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
 26   27   28   29   30 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DAN MOOD UNDERSTAND RECALL DETECT ELABORATE REVIEW (MURDER) PADA MATERI POKOK LOGARITMA DITINJAU DARI MINAT BELAJAR SISWA KELAS X SMK SE KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Mustaqim, Burhan; Riyadi, Riyadi; Sujadi, Imam
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: This research aims at knowing (1) the effectiveness of TPS, MURDER and Direct Instruction model to the students' achievement on mathematics, (2) which learning model TPS, MURDER and Direct Instruction, having better achievement on mathematics viewed from students’ interest, (3) students’ achievement viewed from students’ interest on each learning model. This research is experimental research using factorial design 3x3. The population is students of SMK on technique program in Karanganyar. Sampling is stratified cluster random sampling. The sample is 300 students, 100 is first experimental class, 100 is second experimental class and 100 is control class. Collecting data has been done through multiple choice test to know students’ achievement and questionnaire to know students interest in learning. Instrument test and questionnaire were tested before it is used to take data. Instrument validities test and questionnaire were carried out by validator, reliability test was tested by formula KR-20 and reliability questionnaire was tested with formula Cronbach Alpha while its data analysis technique uses two-way analysis of variance with unequal cells. From the result was concluded that: (1) Students who are taught using cooperative learning model, MURDER, have better achievement than TPS and Direct Instruction. Those taught by using TPS have better achievement than Direct Instruction. (2) Viewed from students’ interest, high, mid, and low, taught by using learning MURDER have better achievement than TPS and those taught by using TPS have better achievement than Direct Instruction. (3) Viewed from learning model MURDER, TPS, and Direct Instruction, students having high interest have better achievement than those students having mid interest and students having mid interest have better achievement than those students having low interest.Keywords: MURDER, TPS, Interests Learning, Students Achievement on mathematics.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE BERBASIS ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN PONOROGOTAHUN 2013/2014 Dwi A, Yuridis Madyarsa; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Usodo, Budi
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: This research was aimed to know in polyhedral concept: (1) which one give better achievement between TPS-AfL, TPS, or Direct Learning, (2) which one have better achievement between high, medium or low creativity students, (3) for each creativity levels, which one give better achievement between TPS-AfL, TPS, or Direct Learning, (4) for each learning model, which one have better achievement between high, medium or low creativity students. This was quasi-experimental research designed by factorial 3x3. The population was 8th grade students of SMPN even semester academic year 2013/2014 in Ponorogo regency. The sample was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling. Total sample was 255 students, consisted of 79 students as TPS-AfL sampel, 89 students as TPS sampel, and 87 students as Direct Learning sampel. The data were collected by using documentation, questionnaire and test. The data of research were analyzed by using analysis of variance with unequal cells, then continued by using Scheefe’ method. According to the data analysis, it can be concluded that in polyhedral concept: (1) students learnt using TPS-AfL and TPS, had better achievement than students learnt using Direct Learning, students learnt using TPS-AfL had better achievement than students learnt using TPS, (2) high creativity students had better achievement than those of medium and low creativity students, however medium and low creativity students had the same achievement, (3) for TPS-AfL and TPS learning, students with high, medium, and low creativity had the same achievement, for Direct Learning, high creativity students had the same achievement as medium creativity students, however medium creativity students had the same achievement as low creativity students, meanwhile high creativity students had better achievement than low creativity students, (4) for high and medium creativity students, TPS-AfL, TPS, and Direct Learning gave the same achievement, meanwhile for low creativity students, TPS-AfL gave better achievement than students TPS and Direct Learning, meanwhile, TPS and Direct Learning gave the same achievement.Keywords: TPS-AfL, TPS, Direct Learning, Creativity
TINGKAT RESPON BERDASARKAN TAKSONOMI SOLO SISWA KELAS VIII YANG MENGALAMI MISKONSEPSI PADA TOPIK FAKTORISASI SUKU ALJABAR DI SMP NEGERI 5 KARANGANYAR PADA TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Fauzi Mulyatna; Imam Sujadi; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi
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 objectives of this research were to identify and to describe about misconceptions, and to find out the levels of response of VIII grade students of SMP N 5 Karanganyar experiencing misconceptions about factorization of the tribe in algebra based on SOLO taxonomy. This research was categorized as a qualitative research using a case study design which was only focused on one selected and comprehended phenomenon deeply, and neglecting other phenomena. This particular phenomenon was the response level based on SOLO taxonomy of VIII grade students of SMP N 5 Karanganyar experiencing misconceptions about factorization of the tribe in algebra. The subject of this research were VIII grade students of SMP N 5 Karanganyar. The criteria to choose the main subject of the research were that the students had learnt a topic about factorization of the tribe in algebra and the main subject were taken based on test results by using CRI technique and the teacher’s recomendation. The data in this research were in the form of the students’ written answer results in finishing the problem solving test. The result of those written answers became the first data analysis of the researcher. Those first data analysis were in the form of description about misconceptions experienced by the subject and the levels of the subject’s response based on SOLO taxonomy in each problem. Those first data analysis were also used as a guide to do interviews. The interviews were both to clarify the subject’s written answers and to strengthen the data finding of the first data analysis. Then the results of the subject’s written answers and the results of the data analysis from the interview were drew  conclusions. The triangulation technique was used as the validity of the data in the planning of the learning process by using problem solving test which was later clarified by the interview. The results of this research are follows. 