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
 16   17   18   19   20 
EFEKTIVITAS MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION (TAI) DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) PADA PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES SISWA SMP KABUPATEN LAMPUNG TIMUR TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012/2013 Endang Hariyati; 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 aims of the research were to determine the effect of learning models on learning achievement viewed from students’ multiple intelligences. The learning models compared were cooperative learning model Teams Assisted Individualization (TAI), Problem Based Learning (PBL) and conventional. This research was a quasi-experimental research using  factorial design. The populations of the research were all students of Junior High School (SMP) on Lampung Timur Regency. The samples of the research were the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 1 Pekalongan, SMP Negeri 2 Pekalongan, and SMP Negeri 3 Batanghari containing 282 students (94 students for first experimental class, 93 students for second experimental class, and 95 students for control class). The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. In collecting the data, the instruments used were test and questionnaire. Test was used to get the students’ learning achievement data and questionnaire was used to get multiple intelligences data. The technique of analyzing the data was unbalanced two-ways Anova. The result of the research are as follows  (1) Cooperative learning model TAI provides better mathematics achievement than  the conventional model of learning and PBL, PBL learning model produces better performance over the conventional learning. (2) Multiple intelligences with mathematics logic types provide better math achievement than other types of multiple intelligences linguistic and interpersonal, the type of multiple intelligences linguistic providing academic achievement as well as the type of multiple intelligences interpersonal. (3) The students with LI multiple intelligences type, cooperative learning model TAI has the same mathematics achievement with the PBL model, PBL model has better performance than conventional models, and cooperative learning model TAI has the same mathematics achievement with conventional learning models. The students with multiple intelligences mathematics logic type, TAI cooperative learning model provides a better learning achievement than learning model PBL, PBL learning model provides academic achievement as well as conventional learning models, cooperative learning model TAI provide significantly better learning achievement than with conventional learning models. The students with multiple intelligences type interpersonal, TAI cooperative learning model, PBL and conventional provide similar good performance. (4) The students use cooperative learning model TAI, the type of multiple intelligences linguistic provide better learning achievement than the interpersonal category of multiple intelligences, linguistic multiple intelligences category provides academic achievement as well as multiple intelligences mathematics logic category, the category of multiple intelligences significantly provide that mathematic logic achievement as well as multiple intelligences interpersonal category. The students use PBL and conventional learning models, the type of linguistic multiple intelligences, the mathematics logic type of multiple intelligences and type the interpersonal produces similar good performance. Keywords: TAI, PBL, multiple intelligences  
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINKING ALOUD PAIR PROBLEM SOLVING (TAPPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI OPERASI ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI SURAKARTA Hidayat, Edisut Taufik; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
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 objectives of research were to find out: 1) which one is better learning achievement, scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, or scientific classical, 2) which one is better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low AQ, 3) in each learning models, which one is better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low AQ, 4) in each AQ level, which one is better learning achievement, scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, or scientific classical. This research was the quasi experimental research with 3×3 factorial design. The population of research was all grade VIII students of Junior High School in Surakarta. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments that used were achievement test and Adversity Quotient (AQ) questionare. The proposed hypothesis of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two-way ANOVA. The results of this research were as follows. 1) Scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific TAPPS and scientific classical, while scientific TAPPS had better learning achievement than scientific classical. 2) The students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium and low AQ, while the students with medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. 3) In scientific NHT, the students with high, medium, and low AQ had the same learning achievement. In scientific TAPPS, the students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium AQ, while the students with high and medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. In scientific classical, the students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium and low AQ, while the students with medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. 4) At the students with high AQ, scientific NHT and scientific classical had the same learning achievement with scientific TAPPS, while scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific classical. At the students with medium AQ, scientific NHT had the same learning achievement with scientific TAPPS, while scientific NHT and scientific TAPPS had better learning achievement than scientific classical. At the student with low AQ, scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific TAPPS and scientific classical, while scientific TAPPS had the same learning achievement with scientific classical.Keywords: scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, scientific classical, Adversity Quotient (AQ), Achievement
KATEGORI BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI 1 SURAKARTA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI POKOK HIMPUNAN Rahmawati Masruroh; Imam Sujadi; Dewi Retno Sari S
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 3 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this research was to describe the fluency, flexibility, and novelty of seventh grade students of SMP Negeri 1 Surakarta who have the high, moderate, and low mathematics ability to solve the mathematics problem on the topic of union. This research was qualitative research. The subjects were taken from seventh grade student of SMP Negeri 1 Surakarta. The subjects were 9 students; 3 students with high ability, 3 students with moderate ability, and 3 students with low ability. Data were collected through think aloud method in which students were asked to express what he thought orally. The main data sources were the words and actions of students while being interviewed. Data was validated using data triangulation where data collection was conducted at two different time. The research results showed that  the students with the high, moderate, and low mathematics ability had different characteristics in fluency, flexibility and novelty.Keywords: fluency, flexibility, novelty, problems solving.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN GI DENGAN PENDEKATAN QL PADA PECAHAN TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR DAN KREATIVITAS SISWA Binti Anisaul Khasanah; Budiyono Budiyono; Budi Usodo
