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
 6   7   8   9   10 
PROFIL RESPONS SISWA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH ALJABAR BERDASARKAN TAKSONOMI SOLO DITINJAU DARI MINAT BELAJAR MATEMATIKA Laisouw, Ruslan
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (276.796 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research is to investigate the profile of response in solving SOLO taxonomy-based algebra problems of the students in Grade VIII with the high, medium, and low Mathematics learning interests. Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy is a framework to classify the students’ response comprising 4 levels. The subjects of the research consisted of six students in Grade VIII of MTA junior Secondary School of Gemolong, Sragen in academic year 2011/2012.The instrumen used were test instrument, and the interview guideline.the data analysis so as to find out the response in solving SOLO taxonomy-based algebra problems.The results of the research are as follows. The response levels in solving SOLO taxonomy-based algebra problems of two subjects with the high Mathematics learning interest belong to extended abstract level (level 4).The response levels of two subjects with the medium Mathematics learning interest in solving SOLO taxonomy-based algebra problems are different from one to the other; one of them has the relational level (level 3) while the other has the multi-structural level (level 2). For this case, the students with the same Mathematics learning interest category (medium level) have the have different response.The response levels of two subjects with the low Mathematics learning interest in solving SOLO taxonomy-based algebra problems are also different from one to the other; one of them has the multi-structural level (level 2) while the other has uni-structural level (level 1). For this case, the students with the same Mathematics learning interest category (low level) have the different response.Key words: Students’ response level, algebra problems, SOLO taxonomy, and Mathematics learning interest
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) DAN FAN-N-PICK PADA PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN PADA MATEMATIKA SISWA SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN MAGELANG Setyowati, Anna; Budiyono, Budiyono; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (379.216 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the student’s mathematics anxiety. The learning model compared were Teams Games Tournament of cooperative learning model, Fan-N-Pick of coopeartive learning model, and direct instruction model The method which was applied in this research was quasi-experimental with 3×3 factorial design done in class VIII second semester of Junior High School (SMP) In Magelang Regency Academic Year 2012/2013. Sampling technique using stratified cluster random sampling. The research concludes as follows. 1) Fan-N-Pick of cooperative learning model gave better mathematics learning achievement than TGT of cooperative learning model and direct instructional model. While, TGT of cooperative learning model gave better  mathematics learning achievement than direct instructional model. 2) The students with low levels of mathematics anxiety had mathematics learning achievement is better than students with medium and high of mathematics anxiety. While students with medium levels of mathematics anxiety had mathematics learning achievement is better than students with high levels of mathematics anxiety. 3) In the TGT of cooperative learning model, students with high and medium levels of mathematics anxiety had similar good mathematics achievement. So also students with medium and low levels of mathematics anxiety had similar good mathematics achievement. However, the TGT of cooperative learning model, students with low levels of mathematics anxiety had mathematics learning achievement is better than students with high levels of mathematics anxiety. In the Fan-N-Pick of cooperative learning model, students with low, medium and high levels of mathematics anxiety had similar good mathematics achievement. In the direct instructional model, students with low levels of mathematics anxiety had mathematics learning achievement is better than students with medium and high of mathematics anxiety. 4) On students with low levels of mathematics anxiety by using TGT and Fan-N-Pick of cooperative learning model and direct instructional model had similar good mathematics achievement. Students with medium and high levels of mathematics anxiety, mathematics achievement had equally well if given a model of learning through direct instruction model and TGT of cooperative learning model. Likewise if given learning with TGT and Fan-N-Pick of cooperative learning model had similar good mathematics achievement. However, students with medium and high levels of mathematics anxiety had better mathematics achievement through Fan-N-Pick of cooperative learning model rather than through direct instructional model. Key words: Teams Games Tournament (TGT), Fan-N-Pick, Mathematics Anxiety
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK PAIRSHARE MODIFIKASI PENEMUAN TERBIMBING BERBANTUAN MICROSOFT POWER POINT PADA PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KEDISIPLINAN BELAJAR ANAS, MIFTACHUL; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Suyono, Suyono
