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
 11   12   13   14   15 
EFEKTIVITAS PENERAPAN METODE DISKUSI DENGAN PENDEKATAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK (PMR) DAN PENDEKATAN QUANTUM LEARNING (QL) DITINJAU DARI TIPE KEPRIBADIAN SISWA UNTUK MENINGKATKAN PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN LAMPUNG TIM Desty Septianawati
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research are to know: (1) Which one more effective, learning using discussion with realistic mathematics approach, Quantum Learning (QL) or a conventional learning. (2) Which one gives better mathematics learning achievement, student with personality types Sanguine, Melancholy, Choleric or Phlegmatis. (3) Which one more effective for each personality type of students, learning using discussion with PMR, QL or a conventional learning. This research used quasi experimental method with its population included all of students of state junior high school in East Lampung Regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The size of the samples was 303 students. The data collection technique were the document that was the last of examination the seven grade for initial capability data before the experiment, achievement tests for mathematics student achievement data, and questioner of personality types. The data was analyzed using analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows: (1) learning mathematics using discussion with PMR is as effective as learning mathematics using the method of discussion with QL. However, learning of mathematics using discussion with PMR approach is more effective than learning mathematics using discussion with conventional approach. Likewise, learning mathematics using discussion with QL approach is more effective than learning mathematics using discussion with conventional approach. (2) Students with personality types of Sanguine, Melancholy, Choleric, nor Phlegmatis have the same mathematics achievement. (3) For each personality type of students, learning using discussion with PMR approach is as effective as using discussion with QL. However, using discussion with PMR and QL approach is more effective than learning mathematics the method of discussion with conventional approach.Keywords: Realistic Mathematics Approach, Quantum Learning Approach, Personality Types
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING, GROUP INVESTIGATION DAN THINK PAIR SHARE DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN SISWA Ardani, Anwar; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (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 effect of learning models using scientific approach on the students’ learning achievement viewed from the students’ reasoning ability. This study was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The population of research was all of the 8th graders of Junior High Schools throughout Tegal regency in the school year of 2014/2015. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The data analysis was conducted using a two-way anava with unbalanced cells at significance level of 5%. The results of research showed: (1) the learning achievement of students treated with PBL PS was equally good to that of those treated with GI PS, that of those treated with PBL PS and GI PS was better than that of those with TPS PS, (2) the learning achievement of students with high reasoning ability was equally good to that of those with medium one, the learning achievements of students with high and medium reasoning ability were better than that of those with low one, (3) in each reasoning ability, the learning achievement of students treated with PBL PS was equally good to that of those treated with GI PS, that of those treated with PBL PS and GI PS was better than that of those with TPS PS, and (4) in each learning model, the learning achievement of students with high reasoning ability was equally good to that of those with medium one, the learning achievements of students with high and medium reasoning ability were better than that of those with low one.Keywords: Scientific PBL (PBL PS), scientific GI (GI PS), scientific TPS (TPS PS) and reasoning ability.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN JIGSAW II PADA MATERI POKOK BANGUN RUANG DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN SPASIAL SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Ahmad Ahmad; Budi Usodo; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (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 Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement, (2) which students among the students with the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities have a better learning achievement, (3) in each of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning which students among the students with the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities have a better learning achievement, and (4) in each of the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities  which learning model of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better learning achievement. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of . Its population was all of the students of State Junior Secondary Schools of Karanganyar regency. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of 285 students, and they were divided into three classes, namely: 96 in Experimental Class I, 95 in Experimental Class II, and 94 in Control Class.  The data of the research were gathered through test of spatial ability and test of learning achievement in Mathematics. The proposed hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research are as follows. 1) The cooperative learning model of the GI type results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model, but results in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as the Jigsaw II learning model, and the Jigsaw II learning model results in a better learning achievement than the direct learning model. 2). The students with the high spatial ability and those with the moderate spatial ability have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low spatial ability, but the students with the high spatial ability have the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the moderate spatial ability. (3) in each of the Cooperative learning model of the GI type, the Jigsaw II learning model, and the direct learning, students with the high spatial ability have the same good learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the moderate spatial ability, and both the students with the high spatial ability and those with the moderate spatial ability have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low spatial ability. 4) in each of the high, moderate, and low spatial abilities,  the Cooperative learning model of the GI type and the Jigsaw II learning model result in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the direct learning model, but the cooperative learning model of the GI type results in the same good learning achievement as the Jigsaw II learning model.Keywords: Group Investigation (GI), Jigsaw II, learning achievement, and spatial ability.
