Jurnal Pembelajaran Matematika
Not a member yet
292 research outputs found
Sort by
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE THREE STEPS INTERVIEW (TSI) DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI FUNGSI DITINJAU DARI MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO
Get PDFAbstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in mathematics viewed from the students’ multiple intelligences. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning of the three steps interview (TSI) type with scientific approach, think pair share (TPS) model type with scientific approach, and classical learning with scientific approach. The type of this study was quasi experimental study with a 3x3 factorial design. The population was all grade 8 students of Secondary Schools in Sukoharjo Regency. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and multiple intelligences questionnaire. The data analysis technique used was the two-way ANOVA with unequal cell. Based on the hipothesis, the results of the study could be concluded as follows. (1) TSI with scientific approach got better learning achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach. In addition, TPS with scientific approach got better learning achievement than classical with scientific approach. (2) Students with logical mathematical intelligence got better achievement than students with linguistic intelligence and students with interpersonal intelligence, students with linguistic intelligence got better achievement than students with interpersonal intelligence. (3) Viewed from learning models, students with logical mathematical intelligence got better achievement than students with linguistic intelligence and students with interpersonal intelligence. However, students with linguistic intelligence got better achievement than students with interpersonal intelligence. (4) Viewed multiple intelligences’ categories, TSI model with scientific approach got better achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach. However, TPS with scientific approach got better achievement than classical with scientific approach.Keywords: Three Steps Interview (TSI), Think Pair Share (TPS), Classical Learning, Scientific Approach, and Multiple Intelligences
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK TALK WRITE (TTW) DAN MODEL PEMBELAJARAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK PADA MATERI BILANGAN DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN LOGIS MATEMATIS SISWA KELAS VII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN BLORA
Get PDFAbstract: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of the learning models on learning achievement viewed from the logical mathematical intelligence of the students. This research was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The population of the research was the seven class students of Junior High School at Blora regency on academic year 2014/2015 and the samples were students from SMP Negeri 2 Blora, SMP Negeri 1 Ngawen, and SMP Negeri 1 Japah which was taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The data analysis technique used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. Based on the data analysis, it was concluded as follows. 1) TTW with scientific approach gave better achievement than TPS, and classical with scientific approach TPS with scientific approach gave better achievement than classical with scientific approach. 2) The students with high logical matematical intelligence better achievement than the students with medium and low logical matematical intelligence. The students with medium logical matematical intelligence better achievement than the students with low logical matematical intelligence. 3) At the students with high and medium logical matematical intelligence, TTW, TPS, and classical with scientific approach gave the same achievement. At the students with low logical matematical intelligence TTW and TPS with scientific approach gave the same achievement, TTW and TPS with scientific approach gave better achievement than classical scientific learning model. 4) In TTW with scientific approach, students with high and medium logical matematical intelligence had the same achievement, students with medium and low logical matematical intelligence had the same achievement, and students with high logical matematical intelligence had better achievement than students with low logical matematical intelligence. In TPS with scientific approach students with high logical matematical intelligence had better achievement than students with medium and low logical matematical intelligence, and students with medium and low logical matematical intelligence had the same achievement. In classical with scientific approach, students with high and medium logical matematical intelligence had the same achievement, students with high and medium logical matematical intelligence had better achievement than students with low logical matematical intelligence.Keywords: Think Pair Share, Think Talk Write, Classical learning model, Scientific Approach, Logical Matematical Intelligence, Achievement
ANALISIS PROSES PEMBELAJARAN BERBASIS MASALAH (PROBLEM BASED LEARNING) MATEMATIKA DENGAN PENDEKATAN ILMIAH (SCIENTIFIC APPROACH ) DI SMA NEGERI 1 JOGOROGO KELAS X KABUPATEN NGAWI
Get PDFAbstract: The purpose of this research was to describe the planning, implementation process of learning undertaken by teachers of mathematics and constraints experienced during the process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach in class X SMAN 1 Jogorogo. This research was a qualitative study. These subject are taken using purposive sampling. The subjects of this study were the teacher math in class X. Data collection techniques in this study were documentation, interviews and observations. Techniques to validate that the data source triangulation and triangulation time. The data analysis technique used was the concept of Miles and Huberman consists of data reduction, data display, and conclusion. The results showed that the planning process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach was not maximal yet, seen in the preparation of lesson plans which teachers only see examples of other schools and only see a reference to the syllabus. Implementation of the learning process is done the math teacher in class X SMAN 1 Jogorogo was not maximal yet. Visible in the indicator 5M on core activities are observing, asking, gather information, and communicate their associates have not done all. In observing the activities of students had no difficulty, however, go into the next phase indicator and students are still difficulties in doing so. In the event of problem making students ask questions, lack of motivation and imagination. Collect information on the activities of students also have difficulty in learning resources are used only for math books grade students associate X. At this stage also looks still difficulty in processing information, although sometimes the teacher has given direction that the students tried to process the information that has been obtained. At that last stage quite well in communicating the results, good enough student responses revealed the results even though the teacher had to call one of the students without first. Overcoming the problems found in the process of mathematical problem-based learning with a scientific approach to teacher always gives motivation at any stage of learning and trying to develop a problem-based learning with a scientific approach.Keywords: PBL, Scientific Approach
