem in the worksheet and if something goes wrong on the issues raised, the students tend to immediately fix the problem; (d) verification, the students correct mathematical issues raised, explain the troubleshooting procedures and resolving the issues raised at worksheet, students corrected back problems and the settlement has been made; (2) Students FD, namely (a) the preparation, students read silently APP, observe the instructions and image information on the APP, to find the information and the things that are known, students need to read back the APP; (b) incubation, the students tend to be silent for a moment, this is the first step in preparing mathematics problems, in this step, students were less calm and worried while playing both hands; (c) illumination, the students determine the attributes and things to issues raised by several silent, students write the problem in the worksheet and if something goes wrong on the issues raised, the students tend to replace the problem; (d) verification, the student explains the troubleshooting procedures and resolves the issues raised at worksheet, students corrected the solved problem and solution.Keywords: creative thinking, problems posing, and cognitive style.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK TALK WRITE DAN THINK PAIR SHARE PADA MATERI OPERASI ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI KETERAMPILAN SOSIAL SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN SEMARANG TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Noviana Sukma Dewi; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Dewi Retno Sari Saputro
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of this study was to determine the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from the sosial skill of the students. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the Think Talk Write (TTW) type with scientific approach, Think Pair Share (TPS) type with scientific approach, and classical model with scientific approach.The type of this study was a quasi-experimental study with a 3x3 factorial design. The study population were all of grade VII students of Junior High School in Kabupaten Semarang. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and sosial skill questionnaire. The proposed hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. Based on the hypothesis testing it can be concluded as follows. (1) Students’ learning achievement treated by TTW learning model with scientific approach are better than students treated by TPS model with scientific approach and classical learning model with scientific approach. In addition to, students’ learning achievement treated by TPS model with scientific approach are better than students treated by classical learning model with scientific approach. (2) Students’ learning achievement who have high social skill are better than students who have moderate and low social skill. Furthermore, students who have moderate social skill are better than students who have low social skill. (3) In high, moderate, and low social skill category, students learning achievement treated by TTW model with scientific approach are better than student who treated by TPS learning model with scientific approach and classical learning model with scientific approaching. Asides from that, students learning achievement are treated by TPS learning model with scientific approach are better than students who treated by classical learning model with scientific approach. (4) In TTW learning model with scientific approaching, TPS with scientific approach and classical learning with scientific approach, students learning achievement who have high social skill are better than students who have moderate and low social skill. Moreover, students who have moderate social skill are better than students who have low social skill.Keywords: Think Talk Write (TTW), Think Pair Share (TPS), Scientific Approach, Student Social Skill.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PROBLEM POSING TIPE WITHIN SOLUTION POSING, TIPE PRE SOLUTION POSING DAN TIPE POST SOLUTION POSING PADA PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN BANJARNEGARA Farah Heniati Santosa; Budi Usodo; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This aims of the research were to determine the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in mathematics viewed from reasoning ability of thr students. The learning models compared were the Problem Posing model type: Within Solution Posing, Pre Solution Posing, Post Solution Posing and the direct learning model. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 4x3. The population of the research was all students in Grade VIII of Junior Secondary Schools of Banjarnegara Regency. The samples of the research were chosen by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique and consisted of 316 students. The instruments used to collect the data were the test of mathematics achievement and test of reasoning ability. Pre-requisite tests used Lilliefors method for normality test and Bartlett method for homogeneity test. After examining the data, it shows that the populations have same variance and they were in normal distribution. Prior knowledge data were examined by using one-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. Hypothesis was examined by using two-way analysis of variance with unbalance cells followed multiple comparative test using Scheffe method. The result of the research showed as follows. (1) Problem Posing model type within solution posing gave better achievement than Problem Posing type Pre Solution Posing, type post Solution Posing and direct learning model, whereas Problem Posing model type Pre Solution Posing gave better achievement than Problem Posing type Post solution Posing and direct learning model. Meanwhile, Problem Posing model type Post Solution Posing gave better achievement than learning direct model. (2) Students who had high reasoning ability got better achievement than students who had medium or low reasoning ability, whereas students who had medium reasoning ability, got better achievement than students who had low reasoning ability.(3) in every learning model, students who had high reasoning ability got better achievement than students having medium or low reasoning ability. Meanwhile, students who had medium reasoning ability got better achievement than students who had low reasoning ability. (4) In every category of reasoning ability Problem Posing model type within solution posing gave better achievement than Problem Posing type Pre Solution Posing, type Post Solution Posing and direct learning model, whereas Problem Posing model type Pre Solution Posing gave better achievement than Problem Posing type Post solution Posing and direct learning model. Meanwhile, Problem Posing model type Post Solution Posing gave better achievement than direct learning model.Keyword: Problem Posing Type: Within Solution Posing, Pre Solution Posing, Post Solution Posing, mathematic achievement, and reasoning ability.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM POSING DAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM SOLVING DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII KOTA SURAKARTA Giant Aprisetyani; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

