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 S2 Pendidikan Matematika
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : -     EISSN : -     DOI : -
Core Subject : Education,
Education Mathematics
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 369 Documents
 32   33   34   35   36 
PENALARAN ALJABAR SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI 1 MARGOYOSO KABUPATEN PATI DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Nuraini, Latifah; Sujadi, Imam; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 6 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (206.813 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this study were (1) to determine the levels of algebraic reasoning seventh grade students of  SMP N 1 Margoyoso, and (2) to describe the characteristics of each algebraic reasoning level seventh grade students of SMP N 1 Margoyoso. This research was a qualitative case study. Subject selected from the seventh grade student of SMP N 1 Margoyoso on first semester of the academic year 2014/2015. The research instruments were researcher as the main instrument, the written test and interview guidelines as auxiliary instrument. Data were analyzed based on algebraic reasoning indicators, there were understanding the problem, generalization, create general form, and solving problems. Retrieved ten subjects, two subjects at level 0, two subjects at level 1, three subjects at level 2, and three subjects at level between level 2 and level 3. The characteristics of algebraic reasoning level 0: students were understand problem, used natural language, which means that students didn’t use or didn’t understand the meaning of variable, depend on the specific object, the students couldn’t create the general form, so they couldn’t perform operation on the variable in a general form. The characteristics of algebraic reasoning level 1: students were understand the problem, used natural language, which means that students didn’t use or didn’t understand the meaning of the variable, perform generalization but couldn’t create the general form, so they couldn’t perform operation on variable in a general form. The characteristics of algebraic reasoning level 2: students were understand the problem, generalizing and used symbolic language, the general form created as the result of a generalization that uses variable, capable to create general form, but couldn’t perform operation on variable. The characteristics of algebraic reasoning level between level 2 and level 3: students were understand the problem, generalizing and used symbolic language, the general form created as the result of a generalization that uses variable, capable to create general form, but can’t perform operation variable straightaway.Key words: reasoning, algebraic  reasoning, levels of algebraic reasoning 
PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT PEMBELAJARAN TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI OPERASI ALJABAR SMP TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2014 Yustitia, Via; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (246.694 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were: (1) to describe the development of valid and practical Mathematics learning instruments with the scientific approach-based TGT model;(2) to investigate the learning effectiveness with the use of Mathematics learning instruments with the scientific approach-based TGT model on the learning material of Algebra Operation.This research used the research and development method. The development of learning instrument was done by means of 4Ds claimed by Thiagarajan model, et.al. However, this research used only 3Ds, namely: Define, Design, and Develop. The developed learning instruments included lesson plans, student’s work sheet, and test of problem-solving ability. The subjects exposed to the experimentation were the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary School 2 of Pemalang, State Junior Secondary School 4 of Taman, and State Junior Secondary School 1 of Pemalang. The results of research are as follows: (1) The developed learning instruments are declared as valid ones by the validators; (2) The instruments are also practical because the students have a good response on the developed instruments, the teachers have a good response on the developed instrument, and the lesson plans have been implemented well in the learning process; (3)  the learning process in the experimental class is effective because the students have good learning activities, the problem-solving ability mean of the students in the experimental class is better than that of the students in control class, and the student’s problem-solving ability has fulfilled the classical learning completeness.Keywords: development of learning instruments, TGT, and scientific approach
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE DENGAN LEARNING STARTS WITH A QUESTION DAN THINK PAIR SHARE PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN BEKERJA SAMA SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Susanti, Ika; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sari Saputro, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 9 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (296.541 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which of the TPS-LSWQ learning model, the TPS learning model, and the direct learning model results in a better mathematics learning achievement; (2) which of the students with high, medium, and low team work have a better mathematics learning achievement; and (3) which of team work of the students result in a better learning achievement for each learning models; and (4) which of the TPS-LSWQ, TPS and direct learning models result in a better learning achievement for each level of team work of the students. This research used the quasi-experimental method. The population of this research was all students of the junior secondary schools in Karanganyar in the academic year of 2014/2015. The samples of this research consisted of 272 students who were divided into three experiment groups. The three groups consisted of group 1, group 2, and group 3. In each group 1,2, and 3 consisted of 90, 92, and 90 students. The data of this research were gathered from test of learning achievement in mathematics and questionnaire. The data were then analyzed by using unbalanced two-way analysis of variance. According to the research results, it can be concluded: (1) the learning model of TPS-LSWQ was better than that of the TPS and direct learning models while the learning model of TPS was better than the direct learning model; (2) the students with high team work had a better learning achievement than those with medium and low team work while the students with medium team work was better than the low team work; (3) in each team work, student with high team work, medium team work, and low team work, the mathematics learning achievement of the students taught with TPS-LSWQ learning model, TPS learning model, and direct learning model was as good as that of those; and (4) in TPS-LSWQ learning model, students with high, medium and low team work had the same achievement, the TPS learning model, students with high, medium, and low team work had the same achievement, the direct learning model, students with high and medium team work had  the same achievement, students with high team work had better achievement than low team work, and students with high team work had better achievement than low team work.Key words: TPS-LSWQ learning model, TPS learning model, direct learning model, team work and learning achievement.
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 : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (446.135 KB)