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
Get PDFAbstract: 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 MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE NUMBER HEAD TOGETHER (NHT), JIGSAW II DAN THINK PAIR SHARE (TPS) PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL SISWA SMP NEGERI DI KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO
Get PDFAbstract: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of learning models on student’s mathematics achievement viewed from emotional quotient. The learning models compared were learning model of the Numbered Heads Together (NHT), Jigsaw II, and TPS. This research was a quasi-experimental research. The population of the research was all of the eighth grade students of the State Junior High School in Sukoharjo. The instrumentsused to collect data were mathematics achievement and emotional quotient questionnaire. Technique of analyzing data that used was unbalanced two ways analysis of variance. From the research, it can be concluded as follows. (1) Learning by using cooperative learning model of Jigsaw II and NHT gave better mathematics learning achievement than learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS, learning by using cooperative learning model of NHT gave better mathematics learning achievement than learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS. (2) Students who have high emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have middle and low emotional quotient, students who have middle emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement than students who have low emotional quotient, (3) On the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw II, students who have high and middle emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement with the students who have low emotional quotient. On the cooperative learning model of NHT, students who have high emotional quotient gave better mathematics learning achievement with the students who have low emotional quotient. On the cooperative learning model of TPS, students who have high, middle and low emotional quotient gave the same mathematics learning achievement. (4) On the high emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II, NHT and TPS gave the same mathematics learning achievement. On the middle emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II gave better mathematics learning achievement with learning by using cooperative learning model of TPS. On the low emotional quotient, using cooperative learning model of learning by Jigsaw II, NHT and TPS gave the same mathematics learning achievement.Keywords: Cooperative learning model, Jigsaw II, NHT, TPS, mathematics learning achievement, emotional quotient
PROSES BERPIKIR KREATIF SISWA CLIMBER DALAM PEMECAHAN MASALAH MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI PELUANG
Get PDFAbstract: This study aimed to describe the process of creative thinking of students in XI grade IPA-2 SMA Negeri 1 Polanharjo that have AQ climber characteristic in the mathematics problem solving in quiet materials based on Wallas steps, they are: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. The approach t used in this study is qualitative approach. The collecting data in this study used task based on interview method. The process of creative thinking of the climber student in the mathematics problem solving in probability materials, are: (1) in the preparation step, students were enthusiastically when they were given problem solving task. The students explain the case that they knowed and asked in complete and correct with some way, that were: (a) writing the steps and changing into examples, (b) just writing the steps, (c) just changing the case that known in examples; (2) in the incubation step, when the students are understanding probability of event, they: (a)are practising that probability, (b) focus to understand on the problem, (c) less focus to understand on the problem. Then students get an idea by making a complete diagram then multiply the possibilities of occuring on the first and second taking; (3) in the illumination step, student counts probability values are based on complete diagram to sum possibillity of the relevant probability. Students get the new way, that: (a) are the uncomplete diagram and probability formulas, (b) the uncomplete diagram, (c) probability formulas. Students explain the origin of the new way found. Students finish the problem with the new way; (4) in the verification step, students retest all the cases having done befound and corrected the obtained probability values using the old and new way, both of them get the same and correct result.Keywords: creative thinking, problem solving, and climber
PENGEMBANGAN BUKU ELEKTRONIK TRIGONOMETRI DENGAN MENGINTEGRASIKAN PENALARAN MATEMATIS, TEKNOLOGI, SEJARAH, DAN APLIKASI TRIGONOMETRI
Get PDFAbstract: This research aimed (1) to formulate the need of trigonometric book content, (2) to develop prototype into trigonometric electronic book, and (3) to find out the result of evaluation on the feasibility of electronic book developed for teachers’ candidates, teachers, and trigonometric instructors. A research and development method was used to provide a trigonometric electronic book. This method encompassed the following stages: (1) exploring: analyzing library study and case study, (2) developing: designing the product until it became a trigonometric electronic book, and (3) evaluating: studying the feasibility of trigonometric electronic book. The results were reveals as follows: 1) The identification of trigonometric content should pay attention to: (a) geometric reasoning and understanding such as: symbol, distance, pythagorean theorem, circle, triangle, angle, and pi concept, (b) function reasoning and understanding such as: representation (numeric, chart, symbolic/algebraic, verbal), and representation interrelationship, (c) trigonometric function reasoning and understanding such as: definitions of function based on unit circle, based on right triangle side ratio, multiple representation and property in trigonometric main function, (d) history and the chronology of trigonometric function inception, and (e) the application of trigonometric function in real world. 2) The development of prototype into trigonometric electronic book was conducted with the following procedures: (a) design analysis based on the identification of book content need, (b) the development of book content, (c) the alignment of illustration, chart, table, game, video and layout, (d) designing the application (.exe), electronic book pdf and html, 3) Expert judgment: material expert rated 4.07 (Good), media expert rated 4.03 (Good). The result of evaluation showed that: (a) in Trial I, the product users’ candidates rated 4.95 (Very Good) for material aspect and 4.8 (Very Good) for media aspect, (b) in Trial II, the product users’ candidates rated 4.79 (Very good) for material aspect, and 4.61 (Very Good) for media aspect. Considering the result of feasibility test of materials and media expert, trials I and II for feasibility test of users’ candidates, this trigonometric electronic book was feasible to be used as the handout for the students as teachers’ candidates, teachers, and trigonometric instructors.Keywords: trigonometric electronic book, mathematic reasoning, technology, history, and trigonometric application