1) The misconceptions experienced by the subject: the misconception in the use of the equal sign symbol (=), the subject were mistaken in interpreting the instruction order from left to right and the equals sign symbol (=) was wrongly interpreted as implication (⇒) to show the name which represented value and calculation with different results; the misconception of the substraction in algebra, it was a procedural misconception in the use of distributive rules by neglecting the minus sign; the misconception of the multiplication in algebra, it was a procedural misconception in the use of distributive rules by doing multiplication only in the first set when working with multiplication formula in algebra. 2) The levels of the subject’s response experiencing misconceptions were on the levels of multi-structural, uni-structural and pre-structural level.Keywords: Misconception, response level, SOLO taxonomy
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DAN JIGSAW DENGAN PENDEKATAN KONTEKSTUAL TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN MAJEMUK SISWA SMP NEGERI KOTA MADIUN Retno H, Rosa Rosdiana; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Suyono, Suyono
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: This research aims to find out: (1) which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: conventional, Numbered Heads Together, or Jigsaw with contextual approach learning model, (2) which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: the students with linguistic, logical-mathematics, or interpersonal intelligence, (3) in each multiple intelligence, which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: conventional, Numbered Heads Together, or Jigsaw with contextual approach learning model, and in each learning model, which one provides better mathematics learning achievement: the students with linguistic, logical-mathematics, or interpersonal intelligence. This study was a quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of this research was the seventh-year-students of State Junior High Schools of Madiun Municipality in the school year of 2012/2013 with the students of SMPN 4 Madiun, SMPN 6 Madiun, and SMPN 10 Madiun as the sample. The research instrument used was mathematics learning achievement test and questionnaire of multiple intelligence. The hypothesis test used was unbalanced two way analysis of variances. The test on the hypothesis revealed that: (1) learning model of Jigsaw with contextual approach provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional and Numbered Heads Together learning model, while learning model of Numbered Heads Together provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional learning model, (2) there was no difference in mathematics learning achievement between students with linguistic, logical-mathematics and interpersonal intelligence, (3) in each multiple intelligence, learning model of Jigsaw type with contextual approach provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional and Numbered Heads Together learning model, while learning model of  Numbered Heads Together provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional learning model, and in each learning model, there was no difference in mathematics learning achievement between students with linguistic, logical-mathematics and interpersonal intelligence. Keywords: Learning Model, Jigsaw, Contextual Approach, Numbered Heads Together, Multiple Intelligence.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH DAN PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI Se-KABUPATEN PACITAN TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Aini, Harmei Mahar’; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sari S, Dewi Retno
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 aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models viewed from the creativity of student. The learning models compared were PBL, TPS and direct learning. This research is a quasi experimental with the factorial design of 3x4. The research population was  8th Grade of Junior High School first semester of 2013/2014 at Pacitan regency. The sampling technique using a stratified cluster random sampling. Samples in this research were 260 students with 84 students as experimental class I, 88 students as experimental class II and 84 students as control class. Hypothesis testing was performed using two-way analysis of variance with unequal cells. Based on the results of hypothesis testing were concluded that: (1) PBL learning model gave better achievement than TPS learning model and direct learning, while TPS learning model and direct learning gave the same achievement (2) The learning achievement of students with high creativity is better than the students with medium and low creativity, and the learning achievement of students with medium creativity is better than the students with low creativity (3) on each category of creativity, PBL learning model gave better achievement than TPS learning model and direct learning, while TPS learning model and direct learning gave the same achievement, (4) on each models of learning, learning achievement of students with high creativity is better than the students with medium and low creativity, and the learning achievement of students with medium creativity is better than the students with low creativityKeywords: Problem Based Learning (PBL), Think Pair Share (TPS), Creativity of student
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI RELASI DAN FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN SISWA SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Abdul Razak; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Riyadi Riyadi
