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 10 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika" : 10 Documents clear
EFEKTIFITAS MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF JIGSAW II DANTEAMS-GAMES-TOURNAMENTS (TGT) PADA MATERI BARISAN DAN DERET DITINJAU DARI TIPE KEPRIBADIAN SISWA SMK KELAS X DI KABUPATEN KLATEN Mirati, Luthfiana; Riyadi, Riyadi; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to find out on  the topic of Sequences and Series: (1) which had better learning achievement among cooperative learning Jigsaw II, cooperative learning TGT or a direct learning; (2) which had better learning achievement between melancholies students, phlegmatic students, sanguine students or choleric students; (3) at each personality types, which had better learning achievement among Jigsaw II, TGT or direct learning, and (4) at each learning models, which had better learning achievement between melancholies students, phlegmatic students, sanguine students or choleric students. This research was a quasi-experimental with 3×4 factorial design. The population was all students in tenth grade of vocational schools technology, health, and agriculture in Klaten Regency on Academic Years 2012/2013. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The total of sample was 233 students. Statistical tests using the method Lilliefors test for normality, homogeniety of the Bartlett method, anava test with F test (Fisher) and post hoc test using the Scheffe’ method. The significance level was 0,05. Based on hypothesis test, it could  be concluded as follows: (1) TGT had better learning achievement than Jigsaw II and direct learning, Jigsaw II had better learning achievement than direct learning; (2) there were no any differences in the learning achievement in mathematics of the students with melancholies, phlegmatic, sanguine or choleric personality types; (3) in each personality types, the cooperative learning model TGT had better than cooperative learning Jigsaw II, and both result had better learning achievement in mathematics than the direct learning model; (4) in each learning model, the students with melancholies, phlegmatic, sanguine or choleric personality types have the same learning achievement.Keywords: Melancholies, Choleric, Phlegmatic, Sanguine, TGT, Jigsaw II and Direct learning.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE DENGAN PENDEKATAN ILMIAH PADA POKOK BAHASAN LIMIT FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT PESERTA DIDIK SMA NEGERI KABUPATEN BANYUMAS TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/2014 Dian Ratna Ariyani; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Dewi Retno Sari S
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract : The purposes of the  research  were  to  know:  (1)  which  learning  models  -think pair share cooperative learning model with scientific approach (TPS SA), think pair share cooperative learning (TPS), and direct learning model (DL)-that will give the best learning mathematics result;  (2)  which level of students adversity  quotient  (AQ) -quitter, camper, and climber-that will give the best mathematics learning result; (3) which learning models -TPS SA, TPS, and DL- that will give the best learning mathematics result at categories AQ; (4) which level of students AQ -quitter, camper and climber- that will give the best learning mathematics result at categories learning models. The research used a quasi-experimental designed with population was all students of eleventh grade science in Banyumas in the academic year 2013/2014. The technique sampling was stratified cluster random sampling. The instrument used to collect the data was a questionnaire of AQ and math achievement tests. Hypothesis test used two way analysis of variance with unequal cells. Based on the analysis we concluded: (1) TPS SA provided a better learning achievement than only TPS and direct learning, TPS provided a better learning achievement than direct learning; (2) climber students had a better learning achievement than camper and quitter, camper had a better learning achievement than a quitter; (3) for climber students, TPS SA, TPS, and  direct learning provided the same good learning performance, for camper students, TPS SA provided a better learning achievement than TPS and direct learning, TPS provided a better learning achievement than direct learning, for quitter students, TPS SA, TPS, and  direct learning provided the same good learning performance; (4) in TPS SA, climber students had an academic achievement as good as camper students, climber students had a better learning achievement than quitter students, camper students had a better learning achievement than quitter students, in TPS, climber students had a better learning achievement than quitter and camper, camper students had a better learning achievement than quitter, in direct learning, climber students had a better learning achievement than quitter and camper, camper students had academic achievement as good as quitter.Keywords: Cooperative  Learning,  Scientific  Approach,  Think  Pair  Share  with scientific approach, Adversity Quotient (AQ).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK DISERTAI DENGAN STRATEGI PETA KONSEP PADA MATERI BILANGAN DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA METRO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2014/2015 Wihasti Imas Priyandani; Budiyono Budiyono; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research aimed to know: (1) which one of the learning models gave a better achievement between TPS concept maps, TPS, or clasical, (2) which one of the students with types of learning style had a better achievement between students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, (3) at each learning style types, which one of the learning models gave a better achievement between TPS concept maps, TPS, or clasical, (4) at each the learning models, which one of the students with types of learning style had a better achievement between students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. The population of the research was the eighth class students of Junior High School at Metro regency on academic year 2013/2014 and the sample was students from SMP Negeri 2 Metro, SMP Negeri 6 Metro and SMP Negeri 5 Metro which was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. This was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The data analysis technique used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. Based on the data analysis, it was concluded as follows. 1) TPS concept maps gave the same achievement as TPS and clasical, 2) The students with auditory had better achievement than the students with visual and kinesthetic, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with kinesthetic, 3) In TPS concept maps, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with auditory, the students with visual gave the same achievement as students with kinesthetic, and the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic. In TPS, the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with visual, the students with auditory had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic, the students with visual had better achievement than the students with kinesthetic. In clasical model, the students with visual had the same achievement as the students with auditory and kinesthetic. 4) At the students with visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. TPS concept maps gave the same achievement as TPS and clasical.Keywords: TPS concept maps, TPS, Learning Style, 
EKSPERIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DENGAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN INKUIRI DAN PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH PADA MATERI POKOK BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN NGAWI Ony Syaiful Rizal; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Budi Usodo
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of this research were to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the students with inquiry learning, problem based learning model, or direct instruction; (2) which one having better mathematics learning achievement, the students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning style; (3) at each learning model, are there any difference in mathematics learning achievement between the students with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning style; (4) at each type of learning style, are there any difference in mathematics learning achievement between students taught using inquiry learning model, problem based learning model, or direct instruction. This study was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The hypotheses testing used two ways ANOVA with unequal cell. From the research, it could be concluded as follows. (1) The students taught with problem based learning model had better learning achievement than those taught with both inquiry learning model and direct instruction. The students taught with inquiry learning model had better learning achievement than direct instruction. (2) The learning achievement of the students with auditory learning style was better than that of those with visual and kinesthetic learning style. The learning achievement of the students with visual learning style was better than that of those with kinesthetic learning style. (3) In inquiry learning model, problem based learning model and In the direct instruction, there was no difference in learning achievement in each learning style. (4) In the students with visual learning style, the use of problem based learning model provided the better mathematics learning achievement than the use of inquiry learning model and direct instruction. The use of inquiry learning model provided the mathematics learning achievement as good as the use of direct instruction. In the students with auditory and kinesthetic learning style, there was no difference in learning achievement in each learning model.Keywords: Problem Based Learning Model, Inquiry Learning, Mathematics Learning                         Achievement
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE GROUP INVESTIGATION, THINK-PAIR-SHARE, DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI EKSPONEN DAN LOGARITMA DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA KELAS X SMA NEGERI KABUPATEN PACITAN Suprapto Suprapto; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Imam Sujadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of this research was to know the influence of teaching and learning models with the scientific approach toward the students’ achievement in learning mathematics considered from the creativity of the students. Teaching and learning models to be compared were GI, TPS, and PBL. This research was chategorized as a quasi experimental research. The population was all students of grade X MIA public SMAs in Pacitan regency in the year 2014/2015. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The method of data collection were documentation, questionaire, and test. Hypothesis testing was performed using two-way analysis of variance with unequal cells. The conclusions of this research were as follows. 1. The students’ achievement in mathematics given GI-S model was better than those who were given TPS-S model, while the students’ achievement given GI-S was the same as those who were given PBL-S model, and the students’ achievement given TPS-S model was the same as those who were given  PBL-S model;  2. The mathematics achievement of the students who had high level creativity was the same as those who had  medium level creativity, while those who had  high level creativity was better than those who had  low level creativity, and the students with medium level gave the same achievement as those with low level creativity; 3. In high level creativity, the students’ achievement in learning mathematics using GI-S model was the same as those using TPS-S and PBL-S models. In medium level creativity, the students using GI-S model gave the same achievement as those using TPS-S and PBL-S models, but the students’ achievement using  PBL-S model was better than using TPS-S model. In low level creativity, the students who learned mathematics using GI-S model gave the same achievement as those who used TPS-S and PBL-S models, and the students’ achievement using TPS-S model was the same as those using PBL-S model; 4. In learning mathematics using GI-S model, the students with high, medium, and low level creativity gave the same achivement. In using TPS-S model, the students with high, medium, and low level creativity gave the same achievement. In using PBL-S, the students with high level creativity had the same achievement as those who had medium and low level creativity, but the students with medium level creativity gave better achievement than those who had low level creativity.Keywords: Group Investigation (GI), Think Pair Share (TPS), Problem Based Learning (PBL), Scientific approach, Creativity
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN RESOURCE BASED LEARNING (RBL)DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL)DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN KOMUNIKASI MATEMATIK PESERTA DIDIK KELAS XI SMA SEKABUPATEN KUDUS TAHUN 2013/2014 Arifa Apriliana; Riyadi Riyadi; Sri Subanti