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 3 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (326.423 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to investigate: (1) which of the Modified TPS learning model, the TPS learning model, and the conventional learning model results in a better mathematics learning achievement; (2) which of the students with high, mediun, and low learning disciplines have a better mathematics learning achievement; and (3) which of the Modified TPS, TPS and conventional learning models result in a better learning achievement for each level of learning discipline of the students; and (4) which of the high, medium, and learning disciplines of the students result in a better learning achievement for each learning models.This research used the quasi-experimental method. The population of this research was all students of the junior secondary schools in Ngawi regency in the academic year of 2012/2013. The samples of this research consisted of 284 students who were divided into three experiment groups. The three groups consisted of group 1, group 2, and group 3. Both of group 1 and group 2 consisted of 190 students whereas group 3 consisted of 94 students. The data of this research were gathered from test of learning achievement in Mathematics, questionnaire, and documentation. The data were then analyzed by using umbalanced Two-way Analysis of Variance.The result of the research are as follows: (1) the learning model of Modified TPS is better than that of the TPS and conventional learning models while the learning model of TPS is better than the conventional learning model; (2) the students with high learning discipline have a better learning achievement than those with medium and low learning discipline while the students with medium learning discipline is better than the low learning discipline; (3) in high and medium learning discipline of the students,the learning achievement achieved through the learning model of Modified TPS is better than that achieved through the TPS and conventional learning models while the learning achievement achieved through the TPS learning model is better than that achieved through the conventional learning model. However, in the low learning discipline of the students,the learning achievement achieved through the learning model of Modified TPS is better than that achieved through the TPS,andthe Modified TPS learning model is as good as the conventional learning model and the TPS learning model is as good as the conventional learning model; and (4) in Modified TPS and TPS of the learning models, the high learning discipline of the students results in a better learning achievement than the medium and low learning disciplines while the medium learning discipline results in a better learning achievement than the low learning discipline. However, in the conventional learning model the high learning discipline of the students results in a better learning achievement than the medium learning model, andthe medium learning discipline of the students are giving the same mathematics learning achievement with the low learning discipline.Keyword : Modified TPS learning model, TPS learning model, conventional learning model, learning discipline and learning achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF GROUP INVESTIGATION(GI) DAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI DIMENSI TIGA DENGAN PENDEKATAN PMRI DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Andrijanti, Y Noenoek; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sari, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (284.55 KB)

Abstract

Abstract:The purpose of this research are to know: 1) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach, or conventional learning model, 2) which one gives better achievement in mathematics, student who was high creativity, middle creativity, or low creativity, 3) for each category of student’s creativity (high, middle, and low), which one produces better achievement in mathematics, learning model of GI with IRME approach, learning model of TPS with IRME approach or conventional learning model. This research is quasi-experimental research with the research plan using factorial 3´3. The population of this research was all students in class X in SMA/MA Surakarta academic year 2012/2013. The sample-taking was done using stratified cluster random sampling.  The instrument which was applied to obtain the data of the research was test, questionnaires, and documentation. The test instrument was used to know the mathematics achievement on three- dimensional material. Hence, questionnaires instrument was used to know the student’s creativity. The questionnaires instrument includes content validity, internal consistency and reliability. The test instrument includes content validity, level of difficulty, different power and reliability. The  results of  the  research  are (1) GI type of cooperative learning model with IRME approach provides better learning achievement than the TPS type with IRME approach, conventional learning in mathematic learning in three dimension material. The TPS type of cooperative learning provides the learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning, (2) the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with medium creativity level, the students with medium creativity level have mathematic learning achievement as good as those with low creativity level, and the students with high creativity level have mathematic learning achievement better than those with low creativity level, (3) at each creativity level, the GI type of cooperative learning model application with IRME provided learning achievement better than both TPS type with IRME and conventional learning did. The TPS type of learning model with IRME approach provided learning achievement as good as the conventional learning did in three dimension material of mathematic learning. Keywords:GIlearning model, TPS, IRME, creativity.
