cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Ekasatya Aldila Afriansyah
Contact Email
ekafrian@gmail.com
Phone
+628979550972
Journal Mail Official
mosharafajournal@institutpendidikan.ac.id
Editorial Address
Gedung B, Lantai 2, Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika Institut Pendidikan Indonesia (IPI) Garut Jalan Pahlawan No. 32 Sukagalih, Garut, Jawa Barat
Location
Kab. garut,
Jawa barat
INDONESIA
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika
Published by Institut Pendidikan Indonesia Garut
ISSN : 20864280     EISSN : 25278827     DOI : https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa
Core Subject : Education,
Education Mathematics Other
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika (p-ISSN: 2086-4280 & e-ISSN: 2527-8827) mempublikasikan artikel ilmiah hasil penelitian dalam bidang pendidikan matematika yang belum pernah dipublikasikan. Penulis dapat berasal dari berbagai level, seperti mahasiswa (S1, S2, S3), guru, dosen, praktisi, maupun pemerhati pendidikan matematika. Mosharafa terbit tiga kali dalam satu tahun, yaitu pada bulan Januari, Mei, dan September. Penerbit Mosharafa adalah Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika Institut Pendidikan Indonesia.
Arjuna Subject : Umum - Umum
Articles 6 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari" : 6 Documents clear
Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematik Antar Siswa Yang Mendapatkan Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning (PBL) Dan Jigsaw: Penelitian Terhadap Mahasiswa Program Studi Matematika STKIP Garut Tahun Pelajaran 2012-2013 Mubarok, Dede Miftahul; Nanang
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.266

Abstract

The Purpose of research is to know the differences of ability problem-solving mathematics between students who get Problem Based learning (PBL) with Jigsaw and for now response students the model of learning who give. The results this research indicate: Not differences of ability problem solving mathematics between students who get Problem Based learning (PBL) learning with the students who get jigsaw learning. Response the students between experiment class 1 who get learning of model Problem Based learning (PBL) with the students who get learning of model jigsaw, Response the students show positive response although sometimes their students who show negative response.
Perbandingan Prestasi Belajar Antara Siswa Yang Mendapatkan Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis Karakter Dengan Konvensional Firmansyah, Hilman Yosa; Puspitasari, Nitta
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.267

Abstract

In this paper, we compared two models of learning is a model-based learning and conventional teaching character to see how far these two learning models are instrumental in improving both student achievement or change in the character of students. Researchers want to see whether the learning ability of students get the learning model-based character better than those getting conventional model? Methods that researchers use to determine the extent to which the success of student learning and the changing character of both the gain and the character-based models that get a conventional model.
Perbedaan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematik Siswa Antara Yang Menggunakan Metode Student Teams Achievement Division Dengan Teams Games Tournament: Penelitian dilakukan di MTs. Al-Mu’amalah Nurhaeni, Komala; Basuki
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.268

Abstract

This study uses two models of learning that is student teams' achievement division and teams' games tournament method. Research conducted a experimental study. Learning with this learning method directs students to be able to solve mathematical problems. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in mathematical problem-solving skills among students who received student teams' achievement division and teams' games tournament method is haven’t better enough significance then between two methods. After doing a pretest and posttest and using a significance level of 5% can be concluded that the mathematical problem-solving ability of students who received student teams' achievement division method is no better than teams' games tournament. Penelitian ini menggunakan dua model pembelajaran yaitu metode student teams achievement division dan teams games tournament. Penelitian yang dilakukan merupakan penelitian kuasi eksperimen. Pembelajaran dengan metode pembelajaran ini mengarahkan siswa untuk mampu memecahkan masalah matematik. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbedaan kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematik siswa antara yang menggunakan metode student teams achievement division dengan teams games tournament. Setelah melakukan pretest dan postest dan menggunakan taraf signifikansi 5% dapat diambil kesimpulan bahwa kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematik siswa yang mendapat metode student teams' achievement division dengan teams game tournament tidak memiliki perbedaan yang cukup signifikan antara keduanya.
Pengaruh Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Kooperatipe Tipe Think Pair Share (TPS) Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa SMP: Studi Penelitian Ekspermen di SMPN 1 Banyuresmi Garut Sari, Siska Puspita; Madio, Sukanto Sukandar
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.269

