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
 7   8   9   10   11 
TINGKAT KREATIVITAS SISWA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA DIVERGEN DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA (Studi Pada Siswa Kelas IX MTS Negeri Plupuh Kabupaten Sragen Semester Gasal Tahun Pelajaran 2013/ 2014) Richardo, Rino; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sari, Dewi Retno
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 (275.539 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aims of this research is to describe the level of Junior High School students’ creativity in solving divergent mathematical problem viewed from the students’ learning style.This study was qualitative descriptive reasearch. The subject of this research was 9 students from the ninth grade of MTSN Plupuh consisting of 4 students had visual learning style, 3 students had auditorial learning style, and 2 students had kinesthetic learning style. The researcher used purposive sampling and snowball method to select the subject. In collecting data, the researcher used grouping test in learning style, problem solving test of divergent mathematics, and interview. To techniques of data analysis in this research were as follows: (1) reducing data, (2) present of data in narrative text, (3) To conclude the level of students’ creativity at each learning style. The validity of data used time triangulation.Based on the research result, there are two findings as follows: main findings and other findings. The main findings shows that (1) the students with visual and auditorial learning styles can eligible to indicators of creativity, fluently and flexibility, so that those students have the third level of creativity (creative) in solving divergent mathematical problem, (2) While, the students with kinesthetic learning style can eligible to indicators of creativity, namely fluently. So that those students have the first level of creativity (less creative) in solving divergent mathematical problem. Then, the other findings data shows that (1) there are two students with visual learning style are identified having the second level (quite creative) and the forth level (very creative) of creativity in solving divergent mathematical problem, (2) while there is one student with auditorial learning style is identified not creative (level 0). Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the students’ learning styles affect to students’ creativity, so that the teacher should know and understand students’ learning style in order to determine the best method of learning process. It is because each learning style affects to students’ different responses in getting the information.Keywords : Level of Creativity, Problem Solving, Divergent Mathematics, Students’ Learning Style
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DENGAN MAKE A MATCH (NHT MM) DAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER DENGAN BAMBOO DANCING (NHT BD) DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN INTERPERSONAL Dewi, Arianti Puspita; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Usodo, Budi
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 (263.739 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of this research were to determine: (1) which students mathematics achievement would be better, student  given NHT MM, NHT BD, or direct learning model, (2) which students mathematics achievement would be better, student with interpersonal intelligence of high, medium or low, (3) which students mathematics achievement would be better, student with interpersonal intelligence of high, medium, or low on each learning model, (4) which student mathematics achievement would be better, student given NHT MM, NHT BD, or direct learning model in each interpersonal intelligence. The instruments were used mathematics achievement test and questionnaire of student’s interpersonal intelligence. The data was analyzed using two ANOVA ways then followed by multiple comparisson tests with using Scheffe’ method. Concluded that: (1) NHT MM model has better mathematics achievement than NHT BD model and direct learning model, while NHT BD model has better mathematics achievement than direct learning model, (2) the students with high interpersonal intelligence has better mathematics achievement than the medium and low interpersonal intelligence students, while the student with medium interpersonal intelligence has better mathematics achievement than the low interpersonal intelligence students, (3) for NHT MM, mathematics achievement of students with high interpersonal intelligence was as good as medium and low interpersonal intelligence, however the mathematics achievement of the students with high interpersonal intelligence were better than the students with low interpersonal intelligence; for NHTBD, the mathematics achievement of students with high intelligence were better than medium and low intelligence, and the mathematics achievement of students with medium intelligence was good as low intelligence; for direct learning, the mathematics achievement of students with high intelligence was better than medium and low intelligence, and the mathematics achievement of students with medium intelligence was good as low intelligence, (4) the students with high, medium, and low interpersonal intelligence have the same achievement of mathematics for the models of NHTMM, NHTBD, and direct learning; for medium and low interpersonal intelligence, the students mathematics achievement treated by NHTMM was better than students treated by NHTBD and direct learning model.Keywords: Numbered Heads Together, Make a Match, Bamboo Dancing, interpersonal intelligence, mathematics achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DENGAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF JIGSAW DAN TEAMS GAMES TOURNAMENT (TGT) DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN INTRAPERSONAL SISWA Hidayati, Noor; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Riyadi, Riyadi
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 (193.785 KB)

Abstract