EFEKTIVITAS MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DENGAN PENDEKATAN OPEN-ENDED PADA PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENTS (AQ) SISWA SMA NEGERI DI KOTA MATARAM Eka Nur Azizah; Budi Usodo; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract:The objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) which of the cooperative learning model of NHT type with open-ended approach, the cooperative learning models of NHTtype, and the model of conventional results in a better learning achievement in mathematics of the students; (2) which of the types of climbers, the campers, and the quittersresults in a better learning achievement in mathematics; (3) for each category of AQ of the students, which one results in better achievement in mathematics, cooperative learning model of NHT type with open-ended approach, the cooperative learning model of NHTtype, and the model of conventional; and (4) for each learning model, which one results in better achievement in mathematics, students who have climbers type, campers, or quitters.The type of this research was a quasi-experimental with research design which used factorial 3 x 3.The population of this research was the first grade (Class Ten) of Senior High Schools in Mataram. The sample of this research was 9 classes consisted of 3 experimental classes I, 3 experimental classes II, and 3 control classes. This research used stratified cluster random sampling technique.The results of the research are as follows: (1) the cooperative learning models of NHT type with open-ended approach results in a better students’ mathematics learning achievement than cooperative learning model of NHTand the model of conventional, and the cooperative learning model of NHTtype results in a better students’ mathematics learning achievement than the model of conventional; (2) students’ mathematics learning achievementwith the climbers type of learning gives the same mathematics achievement as the campers type, students’ mathematics learning achievement with the campers type of learning gives the same mathematics achievement as the quitters type, and students’ mathematics learning achievement with the climbers type of learning results in a better achievement than the learning achievement of the students with the quitters type; (3) for each category of AQ of the students (climbers, campers, and quitters), cooperative learning model of NHT type with open-ended approach results in a better students’ mathematics learning achievement than cooperative learning model of NHTand the model of conventional, and the cooperative learning model of NHTtype results in a better students’ mathematics learning achievement than conventional type; (4) for each learning model (NHT type with open-ended approach, NHT type, and conventional), students’ mathematics learning achievement with the climbers type of learning gives the same mathematics achievement as the campers type, and students’ mathematics learning achievement with the campers type of learning gives the same mathematics achievement as the quitters type, and students’ mathematics learning achievement with the climbers type of learning results in a better achievement than students’ mathematics learning achievement with the quitters type.Keywords: Learning model,NHT, open-ended approach, conventional, mathematic’s learning achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION (TAI) DAN PAIRS CHECK (PC) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI HIMPUNAN DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN LOGIS MATEMATIS SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA SURAKARTA Andini, Fahimah; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This study aimed at determining the effect of models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from the students’ logical mathematical intelligence. The learning models compared were learning model of the scientific Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), scientific Pairs Check (PC), and scientific classical. The type of this study was a quasi-experimental study with a 3x3 factorial design. The population was all grade VII students of Junior High Schools in Surakarta. The instruments used for the data collection were mathematics achievement test and logical mathematical intelligence test. The data analysis technique used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. Based on the hypothesis, the results of the study can be summarized as follows. (1) The use of Scientific PC resulted better achievement than that of scientific TAI and with scientific classical, the use of scientific TAI resulted better achievement than that of scientific classical. (2) The students’ achievement who have high logical mathematical intelligence was better than those who have middle or low logical mathematical intelligence, and students who have middle logical mathematical intelligence were better than those who have low logical mathematic intelligence. (3) At the students with high logical matematical intelligence, scientific TAI, scientific PC, and scientific classical gave the same achievement. At the students with middle logical matematical intelligence, scientific PC gave the better achievement than that with scientific TAI and scientific classical. At the students with low logical matematical intelligence, scientific TAI gave the better achievement than that with scientific PC and scientific classical. (4) In scientific TAI, high logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement was better than the middle one, high and middle level of logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement were better than the lower one. In scientific PC, high logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement have equal achievement to the middle one students, high and middle level of logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement were better than the low one. In scientific classical, high logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement was better than the middle one, high and middle level of logical mathematical intelligence students’ achievement were better than the students with low logical mathematical intelligence.Keywords: Scientific TAI, Scientific PC, Scientific Classical, Scientific Approach, Logical Mathematical Intelligence.