EKSPERIMENTASI PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING PADA OPERASI BILANGAN BULAT DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA Rohman, Nur
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (408.686 KB)

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) which learning approach among realistic mathematics learning, problem-based learning, and conventional learning result in the students’ better learning achievement; (2) which learning style among visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles results in the students’ better achievement; (3)In each learning approach, which learning achievement is better among the students with the visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles, and (4)In each learning style, which learning achievement is better among the students with realistic mathematics learning, problem-based learning, and conventional learning.This research used the quasi-experimental research method. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade V of State Primary Schools in Dander sub-district, Bojonegoro regency in Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified random sampling technique.The hypotheses of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two-way analysis of variance.The results of the research are as follows: 1) The realistic mathematics learning results in the same learning achievement as the problem-based learning does, but both the realistic mathematics learning and the problem-based learning result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does. 2) The students with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement than those either with the visual learning style or with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the visual learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style. 3)In the realistic mathematics learning, the students with the visual learning style have a better learning achievement than those with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the auditory learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic style. In the problem-based learning, the student with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement than those with the kinesthetic learning style, but the students with the visual learning style have the same learning achievement as those with the kinesthetic learning style. In the conventional learning, the learning achievements of the students with the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles are similar. 4) In the group of students with the visual learning style, the students instructed with the three learning approaches have the same learning achievement. In the group of students with the auditory learning style, learning achievements of the students instructed with the realistic mathematics, the problem-based learning, and the conventional one are similar, but the students instructed with the problem-based learning have a better learning achievement than those instructed with the conventional one. In the kinesthetic learning style, the learning achievements of the students instructed with the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles are similar
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL JIGSAW SNOWBALL DRILLING DAN PEER TUTORING SNOWBALL DRILLING PADA MATERI POKOK TABUNG, KERUCUT, DAN BOLA DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA P, Nelly Indriastuti; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (326.266 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research were to determine: (1) which results better mathematics learning achievement between students who were taught by using jigsaw snowball drilling, peer tutoring snowball drilling, or direct instruction, (2) which has better mathematics learning achievement between students with visual learning styles, auditory, or kinesthetic, (3). at each of the learning model, which one has better mathematics learning achievement between student with visual learning style, auditory, or kinesthetic, (4). at each learning style, which one results better mathematics learning achievement between students who were taught by using jigsaw snowball drilling, peer tutoring snowball drilling or direct instruction. This study was a quasi experimental research with 3x3 factorial designs. The population in this study was all students of IX graders of SMPN in Blora in the academic year of 2013/2014. Stratified cluster random sampling was used to select three schools namely SMPN 2 Cepu, SMPN 1 Kedungtuban, and SMPN 1 Cepu. The hypotheses testing used unbalanced two ways ANOVA. Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Students who were taught by using jigsaw snowball drilling have better learning achievement than those who were taught by using peer tutoring snowball drilling and direct learning. While the learning achievement of students who were taught by using peer tutoring snowball drilling was better than those who were taught by using direct instruction. (2) Mathematics achievement of auditory students was better than visual and kinesthetic students have. Visual students result mathematics achievement which was better than kinesthetic students. (3) In the jigsaw snowball drilling model, there was no difference in learning achievement in each criterion of student’s learning styles (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). In the peer tutoring snowball drilling models, students mathematics achievement which have auditory learning style better than students with visual and kinesthetic learning style; there was no difference in learning achievement between student who have visual and kinesthetic learning styles. In the direct instruction, there was no difference in learning achievement between student who have visual and auditory learning styles; there was no difference in learning achievement between student who have visual and kinesthetic learning styles; and students mathematics achievement which have auditory learning style better than students with kinesthetic learning style. (4) For the students who have visual learning style, jigsaw snowball drilling results better learning achievement than peer tutoring snowball drilling and direct instruction; there was no difference learning achievement in peer tutoring snowball drilling and direct instruction. For the students who have auditory learning style, there was no difference learning achievement in jigsaw snowball drilling and peer tutoring snowball drilling; jigsaw snowball drilling and peer tutoring snowball drilling result better learning achievement than direct instruction. For the students who have kinesthetic learning style, there was no difference learning achievement in peer tutoring snowball drilling and direct instruction. Jigsaw snowball drilling and peer tutoring snowball drilling result better learning achievement than direct instruction.Keywords: Jigsaw Snowball Drilling, Peer Tutoring Snowball Drilling, Direct Instruction, Student Learning Styles, and Mathematics Learning Achievement.