Abstract. The aims of the research were to determine: (1) which one has better learning achievement, Jigsaw learning model, TGT, or conventional, (2) which one has better learning achievement, students with high, middle or low intrapersonal, (3) based on learning model, which one has better learning achievement, students with high, middle, or low intrapersonal intelligence, (4) based on intrapersonal intelligence, which one has better learning achievement, Jigsaw learning model, TGT, or conventional. The type of the research was a quasi-experimental research with  a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population was XI science  students  of Senior High School in Kudus regency on academic year 2013/2014. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The size of the sample were 277 students consisted of 95 students in the first experimental group, 87 students in the second and 95 for the control class. The instruments used were mathematics  achievement test and  intrapersonal intelligence questionnaire. The hypotheses testing used unbalanced two ways ANOVA. Based on hypothesis testing, it can be concluded as follow. (1) Student learning achievement  treated by TGT  is better than Jigsaw  and conventional, and Jigsaw model is better than conventional, (2) Learning achievement of students who have high intrapersonal intelligence is better than students who have middle and low intrapersonal intelligence, and students who have middle intrapersonal intelligence is better than students who have low intrapersonal intelligence, (3) Based on  all types of learning models,    students who have high intrapersonal intelligence have better learning achievement than students who have middle and low intrapersonal intelligence, and students who have  middle intrapersonal intelligence have better learning achievement than student  who have low intrapersonal intelligence. (4)  For high intrapersonal intelligence, students learning achievement treated by TGT is better than Jigsaw, for both learning models,  Jigsaw  and conventional have the same learning achievement. For middle intrapersonal intelligence, students learning achievement treated by TGT  is better than conventional, while both learning models,  Jigsaw and conventional have the same learning achievement. For low intrapersonal intelligence,  conventional and TGT are better than Jigsaw, while both learning models, TGT and conventional have the same learning achievement.Keywords: Jigsaw, TGT,  intrapersonal intelligence, learning achievement.  
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM POSING DAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TIPE PROBLEM SOLVING DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII KOTA SURAKARTA Aprisetyani, Giant; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
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 (278.569 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning model of the Problem Posing, Problem Solving, and Direct Instruction results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics;  (2) which students of those with the visual learning style, those with the auditorial learning style, and those with the kinesthetic learning style have a better learning achievement in Mathematics; (3) in each learning model, which learning style of the visual learning style, the auditory learning style, and the kinesthetic learning style results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics; (4) in each learning style, which learning model of the the Problem Posing, the Problem Solvingand the Direct Instruction results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics.This research used the quasi experimental research with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The population of the research was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools in Surakarta in Academic Year 2013/2014. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples consisted of three schools, namely: State Primary School 3, State Primary School of Surakarta, State Primary School 10 of Surakarta, and State Primary School21 of Surakarta. The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using the two-way analysis of variance (ANAVA) with unbalanced cells with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The results of the research are as follows: (1) the students instructed with the Problem Solving model have a better learning  achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the Problem Posing type learning model and those instructed with the Direct Instruction, and the students instructed with the Problem Posing type learning model have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those instructed with the Direct Instruction;  (2) the students with the visual learning style have a better  learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the auditory learning style  and those with the kinesthetic learning style, and the students with the auditory learning style have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the kinesthetic learning style; (3a) in the Problem-Posing type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the auditory learning style  is the same as that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, but the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is better than that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, (3b) in the Problem Solving type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the auditory learning style is the same as that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, but the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is better than that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style, and (3c) in the  Direct Instruction, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the visual learning style is the same as that of the students with the auditory learning style and that of the students with the kinesthetic learning style; and (4a)  in the students with visual learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem possing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to problem possing type learning model is better than that of the students exposed to the direct instruction, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem solving is better than that of the students exposed to direct instruction, (4b) in the students with the auditory learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem posing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model and that of the students exposed to the direct instruction, and (4c) in the students with the kinesthetic learning style, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the problem possing type learning model is the same as that of the students exposed to the problem solving type learning model, and that of the students exposed to the learning instruction.Keywords:  Problem Posing, Problem Solving, Direct Instruction, learning styles, and learning achievement in Mathematics.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN GI DENGAN PENDEKATAN QL PADA PECAHAN TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR DAN KREATIVITAS SISWA Khasanah, Binti Anisaul; Budiyono, Budiyono; Usodo, Budi
