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 347 Documents
 1   2   3   4   5 
KSPERIMENTASI PENDEKATAN PEMBELAJARAN RECIPROCAL TEACHING DENGAN ALAT PERAGA PADA POKOK BAHASAN LINGKARAN DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS SISWA Faradila Thalib; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Sutrima Sutrima
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 3 (2016): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research aims at revealing:(1) which one results better learning achievement on the subject of circle among Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, and conventional approach; (2) which one has better mathematics learning achievement among students with high, average, or low creativity; (3) at each of creativity levels (high, average, and low), which one results better learning achievement on the subject of circle among Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, and conventional apprroach; (4) at each of teaching approaches (Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, and conventional approach), which group of students has better learning achievement among groups with high, average, or low creativity. This research was quasi-experimental research which employs 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of this research was all of the eleventh grade students of State Junior High Schools in Ternate. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. There were 178 students selected as the sample of this research. Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that: (1) students taught by Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools have better mathematics learning achievement than those taught by Reciprocal Teaching, students taught by Reciprocal Teaching have better mathematics learning achievement than those taught by conventional approach, and students taught by Reciprocal Teaching have better mathematics learning achievement than those taught by conventional teaching; (2) students with high, average, and low creativity have the same mathematics learning achievement; (3) at each of creativity levels (high, average, and low), Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools results better mathematics learning achievement than Reciprocal Teaching and conventional approach do, and Reciprocal Teaching results better mathematics learning achievement than conventional approach does; (4) at each of teaching approaches (Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, and conventional approach), students with high, average, and low creativity have the same mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, Conventional Approach, Creativity, Mathematics Learning Achievement.
PENGEMBANGAN MULTIMEDIA INTERAKTIF UNTUK PEMBELAJARAN MATERI POKOK BALOK SISWA SMP KELAS VIII Hardiyanto, Edwin Latif; Budiyono, Budiyono; Usodo, Budi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 2 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The purposes of this study were: (1) to develop a valid interactive multimedia learning as a source of student learning in understanding the topic of Cuboid of eight grade students; and (2) to know the effectiveness of learning interactive multimedia products which had been developed. This research was a development study using Borg & Gall model where the steps as follows: (1) preliminary study that consisted of literature study and field study; (2) development that consisted of purpose analysis, capability analysis, development design; (3) field test that consisted of limited field test, wider field test and operational test; (4) effectiveness test; (5) dissemination. The research population was all eight grade students of SMPN 2 Ponorogo.The sample was taken using cluster random sampling. Data were collected in the form of even UTS value 2013/2014 in mathematics subject used documentation method the validity of product used questionnaire method, the learning results in mathematics used test method. The validity of the developed interactive multimedia product used content validity by material expert and media expert.The validity of test item was determined by: (1) content validity; (2) discrimination power; (3) difficulty level; (4) reliability. The normality test used Lilliefors method and homogeneity of variance test used Bartlett method. The balanced and the hypothesis test used t-test statistic. The results of this study were as follows: (1) a valid interactive multimedia learning as a source of student learning in understanding mathematics of eight grade students of SMP especially Cuboid; (2) the result of effectiveness test showed that the mathematics learning results of students who used interactive multimedia were better than students who did not use interactive multimedia learning.Keywords:  Development, Interactive Multimedia, Interactive Multimedia Learning
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING (AfL) MELALUI STRATEGI PEMBERIAN BALIKAN DAN AfL MELALUI TEKNIK BERTANYA YANG EFEKTIF DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN INTRAPERSONAL PADA SISWA SMP/MTs KELAS VII SE-KOTA SURAKARTA TAHUN PELAJARAN 2013/201 R, Tika Karlina; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sujadi, Imam
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 1 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