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the students mathematical communication skills. The learning models compared were RBL, PBL and Direct 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) RBL and PBL learning models have produced the same mathematics achievement, but RBL and PBL learning models have produced the mathematics learning achievement better than Direct Learning. 2) learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and learners with medium and low mathematical communication skills also have the same mathematics achievement. But, learners with high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills. 3) learners with high mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with medium mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL, PBL, and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement. Learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL and PBL have had the same mathematics achievement, and who are learning by using PBL and Direct learning model also have had the same mathematics achievement, but learners with low mathematical communication skills who are learning by using RBL have had a better mathematical achievement than who are learning by using  Direct learning model. 4) In the RBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement. In the PBL learning model, learners who have high, medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement. In the Direct learning model, learners who have high and medium mathematical communication skills have had the same mathematics achievement, and in the Direct learning model, learners who have medium and low mathematical communication skills also have had the same mathematics achievement, but in the Direct learning model, learners who have high mathematical communication skills have had a better mathematical achievement than learners with low mathematical communication skills.Keywords: Learning model, RBL, PBL, Direct learning model, Mathematical communication skills, and Mathematics achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN REALISTIC MATHEMATICS EDUCATION (RME) DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP/MTs DI KABUPATEN SRAGEN Nyoto Nyoto; Budi Usodo; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which one had a better mathematics achievement, students instructed with the cooperative learning of Think Pair Share (TPS) type with Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach, the cooperative learning of TPS type, or the direct learning model; (2) which one had a better mathematics achievement, students who had visual learning style, auditorial learning style, or kinesthetic learning style; (3) on each type of learning model, which one had a better mathematics achievement, students who had visual learning style, auditorial learning style, or kinesthetic learning style; (4) on each learning style, which one had a better mathematics achievement, students instructed with the cooperative learning of TPS type with Realistic Mathematics Education approach, the cooperative learning of TPS type, or the direct learning model. This research was quasi experimental with 3×3 factorial design. The population was all students of the grade VIII State Junior High Schools/Islamic State Junior Secondary School in Sragen Regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The sample consisted of 308 students. The instrument used to collect data was mathematics achievement test and questionnaire of students learning style. Balance test used unbalanced one way analysis of variance. The hypothesis test used unbalanced two ways analysis of variance at the significance level of 0,05. Based on hypothesis test, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach had the same mathematics achievement as students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type. Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach and the cooperative learning model of TPS type had better mathematics achievement than students intructed with the direct learning model. (2) Students with visual learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with auditorial learning style. Students with visual learning style had better mathematics achievement than student with kinesthetic learning style, and students with auditorial learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with kinesthetic learning style. (3) On the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach, the cooperative learning model of TPS type, and the direct learning model, students with visual learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with auditorial learning style. Students with visual learning style had better mathematics achievement than student with kinesthetic learning style, and students with auditorial learning style had the same mathematics achievement as students with kinesthetic learning style. (4) On students with visual learning style, auditorial learning style, and kinesthetic learning style, students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach had the same mathematics achievement as students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type. Students intructed with the cooperative learning model of TPS type with RME approach and the cooperative learning model of TPS type had better mathematics achievement than students intructed with the direct learning model.Keywords: TPS, RME, students learning style
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SCIENTIFIC PADA MATERI FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN KARANGANYAR Hendry Putra; Budiyono Budiyono; Dewi Retno Sari S
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): 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 (LM) toward learning outcomes (LO) in mathematics viewed from the learning styles (LS). The learning models of this research were cooperative LM of the NHT with Scientific, the cooperative LM of the TPS with Scientific, and the classical learning with Scientific. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3 x 3. Its population was all of the students in Grade VIII of State Junior Secondary Schools of Karanganyar. The instruments used to gather the data were test of LO in Mathematics and questionnaire of LS. 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) the students instructed NHT had a better LO in Mathematics than those instructed TPS and those instructed the classical learning. Furthermore, the students instructed TPS had a better LO in Mathematics than those instructed the classical learning. 2) the LO in Mathematics of the students with the auditory LS was better than that of the students with the visual LS and that of the students with the kinesthetic LS. In addition, the LO in Mathematics of the students with the visual LS was better than that of the students with the kinesthetic LS. 3) on model of the NHT, the students with the visual LS had the same LO in Mathematics as the students with the auditory LS. Moreover, the students with the visual and auditory LS had a better LO in Mathematics than those the students with the kinesthetic LS. On model of the TPS and the classical learning results in the same LO in each of LS. 4) the students with the visual and auditory LS, NHT and the classical learning results in the same LO in Mathematics as TPS. Furthermore, NHT results in a better LO in Mathematics than the classical learning. The students with the kinesthetic LS had the same LO in each of LM.Keywords: NHT with Scientific, TPS with Scientific, learning outcomes, learning styles.
