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
 25   26   27   28   29 
RESPONS MAHASISWA PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA UNIVERSITAS VETERAN BANGUN NUSANTARA DALAM MENYELESAIKAN SOAL LOGIKA BERDASAR TAKSONOMI SOLO Exacta, Annisa Prima; Sujadi, Imam; Subanti, Sri
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. The objectives of this research were: 1) to describe the response level of mathematics students in Veteran Bangun Nusantara University Sukoharjo based on SOLO taxonomy in solving logic problems; 2) to describe the characteristic of students response at each level of SOLO taxonomy; 3) to study if there is misconception at each level of SOLO taxonomy about students response.This research was a qualitative research. The subject in this research were the students of Mathematics Education, Veteran Bangun Nusantara University on the first semester academic year 2014/2015. The main instruments used in this research to collect the data was the researcher and the other instruments were test instrument and interview guide instrument. Data analysis technique was conducted by data reduction, data presentation and data verification or made conclusion. The conclusions as follows. 1) Students response level based on SOLO taxonomy in solving logic problems comprised prestructural, unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract, 2) Students response characteristic at each level of SOLO taxonomy as follows. a) Prestructural: the answer completely irrelevant, could not understand the problem given, could not connect the concept and the answer, and the answer was illogical. b) Unistructural: there was a clear and simple relationship between one concept to another but the core of concept widely was not yet understood. c) Multistructural: understood some of the components but still separated from each other so a comprehensive understanding was not formed, some simple connections have been established however metacognitive abilities have not appeared yet at this level. d) Relational: could connect the fact and the theory and also connect the action and the objective, showed understanding ability of some components from the whole concept, understood the role of the parts to the whole and has been able to apply a concept in similar circumstances, have better ability to expressed ideas and made some automatic repetition. e) Extended Abstract: have the ability to think conceptually, to connect not only limited to the concepts that have been given alone but with concepts beyond that, could made generalizations in different problems and made parables in specific situations. 3) Based on the 5 response level of SOLO that happened to students, scheme on each level as shown below. At prestructural and unistructural response levels that were students who have misconceptions. At the multistructural response level, there were students who have a scheme but invalid because the result of the first and second data collection was not the same. The first result were correct scheme but the second result were misconceptions. At the relational response level, there were students who have misconceptions and at the extended abstract response level, there were students who have a correct scheme or in other words did not experience misconceptions.Keywords: SOLO taxonomy, response level, scheme, misconception.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DAN PAIRS CHECK DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Hafidhah, Tien Syarifah; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of learning models on the knowledge and skill aspect viewed from adversity quotient (AQ). The learning models compared were learning model of the Numbered Heads Together (NHT) with scientific approach, Pairs Check (PC) with scientific approach, and classical with scientific approach. This research was a quasi-experimental research. The population of the research was all of the eighth grade students of the State Junior High School in Sukoharjo. The instruments used to collect data were mathematics knowledge aspect test, mathematics skill aspect test and adversity quotient questionnaire. Technique of analyzing data that used was unbalanced two ways multivariat analysis of variance. From the research, it can be concluded that: (1) learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT with scientific approach gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with learning by using cooperative learning model of PC with scientific approach, learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT with scientific approach gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with learning by using classical learning with scientific approach, learning by using cooperative learning model of PC with scientific approach gave better knowledge and skill aspect than learning by using classical learning with scientific approach, (2) students who have adversity quotient of Climber gave better knowledge and skill aspect than students who have adversity quotient of Camper and Quitter, students who have adversity quotient of Camper gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with the students who have adversity quotient of Quitter, (3) on each learning model, students who have adversity quotient of Climber gave better knowledge and skill aspect than students who have adversity quotient of Camper and Quitter, students who have adversity quotient of Camper gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with the students who have adversity quotient of Quitter, (4) on each adversity quotient, learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT with scientific approach gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with learning by using cooperative learning model of PC with scientific approach, learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT with scientific approach gave the same knowledge and skill aspect with learning by using classical learning with scientific approach, learning by using cooperative learning model of PC with scientific approach gave better knowledge and skill aspect than learning by using classical learning with scientific approach.Keywords: cooperative learning model, NHT, PC, classical learning, scientific approach, knowledge aspect, skill aspect.