p-Index From 2014 - 2019
8.469
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Civics: Media Kajian Kewarganegaraan ILMU KELAUTAN: Indonesian Journal of Marine Sciences Prosiding KOMMIT Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa Gorga Jurnal Seni Rupa Pembelajaran Matematika Paedagogia Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika SoLuSi ( Tersohor Luas dan Berisi ) Atom Indonesia Journal Jurnal Radioisotop dan Radiofarmaka Jurnal Iptek Nuklir Ganendra Jurnal Pendidikan Teknik Mesin Jurnal Manajemen Pelayanan Kesehatan Gaung Informatika Journal of Education and Learning KOMUNITAS: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDONESIAN SOCIETY AND CULTURE Abdimas Jurnal S2 Pendidikan Matematika YUSTISIA Jurnal Penelitian Hasil Hutan Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Perikanan dan Budidaya Perairan Jurnal Akuntabilitas Manajemen Pendidikan Seminar Nasional Teknik Kimia Kejuangan The Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry Research Indonesian Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education BERITA BIOLOGI Sari Pediatri Catharsis The Journal of Educational Development Sekolah Dasar: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan EDUHUMANIORA: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Proceeding of International Conference on Art, Language, and Culture Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Jurnal ASPIKOM Indonesian Journal of Chemistry Jurnal Perikanan Universitas Gadjah Mada Indonesian Aquaculture Journal Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal Jurnal Community Res Judicata Waskita: Jurnal Pendidikan Nilai dan Pembangunan Karakter Jurnal Jatiswara Jurnal Kesehatan Jurnal Salaka Sastra Indonesia
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF THINK PAIR SHARE DAN TEAM ASSISTED INDIVIDUALIZATION PADA MATERI TRIGONOMETRI DITINJAU DARI MINAT BELAJAR MATEMATIKA SISWA SMK DI KABUPATEN PONOROGO TAHUN PELAJARAN 2011/2012

Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of this research are to investigate: (1) wich learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), or conventional learning model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics, (2) which learning interest of the high learning interest, the moderate learning interest, and the low learning interest results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics,(3) in the students with the high, moderate, and low learning interests, wich learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), and conventional learning model results in a better learning achievement in Mathematics. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3x3. The population of the research were the students of Vocational High School (SMK) in Ponorogo regency on Academic Year 2011/2012. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. It was conducted at SMK 1 of Ponorogo, SMK Bakti of Ponorogo, and SMK Sore 1 of Ponorogo. The samples included two experimental classes and one control class of each of the schools. The size of the sample was 275 students consisted of 84 students in the first experimental class, 105 sudents in the second experimental class and 86 students in control class. The data of the research were gathered through mathematics achievement tes and quetionary of learning interest. The data was analyzed by using two-way analysis of variance with.The results of the reseach are as follows: (1) both TPS and TAI result in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics, and result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does; (2) the students with the higher learning interest have a better learning achievement in Mathematics than those with the moderate learning interest and the low learning interest, but the students with the moderat learning interest have the same learning achievement in Mathematics those with the low learning interest; (3) in the students with the high, moderat, and low learning interest, both TPS and TAI result in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics, and result in a better learning achievement than the conventional one does.Key words: Think Pair Share, Team Assisted Individualization, Conventional, Learning Interest

EKSPERIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN STAD DENGAN MEDIA POWER POINT DAN MODEL BANGUN RUANG MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI LENGKUNG DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR

Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 1, No 4 (2013): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this research are to investigate: (1) which one that is more effective in teaching geometry, the STAD type of cooperative learning model with Power Point media or that with Geometrical Model media or that with Conventional media, (2) which learning style results in a better learning achievement and (3) which media used in the STAD learning model results in a better learning achievement in each learning style of the students.This research used the quasi-experimental method. The population of this research was the 9th-grade students of the state junior secondary schools in Ngawi regency in the academic year of 2012/2013. The samples of this research consisted of 250 students who were divided into 85 students of the first experiment class, 83 students of the second experiment class, and 82 students of the control class. The samples were taken by using stratified cluster random sampling. The data of this research were gathered through documentation, test, and questionnaire. The hypothesis of this research were tested by using unbalanced Two-way Analysis of Variance. Conclusions drawn are as follows: (1) the STAD learning model with the Power Point media is better than the STAD learning models with the Geometrical Model and the Conventional media whereas the STAD learning model with the Geometrical Model media is equal to the STAD learning model with the Conventional media; (2) the students with the kinesthetic learning style have a better learning achievement than those with the visual and auditory learning styles whereas the students with the visual learning style have an equal learning achievement to those with the auditory learning style; (3) the STAD learning model with the Power Point media results in a better learning achievement than that with the Conventional media whereas the STAD learning model with the Power Point media results in an equal learning achievement to that with the Geometrical Model media and the STAD learning model with the Power Point media results in an equal learning achievement to that with the Conventional media in the visual learning style; (4) the STAD learning model with the all of the three types of media results in an equal learning achievement in the auditory learning style; and (5) the STAD learning model with the Geometrical Model media results in a better learning achievement than that with the Conventional media whereas the STAD learning model with the Power Point media results in an equal learning achievement to that with the Geometrical Model media and the STAD learning model with the Power Point media results in an equal learning achievement to that with the Conventional media in the kinesthetic learning style.Keywords: STAD, Power Point media, Geometrical Model media and learning style.