achievement, students are given Assessment for Learning (AfL) through providing feedback, Assessment for Learning (AfL) through asking effective questions or direct learning model, (2) which has better learning achievement, students with intrapersonal intelligence of high, moderate or low, (3) which has better learning achievement, students are given Assessment for Learning (AfL) through providing feedback, Assessment for Learning (AfL) through asking effective questions or direct learning model in each intrapersonal intelligence, (4) which has better learning achievement, students with intrapersonal intelligence of high, moderate or low on each learning model. The research was a quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial designs. The populations were the students of SMP/MTs in Surakarta on academic year 2013/2014 which consisted of 79 SMP/MTs. The size of the sample was 224 students. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test and a questionnaire of student’s intrapersonal intelligence. The data was analyzed using two ways ANOVA. According to the research results, it can be concluded: (1) AfL model through providing feedback had better mathematics achievement than AfL through asking effective questions and direct learning model, whole AfL through asking effective questions had better mathematics achievement than direct learning model, (2) the high intrapersonal intelligence students had better mathematics achievement than the moderate and low intrapersonal intelligence students, while the moderate intrapersonal intelligence students had better mathematics achievement than the low intrapersonal intelligence students, (3) for high and moderate intrapersonal intelligence, the students’ mathematics achievement treated by AfL through providing feedback better than students treated by direct learning model; for low intrapersonal intelligence, all the three models had the same mathematics achievement, (4) for AfL model through providing feedback, the students’ mathematics achievement which have high intrapersonal intelligence better than low intrapersonal intelligence; for AfL model through asking effective questions, the students’ mathematics achievement which have high intrapersonal intelligence better than moderate intrapersonal intelligence, the students’ mathematics achievement which have moderate intrapersonal intelligence better than low intrapersonal intelligence; for direct learning model, students with intrapersonal intelligence of high, moderate and low had the same mathematics achievement.Keywords: Assessment for Learning (AfL), providing feedback, asking effective questions, intrapersonal intelligence, learning achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE STRUCTURED NUMBERED HEADS (SNH) DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI POKOK BILANGAN DITINJAU DARI KEMANDIRIAN BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SMPN DI KABUPATEN KEBUMEN Muslikhah Muslikhah; Mardiyana Mardiyana; Dewi Retno Sari Saputro
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 4, No 5 (2016): 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 students self regulated learning (SRL). The learning model compared were SNH with scientific approach, PBL with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach. This research used quasi-experimental research  with 3x3 factorial design. The population were all seventh grade students of SMPN  in Kebumen on academic year 2014/2015. This research used stratified cluster random sampling technique and sample consisted of students of SMPN 3 Kebumen, SMPN 7 Kebumen, SMPN 1 Sruweng. The instruments used were documentation, questionnaire, and test. The data analysis technique was used unbalanced two ways anova at the significance level of 0.05. Based on the data analysis, it can be concluded as follows. (1) SNH with scientific approach gives better achievement than PBL and classical with scientific approach, and PBL with scientific approach gives better achievement than classical with scientific approach. (2) Students who have high SRL have better achievement than students who have medium and low SRL,  students who have medium SRL have better achievement than students who have low SRL. (3) For SNH with scientific approach, students who have high and medium SRL have the same achievement, students who have high SRL have better achievement than students who have low SRL, students who have  medium and low SRL have the same achievement. For PBL and classical with scientific approach students who have high SRL have the same achievement with students who have medium and low SRL, students who have medium and low SRL have the same achievement. (4) For high SRL of the students, SNH and PBL with scientific approach gives the same achievement, SNH with scientific approach gives better achievement than classical with scientific approach, PBL and classical with scientific approach gives the same achievement. For medium and low SRL of the students, SNH with scientific approach gives the same achievement with PBL and classical with scientific approach, PBL and classical with scientific approach gives the same achievement.Keywords: SNH, PBL, Scientific Approach, Self Regulated Learning (SRL) 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE TWO STAY TWO STRAY (TSTS) DAN TIPE ROUNDTABLE DISERTAI DENGAN ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING (AFL) MELALUI PEER-ASSESSMENT PADA PRESTASI BELAJAR MATEMATIKA DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SISWA