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: This research aims to know the different effect among learning used Group Investigation with Quantum Learning approach (GI-QL), Group Investigation (GI), and direct learning  models. This research was quasi experimental research with factorial design of 3x3x2. The population of this research was the seventh grade students of State Junior High School of District Pringsewu in The Academic Year 2013/2014. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The data analysis used a three way analysis of variance with different cell at significance levels 0.05. The results of this research was as follows: (1) learning used GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (2.a) at learning used GI-QL, kinesthetic, auditory, and visual learners have the same learning achievement; at learning used GI, visual learners have better  learning achievement than auditory, and kinesthetic and auditory learners have the same learning achievement; whereas at learning used direct learning models, kinesthetic learners have better  learning achievement than visual and kinesthetic learners, and visual and kinesthetic learners have the same learning achievement, (2.b) for kinesthetic and auditory learners, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI and direct learning models result the same learning achievement; and for visual learners, GI-QL and GI result the same learning achievement but better than direct learning models, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (3.a) at each of learning models, students with high learning creativity have better learning achievement than low learning creativity, (3.b) at each of learning creativity categories, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (4.a) at each of learning models with each of learning styles, students with high learning creativity have better learning achievement than low learning creativity, (4.b) at each of learning models with each of learning creativity, visual learners have the same learning achievement with kinesthetic learners but it better  than auditory learners, and auditory learners have better learning achievement than kinesthetic learners, (4.c) at each of learning styles with each of learning creativity, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models.Keywords: Group Investigation, Quantum Learning, Direct Learning, Learning Style, Learning Creativity. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI HIMPUNAN DITINJAU DARI AKTIVITAS BELAJAR Agung Nugroho, Tri Wahyu; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to know the effect of learning models on mathematics learning achievement viewed from the students learning activity. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning model of the numbered heads together with scientific approach (NHT-S), the cooperative learning model of the Think Pair Share with scientific approach (TPS-S), and model of classical learning with scientific approach (K-S). The type of the research was a quasi experimental research with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The population were all seventh grade students of Junior High School in Temanggung  regency on academic year 2014/2015. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and learning activities questionnaires. The hypotheses of the research was analyzed by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells at the significance level of . The results of the research were as follows. 1) NHT-S gave better mathematics achievements than TPS-S and K-S. Both TPS-S and K-S gave the same mathematics achievements. 2) Students with high learning activity gave better mathematics achievements than students with medium learning activity and low learning activity, while students with medium learning activity got mathematics achievements as good as students with low learning activity. 3) For NHT-S, students with high learning activity and medium learning activity got the same mathematics achievements, students with high learning activity got better mathematics achievements than student with low learning activity, and students with medium learning activity and low learning activity  got same mathematics achievements. For TPS-S and K-S, student with high, medium, and low learning activity got the same mathematics achievements. 4) For students with high and medium learning activity, NHT-S gave better mathematics achievements than TPS-S , both NHT-S and TPS gave the same mathematics achievement with K-S. For students with low learning activity , NHT-S, TPS-S  and K-S gave the same mathematics achievements.Keywords: NHT, TPS, Classical, Scientific Approach, Learning Activity
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN RESOURCE BASED LEARNING (RBL)DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIK PESERTA DIDIK KELAS XI SMA SEKABUPATEN KUDUS TAHUN 2013/2014 Arifa Apriliana; Riyadi Riyadi; 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: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the students mathematical communication skills. The learning models compared were RBL, PBL and Direct learning model. Data analysis techniques used to test the hypothesis was two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. 1) RBL and PBL learning models have produced the same mathematics achievement, but RBL and PBL learning models have produced the mathematics learning achievement better than Direct Learning. 2) learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and learners with medium and low mathematical communication skills also have the same mathematics achievement. But, learners with high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills. 3) learners with high mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with medium mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL and PBL have had the same mathematics achievement, and who are learning by using PBL and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement, but learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL have had a better mathematical achievement than who are learning by using  Direct learning model. 4) In the RBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement. In the PBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement. In the Direct learning model, learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and in the Direct learning model, learners who have medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement, but in the Direct learning model, learners who have high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills.Keywords: Learning model, RBL, PBL, Direct learning model, Mathematical communication skills, and Mathematics achievement.