EKSPERIMENTASI PEMBELAJARAN MATEMATIKA DENGAN MODEL THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) DAN MISSOURI MATHEMATICS PROJECT (MMP) DITINJAU DARI GAYA BELAJAR SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN PACITAN TAHUN AJARAN 2012/2013

Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 10 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract: The objectives of the research were to find out: (1) which one was improving better the students mathematics learning achievement, Think-Talk-Write (TTW) or Missouri Mathematics Project (MMP) and Conventional Learning model, (2) which one was providing better to mathematics learning achievement, the students who used visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning style (3) who the students were provided to be better in mathematics learning achievement by applied the TTW, MMP, and Conventional model on each learning style. The research method used was a quasi-experimental research with 3x3 factorial design. The population of the research were the students of junior high schools in Pacitan regency in the school in year of 2012/2013. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The were 275 students who were divided into three groups. The groups devided into the experiment I, experiment II, and control class. Experiment I was consisted of 92 students, experiment II was consisted of 92 students, and control class was consisted of 91 students. The instruments used to collect the data were the students learning styles questionnaire, the students achievement in mathematics and documentation. The technique of data used was an unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. The results of the reseach were as follows: (1) the mathematics learning achievement to the students who were given the TTW learning model were as same as to the students were given the MMP learning model, but they were better than the students, learning achievement who were taught by the conventional learning model, The students learning achievement in the MMP learning model were as same as to the students learning achievement in the conventional learning model. (2) the mathematics learning achievement of the students by visual learning style were better than the students learning achievment by auditory or kinesthetic learning style, while the students by auditory learning style had their learning achievement as same as with the students by kinesthetic learning style. (3) the mathematics learning achievement to the students on each learning style, students were given the TTW learning model had shown the same learning achievement to students were given the MMP learning model, but they were better achievements when compared with student who were taught the conventional learning model, while the students who were given the MMP learning model has achievement as well as student who were given the conventional learning model.Keywords:     TTW learning model, MMP learning model, conventional learning model, learning style, mathematics learning achievement.

ANALISIS BERPIKIR KRITIS SISWA DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA BERDASARKAN POLYA PADA POKOK BAHASAN PERSAMAAN KUADRAT (Penelitian pada Siswa Kelas X SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Sragen Tahun Pelajaran 2013/2014)

Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika Vol 2, No 9 (2014): Pembelajaran Matematika
Publisher : Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika

Show Abstract | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract : This research aims were to describe: (1) students’ level of critical thinking, (2) students’ process of critical thinking in problem solving based on Polya, (3) factors influencing students’ process of critical thinking. This was a descriptive qualitative research. Subject of the research was students grade X AP 1 of SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Sragen consisting of four students. Subject was selected using purposive sampling. Instrument of collecting data were observation, problem solving test and interview. Validity of the data was tested using triangulation method. The data were analyzed by: (1) classifying the data in level of critical thinking based on indicators of critical thinking stated by Ennis; (2) analyzing each critical thinking level based on four steps of Polya’s problem solving; (3) analyzing factors influencing students’ process of critical thinking. From the research on 36 students, the results of students’ level of critical thinking are 19.4% for critical thinking level 0, 72.2% for critical thinking level 1, 5.6% for critical thinking level 2 and 2.8% for critical thinking level 3. Students’ process of critical thinking in (a) understanding problems, critical thinking level 0 was not able to construct point of the problems and reveal the facts, critical thinking level 1, 2, and 3 were able to construct point of the problems and reveal the facts; (b) making a plan, critical thinking level 0 was not able to detect the bias and determine theorem in solving problems, critical thinking level 1 was not able to detect the bias but was able to theorem in solving problems, critical thinking level 2 and 3 were able to detect the bias and determine theorem in solving problems; (c) carrying out the plan, critical thinking level 0 was not able to solve problems as the planning, critical thinking level 1, 2 and 3 were able to solve problems as the planning; (d) looking back the completed solution, critical thinking level 0 and 1 were not able to select logical argument and to draw conclusion, however, critical thinking level 1 was able to solve the problems using another method, critical thinking level 2 was not quite able to select logical argument and to draw conclusion, but it was able to solve the problems using another method, and critical thinking level 3 was able to select logical argument, to draw conclusion and to solve the problems using another method. Factors influencing students’ process of critical thinking are students were not accustomed to solve story problems so that they were not able to understand the problems, students found it difficult to construct Mathematics model, and students were accustomed to solve questions using only one method.Key words: Critical thinking, Polya’s problem solving, Process of critical thinking, Level of critical thinking.