PENGEMBANGAN KURIKULUM BERDIFERENSIASI MATA PELAJARAN MATEMATIKA SMA UNTUK SISWA CERDAS ISTIMEWA DAN BERBAKAT ISTIMEWA DI KELAS AKSELERASI Murtianto, Yanuar Hery
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (221.779 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The research was aimed at: (1) formulating the needs of mathematics curriculum for gifted and talented students in acceleration class; (2) developing model prototype of differentiated mathematics curriculum of senior high school in acceleration class; (3) finding out the appropriateness of the differentiated mathematics curriculum that was developed.Research and development method was used to produce the model of mathematics curriculum. This method consisted of some steps, namely: (1) the preliminary step including field observation and literary research; (2) the development step including mathematics curriculum analysis and prototype design to be model differentiated mathematics curriculum; and (3) evaluation step to examine the final design of differentiated mathematics curriculum.Findings of the results were: 1) the need of the mathematics is concerned with: (a) the repetition of material minimum, (b) the effectiveness of the compacting of time (c) encourage gifted and talented students to think at a high level, (d) in accordance with the national curriculum tailored to the guidelines for the implementation of accelerated learning program (e) relative ready to use on the condition that a minimum school, 2) to develop a prototype model of differentiated curriculum in high school math class acceleration is done by: (a) analytical standards of competence and competence elementary school and high school mathematics, (b) identify standards and basic competencies based on the revised Blooms taxonomy, (c) mapping standards and basic competencies essential, (d) the escalation of basic competence, (e) develop an indicator based on the escalation of basic competence, ( f) determine the allocation of time on each indicator, (g) organize competency standards, basic competency and escalated of indicators into structure of the semester (h) determine the allocation of time in each half, and 3) the results of the evaluation showed: (a) from in terms of the feasibility of the content of the prospective users of the respondent, the result that differentiated curriculum is good since was responded very good and good as big as 95%, (b) in terms of linguistic, with the result that differentiated curriculum is good since was responded good as big as 100%, (c) the presentation of the curriculum in terms the result that differentiated curriculum was developed is good since was responded very good and good as big as 95%, and (d) in terms of the potential users of the product from graphic, the result that differentiated curriculum is good since was responded very good and good as big as 100%. Besides the evaluation of the design is also made evaluation of differentiated mathematics curriculum content that includes seven components: (a) an accelerated rate of learning by repetition at least 75% of respondents gave very appropriate responses, 25% responded accordingly, (b) control the national curriculum (KTSP) in a shorter time 100% of respondents responded very appropriate, (c) material that is abstract, complex and deep 100% of respondents responded accordingly, (d) the use of skills learned in applying problem-solving strategies 75% of respondents said the suit, 25% of respondents said quite appropriate, (e) oriented learners 100% of respondents said that accordingly, (f) to apply research skills appropriate 75% of respondents said that, 25% said quite appropriate, and (g) motivate students to learn independent is responsed appropriate by the respondent of 100%.Key words: Differentiated Mathematics Curriculum, Gifted, Acceleration.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STAD DAN TGT DENGAN PENDEKATAN KONTEKSTUAL TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR DAN ASPEK AFEKTIF MATEMATIKA SISWA DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN MAJEMUK Fadila, Abi; Budiyono, Budiyono; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (334.842 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) whose learning achievement and affective aspect of Mathematics are better between the students with the cooperative learning model of the STAD type with contextual approach and those with the cooperative learning model of the TGT type with contextual approach; (2) whose learning achievement and affective aspect of Mathematics are better among the students with mathematical logical intelligence, visual intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence; and (3) whether or not there is an interaction in each category of the cooperative learning models and the intelligence types on the learning achievement and affective aspect of Mathematics. This research used the quasi experimental research method. Its population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Sukoharjo regency in Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples of the research consisted of 141 students, and they were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling. The data of the research were gathered through test of learning achievement and questionnaire affective aspect. The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using a two-way MANOVA with unbalance cells at the significance level of 5%. The results of the research are as follows 1) The learning achievement in Mathematics of the students of the TGT with contextual approach is better than that STAD with contextual approach, but the affective aspect of Mathematics of the students with TGT with contextual approach is as good as that STAD with contextual approach; 2) The learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the mathematical logical intelligence is as good as those of the students with the kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence but better than visual intelligence, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the kinesthetic intelligence is better than interpersonal intelligence. The affective aspect of Mathematics of the students with the mathematical logical intelligence is as good as that of the students with the kinesthetic intelligence, but better than visual intelligence and interpersonal intelligence, and the affective aspect of Mathematics of the students with the visual intelligence is as good as that of the students with the interpersonal intelligence. 