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
ANALISIS KESALAHAN SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH BERDASARKAN PENDAPAT JOHN W. SANTROCK PADA POKOK BAHASAN BANGUN RUANG SISI LENGKUNG DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR DAN GAYA BERPIKIR SISWA Rosyida, Entyka Mayhasti; Riyadi, Riyadi; Mardiyana, Mardiyana
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 10 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (198.688 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to find out the errors and causes of students’ with learning and thinking styles in non-polyhedra geometry. The subject of research was 30 students in SMP Negeri 1 Plantungan, in the school year of 2012/2013. The selection of research subjects is based on the problems arising from students in mathematical problem solving, especially in non-polyhedra geometry. Data triangulation used in this research was method triangulation. Before questionnaire was distributed, the author had conducted observation. After in non-polyhedra geometry was taught, diagnostic test item were administered and the result with most errors were selected as the research subject. The result of research are Auditory-Sequential students includes determining a formula error, errors of count, and the error determining unit. The causes were the students don’t understanding the concept of matter; Auditory-Random students errors included that of not writing all the elements on the part and the error of count. The causes were the students less creativity in choosing the measure of problem solving; Visual-Sequential students involved errors set the formula, an error entering element values into the formula, and errors of calculating. The causes were students not understanding concept of matter; Visual-Random student errors included that of determining the formula, converting volume unit, and of drawing a conclusion from the result of calculation. The causes were students paying attention imprecisely to answer and question; Kinesthetic-Sequential students involved errors set the formula, an error including the value element into formula, calculating error, and the error determining unit. The causes were students not forgetting the formula of objects, working in the problem imprecisely, and working the problem in hurry; Kinesthetic-Random students involved errors identifying any elements known from the picture, set the formula errors, errors of counting, and error of determining unit. The causes were that the students identified picture imprecisely.Key words: error analysis, problem solving, learning style, thinking style.
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 : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (356.728 KB)

