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 Pembelajaran Matematika
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : -     EISSN : -     DOI : -
Core Subject : Education,
Mathematics
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 2 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue " Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika" : 2 Documents clear
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION DAN PROBING-PROMPTING DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI OPERASI ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI KECEMASAN BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Kurniasari, Dewi; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of learning model toward learning achievement in mathematics viewed from the mathematics anxiety. The learning models of this research were cooperative learning model of the GI with Scientific Approach, the cooperative learning model of the Probing-Prompting with Scientific Approach, and classical learning model with Scientific Approach. This was a quasi-experimental study with 3×3 factorical design. The study population was all eighth grade students of state junior high school in Karanganyar District. The sample was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling method. The sample consisted of 280 students with 95 students in the first experimental class, 93 students in the second experimental class, and 92 students in the control class. Instruments used to colled data were mathematics achievement test and the student’s mathematics anxiety questionnaire. The proposed hypotheses of the research were tested by using the two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The results of the research were as follows: 1) GI cooperative learning model with scientific approach gave better achievement than probing-prompting with scientific approach and classical learning model with scientific approach while probing-prompting and classical learning model with scientific approach gave same achievement, 2) the students with low mathematics anxiety had better achievement than the students with moderate and high mathematics anxiety, and the students with moderate mathematics anxiety had better achievement than the students with high mathematics anxiety, 3) in all categories of student’s mathematics anxiety, GI cooperative learning model with scientific approach, Probing-Prompting cooperative learning model with scientific approach, and classical learning model with scientific approach gave the same learning achievement in mathematics, 4) in the GI cooperative learning model with scientific approach and Probing-Prompting cooperative learning model with scientific approach, the students with low mathematics anxiety had better achievement than the students with moderate and high mathematics anxiety, and the students with moderate mathematics anxiety had better achievement than the students with high mathematics anxiety. In the classical learning model with scientific approach, the students with low mathematics anxiety had better achievement than the students with moderate and high mathematics anxiety, while the students with moderate and high mathematics anxiety had the same achievement.Keywords: Group Investigation (GI), Probing-Prompting, Classical Instruction, Scientific Approach, Mathematics Anxiety, Learning Achievement in Mathematics.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN NUMBERED HEAD TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINKING ALOUD PAIR PROBLEM SOLVING (TAPPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI OPERASI ALJABAR DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI SURAKARTA Hidayat, Edisut Taufik; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of research were to find out: 1) which one is better learning achievement, scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, or scientific classical, 2) which one is better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low AQ, 3) in each learning models, which one is better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low AQ, 4) in each AQ level, which one is better learning achievement, scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, or scientific classical. This research was the quasi experimental research with 3×3 factorial design. The population of research was all grade VIII students of Junior High School in Surakarta. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments that used were achievement test and Adversity Quotient (AQ) questionare. The proposed hypothesis of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two-way ANOVA. The results of this research were as follows. 1) Scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific TAPPS and scientific classical, while scientific TAPPS had better learning achievement than scientific classical. 2) The students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium and low AQ, while the students with medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. 3) In scientific NHT, the students with high, medium, and low AQ had the same learning achievement. In scientific TAPPS, the students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium AQ, while the students with high and medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. In scientific classical, the students with high AQ had better learning achievement than medium and low AQ, while the students with medium AQ had better learning achievement than low AQ. 4) At the students with high AQ, scientific NHT and scientific classical had the same learning achievement with scientific TAPPS, while scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific classical. At the students with medium AQ, scientific NHT had the same learning achievement with scientific TAPPS, while scientific NHT and scientific TAPPS had better learning achievement than scientific classical. At the student with low AQ, scientific NHT had better learning achievement than scientific TAPPS and scientific classical, while scientific TAPPS had the same learning achievement with scientific classical.Keywords: scientific NHT, scientific TAPPS, scientific classical, Adversity Quotient (AQ), Achievement

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 2

 1 

Filter by Year

2016 2016


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 5, No 3 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 2 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 5, No 1 (2018): Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 4 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 2 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 1 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 10 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 9 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 8 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (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 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 1 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 8 (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 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 5 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 2 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 7 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 6 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 5 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (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 2 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 1 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika More Issue