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 (367.544 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: This research aims to know the different effect among learning used Group Investigation with Quantum Learning approach (GI-QL), Group Investigation (GI), and direct learning  models. This research was quasi experimental research with factorial design of 3x3x2. The population of this research was the seventh grade students of State Junior High School of District Pringsewu in The Academic Year 2013/2014. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The data analysis used a three way analysis of variance with different cell at significance levels 0.05. The results of this research was as follows: (1) learning used GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (2.a) at learning used GI-QL, kinesthetic, auditory, and visual learners have the same learning achievement; at learning used GI, visual learners have better  learning achievement than auditory, and kinesthetic and auditory learners have the same learning achievement; whereas at learning used direct learning models, kinesthetic learners have better  learning achievement than visual and kinesthetic learners, and visual and kinesthetic learners have the same learning achievement, (2.b) for kinesthetic and auditory learners, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI and direct learning models result the same learning achievement; and for visual learners, GI-QL and GI result the same learning achievement but better than direct learning models, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (3.a) at each of learning models, students with high learning creativity have better learning achievement than low learning creativity, (3.b) at each of learning creativity categories, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models do, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models does, (4.a) at each of learning models with each of learning styles, students with high learning creativity have better learning achievement than low learning creativity, (4.b) at each of learning models with each of learning creativity, visual learners have the same learning achievement with kinesthetic learners but it better  than auditory learners, and auditory learners have better learning achievement than kinesthetic learners, (4.c) at each of learning styles with each of learning creativity, GI-QL results better learning achievement than GI and direct learning models, and GI results better learning achievement than direct learning models.Keywords: Group Investigation, Quantum Learning, Direct Learning, Learning Style, Learning Creativity. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) DAN NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER (NHT) TERHADAP PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI KONSEP DIRI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA DI SMP NEGERI E-KABUPATEN BLORA Kusumaningtyas, Yekti Putri; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
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 (239.272 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to find out: (1) which one is better among learning models of Think Talk Write (TTW), Numbered Head Together (NHT) or conventional one in giving mathematics learning achievement, (2) which one is better among students’ levels of self concept, students having high, medium or low self concept in giving mathematics learning achievement. (3) in each learning model, which one is better among students’ levels of self concept in having mathematics learning achievement and (4) in each level of self concept, which one is better among Think Talk Write (TTW), Numbered Head Together (NHT) or conventional model in giving mathematics learning achievement. This research was the quasi-experimental research with 3×3 factorial design. The population of research was all students of Junior High School (SMP) in Blora. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The samples were 309 students; consist of 105 students in the first experimental class, 105 in the second experimental class, and 99 students in control class. The instruments used to collect the data were the test of mathematics achievement and questionnaire of self concept. Pre-requisite tests were used Lilliefors method for normality test and Bartlett method for homogeneity test. After examining the data, it showed that the data had same variance and they were in normal distribution. Prior knowledge data are examined by using one-way ANOVA with unbalanced cells. It showed that three classes had balance prior knowledge. Meanwhile, the technique of analyzing the data was two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The result of research showed that: (1) Think Talk Write (TTW) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) learning models had better achievement than conventional model, Think Talk Write (TTW) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) learning models had the same mathematics achievement, (2) the students having high self concept had better learning achievement than those having medium and low self concept, the students having medium and low self concept had the same mathematics learning achievement, (3) in each learning model: the students having high self concept had better learning achievement than those having medium and low self concept, the students having medium and low self concept had the same mathematics learning achievement, (4) in each level of self concept: Think Talk Write (TTW) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) model better learning achievement than conventional model, Think Talk Write (TTW) and Numbered Head Together (NHT) model had the same good mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Think Talk Write (TTW), Numbered Head Together (NHT), mathematics learning achievement, and self concept.