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN TWO STAY TWOSTRAY (TSTS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Rahman, Arif; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (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 investigate the effect of the learning models on learning achievement viewed from learning style types of the students. The learning models compared were NHT, TSTS, and classical with scientific approach model. The type of the research was quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of this research was the students in grade X senior high school in Mataram City on academic year of 2014/2015. The size of the sample was 279 students, which was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The instruments used for data collection were learning style questionnaire and mathematics achievement test. The hypothesis test used unbalance two ways analysis of variance. The results of the research were as follows. (1) NHT and TSTS with scientific approach learning models gave better achievement than classical with scientific learning model. NHT and TSTS with scientific approach learning models gave the same achievement. (2) The students with visual and auditory learning style had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic learning style. The students with visual and auditory learning style had the same achievement. (3) In NHT with scientific approach learning model, the students with visual and auditory learning style the same achievement, the students with auditory and visual learning style had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic learning style. In TSTS and Classical with scientific approach learning models, the students with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning style the same achievement. (4) At the students with visual learning style, NHT and TSTS with scientific approach learning models gave the same achievement. NHT with scientific approach learning model gave better achievement than classical with scientific learning model. TSTS and classical with scientific approach learning models gave the same achievement. At the students with auditory and kinesthetic learning style, NHT, TSTS, and classical with scientific approach learning models gave the same achievement.Keywords: Numbered Heads Together, Two Stay Two Stray, Classical learning model, Scientific Approach, Learning Style, Achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING (PBL) DAN OPEN-ENDED LEARNING (OEL) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI SEGI EMPAT DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA KELAS VII MTs NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN NGAWI TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Purwaningsih, Tri; Usodo, Budi; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
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 aims of this research are to know: 1) which learning models between OEL learning model using scientific approach, PBL scientific approach, or direct learning, give better achievement in learning quadrangle, 2) what kind of creativity between high creativity, medium creativity, or low creativity give better achievement, 3) in each students’ creativity, which learning model gives better achievement in mathematics learning between OEL using scientific approach, PBL using scientific approach, or direct learning, and 4) in each learning model, which one gives better achievement in mathematics learning or mathematics learning achievement between the students who have high creativity, medium, or low. This research was a quasi-experimental study by using a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of the research was the seventh grades of MTsN in Ngawi regency in the Academic Year of 2014/2015. The sample was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling. Consist consisting of 318 students: 108 students in first experiment, 102 students in second experiment, and 108 students in control class. This experimental used independent variables that were learning model and the students’ creativity, and dependent variable was achievement in mathematics learning or mathematics learning achievement. Moreover, the validity test of instruments (the mathematics test and questionnaire) was done by validator. Then, the reliability of test instrument used KR-20 formula, whereas, the reliability of questionnaire used Cronbach Alpha. The internal consistency test of questionnaire was done by using Product Moment Correlation of Karl Pearson. The prerequisite test consists of Normality Test done by Lilliefors and Homogeneity Test using Bartlett. Then, data was analyzed by using two-way ANOVA.The results of the research are: 1) the mathematics learning using OEL with scientific approach gives better achievement than using PBL with scientific approach or direct learning, and PBL with scientific approach gives better achievement than direct learning, 2) the students who have high, medium and low creativity have same/equally mathematics learning achievement, 3) each  creativity, the students who learn mathematics using OEL have better achievement than those who learnt mathematics using PBL and direct learning, while the students who learnt mathematics using PBL have better achievement than those who use direct learning, and 4) in each learning model, the students who have high, medium and low creativity have same/equally mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Problem-Based Learning, Open-Ended Learning, Students’ Creativity. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PENEMUAN TERBIMBING, PAIR CHECKS, DAN THINK PAIR SHARE PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR Muawanah, Lina; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of guided discovery learning model, Pair Check (PC), and Think Pair Share (TPS) on the mathematics achievement of students in terms of student learning styles. This research used the quasi-experimental with factorial design 3x3. The population of this research was all Junior High School eighth grade students in Semarang Regency that used KTSP 2006. The sampling technique was conducted by stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments used to collect data were mathematics achievement test and questionnaire learning styles. The data was analyzed using two ways ANOVA with unbalanced cell, then then preceded with multiple comparative test using Scheffe method. Based on the hypothesis test, the results of this research obtained the following conclusions. 1) Guided discovery learning model provided a better learning achievement than learning model PC and TPS, as well as learning model TPS and PC  provided the same learning achievement. 