Hr, Bq Malikah; Budiyono, Budiyono; Sari S, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 4 (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 determine: (1) which learning models that produces better mathematics achievement, TSTS-AfL (TSTS type accompanied by AfL through peer-assessment), R-AfL (roundtable type accompanied by AfL through peer-assessment), or CL (classical learning); (2) which students that have better mathematics achievement, students with climbers type, campers, or quitters; (3) in each type of AQ, which of the tree learning models that produces better mathematics achievement; (4) in each learning model, which of the tree types students that have better mathematics achievement. The research was a quasi-experimental research, with a factorial design 3x3. The population was all students of State Senior High School in East Lombok of 2014/2015. The sample obtained was 347 students. Instruments in the research were mathematics learning achievement test and AQ questionnaire. The data was analyzed using two-way analysis of variance with unequal cells. The results of the research indicated as follows: (1) TSTS-AfL produces better mathematics achievement than R-AfL and CL, R-AfL produces better mathematics achievement than CL; (2) Students with climbers type have better mathematics achievement than campers and quitters, students with campers type have better mathematics achievement than quitters; (3) For the students with climbers and quitters type, the use of TSTS-AfL produces mathematics achievement as well as R-AfL and better than CL, R-AfL produces mathematics achievement as well as CL. For the students with campers type, the use of    TSTS-AfL produces mathematics achievement as well as R-AfL and better than CL, R-AfL produces better mathematics achievement than CL; (4) Of                  TSTS-AfL, students with climbers type have mathematics achievement as well as with campers and better than quitters, campers type have achievement as well as quitters. Of R-AfL, students with climbers type have mathematics achievement as well as campers and better than quitters, and campers type have better mathematics achievement then quitters. Of CL, all of the type had the same mathematics achievement.Keywords: Cooperative learning model of TSTS type, Roundtable type,                 Peer-assessment, Adversity quotient and Mathematics achievement
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN TWO STAY TWO STRAY (TS-TS) DAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA REALISTIK (PMR) DITINJAU DARI AKTIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA Pramugarini, Dwi Yuni; Kusmayadi, Tri Atmojo; Riyadi, Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 3 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: This research was aimed to find out: (1) which one gave better mathematics learning achievement, learning model TS-TS with Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach, TPS with RME approach or conventional learning; (2) which one had better mathematics learning achievement, students having high, medium or low mathematics learning activity; (3) in each students’ levels of mathematics learning activity which one gave better mathematics learning achievement, learning model TS-TS with RME approach, TPS with RME approach or conventional learning; (4) in each learning model, the levels of mathematics learning activity which one had better mathematics learning achievement, students having high, medium or low mathematics learning activity. The research was a quasi experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of research was all students of Junior High School (SMP) in Karanganyar. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The samples were 288 students. 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 was examined by using one-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. It showed that three populations had balance in prior knowledge. Meanwhile, the technique of analyzing the data was two-ways analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of this research showed as follows. (1) Learning model TS-TS with RME approach provided better mathematics learning achievement than TPS with RME approach and conventional learning, learning model TPS with RME provided better mathematics learning achievement than conventional learning. (2) The students having high mathematics learning activity had better mathematics learning achievement than the students having medium and low mathematics learning activity. The students having medium mathematics learning activity had better mathematics learning achievement than the students having low mathematics learning activity. (3) In each category of mathematics learning activity, learning model TS-TS with RME approach was better than learning model TPS with RME approach and conventional learning, learning model TPS with RME approach was better than conventional learning. (4) In each learning model, learning achievement of students with high mathematics learning activity was better than learning achievement of students with medium and low mathematics learning activity, learning achievement of students with medium mathematics learning activity was better than the learning achievement of students with low mathematics learning activity.Keywords: TS-TS with RME approach, TPS with RME approach, mathematics learning activity, mathematics learning achievement.