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TWO STAY TWO STRAY DAN NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER PADA MATERI POKOK FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN INTERPERSONAL SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA SURAKARTA Zainuddin, Zainuddin; 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 (200.645 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of this research were to determine: (1) which has better learning achievement, students are given TS-TS, NHT, or direct  intruction, (2)  which has better learning achievement, students with intrapersonal intelligence of high, medium or low, (3) which has better learning achievement, students with interpersonal intelligence of high, medium or low on each learning model, (4) which has better learning achievement, students are given TS-TS, NHT, and direct intruction on each interpersonal intelligence. This study was a quasi experimental research with 3 3 factorial design. The population of this study was all eighth grade students of junior high schools in Surakarta. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling. The sample in this study are 271 people with details of 89 people for class experiment I, 91 people for class experiment II and 91 people for control class. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and  questionnaire of student’s interpersonal intelligence. The data was analyzed using two ways anova. Based on the hypothesis test, it is concluded as follows. (1) Cooperative learning methods TS-TS type provide a better performance than cooperative learning method NHT type and direct intruction. (2) Mathematics learning achievements of students with high interpersonal intelligence levels did not differ from that of students with medium levels of interpersonal intelligence, while learning mathematics achievement of students with a high or medium level of interpersonal intelligence was better than that of students with low levels of interpersonal intelligence. (3) At each level of students’ interpersonal intelligence, TS-TS provided a better mathematics learning achievement compared with NHT learning and direct learning, while NHT learning provided no difference in mathematics learning achievement from direct learning. (4) At each learning model, mathematics learning achievement of students with high level of interpersonal intelligence was not different from that of students with medium level of interpersonal intelligence, while mathematics learning achievement of students with a high or medium level of interpersonal intelligence was better than that of students with low levels of interpersonal intelligence.Keywords: Two Stay Two Stray (TS-TS), Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Interpersonal Intelligence.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN 4Ex2 DAN LC 5E PADA MATERI PLSV DAN PtLSV DITINJAU DARI SIKAP SISWA TERHADAP MATEMATIKA Fitrianna, Aflich Yusnita; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Subanti, Sri
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 (203.457 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the students attitude towards mathematics. The learning model compared were 4Ex2, LC 5E and conventional learning model. Data analysis techniques used to test the hypothesis was two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of the research were as follows. 1) The learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the 4Ex2 learning model are better than LC 5E learning model and conventional learning model, and  the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the LC 5E learning model are better than conventional learning model. 2) The learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high attitudes toward Mathematics are better than that of the students with the medium and low attitudes toward Mathematics, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the medium attitudes toward Mathematics are better than that of the students with the low attitudes toward Mathematics. 3) In the 4Ex2 learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high attitudes toward Mathematics are better than medium and low attitudes toward Mathematics, and the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the medium attitudes toward Mathematics are better than low attitudes toward Mathematics. In the LC 5E learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high attitudes toward Mathematics are better than medium and low attitudes toward Mathematics, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the medium attitudes toward Mathematics are the same as low attitudes toward Mathematics. In the conventional learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high attitudes toward Mathematics are the same as medium attitudes toward Mathematics, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students with the high and medium attitudes toward Mathematics are better than low attitudes toward Mathematics. 4) In the students with the high attitudes toward Mathematics the learning achivement of the students exposed to the LC 5E learning model are the same as 4Ex2 learning model and the conventional learning model, the learning achievement in Mathematics of the students exposed to the 4Ex2 learning model are better than conventional learning model, and both in the students with the medium attitudes toward Mathematics and in those with the low attitudes toward Mathematics, students exposed to the 4Ex2 learning model, LC 5E learning model, and conventional learning model result in the same learning achievement in Mathematics.Keywords: Learning model, 4Ex2, LC 5E, attitudes toward Mathematics, learning achievement in Mathematics.
