<![CDATA[Thisresearchiskind of quasi-experimentalresearchby 3x4 factordesign. The population of thisresearchisallstudents of class VII atthe States Junior High School (SMP Negeri) in Pacitan Regency of 2011/2012 academicyear. The data collectionwasdoneusingquestionnaire, test, anddocumentationtechniques. The problem solvingabilityistestedwithessaytest, whilethepersonalitytypeidentifiedwith a questionnaire. Data analysisusingvariansanalysis (Anava) withdifferentcellssize.The conclusions of thisresearchwere: (1) GI and TAPPS providebetterproblem-solvingabilitythantheconventionallearning model on studentsinjuniorclass VII Pacitan academicyear 2011/2012. However, amongstudentswith GI learningmodelsand TAPPS learningmodels, havethesameproblem-solvingabilities, (2) studentswith artisan typeorrationaltype has better problem solvingabilitybetterstudentswithidealistorguardiantype. However, boththestudentswith artisan andrationaltypehavethesameproblem-solvingabilities. Learnerswithidealistandguardiantypesalsohavethesameproblem-solvingability, (3a) intheclassusingthe GI and TAPPS learning model, problem-solvingabilities of studentswith artisan orrationalpersonalitytypeisbetterwhencomparedtoproblem-solvingabilities of studentswithguardianoridealistpersonalitytype. Eventhough, in a classthatusesconventionallearningmodels, allgroups of personalitytypeshavethesameproblem-solvingability, and (3b) for artisan orrationalpersonality, GI and TAPPS providebetterproblem-solvingabilitythantheconventionallearning model. The inconclusionalllearningmodelsgivethesame problem solvingabilities for idealistorguardianpersonalitytype. Keyword:problem solvingability, GI, TAPPS, personalitytype.]]>
Copyrights © 2013