Co-Authors A. Isnansetyo, A. A.E.T.H. Wahyuni Abdul Muthalib Abidin Abidin Agus Cahyono Agus Nursalim, Agus Agustiar, Devie Ahmad, Hariyatunnisa ALIM ISNANSETYO Ambariyanto , Andriansyah, Rico Andrianus Andrianus, Andrianus Anik Rahmawati, Anik Anshor, Arrini Shabrina Anung Pujiyanto Ardiyawan, Ardiyawan Arief Taslihan Arief, Ahmad Fikri Astri Charolina Azmi, Azmi Azmi, Ulya Zakaria Basri, Novysa Basuki, Umar Beniarso, Mundin Cahyana Amiruddin Darfioes Basir Daya Agung Sarwono Desrina Desrina Desty Ratna Permatasari, Desty Ratna Dian Indriani Dini Siswani Mulia Dini, Tria Ayu Drajad Sarwo Seto, Drajad Sarwo Duranta D. Kembaren, Duranta D. Dwiningtyas, Ratih E. Sarmini Edi Irawan Eko Sugiarto, Eko Endang Sarmini Enny Lestari Erik, Mohamad Erni Martani Ervia Yudiati FAJAR SETIAWAN Fatimah Azzahrah Fatmawati, Harlinda Finny Fitry Yani Fitriani Fitriani H. Syakuri, H. Habib Adjie Hambali Hambali Hartono Hartono Henny Ekana Ch. Henny Ekana Chrisnawati Herlina Herlina Hotnida Junita Situmeang Imamudin, Kurniasih INDAH ISTIQOMAH Irfan D. Prijambada Islami, Hidayatul Iswidiarti, Sri JAKA WIDADA K. H. Nitimulyo, K. H. Kadarisman Kadarisman Kamiso H. N., Kamiso H. KAMISO HANDOYO NITIMULYO KH, Abdul Aziz Kundharu Saddhono Kurniasih Kurniasih LANGKAH SEMBIRING Lantip Diat Prasojo Lestari, Fajar Sumi Lili Sholichah, Lili Malarsih Malarsih, Malarsih Manik, Astri Marita Mardi Mardi Mardiyana Mardiyana Maria Ulfahmi, Cut Gesti Mayang Pitaloka MIFTAKHUL JANNAH Mirwa, Tetty Muh. Ibnan Syarif, Muh. Ibnan Muhammad Murdjani Muhammad Zainuddin Muhammmad Murdjani, Muhammmad Mujiyono Mujiyono Murti, Fahriza Murwantoko Murwantoko Namastra Probosunu Nina Yuliana Nirmalasari Idha Wijaya Noer Kasanah, Noer Nur Fadhilah Nur Rokhmat Nursyirwani Nursyirwani Pratiwinindya, Ratih Ayu Prayogo, Sugeng Putri Puspitasari R Sudradjat, R Rachmansyah Rachmansyah Raden Bagus Sugio Sumanta Ratna Puspita, Ratna REZA Adi ADI PRADANA Risca Damayanti, Risca Risnawati, Ririn Riyadi Riyadi Rukayah Rukayah S. Soenarjo Sabillah, Masayu Selly Sahli, Zamahsjari Salu, Vega Ricky SANTI NURBAITI Sebastian Margino Sesung, Rusdiyanto Setyaningrum, Ikha Sulis Setyobudi Setyobudi Shanie, Arsan Shatrie, Dikry N Shatrie, Dikry Novel Siti Amirah Budiastuti Sri Hartati Sri Iswidayati Sri Rejeki Sriyono Sriyono Subagiyo Subagiyo Suharno Suharno Suherman Suherman Sumarwati Sumarwati Sumaryanto Florentinus, Totok Sunarhadijoso Soenarjo Sunarto Sunarto Suparti Suparti Sutarman Sutarman Sutrisno sutrisno Suyono Suyono syakir syakir Syarif, Muh Ibnan Tanjung, Dailami Tjetjep Rohendi Rohidi, Tjetjep Rohendi Totok Sumaryanto Florentinus, Totok Sumaryanto Totok Sumaryanto, Totok Triani Widyaningrum Udi Utomo Umi Nur Sholikhah W. Asmara W.Y. Rahman Wadiyo Wadiyo, Wadiyo Widaningtyas H, Adoniati Meyria Wijaya, Dhimayu Ichtiara Wilis Ari Ari Setyati1,2, Wilis Ari Wilis Ari Setyati Windi Amelia, Windi Wira Rahman Wira Y. Rahman Wisnu Nurcahyo Wulandari, Tita Yudha Trinoegraha Adiputra Yulius Docang Casessar Yuniarti, Ivana