PROSES INTEGRASI SIKAP DALAM PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA SMP BERDASARKAN KURIKULUM 2013 (Studi Kasus pada Proses Pembelajaran Kelas VII SMP Al Azhar Syifa Budi Solo Semester Ganjil Tahun Pelajaran 2013/2014) Sulaiman, Sulaiman; Sujadi, Imam; Riyadi, Riyadi
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 (207.761 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to describe the integration process and attitude assessment done by the teacher in mathematics learning process at seventh grade of SMP Al Azhar Syifa Budi Solo. This qualitative research was a case study. The subjects of this research were a teacher and three seventh grade students of SMP Al Azhar Syifa Budi Solo. The data of integration process was in the form of activity within mathematics learning process supported by the subjects’ statement. Data analyzing process began by assessing all data available in the recorder, which includes the learning process and interview. There were three steps in analyzing the data: data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusion. Information of attitude assessment was in the form of information gathering activity conducted by the teacher to the students. The data were obtained from the transcription of recorded interview and learning process. Validation techniques used were perseverance maintenance and time triangulation. The results of this research are as follows: 1) Integration process of attitude in mathematics learning at seventh grade of SMP Al Azhar Budi Syifa Solo based on Curriculum 2013. During observation learning process, the teacher asks the students to observe objects and events in daily life related to mathematics learning topic. During question and answer learning process, the teacher gives questions to the students and provides them chance to ask questions. During information gathering process, the students were asked to discuss a certain concept, to read a book and to discuss it, to examine, to explain, and to solve a problem. During associating learning process, the teacher asks the students to analyze, to associate, and to define in details the learning topic. Lastly, during communicating learning process, the teacher helps the students to summarize the material comprehensively. 2) Process of attitude assessment during mathematics learning at seventh grade of SMP Al Azhar Syifa Budi Solo are: the process of curiosity assessment was conducted by the teacher when the students solved the problems related to the materials; the process of responsibility assessment was conducted by the teacher when the students solved the problems and when the students present the result of their discussion in front of the class. The assessment of curiosity and responsibility were conducted by giving checklist mark on the attitude observation sheet.Key Words: integration process of attitude, attitude assessment process, curiosity,responsibility, curriculum 2013
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TTW DAN TPS PADA PERSAMAAN GARIS LURUS DITINJAU DARI KARAKTERISTIK CARA BERPIKIR SISWA SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN PRINGSEWU Suningsih, Ari; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (171.744 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of the research were to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from students mind  style. The learning model compared were TTW (Think Talk Write), TPS (Think Pair Share) and conventional. The kind of research was a quasi experimental research. The population was the students of Junior high school in Pringsewu regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of the sample was 286 students, consisted of 98 students in the first experimental group, 105 students in second experimental group and 84 students in control group. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and questionnaire. Hypothesis analysis test used two ways analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions were as follow. (1) TTW model gave the same effect as TPS, but TTW model  was better than conventional and TPS model gave the same effect as conventional. (2) For all types of students mind style gave the same effect for mathematics learning achievement of students. (3) In each model of learning, students with mind style types concrete sequential, abstract sequential, concrete random, or abstract random have the same effect for mathematics learning achievement. (4) In each mind style, TTW model gave the same effect as TPS, but TTW model was better than conventional and TPS model gave the same effect as conventional.Keywords: TTW, TPS, Conventional, Mind Style, Mathematics Learning Achievement.

Page 9 of 37 | Total Record : 369

 7   8   9   10   11 

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