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN DISCOVERY LEARNING, GROUP INVESTIGATION, DAN THINK TALK WRITE DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK TERHADAP PRESTASI DAN KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KEMAMPUAN PENALARAN SISWA
Get PDFAbstract: This research aims to know the different effect among learning models used i.e, Discovery Learning (DL) with scientific approach, Group Investigation (GI) with scientific approach, and Think Talk Write (TTW) with scientific approach. The research method was quasi experimental. The population was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School of district Tegal year of 2014/2015. Sample was taken by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The hypothesis test used two way MANOVA with unbalanced cell. The results of the research were as follows: (1) a. Learning achievement of students treated by DL with scientific approach is better than those treated by GI and TTW with scientific approach, and learning achievement of student treated by GI with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by TTW with scientific approach; b. Mathematics learning creativity of student treated by DL and GI with scientific approach is better than those treated by TTW with scientific approach, and mathematics learning creativity of student treated by DL with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by GI with scientific approach; (2) a. Learning achievement of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and learning achievement of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; b. Mathematics learning creativity of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and mathematics learning creativity of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; (3) a. In the high, medium, and low reasoning ability, learning achievement of students treated by DL with scientific approach is better than those treated by GI and TTW with scientific approach, and learning creativity of student treated by GI with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by TTW with scientific approach; b. In the high, medium, and low reasoning ability, mathematics learning creativity of students treated by DL and GI with scientific approach is better than those treated by TTW with scientific approach, and learning creativity of students treated by DL with scientific approach is the same good with student treated by GI with scientific approach; (4) a. In DL, GI, and TTW with scientific approach, learning achievement of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and learning achievement of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability; b. In DL, GI, and TTW with scientific approach, mathematics learning creativity of students who have high and medium reasoning ability is better than those who have low reasoning ability, and mathematics learning creativity of students who have high reasoning ability is the same good with students who have medium reasoning ability.Keywords: DL, GI, TTW, Scientific Approach, Reasoning Ability, Learning Achievement, Mathematics Learning Creativity
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
Get PDFAbstract: 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 Abilit
EKSPERIMENTASI MODEL PEMBELAJARAN KOOPERATIF TIPE CO-OP CO-OP, DISCOVERY LEARNING DAN PBL DENGAN PENDEKATAN SAINTIFIK SISWA KELAS VIII SMP NEGERI SE-KABUPATEN NGAWI PADA MATERI BANGUN RUANG SISI DATAR DITINJAU DARI KREATIVITAS BELAJAR MATEMATIKA
No full textAbstract: This research aims to know the effect among learning models used cooperative learning of Co-op Co-op type with scientific approach, discovery learning (DL) with scientific approach, and the problem based learning (PBL) with scientific approach. The research method was quasi experimental. The population was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School of district Ngawi Year of 2014/2015. Sampling was taken by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The hypothesis test used two way analysis of variance with unbalanced cell. The results of the research were as follows. (1) The mathematics learning achievement of students treated with Co-op Co-op type of cooperative learning model with scientific approach was better than that of those treated with DL learning model with scientific approach and those treated with PBL learning model with scientific approach, while that of those treated with DL learning model with scientific approach was as good as that of those treated with PBL learning model with scientific approach. (2) The mathematics learning achievement of students with high learning creativity was better than that of those with medium and low ones, while that of those with medium was better than that of those with low one. (3) In Co-op Co-op type of cooperative learning model with scientific approach, the learning achievements of the students with high, medium and low learning creativities were the same. In DL learning model with scientific approach, the students with high learning creativity had mathematics learning achievement as good as those with those with medium one, while those with high and medium learning creativities had better learning achievement than those with low on. In PBL learning model with scientific approach, the students with high and low creativities had mathematics learning achievement as good as that of those with medium one, while the students with high learning creativity had better learning achievement than those with low one. (4) The students with high and medium learning creativities treated with Co-op Co-op type of cooperative learning model with scientific approach had mathematics learning achievement as good as those treated with DL with scientific approach and those treated with PBL with scientific approach. The students with low learning creativity treated with Co-op Co-op type of cooperative learning model with scientific approach had mathematics learning achievement better than those treated with DL with scientific approach, while those treated with Co-op Co-op type of cooperative learning model with scientific approach had mathematics learning achievement with scientific approach and those treated with DL with scientific approach had learning achievement as good as that of those treated with PBL with scientific approach.Keywords: Co-op Co-op, DL, PBL, scientific approach, student learning creativit