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether the learning outcomes of learning mathematics that uses models of type cooperative think pair share (TPS) is better than that using learning model conventional. From normality test results of initial test data shows that the initial test scores in the experimental class were normally distributed, whereas scores initial tests on the control class distribution are not normal, so proceed with testing at the Mann Whitney test with significance level 0.05. Because the initial tests at the conclusion cannot start capability differences between the experimental class and the control class followed by normalized. based gain test data analysis results can indicate that the initial capacity of the two groups can be concluded there is influence. while the results obtained from the final test at the significant 0,5. because t > t table then Ho rejected. It can be concluded that there is significant mathematical achievement of students who use cooperative learning model think pair share.
Perbandingan Kemampuan Pemahaman Matematis Antara Siswa Yang Mendapatkan Strategi Creative Problem Solving (Cps) Dengan Model Pembelajaran Konvensional: Studi Eksperimen di kelas VII-D dan VII-E SMP Negeri 1 Limbangan Muliawati, Tina; Sofyan, Deddy
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.270

Abstract

Most student is passive in the process learning of mathematics that leads to less in their creativity and achievement. Therefore, it needs an effort and innovatively learning of mathematics. As an alternative concerning such things one should develops learning of mathematics with “Creative Problem Solving (CPS)” approach. It is a learning approach which generates an activity between mathematics and students. Thus, it motivates them to solve the problem uniquely with many stagiest. As for which being experiment class is VII-D and VII-E. Class VII-D is getting Creative Problem Solving (CPS) strategy and class VII-E is getting conventional teaching. For the experimental instrument was composed 6 essays. The gain of students' mathematics understanding ability increases getting Creative Problem Solving (CPS) strategy is better than students who received conventional teaching.
Perbedaan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Antara Yang Mendapatkan Model Pembelajaran Brain Based Learning Dengan Numbered Head Together : Studi Eksperimen di SMP Negeri 1 Cikajang Kelas VII Tahun Ajaran 2012/2013 Winarti, Wiwin; Haq, Cici Nurul
Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari
Publisher : Department of Mathematics Education Program IPI Garut

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31980/mosharafa.v2i1.271

Abstract

The research was conducted to distinguish the two models , this is Brain Based Learning ( BBL ) with the Numbered Head Together ( NHT ) to see the extent to which the two models are instrumental in improving the learning outcomes of students learning mathematics . Authors wanted to see if there are differences in mathematics achievement between students who received Brain Based Learning ( BBL ) with Numbered Head Together ( NHT ) ? . The method that I use in this study is experimental research that is giving treatment to two different classes . The population in this study were all students class VII of SMP Negeri 1 Cikajang with a randomly selected sample of the class VII- C and class VII - D . The instrument used to measure student learning outcomes in the form mathematics objective tests , administered before and after the treatment the author gives a treat . From the analysis of the Mann Whitney test , to test initial value Zhitung = 1.72 and Ztabel = 2.24 with a significance level of 5 % ( α = 0.05 ) zhitung which is located in the reception area Ho , Ho is accepted then it means there is no difference initial ability between experimental classes experiment I and experiment II . While the results of Mann Whitney test to post test at significance level of 5 % ( α = 0.05 ) , zhitung = 3.18 using the two test sides of Zhitung value = 3.18 > Ztabel = 2.24 , in other words zhitung rejection of Ho is in the region, in other words Ha accepteThe research was conducted to distinguish the two models , this is Brain Based Learning ( BBL ) with the Numbered Head Together ( NHT ) to see the extent to which the two models are instrumental in improving the learning outcomes of students learning mathematics . Authors wanted to see if there are differences in mathematics achievement between students who received Brain Based Learning ( BBL ) with Numbered Head Together ( NHT ) ? . The method that I use in this study is experimental research that is giving treatment to two different classes . The population in this study were all students class VII of SMP Negeri 1 Cikajang with a randomly selected sample of the class VII- C and class VII - D . The instrument used to measure student learning outcomes in the form mathematics objective tests, administered before and after the treatment the author gives a treat. From the analysis of the Mann Whitney test , to test initial value Zhitung = 1.72 and Ztabel = 2.24 with a significance level of 5 % ( α = 0.05 ) zhitung which is located in the reception area Ho , Ho is accepted then it means there is no difference initial ability between experimental classes experiment I and experiment II . While the results of Mann Whitney test to post test at significance level of 5 % ( α = 0.05 ) , zhitung = 3.18 using the two test sides of Zhitung value = 3.18 > Ztabel = 2.24 , in other words zhitung rejection of Ho is in the region, in other words Ha accepted . It means that there are differences in mathematics outcomes between students who received learning model with Brain Based Learning (BBL) with Numbered Head Together (NHT)d . It means that there are differences in mathematics outcomes between students who received learning model with Brain Based Learning (BBL) with Numbered Head Together (NHT)