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS), GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI), DAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING (PBL) PADA MATERI POKOK BANGUN RUANG DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN SPASIAL SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KOTA SURAKARTA Putra P, Heldy Ramadhan; Budiyono, Budiyono; Slamet, Isnandar
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 6 (2015): 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 have better learning achievement, the students receiving TPS, those receiving GI or those receiving PBL learning models, (2) which one have better learning achievement, the students with high, those with medium or those with low spatial ability, (3) in each learning model, which one have better learning achievement, the students with high, those with medium or those with low spatial ability, and (4) in each spatial ability, which one have better learning achievement, the students receiving TPS, those receiving GI or those receiving PBL learning models. This study was a quasi-experimental research with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of research was all of the 8th graders of Public Junior High School throughout Surakarta City. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments used for collecting data were mathematics learning achievement and spatial ability tests. Before used for data collection, the instruments of achievement and spatial ability tests were tried out first. Technique of analyzing data used was a two-way analysis of variance test with unbalanced  cells. Considering the result of hypothesis testing, the following conclusions could be drawn. (1) PBL type of cooperative learning have better learning achievement than the GI and TPS types did, GI type have learning achievement as good as the TPS type did. (2) The students with high spatial ability have better learning achievement than those with medium and those with low spatial ability, while those with medium spatial ability have better learning achievement than those with low spatial ability. (3) In various learning models, the students with high spatial ability have better learning achievement than those with medium and those with low spatial ability, while those with medium spatial ability have better learning achievement than those with low spatial ability. (4) In each category of spatial ability, the students receiving PBL type of cooperative learning have better learning achievement than those receiving GI and TPS types did, those receiving GI type have learning achievement as good as those receiving TPS type did.Keywords: TPS, GI, PBL, Learning Achievement, Spatial Ability
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING DAN COOPERATIVE LEARNING TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) PADA MATERI ARITMATIKA SOSIAL DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SEKABUPATEN PACITAN Anggraheni, Retno; Budiyono, Budiyono; Subanti, Sri
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 4 (2014): 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 learning model provided better student learning achievement, Problem based Learning (PBL) or Numbered Heads Together (NHT) type of Cooperative Learning or direct learning model, (2) which students had better mathematics learning achievement, those with auditory, or visual, or kinesthetic learning style,  (3) in each learning model, which one had mathematics learning achievement better, whether the students with auditory, those with visual or those with kinesthetic learning style, (4)  in each learning style, which one provided better mathematics learning achievement, Problem based Learning (PBL) or Numbered Heads Together (NHT) type of Cooperative Learning or direct learning model. This study was a quasi experimental research with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of research was all of the VII graders of Junior High Schools in Pacitan Regency. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample of research consisted of 242 students: 82 students for the experiment 1, 80 students for experiment 2 and 80 students for control classes. Considering the result of hypothesis testing, the following conclusions could be drawn. (1) The Problem Based Learning, the NHT type of cooperative learning, and direct learning models provided equal mathematics learning achievement. (2) The students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one. Those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one. Those with kinesthetic learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one. (3) In PBL learning model, the students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with auditory one, but those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one, and those with auditory learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one. In NHT type of cooperative learning model, the students with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with auditory one and those with visual learning style had the mathematics learning achievement equal to those with kinesthetic one, but those with auditory learning style had the mathematics learning achievement better than those with kinesthetic one. In direct learning model, the results of the three learning style provided equal learning achievement. (4) In the students with visual learning style, PBL model provided learning achievement equal to the NHT type of cooperative learning one, PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In auditory learning style, PBL model provided the learning achievement equal to the NHT type, while PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In those with kinesthetic learning style, PBL model provided learning achievement equal to the NHT type of cooperative learning one, PBL did better than the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. In auditory learning style, PBL model provided the learning achievement equal to the NHT type, PBL provided learning achievement equal to the direct one, and the NHT type did better than the direct one. Keywords: Problem Based Learning (PBL), Numbered Heads Together (NHT), student learning style. 