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 investigate the effect of learning model toward learning outcomes in mathematics viewed from the reasoning ability. The learning models of this research were cooperative learning model of the GI with scientific, the cooperative learning model of the TPS with scientific, and the classical learning with scientific.This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3 x 3. Its population was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Karanganyar. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of 280 students. The instruments used to gather the data were test of learning outcomes in mathematics and test of reasoning ability. The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research were as follows. 1) The students instructed with GI with scientific had a better learning outcomes in mathematics than those instructed TPS with scientific and those instructed the classical learning with scientific. Furthermore, the students instructed TPS with scientific had a better learning outcomes in mathematics than those instructed the classical learning model with scientific. 2) The learning outcomes in mathematics of the students with the high and moderate reasoning ability had a better than that of the students with the low reasoning ability. In addition, the students with the high reasoning ability had the same learning outcomes in mathematics as the students with the moderate reasoning ability. 3) On model of the GI with scientific, the students with the high and low reasoning ability had the same learning outcomes in mathematics as the students with the moderate reasoning ability. Moreover, the students with the high reasoning ability had a better learning outcomes in mathematics than those the students with the low reasoning ability. On model of the TPS with scientific and the classical learning with scientific results in the same learning outcomes in each of reasoning ability. 4) The students with the high reasoning ability, GI with scientific and the classical learning with scientific results in the same learning outcomes in mathematics as TPS with scientific. Furthermore, GI with scientific results in a better learning outcomes in mathematics than the classical learning with scientific. The students with the moderate and low reasoning ability had the same learning outcomes in each of learning model.Keywords: GI with scientific, TPS with scientific, learning outcomes, reasoning ability.
PROFIL POSES BERPIKIR KRITIS SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA KONTEKSTUAL DITINJAU DARI GAYA KOGNITIF FIELD DEPENDENT-INDEPENDENT DAN GENDER N, Atik Fitriya; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Iswahyudi, Gatut
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research was a qualitative descriptive that aims to describe the critical thinking process of male and female senior high school students with dependent and independent cognitive style in solving contextual mathematics problems using Polya steps. Classification of students cognitive styles used group embedded figures test (GEFT). The subjects of this research were 4 students of XI year of SMA Negeri 1 Kartasura selected by purposive sampling. Validity of the data used time triangulation and the technique of data analysis were done by: (1) classifying the data into four problem solving steps: (a) understand the problem, (b) make a plan, (c) carry out the plan, and (d) look back at the completed solution, (2) presenting the data in narrative text, and (3) concluding the thinking process of students in each problem solving steps. The results show as follows: (1) Male students with a field dependent cognitive style in understanding: students are able to organize and analyze information or aspects of a problem. In making a plan: students are able to identify the material that is needed in formulating steps or solutions. In carrying out the plan: students are able in the rational thinking and be able to make a valid conclusions. In looking back: students are able to think rationally. (2) Male students with field independent cognitive styles in understanding: students are able to organize and analyze information or aspect of a problem, capable of conceptualizing, understanding an attitude and thinking rationally. In making a plan: the students were able to identify the material that is needed in formulating steps or solutions. In carrying out the plan: students are able to think rationally, to make a valid conclusions, reflective thinking and understanding an attitude. In looking back: students are able to think reflectively. (3) Female students with a field dependent cognitive style in understanding: students are able to organize and analyze information or aspect of a problem. In making a plan: students are able to identify the material that is needed in formulating steps or solutions. In carrying out the plan: students are able in the rational thinking and be able to make a valid conclusions. In looking back: students are able to think rationally. (4) Female students with field independent cognitive styles in understanding: students are able to organize and analyze information or aspect of a problem, capable of conceptualizing, understanding an attitude and thinking rationally. In making a plan: the students are able to identify the material that is needed in formulating or solutions. In carrying out the plan: students are able to think rationally, to make a valid conclusions, reflective thinking and understanding an attitude. In looking back: students are able to think reflectively and rationally. Keywords: Critical thinking Process, Problem Solving, Cognitive Style, Gender