2) Students with a visual learning style had better learning achievement than the students with auditory and kinesthetic learning styles, as well as students with auditory and kinesthetic learning styles had the same learning achievement. 3) In each learning model that guided discovery, PC and TPS, students with learning styles visual, auditory and kinesthetic provided the same mathematics learning achievement (4) In each of the students with visual and kinesthetic learning styles, learning model guided discovery, PC, and TPS had the same learning achievement. At the students with auditory learning styles, learning models had guided discovery learning achievement were better than a PC, the PC and TPS learning model had the same mathematics achievement, as well as guided discovery learning model and TPS had the same mathematics achievement.Keywords: Learning model, cooperative learning, guided discovery, PC, TPS, learning styles, learning achievement in Mathematics
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) DENGAN PENDEKATAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK PADA MATERI RELASI DAN FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SEMESTER 1 SMP N DI KABUPATEN SRAGEN Sari, Rahmita Ika; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
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 objectives of this research were to find out: (1) which students had the better mathematics learning achievement, those treated with direct learning, those with GI with PMR or those with TTW with PMR approach, (2) which students had the better mathematics learning achievement, those with high or medium or low learning creativity, (3) in each learning creativity, which students had the better mathematics learning achievement, those treated with direct learning, those with GI with PMR or those with TTW with PMR approach, and (4) in each learning model, which students had the better mathematics learning achievement, those with high or medium or low learning creativity. This research was a quasi experimental research employing 2 independent variables (learning model and learning creativity) and 1 dependent variable (mathematics learning achievement). The population of research was all of the VIII graders of Public Junior High Schools in the school year of 2013/2014. The sampling technique used was Stratified Cluster Random Sampling. The sample students consisted of three schools: SMP Negeri 1, SMP Negeri 6 and SMP Negeri 2 Karangmalang Sragen. 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 research were as follows: (1) the students treated with direct learning model had learning achievement as good as those with GI learning model with PMR approach, those with TTW learning model with PMR approach had learning achievement better than those with direct learning, while those with TTW with PMR had learning achievement as good as those with GI learning model with PMR approach, (2) the students with high learning creativity had learning achievement as good as those with medium one, those with high and medium learning creativity had learning achievement better than those with low one, (3) in each learning creativity level, the students treated with direct learning model had learning achievement as same as those with GI learning model with PMR approach, those with TTW learning model with PMR approach had learning achievement better than those with direct learning, and those with TTW with PMR had learning achievement as same as those with GI learning model with PMR approach, (4) in each learning model, the students with high learning creativity had learning achievement as same as those with medium one, those with high and medium learning creativity had learning achievement better than those with low one.Keywords: Group Investigation (GI), Think Talk Write (TTW), Realistic Mathematics Education approach, Learning Creativity.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL), DISCOVERY LEARNING (DL), DAN PROBLEM POSSING (PP) DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN MAJEMUK SISWA PADA MATERI KUBUS DAN BALOK SMP NEGERI KABUPATEN DEMAK Shanti Indah Lestari; Budiyono Budiyono; Isnandar Slamet
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 objective of this research is to investigate the effect of learning models on the learning achievement in mathematics viewed from the multiple intelligences. The learning models compared were the PBL, DL, and PP models. Its population was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Demak. The samples of research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The proposed hypotheses of research were tested by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of research are as follows. 1) The students instructed with the PBL model have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the DL and PP models, and the students instructed with the DL model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the PP model. 2) The students with the logical-mathematical intelligence have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the visual and interpersonal intelligences, and the students with the visual intelligence have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the interpersonal intelligence. 3) In the students with the logical-mathematical and visual intelligences, the PBL model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the DL, the DL model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the PP model, and the PBL model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the PP model. In the students with the interpersonal intelligence, the PBL model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the DL, the DL model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the PP model, but the PBL model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the PP model. 4) In the PBL, DL , and PP models, the students with the logical-mathematical intelligence have the same learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the visual intelligence, the students with the visual intelligence have the same learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the interpersonal intelligence, and the students with the logical-mathematical intelligence have the same learning achievement in Mathematics as those with the interpersonal intelligence.Keywords: Problem Based Learning (PBL), Discovery Learning (DL), Problem Possing (PP) and Multiple Intelligences.
EKPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TWO STAY TWO STRAY DENGAN METODE PROBLEM SOLVING PADA POKOK BAHASAN PERSAMAAN GARIS LURUS DITINJAU DARI KATEGORI MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES PESERTA DIDIK KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Fitriawan, Dona
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 the research were to determine the effect of learning models onlearning achievement viewed from students’ multiple intelligences. The learning models compared werecooperative learning model Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS) with problem solving method, Two Stay TwoStray (TSTS) and conventional. This research was a quasi-experimental research using 3?3 factorialdesign. The populations of the research were all students of Junior High School (SMP) onKaranganyar Regency. The samples of the research were the eight grade students of SMP Negeri 1Tasikmadu, SMP Negeri 2 Jaten, and SMP Negeri 5 Karanganyar containing 282 students (94students for first experimental class, 93 students for second experimental class, and 95 students forcontrol class). The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. In collectingthe 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. Thetechnique of analyzing the data was unbalanced two-ways Anova. The result of the research showsthat: (1) TSTS with problem solving method is better than TSTS and conventional in producingthe students’ Mathematics learning achievement, meanwhile TSTS is as good as conventional inproducing students’ Mathematics learning achievement; (2) students having high multipleintelligences are better than those having middle and low multiple intelligences in producing thestudents’ Mathematics learning achievement, meanwhile students having middle multipleintelligences are better than those who have low multiple intelligences in producing Mathematicslearning achievement; (3) (a) the students’ having high multiple intelligences taught by usingTSTS with problem solving method are better than those having middle or low multipleintelligences in producing the students’ Mathematics learning achievement whereas studentshaving middle multiple intelligences have better learning achievement than those who have lowmultiple intelligences; (b) The students’ having high multiple intelligences taught by using TSTSare better than those who have low multiple intelligences in producing the students’ Mathematicslearning achievement but the students having high multiple intelligences taught by using TSTS areas good as those who have middle multiple intelligences; (c) The students taught by usingconventional having high, middle or low multiple intelligences produce same learningachievement; (4) (a) the students having high multiple intelligences taught by using TSTS withproblem solving method are as good as who are taught by using TSTS and conventional inproducing students’ Mathematics learning achievement; (b) the students having middle multipleintelligences taught by using TSTS with problem solving method are better than those who aretaught by using TSTS and conventional in producing students’ mathematics learning achievementbut they are as good as those who are taught by using TSTS whereas the students taught by usingTSTS are as good as those who taught by using conventional; (c) the students having low multipleintelligences taught by using TSTS with problem solving method, TSTS, and conventional havethe same mathematics learning achievement.Keywords : TSTS, problem solving, multiple intelligences
PROSES BERPIKIR SISWA KELAS V SEKOLAH DASAR DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA Sudibyo, Nugroho Arif; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 7 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This study aim to describe the thinking process of elementary school fifth grade students in solving mathematics problem based on Krulik and Rudnick rule. This research was a qualitative research using the case study method. Sampling was done by a combination of purposive sampling and snowball sampling technique. The subject of research that used in this study was twelve subjects, that was: four high-ability students, four moderate-ability students and four low-ability students. The data was validated by using a time triangulation test. The results show: (1) At the step of reading and thinking, students do not directly identify all of the facts in writing. After identifying the facts, students identify questions from the given problem. Furthermore, students do not portray the problems encountered but directly process the needed information to answer the question; (2) At the step of exploring and planning, students organize the information on the matter. Students consider enough information on the matter because there is a relation between the known and the asked. On the other hand, students do not make tables, diagrams, charts, tables or images from a given problem, but directly chose a strategy to answer the question; (3) At the step of selecting the strategy, students use the making list of all possible answers strategy. Students write down all the possibilities answers in the answer sheet. However, there are students who also use the guessing and testing strategy, guess how the value of variable and test whether the variable value is correct. In addition there are also students who use simulation or experimental strategies, students try to experiments; (4) At the step of finding the answer, the student use estimation in finding the answer. On the other hand, there is one student who uses algebra ability to find the answers. Students are also assuming the third day as a variable. After obtaining the value of the variable, student examine whether the numbers are correct. (5) At the step of reflecting and extending, students can review the results of the calculation by return on the answer sheet. Then students find that the answer is correct. Furthermore, students assume no alternative other solutions. Then the students do not make a generalizations of matter and discover the concept of matter.Keywords: process thinking, mathematics and problem solving.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING (DL) DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG DITINJAU DARI KEMANDIRIAN BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN BANYUMAS Sandhy Prasetyo Tito Kurniawan; Budi Usodo; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (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 learning independency. The learning models compared were direct Learning, DL, and PBL. This was quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population were all students of Junior High School in Banyumas. The samples were the students of SMPN 1 Patikraja, SMPN 2 Patikraja, and SMPN 2 Kalibagor, taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and learning independency. The data were analyzed by two ways anova. Based on the data analysis, it can be concluded as follows. (1) The students treated with DL and PBL learning models provided better learning achievement than those treated with Direct learning model. The students treated with DL had mathematics learning achievement equal to those treated with PBL. (2) The students treated with high learning independency and medium learning independency provided better learning achievement than those treated with low learning independency. The students with high learning independency had learning achievement equal to those with medium independency. (3) In each learning independency group of students, DL and PBL learning models provided better achievement than the Direct one, and DL learning model provided learning achievement equal to the PBL learning model did. (4) In each learning model, the students treated with high learning independency and medium learning independency provided better learning achievement than those treated with low learning independency. The students with high learning independency had learning achievement equal to those with medium independency.Keywords: Discovery Learning, Problem Based Learning, Direct Learning, Learning Independency 

Page 27 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 25   26   27   28   29 

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