3) There is no any interaction of effect of the cooperative learning models and the multiple intelligences on the learning achievement in Mathematics and the affective aspect of Mathematics.Keywords: STAD, TGT, multiple intelligences, learning achievement, and affective aspect.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF THINK PAIR SHARE DAN TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION PADA MATERI TRIGONOMETRI DITINJAU DARI MINAT BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA SMK DI KABUPATEN PONOROGO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2011/2012 Budiastuti, Siti Amirah; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Triyanto, Triyanto
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (266.334 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) wich learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), or conventional learning model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics, (2) which learning interest of the high learning interest, the moderate learning interest, and the low learning interest results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics,(3) in the students with the high, moderate, and low learning interests, wich learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), and conventional learning model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3x3. The population of the research were the students of Vocational High School (SMK) in Ponorogo regency on Academic Year 2011/2012. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. It was conducted at SMK 1 of Ponorogo, SMK Bakti of Ponorogo, and SMK Sore 1 of Ponorogo. The samples included two experimental classes and one control class of each of the schools. The size of the sample was 275 students consisted of 84 students in the first experimental class, 105 sudents in the second experimental class and 86 students in control class. The data of the research were gathered through mathematics achievement tes and quetionary of learning interest. The data was analyzed by using two-way analysis of variance with.The results of the reseach are as follows: (1) both TPS and TAI result in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics, and result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does; (2) the students with the higher learning interest have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the moderate learning interest and the low learning interest, but the students with the moderat learning interest have the same learning achievement in Mathematics those with the low learning interest; (3) in the students with the high, moderat, and low learning interest, both TPS and TAI result in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics, and result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does.Key words: Think Pair Share, Team Assisted Individualization, Conventional, Learning Interest
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT DAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL SISWA Margono, Agus; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (183.01 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of  this study were to determine: (1) which has better learning achievement in mathematics, the application of TGT type cooperative learning, NHT type cooperative learning, or direct learning, (2) which has better learning achievement, the students with high emotional intelligence, medium, or low, (3) which has better learning achievement at each level of high, medium, and low emotional intelligence on cooperative learning model TGT, NHT, or direct learning, (4) which has better learning achievement on students with high, medium or low intelligence emotional at each learning of TGT, NHT, and direct learning.This research was a quasi experimental with 3 × 3 factorial design. The study population were  seventh grade student of Junior High School State of Yogyakarta. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling with sample of the study were the students of SMPN 1, SMPN 12, and SMPN 14. Each of samples consists of three classes as TGT models class, NHT models class, and control class. The number of total members sample were 303 students. The instrument used to collect the data was mathematics achievement test instruments and students emotional intelligence questionnaire instrument. From the analysis it was concluded that: (1) TGT learning model has better achievement than NHT model and direct learning, NHT learning model has better achievement than direct learning, (2) the students with high emotional intelligence has better achievement than the students with medium and low emotional intelligence, while the students with medium emotional intelligence has better achievement than the students with low emotional intelligence, (3) the students with high emotional intelligence has the same achievement on TGT, NHT, or Direct Learning model; the students with medium intelligence, TGT model has better performance than NHT model, NHT model has the same achievement as direct learning model, TGT model has the same achievement as direct learning model; the students with low emotional intelligence has the same achievement on learning TGT model, NHT model, and direct learning, (4) the students with high, medium and low emotional intelligence has the same performance on TGT and NHT learning; on Direct Learning, the students with high emotional intelligence has better achievement than students with low emotional intelligence, the students with high emotional intelligence has the same achievement as medium emotional intelligence, the students with medium emotional intelligence has the same achievement as low emotional intelligence.Keywords: Teams Games Tournament, Numbered Heads Together, Emotional Intelligence, Learning Achievement.

Page 8 of 37 | Total Record : 369

 6   7   8   9   10 

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