ANALISIS PROSES BERPIKIR SISWA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA BERDASARKAN LANGKAH POLYA DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL SISWA KELAS VIII SMP AL AZHAR SYIFA BUDI TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Supriadi, Danar; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research is aimed to describe: (1) student’s thinking  process with high emotional quotient in solving mathematics problem based on Polya’s step, (2) student’s thinking  process with middle emotional quotient in solving mathematics problem based on Polya’s steps, and (3) student’s thinking  process with high emotional quotient in solving mathematics problem based on Polya’s step. This research was a qualitative research. The subject of this research was taken by using purposive sampling. The subject of this research were nine of 8th grade students at SMP Al Azhar Syifa Budi Solo, consisting of three students with high emotional quotient, three students with middle emotional quotient, and three students with low emotional quotient. The techniques of collecting the data in this research were questionnaire, test, and interview. The techniques of validating the data were time triangulation. The techniques of analyzing the data was Miles and Huberman concept, namely, data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing. This research finally provide the student’s thinking process as follows.  Students with high and medium emotional quotient are: (1) able to understand the problem by using a logical thinking process to understand the problem, (2) able to construct a problem solving plan to synthesize the problem, (3) able to carry out the problem solving plan to decide and to draw up the conclusion, and (4) able to re-evaluate the answer and to draw up the conclusion.  Students with low emotional quotient are: (1) not able to understand the problem well because the can’t apply perfectly a thinking process to understand the problem, (2) not able to construct a problem solving plan to synthesize the problem, (3) not able to carry out the problem solving plan well, and (4) not able to re-evaluate the answer and to draw up the conclusion well.Keywords: thinking process, problem solving, emotional quotient
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, SNOW BALLING, DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI HIMPUNAN DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA SMP SWASTA DI KABUPATEN PONOROGO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Ahmad Husni Mubarok; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Imam Sujadi
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 purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of the learning model toward student’s mathematics achievement seen from student’s learning style. The learning models compared were Discovery Learning, Snow Balling and Problem Based Learning using scientific approach (DL-S, SB-S, and PBL-S). This research was the quasi experimental with factorial design 3x3. The populations of this research was students at eight grade of private Junior High school in Ponorogo in the academic year of 2014/2015. The size of the sample was 336 students, consisted of 115 students in the first experimental group, 107 students in second experimental group and 114 students in third experimental group. The instruments consisted of learning achievement test and questionnaire of learning style. Hypotheses testing was performed using two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The  results of  the  research were. (1) Learning achievement using DL-S learning model is better than that of SB-S, learning achievement using DL-S learning model is better than that of PBL-S, SB-S and PBL-S learning model have the same achievement. (2) Visual students have better mathematics achievement than auditory and kinesthetic students, auditory and kinesthetic students have the same achievement (3) In visual, auditory, and kinesthetics students, DL-S have better achievement than SB-S and PBL-S, SB-S and PBL-S have the same achievement. (4) In DL-S, SB-S, and PBLS, visual and auditory students have better achievement than kinesthetics students, auditory and kinesthetics students have the same achievement.Keywords: scientific approach, DL-S, SB-S, PBL-S learning, learning style, learning achievement
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) DAN TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION (TAI) PADA MATERI KPK DAN FPB DITINJAU DARI TINGKAT KECERDASAN LOGIKA MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS V SD NEGERI SE-KECAMATAN PURWODADI TAHUN PELAJARAN 2 W, Kharisma Ardhy; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to find out the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the student logical-mathematical intelligence in the topic of Smallest Common Multiple (SCM) and Greatest Common Factor (GCF) at fifth grade students of elementary schools in Purwodadi District. The learning models compared Teams Games Tournament (TGT), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), and direct instruction model. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The population was the students at fifth grade of Elementary School in Purwodadi District on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the samples were 192 students consisted of 87 students in the first experimental group by using cooperative learning model Teams Games Tournament (TGT), 53 students in the second experimental group by using cooperative learning model Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), and 52 students in the control group by using direct instruction model. The instruments used mathematics achievement test and logical-mathematical intelligence test. The data was analyzed using two-way analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows. (1) TGT model gives mathematics achievement as well as TAI, whereas TGT and TAI model gives better mathematics achievement than the direct instruction model. (2) The high logical-mathematical intelligence students have better mathematics achievement than middle and low logical-mathematical intelligence students and the middle logical-mathematical intelligence students have better mathematics achievement than the low logical-mathematical intelligence students. (3) For all types of logical-mathematical intelligence students, TGT model gives mathematics achievement as well as TAI, whereas TGT and TAI model gives better mathematics achievement than the direct instruction model. (4) For all types of learning model, the high logical-mathematical intelligence students have better mathematics achievement than middle and low logical-mathematical intelligence students and the middle logical-mathematical intelligence students have better mathematics achievement than the low logical-mathematical intelligence students.Key words: Teams Games Tournament (TGT), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), logical-mathematical intelligence, learning achievement.

Page 28 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 26   27   28   29   30 

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