Abstract : The purposes of this study were to: (1) develop a valid learning device based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) especially on Probability, and (2) know the effectiveness of learning device which was developed based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI). The study was an educational research and development used 4D model with the steps of model: (1) defining, that consists of: starting and ending analysis, student analysis, learning analysis, task analysis, and learning objectives specification; (2) designing; (3) developing; and (4) disseminating. Test for knowing the effectiveness of the learning device was conducted with the population of this study was all students in grade IX of SMP Negeri 6 Surakarta. Before carrying out the study, balanced test was performed using t – test on two groups of populations. The data analysis technique which was used to test the hypothesis was t – test. Pre-requisite test was performed with Lilliefors method to test the normality and Bartlett methods to test the homogeneity. The results of this study were as follows. (1) A valid learning device based on guided discovery with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) have been developed that consists of (a) Lesson Plan, (b) Student’s Worksheet, (c) Student’s Book, (d) Teacher’s Handbook, and (e) Test of Learning Result; (2) The result of the effectiveness test showed that the mathematics learning result of the students who attended on guided discovery learning with Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI) by using the learning device was better than that of students who attended on learning by method which was usually used by the teacher.Keywords : Development, Learning Device, Guided Discovery, Somatic, Auditory, Visual, Intellectual (SAVI).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN kOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI POKOK TRIGONOMETRI DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL SISWA SMK DI KOTA MADIUN TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Eva Tri Wahyuni; Budiyono Budiyono; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of the research were to find out: (1) which produces better mathematics learning achievement among cooperative learning model Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), or direct instruction model; (2) which have better learning achievement, students who have high emotional intelligence, medium, or low; (3) which gives a better learning achievement at each level of  emotional intelligence, cooperative learning model Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Think Pair Share (TPS), or direct instruction model; (4) which have a better learning achievement at each learning model, students who have the emotional intelligence high, medium, or low. This research was a quasi-experimental research which designed a 3x3 factorial. The population of the  research was all students  at eleventh grade high school vocational and engineering technology group in Madiun city on academic year 2013/2014. The samples of the research were 264 respondents consisting of 87 students by using cooperative learning model Numbered Heads Together (NHT), 89 students  by using cooperative learning model Think Pair Share (TPS), and 88 students by using direct instruction model. Analysis of the data used two-way analysis of variance. Based on the results of this research, it can be concluded: (1)  the cooperative learning model NHT  produces the same mathematics learning achievement as TPS, whereas NHT and TPS produce mathematics learning achievement better than the direct instruction model; (2) the students with high, medium and low  emotional intelligence have the same learning achievement; (3)  the emotional intelligence of each,  NHT  produces  the same mathematics learning achievement as TPS, whereas NHT and TPS produce mathematics learning achievement better than the direct instruction; (4) the learning model of each, students with high, medium and low emotional intelligence have the same learning achievement.            Keywords: NHT, TPS, Emotional Intelligence, Trigonometry.
EKSPERIMENTASI PENDEKATAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK (PMR) DENGAN METODE DISCOVERY LEARNING PADA MATERI POKOK BENTUK ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIS Jamilah Jamilah
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): 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 reveal the effect of PMR approach with discovery learning method, PMR approach, and directed instruction approach to the mathematics achievement in Algebra Expression viewed from mathematics communication ability. 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. The total of sample was 9 classes and it was taken using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The instrument of research using mathematics achievement test and mathematics communication ability test. The data was analyzed using unbalanced two-way analysis of variance. The conclusion of this research shows that PMR approach with discovery learning method, PMR approach and directed instruction approach give the same mathematics achievement and it shows the same result in each level of mathematics communication ability. Other conclusion also shows that the students who have high mathematics communication ability have better mathematics achievement than the students who have middle or low mathematics communication ability, the students who have middle mathematics communication ability have better mathematics achievement than the students who have low mathematics communication ability, and it shows the same result in each learning approach categories.Key words: PMR Approach, Discovery Learning Method, Directed Instruction Approach, Mathematics Communication Ability, Mathematics Achievement.
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.

Page 10 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 8   9   10   11   12 

Filter by Year

2013 2018


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