PENGARUH MODEL PROBLEM POSING SETTING KOOPERATIF TERHADAP PRESTASI DAN MINAT BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS X SMA DI KABUPATEN MERAUKE DITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF SISWA Irene Endah Tri Winihati; Budiyono Budiyono; Budi Usodo
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract:  The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement and learning interest viewed from the student cognitive style. The learning models compared were conventional model, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem posing, and Problem Posing model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population were the students of Senior High School in Merauke regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 213 students consisted of 71 students in control group, 71 students in the first experimental group and 71 students in the second experimental group. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test, quesioner, and Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT). The data was analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows.  (1) Both  the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing and Problem Posing learning model result in a better learning achievement than the conventional learning model, and the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing result in a better learning achievement than the Problem Posing learning model. (2) The conventional learning model, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing, and Problem Posing learning model results in the same learning interest. (3) The   field independent students have a better learning achievement than the field dependent students. (4) The field independent students have a better learning interest  than the  field dependent students. (5) For the field dependent students, the setting cooperatif learning model of Problem Posing gives  better learning achievement than the Problem Posing model, and Problem Posing learning model gives better learning achievement than the conventional learning model, and the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing gives the same learning achievement with the Problem Posing model.  For the field independent students, the setting cooperative learning model of Problem Posing and the Problem Posing model gives  better learning achievement than the conventional learning model. (6) For the field dependent students, each learning models gives the same learning interest. For the field independent  students, each learning models gives the same learning interest.Keywords: Problem Posing,Setting cooperative, Learning achievement, learning interest, cognitive style.
IMPLEMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF MODEL THINK PAIR SHARE DAN LEARNING TOGETHER DENGAN PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK DITINJAU DARI MINAT BELAJAR SISWA Mardodo Mardodo; Budiyono Budiyono; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of research was to find out: (1) which ones having better achievement, the students using TPS (Think Pair Share) learning model with RMA, LT (Learning Together) learning model with RMA or Direct Instruction, (2) Viewed from students’ interest, high, middle, and low, which ones having better achievement, the students using TPS (Think Pair Share) learning model with RMA or LT (Learning Together) learning model with RMA or Direct Instruction, and (3) students’ achievement  viewed from students’ interest on each learning model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research.  The population of research was all VIII graders of  Public Junior High schools in Karanganyar Regency consisting of 75 schools. The sample was taken using cluster random sampling. The size of the sample was 261 students consisted of  87 students in the first experimental group, 87 students in the second experimental group and 87 students in the control group. Collecting data has been done through multiple choice test to know students’ achievement and questionnaire to know students interest in learning. Data analysis technique used two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of research as follows: (1) TPS with RMA provided learning achievement better than LT with RMA and Direct Instruction, and LT with RMA provided learning achievement better than the Direct Instruction. (2) Viewed from students’ interest, in   the high interest, TPS with RMA provided learning achievement as LT with RMA did, also LT with RMA provided learning achievement as Direct Instruction did, but TPS with  RMA provided learning achievement better than Direct Instruction did. In the midlle and low interest, all learning models provided the same learning achievement. (3) In TPS with RMA, the students with high interest had better achievement than those with middle and low interest. Meanwhile, in both LT with RMA and In Direct Instruction, the students with three categories of interest had the same learning achievement.Keywords: TPS with Realistic Mathematics Approach (RMA), LT with RMA, Interest Learning, Students Achievement on mathematics. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STUDENT TEAMS ACHIEVEMENT DIVISION (STAD) DAN TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) PADA MATERI POKOK DIMENSI TIGA DITINJAU DARI AKTIVITAS BELAJAR SISWA SMA KELAS X DI KABUPATEN MAGETAN TAHUN PELAJARAN 2011/2012 Estu Hari Prabawanti