PROFIL PROSES BERPIKIR KRITIS SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI 3 SURAKARTA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH POKOK BAHASAN SISTEM PERSAMAAN LINEAR DUA VARIABEL (SPLDV) DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN MAJEMUK DAN GENDER Mika Ambarawati; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to describe the profile of critical thinking process of the students in grade VIII of State Junior Secondary School 3 of Surakarta in solving the problems on linear equation of two variables (LETV) viewed from the multiple intelligence and gender. This research used the descriptive research method with the qualitative explorative approach. The subjects of the research were taken by using the purposive sampling technique. The subjects of the research were four students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary School 3 of Surakarta, one male student and female student with linguistic intelligence, and one male student and one female student with mathematical-logical intelligence. The instruments used to gather the data of the research were multiple intelligence questionnaire, worksheet for mathematical problem-solving, and interview guidelines. The data were collected through questionnaire and task-based interview on the learning material of LETV. They were validated by using the time triangulation and the reference fulfillment. The data were analyzed using a Miles and Huberman’s concept, that was data reduction, presentation, and conclusion. The results of the research are as follows. 1) The male  and female students with linguistic intelligence had a good ability to capture information and may communicate it effectively both written and orally. The critical thinking can be realized through four phases. However,  the male in the recognition phase, they encounters a difficulty i.e. the question they mentions is less complete.  In addition, in thinking about alternatives, they are only able to mention one problem-solving alternative, namely: mixed alternative. 2) The male and female students with mathematical-logical intelligence are able to think logically. They are able to do categorization, classification, conclusion drawing over a problem. The  critical thinking can be realized through four phases. However, in the recognition phase, they encounters a difficulty i.e. the question they mentions is less complete.  In addition, in thinking about alternatives, they are only able to mention two problem-solving alternatives, namely: mixed alternative and substitution alternative.Keywords: profile of the process of critical thinking, problem solving, multiple intelligence, and gender.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN CONTEXTUAL TEACHING AND LEARNING (CTL) PADA POKOK BAHASAN LIMIT FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN BELAJAR MATEMATIKA (Penelitian Dilaksanakan di SMA Dwi Winarni; Budiyono Budiyono; Dewi Retno Sari
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to know: (1) which one gives student better learning achievement, Numbered Heads Together learning process, Think Pair Share one  with Contextual Teaching and Learning, or conventional one, (2) which one having better learning achievement in mathematics, students who have the level of low  anxiety, medium one, or high one, (3) which level of anxiety in learning mathematics gives better learning achievements with Numbered Heads Together learning model, Think Pair Share one with Contextual Teaching and Learning approach one, or conventional one, (4) which learning model (Numbered Heads together, think pair share with contextual Teaching and Learning approach, or conventional) gives better learning achievement  in mathematics  toward the level of low anxiety, medium one , or high one.It was aquasi-experimentalstudy using twoindependent variables(model of learning andthe anxiety of learning mathematics) andonedependent variable(learning achievement of mathematics). The instruments used to collect the data were documentation,testing, andquestionnaires. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data. The sample-taking was done using Sratified Cluster Random Sampling.The results of theresearchare. (1) the learning achievement in Conventional learning model andNumberedHeads Together one areequally well, Think Pair Sharemodelis better thanconventionalone,whileNumberedHeads Togetherandthinkpair share are equally well, (2) the learning achievement in mathematics toward low anxiety and medium one are equally well, low-anxiety learning is better than  highanxiety, medium anxiety and highoneareequally well, (3) in NumberedHeads Together, Think Pair Share, andconventional model, the learning achievement in mathematics toward low anxiety and medium one are equally well, low-anxiety is better than  highanxiety, medium anxiety and highoneareequally well, and (4) the learning achievement inlow, medium, andhigh anxietyat the learning achievement in Conventional learning model andNumberedHeads Together one areequally well, Think Pair Sharemodelis better thanconventionalone,whileNumberedHeads TogetherandThinkPair Share are equally well.   Keywords: Numbered Heads Together, Think Pair Share,Conventional  
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA POKOK BAHASAN HIMPUNAN DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL KELAS VII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO Fakhri Auliya, Nanang Nabhar; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to know the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from the emotional quotient of the students. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the NHT type with scientific approach, the Cooperative Learning Model of the TPS type with scientific approach, and the classical model with scientific approach. This research used the quasi experimental research. It’s population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior Secondary Schools in Sukoharjo. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique and consisted of 262 students. They were grouped into three classes, namely: 92 students in Experimental Class 1, 85 students in Experimental Class 2, and 85 students in Control Class. The instruments to gather the data were test of achievement in Mathematics on the learning topic of Set, and emotional quotient questionnaire. The proposed hypotheses of the research were analyzed by using the two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research were as follows. 