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 6

 1 

Filter by Year

2013 2013


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025): January Vol. 13 No. 4 (2024): October Vol. 13 No. 3 (2024): July Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024): April Vol. 13 No. 1 (2024): January Vol. 12 No. 4 (2023): October Vol 12, No 3 (2023) Vol. 12 No. 3 (2023): July Vol. 12 No. 2 (2023): April Vol 12, No 2 (2023) Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023): January Vol 12, No 1 (2023) Vol. 11 No. 3 (2022): September Vol 11, No 3 (2022) Vol. 11 No. 2 (2022): Mei Vol 11, No 2 (2022) Vol. 11 No. 1 (2022): Januari Vol 11, No 1 (2022) Vol. 10 No. 3 (2021): September Vol 10, No 3 (2021) Vol. 10 No. 2 (2021): Mei Vol 10, No 2 (2021) Vol 10, No 1 (2021) Vol. 10 No. 1 (2021): Januari Vol. 9 No. 3 (2020): September Vol 9, No 3 (2020) Vol 9, No 2 (2020) Vol. 9 No. 2 (2020): Mei Vol. 9 No. 1 (2020): Januari Vol 9, No 1 (2020) Vol 8, No 3 (2019) Vol. 8 No. 3 (2019): September Vol. 8 No. 2 (2019): Mei Vol 8, No 2 (2019) Vol. 8 No. 1 (2019): Januari Vol 8, No 1 (2019) Vol 7, No 3 (2018) Vol. 7 No. 3 (2018): September Vol 7, No 2 (2018) Vol. 7 No. 2 (2018): Mei Vol 7, No 1 (2018) Vol. 7 No. 1 (2018): Januari Vol 6, No 3 (2017) Vol. 6 No. 3 (2017): September Vol. 6 No. 2 (2017): Mei Vol 6, No 2 (2017) Vol 6, No 1 (2017) Vol. 6 No. 1 (2017): Januari Vol 5, No 3 (2016) Vol. 5 No. 3 (2016): September Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016): Mei Vol 5, No 2 (2016) Vol 5, No 1 (2016) Vol. 5 No. 1 (2016): Januari Vol 4, No 3 (2015) Vol. 4 No. 3 (2015): September Vol. 4 No. 2 (2015): Mei Vol 4, No 2 (2015) Vol 4, No 1 (2015) Vol. 4 No. 1 (2015): Januari Vol 3, No 3 (2014) Vol. 3 No. 3 (2014): September Vol. 3 No. 2 (2014): Mei Vol 3, No 2 (2014) Vol 3, No 1 (2014) Vol. 3 No. 1 (2014): Januari Vol. 2 No. 3 (2013): September Vol 2, No 3 (2013) Vol 2, No 2 (2013) Vol. 2 No. 2 (2013): Mei Vol 2, No 1 (2013) Vol. 2 No. 1 (2013): Januari Vol. 1 No. 2 (2012): September Vol 1, No 2 (2012) Vol 1, No 1 (2012) Vol. 1 No. 1 (2012): Mei More Issue