STRATEGI MEMBELAJARKAN MATEMATIKA PADA KELAS VII INKLUSI DI SMP PGRI 1 SAMPIT KABUPATEN KOTA WARINGIN TIMUR Shaliha, Nurul Hidayati; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research were to describe inclusive learning system and teacher strategy in teaching mathematics from the teacher’s ability in explaining in accordance with conceptual and procedural knowledge of 7th grade students of SMP PGRI 1 Sampit. This research was a qualitative descriptive using a single case study method, in depth study of learning system and Mathematics learning in inclusive school. The subject of the research was the Headmaster of SMP PGRI 1 Sampit to obtain information about learning system and Mathematics teacher assistant of the 7th grade in order to know the Mathematics learning strategy in inclusive class of SMP PGRI 1 Sampit. The information of inclusive learning systems were taken by documenting, observation and interview. The validity technique of learning system data used in this research was Triangulation Method. The information of Mathematics learning strategy including the teacher’s ability in explaining the conceptual and prosedural knowledge. The data was taken from the transcription of six recording Mathematics learning activity and two best observations. The validity technique of learning system data used was member check technique. The research result shows as follows : 1) The learning system of inclusive students of the 7th grade of SMP PGRI 1 Sampit was different with the regular learning system. However, it was found that there is no individual learning program especially for slow learner students and the lack of computer technology used in the learning process. 2) The Mathematics learning strategy in the inclusive 7th grade of SMP PGRI 1 Sampit observed from the teacher’s ability in explaining the subject in accordance with the delivering explanation indicators which were planning the explanation, clarity of delivering the explanation, the use of examples and illustrations, the use of intonation in delivering the explanation, and giving the feed back to the students. The teacher used Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) to teach the concept of mathematics and Discovery Learning methods to teach the procedure of mathematics.Keywords: learning system, Mathematics learning strategy, inclusive
PROFIL SISWA SMP DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH YANG BERKAITAN DENGAN LITERASI MATEMATIS DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) Rahmawati, Novia Dwi; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 5 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research aims to describe the profile of junior high school students with climber’s, camper’s, and quitter’s type in problem solving from related with mathematics literacy using Polya steps. This research was a qualitative descriptive research. The subjects of this research were taken by using a combined technique of stratified sampling and Snowball sampling. The subjects of this research were seven 9th grade students of SMP Negeri 6 Surakarta regency, which consisted of three students with climber’s type, two students with camper’s type, and two students with quitters’s type. The data were collected through questionnaire and task-based interview technique on subject matter of space and shape mathematics literacy third level. The data were analyzed using a Miles and Huberman’s concept, that was data reduction, presentation, and conclusion. The results of this research are as follows: (1) climber’s students in understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back the answer aspects have reached all aspects needed, those are reasoning, argumentation, communication, modelling, connection, and representation aspect; (2) camper’s students in understanding the problem, devising a plan, and looking back the answer aspects have reached all aspects, those are reasoning, argumentation, communication, modelling, connection, and representation aspect, but in carrying out the plan, they have only reached reasoning, argumentation, communication, modelling and connection aspects, not representation aspect; (3) quitter’s students understanding the problem and looking back the answer aspects have reached all aspects, those are reasoning, argumentation, communication, modelling, connection, and representation aspect, but in devising a plan, they have only reached communication, modelling, and connection aspects, not reasoning, argumentation, and representation aspect. Whereas in carrying out the plan, they have only reached reasoning, argumentation, communication, modelling and connection aspects, not representation aspect.Keywords: Profile, problem solving, mathematics literacy, Polya’s steps, Adversity Quotiont (AQ) 

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 10

 1 

Filter by Year

2015 2015


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