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 THINK-TALK-WRITE DENGAN MIND MAPPING PADA MATERI PERSAMAAN GARIS LURUS DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA PESERTA DIDIK KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KUDUS TAHUN PELAJARAN 2015/2016 Malikhah, Siti; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 8 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (294.8 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on learning achievement viewed from student learning creativity. The learning models compared were Think-Talk-Write with Mind Mapping (TTW-MM), Think-Talk-Write (TTW) and direct instruction model. The research used the quasi-experimental research method. The population of the research was all of the students in grade VIII of junior high schools in Kudus regency on academic year 2015/2016. The size of the sample was 275 students consisted of 91 students in the first experimental group, 92 students in the second experimental group, and 92 students in the third experimental group. The results of the research are as follows. (1) The students instructed with the learning model TTW-MM had learning achievement as good as those instructed with the learning model TTW, and a both of them better than direct instruction, the students instructed with the learning model TTW had learning  achievement better than those instructed with direct instruction. (2) The students with the high creativity had learning achievement better than those with the medium creativity and low creativity, the students with the medium creativity had learning achievement better than those with the low creativity. (3) In each learning model, the students with the high creativity had learning achievement better than those with the medium creativity and low creativity, the students with the medium creativity had learning achievement better than those with the low creativity. (4) In each learning style, the students instructed with the learning model TTW-MM had learning achievement better than instructed with the learning model TTW and direct instruction, the students instructed with the learning model TTW had learning  achievement better than those instructed with direct instruction.Keywords : Think-Talk-Write with Mind Mapping, Think-Talk-Write, direct instruction, creativity learning 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI OPERASI BENTUK ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONALKELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KAB LOMBOK UTARA TAHUN AJARAN 2015/2016 Hasanah, A.K Uswatun; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 10 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (344.581 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the NHT, TPS, and direct learning models (2) which emotional intelligence of the low, moderate, and high emotional intelligences results in a better learning (3) in each learning model, which emotional intelligence of the low, moderate, and high emotional intelligences results in a better learning (4) in each emotional intelligence, which learning model  of the NHT, TPS, and direct learning models results in a better learning achievement. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 33. Its population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior Secondary Schools of North Lombok Regency in Academic Year 2015/2016. The samples of research were determined by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. They consisted of 309 students, namely: 103 in Experimental Class 1; 102 students in Experimental Class 2; and 104 in Control Class. The data of research were collected through questionnaire of emotional intelligence and test of learning achievement. The technique of analyzing the data use two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The results of research are as follows: 1) The NHT learning model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics than the TPS and the direct learning model. 2) The learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high emotional intelligence is better than that of the students with the moderate emotional intelligence. 3) In the NHT learning model, the students with the high emotional intelligence have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the moderate and low emotional intelligences, and the students with the moderate emotional intelligence have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the low emotional intelligence. 4) In the high emotional intelligence, the NHT learning model results in the same learning achievement in Mathematics as the TPS learning model.Key words: Numbered Heads Together, Think Pair Share, Direct Learning, and Emotional Intelligence.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA POKOK BAHASAN PERSAMAAN DAN PERTIDAKSAMAAN KUADRAT DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS X SMA SE KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2015/2016 Herawati, Ratna; Budiyono, Budiyono; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 7 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (479.151 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to know the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the learning style. The learning models compared were Group Investigation, Think Pair Share, and Direct Learning Model (GI, TPS, langsung). This research was a quasi experimental with the factorial design of 3×3. The population of this research was all of students in first’grade of Senior High Schools of Sukoharjo regency in academic year 2015/2016. The samples of the research consisted of 269 students and were gathered through stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments consisted of pre-experiment test, test of learning achievement and learning style questionnaire. Hypothesis testing was performed using two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. Based on the results of hypotheses testing, they were concluded as follows. 1) GI and TPS learning models gave an equal mathematics achievement. GI learning models gave mathematics achievement better than Direct Learning Model. TPS and Direct learning models gave the same mathematics achievement. 2) Students with visual learning style have better mathematics achievement than students with auditory and kinesthetic ones. On the other hand, students with auditory and kinesthetic learning style have equal mathematics learning achievement. 3) On all visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning style, cooperative learning with GI type gives an equals’mathematics learning achievement with TPS. GI learning models gave mathematics achievement better than Direct Learning Model. Also TPS and Direct learning models gave the same mathematics achievement. 4) On all learning models, cooperative learning GI type, TPS, and Direct Learning Model, Students with visual learning style have better mathematics achievement than students with auditory and kinesthetic ones. On the other hand, students with auditory and kinesthetic learning style have equal mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Group Investigation, Think Pair Share, Learning Style, Mathematics Learning Achievement. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TEAMS ASSITED INDIVIDUALIZATION (TAI) DAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DENGAN PENDEKATAN KONTEKSTUAL PADA MATERI SISTEM PERSAMAAN LINEAR DUA VARIABEL DITINJAUDARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR SISWA Awalia, Kurnia; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan UNS

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (288.617 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from students learning creativity. The learning models compared were TAI with contextual approach, NHT with contextual approach, and direct instruction  with contextual approach. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research. The populations were all students of Junior High School in Gemolong subdistrict. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The samples were students of SMPN 1 Gemolong, SMPN 2 Gemolong, and SMP Muh 9 Gemolong. The instruments used were mathematics achievement tests and creativity questionnaire. The data was analyzed using unbalanced two-ways anova. The conclusions were as follows. (1) TAI with contextual approach gives better mathematics achievement than NHT with contextual approach, TAI with contextual approach gives better mathematics achievement than direct instruction with contextual approach, NHT and direct instruction with contextual approach have the same mathematics achievement. (2) For students with high and medium learning creativity have the same mathematics achievement. Mathematics achievement of students who have high and medium learning creativity was better than students who have low learning creativity. (3) For students who have high learning creativity, all learning models gives the same mathematics achievement. (4) For students who have medium learning creativity, all learning models gives the same mathematics achievement. (5) For students who have low learning creativity, TAI and NHT with contextual approach gives the same mathematics achievement. NHT and direct instruction with contextual approach gives the same mathematics achievement. TAI with contextual approach gives better mathematics achievement than direct instruction with contextual approach.Keywords: TAI, NHT, contextual approach, learning achievement, learning creativity.

Page 34 of 37 | Total Record : 369

 32   33   34   35   36 

Filter by Year

2013 2016


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 4, No 10 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 9 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 8 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 7 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 6 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (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 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (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 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (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 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika More Issue