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 aims of this research were to know: (1) which one has a better learning achievement between cooperative learning STAD, TGT, and conventional learning, (2) which one has a better learning achievement; the students having high, medium, or low learning activity, (3) which one gives a better learning achievement based on their high, medium, and low learning activity between cooperative learning STAD, TGT and conventional learning. The population of the research was the whole students of tenth grade of senior high school in Magetan. The sampling technique was done withstratified cluster random sampling. Based on the result of data analysis, it can be concluded: (1) The cooperative learning STAD gave a better learning achievement than TGT, TGT gave a better achievement than conventional learning, and STAD gave a better learning than conventional learning. (2) The students with higher learning activity had a better learning achievement than the students with lower learning activity. (3) For studentshaving high learning activity, cooperative learning STAD had a better learning achievement than TGT and conventional learning, and cooperative learning TGT and conventional learning had the same learning achievement.For students having medium learning activity, cooperative learning STAD and TGT had the samelearning achievement and so didTGTand conventional learning, however, cooperative learning STAD had a better learning achievement than conventional learning. For students havinglow learning activity, cooperative learning STAD, TGT, and conventional learning had the same learning achievement.Keywords: Student Teams Achievement Division, Team Games Tournament,conventional , activity.
REPRESENTASI MATEMATIS SISWA KELAS VII DI SMP N 9 YOGYAKARTA DALAM MEMBANGUN KONSEP SISTEM PERSAMAAN LINEAR DUA VARIABEL Rima Aksen Cahdriyana; Imam Sujadi; Riyadi Riyadi
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 purpose of this study was to describe the preference of using of mathematical representations form of the seventh grade students of SMP 9 Yogyakarta who have high ability in developing the concept of a Systems of Linear Equations in Two Variables (SLETV) and describing the characteristics of the use of such mathematical representations form. This research was categorized as a qualitative case study approach. The subjects of this study were 6 (six) students of seventh grade of SMP Negeri 9 Yogyakarta who have high ability. Data in this study were the use of mathematical representation forms in developing concepts of SLETV that obtained from observation and interview-based tasks. The data were analyzed into three categories of SLETV developing concepts: 1) stating SLETV definition and SLETV’s solution definition; 2) using the concept SLETV in everyday life; and 3) solving the problem of SLETV. The use of students’ mathematical representation that includes a symbolic representation, a verbal representation, and a visual representation were be seen by each category. The validity of the data being used in this study was triangulation time, through the first observational data and task-based interview, and the second observational data and task-based interviews. The same consistent data were categorized as valid data that illustrate the use of students’ mathematical representation in developing  concepts of SLETV. The results of this study are as follows. 1) The preference of the use of students’ representation forms in stating SLETV definition and solution sets by using verbal representation. Characteristics of using this representation are by mentioning SLETV’ characteristics (for SLETV definition), and by mentioning the characteristics SLETV solution (for solution sets); 2) Preference of the use of students representation forms in using SLETV concept in the daily life is by using symbolic representation. The characteristics of the use of representation are: a) by changing the description of the conditions that are known to be an equation form; b) by making a conjecture to find the right answer; c) by clarifying the rightness of the conjecture that has been made to determine the correct answer; d) by performing algebra arithmetic operations, and arithmetic operations to determine the right answer. 3) The preference of the use of students’ representation forms in finishing SLETV problem is by using  symbolic representation. The characteristics of using this representation are: a) by changing the shape that was known as an equation form; b) by manipulating the form of the equations that have been made to get the right answer easier; c) by making a conjecture to find the right answer; d) by clarifying the rightness of the conjecture that has been made to determine the correct answer; e) by doing algebra arithmetic operations and arithmetic operations to determine the right answer.Keywords : Developing  of concepts, Systems of Linear Equations in Two Variables (SLETV), mathematical representation.

Page 18 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 16   17   18   19   20 

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