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBERED HEADS TOGETHER (NHT) DAN GROUP INVESTIGATION (GI) PADA MATERI SEGITIGA DAN SEGIEMPAT DITINJAU DARI ADVERSITY QUOTIENT (AQ) SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN TULANG BAWANG BARAT Irma Ayuwanti; Tri Atmojo Kusmayadi; Riyadi Riyadi
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 3, No 7 (2015): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of the research  were to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning model, (2) which one having better mathematics learning achievement, students with climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (3) in each learning models (NHT, GI and direct) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, climbers, campers or quitters AQ, (4) in each student AQ (climbers, campers, and quitters) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, NHT, GI or direct learning  model.This study was a quasi-experimental research. The research design used was a 3x3 factorial design. The population of research was all VII graders of Junior High Schools throughout West Tulang Bawang Regency in the school year of 2014/2015. Meanwhile the sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample consisted of 281 students: 93 students for experiment I class, 93 for experiment II class and 95 for control class. The instruments used to collect the data were learning AQ questionnaire and  mathematics learning achievement test. From the result of research, it could be concluded as follows: (1) NHT learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than GI learning model and direct learning model, GI learning model provided mathematics learning achievement better than direct learning model. (2) The learning achievement of the students with climbers AQ was better than that of those with campers and quitters AQ, and the learning achievement of the students with campers AQ was better than that of those with quitters AQ. (3) In NHT learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers  and campers AQ had better achievement than students with quitters AQ; qqqin GI learning model, students with climbers and campers AQ had the same achievement, students with climbers AQ categories had better achievement than students with quitters AQ, students with campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement; in direct learning model, students with climbers, campers and quitters AQ had the same achievement. (4) In climbers AQ, NHT learning modelqqq gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in campers AQ, NHT learning model gave the same achievement as GI learning model, NHT learning model gave better achievement than in direct learning model, GI learning model gave the same achievement as direct learning model; in quitters AQ, NHT, GI and direct learning model gave the same achievement. Keywords: NHT, GI, Direct Learning, and Adversity Quotient (AQ).
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK-PAIR-SHARE (TPS) DIMODIFIKASI DENGAN MIND MAPPING PADA MATERI KUBUS DAN BALOK DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA SMP NEGERI KELAS VIII Se-KABUPATEN PEMALANG TAHUN 2012/2013 Siwi, Julian Reza; Mardiyana, Mardiyana; Sari S, Dewi Retno
Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 6 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

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

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to find out on the topic of cube and cuboid: (1) which was better between TPS Modified Mind Mapping (TPSMod), TPS or Direct model that produce learning achievement; (2) which one had better learning achievement between students with high, medium or low categories of mathematics creativity learning; (3) at each category of mathematics  creativity learning, which was better between TPSMod, TPS or Direct model that produce learning achievement; and (4) at each model, which one had better learning achievement between students with high, medium or low categories of mathematics creativity learning. This study was a quasi-experimental with 3´3 factorial design. The population was all of students in eigth grade of State Junior High School in Pemalang Regency on Academic Year 2012/2013. The samples were taken by using a stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples was students in eight grade of SMP Negeri 1 Randudongkal, Moga and Pulosari. The instrument of this study were mathematics creativity learning questionnaire and learning achievement test. The questionnaire tryout included content validity, internal consistency and reliability, and the test tryout included content validity, difficulty level, discrimination power, and reliability. Before the experiment was done, the balance of prior knowledge was examined by using unbalanced one way anova test. The hypothesis test used unbalanced two ways anova. Test requirements included normality test used Lilliefors method and the homogeneity test used the Bartlett test. The results of the study were as follows: (1) the TPSMod model produce the learning achievement better than the TPS and direct learning, the TPS model give the same learning achievement as the direct learning; (2) the high and medium categories of mathematics creativity learning have the same learning achievement, and both of category of mathematics creativity learning have better learning achievement from low categories of mathematics creativity learning; (3) at each categories of mathematics creativity learning, theTPSMod model produce the learning achievement better than the TPS and direct learning, the TPS give the same learning achievement as the direct learning; and (4) at each models, the high and medium categories of mathematics creativity learning have the same learning achievement, and both of category of mathematics creativity learning have better learning achievement from low categories of mathematics creativity learning.Keywords: Learning Achievement, TPS Modified by Mind Mapping , Mathematics Creativity Learning

Page 2 of 35 | Total Record : 347

 1   2   3   4   5 

Filter by Year

2013 2018


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