1) The cooperative learning model of the NHT type with scientific approach results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with scientific approach, and the classical model with scientific approach, the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with scientific approach results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the classical model with scientific approach. 2) Emotional quotient gives students a different effect on mathematics achievement of students in the topic of Set. The students with the high emotional quotient have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the moderate emotional quotient and those with the low emotional quotient, the students with the moderate emotional quotient have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low emotional quotient. (3) There was not an interaction the aforementioned learning models and the categories of the emotional quotient on the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students.Keywords: NHT, TPS, Classical, Scientific Approach and Emotional Quotient.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NHT DENGAN PMR DAN TSTS DENGAN PMR DITINJAU DARI KEMANDIRIAN BELAJAR SISWA Zaotul Wardi; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Gatut Iswahyudi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of the learning models on learning achievement in mathematics viewed from self regulated learning. The learning models compared were cooperative learning model of the NHT type by using realistic mathematics approach, TSTS type by using realistic mathematics approach and the conventional learning model. The type of the research was a quasi experimental research. The population was all of the students in grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools of district of Eastern Lombok in academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 308 students consisted of 104 in experimental class 1, 104 in experimental class 2, and 100 in control class. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test on the topic of geometry and questionnaire of self regulated learning. The data was analyzed by using two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) The cooperative learning model of the NHT type with the realistic mathematics approach resulted in alearning achievement equally well as the cooperative learning model of the TSTS type with realistic mathematics approach. The cooperative learning model of the NHT type and the cooperative learning model of the TSTS type with realistic mathematics approach provided better learning achievement than the conventional learning, (2) The students with the high self regulated learning had a better learning achievement in mathematics than those with the moderate and low self regulated learning categories, and the students with the moderate self regulated learning had a better learning achievement in mathematics than those with the low self regulated learning, (3) There was an interaction among learning models and the catagories of self regulated learning on learning achievement in mathematics.Keywords: NHT, TSTS, realistic mathematics approach, self regulated learning.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STAD DAN TPS DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAVI TERHADAP PRESTASI DAN MOTIVASI BELAJAR DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Sutrisno Sutrisno; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Budi Usodo
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research is to determine the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement and motivation viewed from the learning styles of students. The learning models which were compared were the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach, the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with SAVI approach, and the conventional learning model. This research used the quasi experimental research method. Its population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior Secondary Schools in Batang regency in Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples of the research consisted of 300 students and were divided into three groups, namely: 100 students in control group, 102 students in experimental group 1, and 98 students in experimental group 2. The instruments of the research were questionnaire of learning style, questionnaire of learning motivation, and test of learning achievement. The data of the research were processed by using the multivariate analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research are as follows: (1) both the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach and the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with SAVI approach, by and large, result in the best learning achievement, and the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach results in the best learning motivation; (2) in general, the best learning achievement is reached by the students with the auditory learning style, which is followed by those with the visual learning style and those with the kinesthetic learning style respectively, but on the learning motivation aspect there is not any best learning style of the three learning styles, and for sure it is known that the students with the auditory learning style has a better learning motivation than those with the kinesthetic learning style; (3) in the conventional learning model and in the cooperative learning of the STAD type, the learning achievement 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, but the learning achievement of the students with the auditory learning style is better than that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style; in the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with SAVI approach, the learning achievement of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style and that of with the kinesthetic learning style; and (4) in the visual and kinesthetic learning styles, the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach and that of the TPS type with SAVI approach result in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model, and both the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach and that of the TPS type with SAVI approach result in the same learning achievement; in the auditory learning style, the cooperative learning model of the TPS type with SAVI approach results in the same learning achievement as that of the STAD type of SAVI approach and the conventional learning model, but the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with SAVI approach results in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model. Keywords: STAD, TPS, SAVI, Learning Style, Learning Motivation.

Page 13 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 11   12   13   14   15 

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