Search

This study aims to determine: which ones provide better Mathematics learning outcomes; which students have better Mathematics learning achievement, students with high, medium or low creativity; for each creativity level that gives better Mathematics learning outcomes; for each mathematics learning model that has better mathematics learning achievement in students of high, medium, or low creativity on Numbers material for learning TGT, TAI. This type of research is a quasi-experimental research with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The population in this study were all students of grade VII SMP in Kudus Regency 2015/2016 academic year. The research sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The samples of this study were students of class VII SMP Negeri 1 Mejobo, SMP Negeri 1 Bae, and SMP Negeri 3 Bae. The results obtained, TGT provides better mathematics learning achievement than TAI. students with high and moderate creativity have the same mathematics learning achievement. students with TGT have better mathematics learning achievement than TAI students. students with high and moderate creativity have the same mathematics learning achievement.

The purpose of this study was to know the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement in mathematics viewed from the students adversity quotient. The learning models compared were the cooperative learning of TAI, TGT, and direct learning model. The type of research was a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design. The study population was all grade 10 students of Secondary Schools in Ngawi Regency in the academic year of 2015/2016. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and learning style questionnaire. The data analysis technique used was the two-way ANOVA with unequal cell. Based on the hypothesis test, it was concluded that: 1) The mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by TAI learning model was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by TGT and direct learning model on equality and inequality, the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by TGT learning model was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students who were treated by direct learning model on equality an inequality; 2) The mathematics learning achievement of the students with visual type was better than the mathematics learning achievement of the students with auditory or kinesthetic type and the learning achievement of auditory type students was better than the learning achievement of kinesthetic type students on equality and inequality; 3) The visual type students who were treated by TAI learning model had better mathematics learning achievement than the students with TGT or direct learning model and the students mathematics learning learning achievement with TGT learning model was same the students with direct learning model; the mathematics achievement of auditory type students who were treated by TAI learning model had better mathematics learning achievement than the students with TGT or direct learning model and students who were treated by TGT learning model had better mathematics learning achievement than the students with direct learning model; the mathematics achievement of kinesthetic type students who were treated by TAI, TGT, and direct learning models had the same mathematics learning achievement; 4) In TAI, TGT and direct learning model, the mathematics learning achievement of visual type, auditory, and kinesthetic had the same mathematics learning achievement. K eywords: TAI, TGT, Direct Learning Model, Learning Style, Mathematics Learning Achievement

The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from the student learning style. The learning models compared were TAI (Team Assisted Individualization), TGT (Teams Games tournament) and direct teaching learning. The type of the research was quasi-experimental research. The population was the students of junior high school in Wonogiri regency on academic year 2013/2014. The size of sample was 234 students consisted of 77 students in the first experimental group, 76 students on the second experimenta groupl, and 81 students on the tirth experimental group. The instruments used were mathematics achievement test, questioner, and the likert scale instrument. The data was analyzed using analisis of variance two way. Conclusions of the research were as follow. (1) the learning achievement of the students instructed with the TAI learning model is the same as that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model, and the learning achievements of the students instructed with the TAI learning model and that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model are better than that of the students instructed with the direct learning model; (1) the learning achievement of the students instructed with the TAI learning model is the same as that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model, and the learning achievements of the students instructed with the TAI learning model and that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model are better than that of the students instructed with the direct learning model; (2) the students with the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles have the same learning achievement in Mathematics; (3) in each learning model, the students with the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles have the same learning achievement in Mathematics; and (4) in each learning style, the learning achievement of the students instructed with the TAI learning model is the same as that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model, and the learning achievement of the students instructed with the TAI learning model and that of the students instructed with the TGT learning model are better than that of the students instructed with the direct learning model. Keywords: TAI, TGT, direct learning, learning style, achievement

The aims of this research were to: 1) determine the validity of the results of the development of learning modules with discovery learning approach on the material of limit algebra functions; 2) determine the practicality of the development of learning modules; 3) determine the effectiveness of the development of learning modules; 4) determine whether students achievement in the material of limit algebra functions using learning modules is better than the students who don’t use it. The development of the modules was done through the modified Four D, namely define, design, development, and disseminate. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Validity analysis was based on an expert assessment. Practicality analysis was based on implementation of learning module. Effectiveness analysis was based on student response after using the module. Analysis of student achievement was based on t-test hypothesis. The result concluded that: 1) learning modules with discovery learning approach to the material limit algebra functions declared fit for use by experts with the validity score of 3.44 and be in very good criteria; 2) learning modules expressed practical use in learning with the practicality score gained from the sheet of implementation of learning is 0.919 and be in very good criteria; 3) learning modules is effective for use in learning with the scores of effectiveness obtained from the sheet of student's response to the module is 3.03 and be in good criteria; 4) learning achievement of students who use the learning module is better than students who don’t use it, but isn’t significant. Keywords: learning module, discovery learning, limit algebra functions.

The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from student’s leraning activity. The learning models compared were TAI with scientific approach, PBL with scientific approach, and classical with scientific approach.This experiment was quasi-experimental. It uses 3 x 3 factorial planning. The population was the entire 8 th grade students of State Junior high School in Grobogan regency in the academic year 2014/2015. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The sample consisted of students of SMP N 2 Tegowanu, SMP N 3 Godong and SMP N 5 Purwodadi. Data collection instruments used were learning achievement test and student learning activity questionnaire. Hypothesis examination used was variance analysis (anava) with unequal cell.Conclusions acquired from this thesis are as follows: 1) PBL using scientific approach gives better mathematics learning achievement compared to TAI and classical Learning, TAI using scientific approach gives better mathematics learning achievement compared to classical learning. 2) student’s mathematics achievement with high learning activity is better than those with intermediate and poor learning activity, intermediate learning activity is better than those with poor learning activity. 3) on TAI using scientific approach, student’s mathematics achievement with high learning activity is as good as those with intermediate learning activity, high learning activity is better than those with poor learning activity, and intermediate learning activity is good as those with poor learning activity. Students which is given PBL using scientific approach, students with high learning activity have mathematics learning achievement as good as those with intermediate learning activity, high learning activity is better than those with poor learning activity, and intermediate learning activity is good as those with poor learning activity. 4) for students with high learning activity, PBL gives learning achievement as good as TAI, PBL gives learning achievement better than classical learning, and TAI gives learning achievement better than classical learning. For students with intermediate learning activity; TAI, PBL and classical learning gives the same good result. For students with poor learning activity; TAI, PBL and classical learning gives the same good result on student’s learning achievement. And student’s learning achievement on algebra which is given PBL is as good as those which is given classical learning. Keywords : TAI using scientific approach, PBL using scientific approach, classical learning, learning activity, learning achievement

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the learning models TSI, TPS, and direct learning model on mathematics learning achievement viewed from the students logical mathematical intelligence. The type of this study was quasi experimental study with factorial design. The population were the eighth-grade students of junior high schools in Klaten Regency in the academic year of 2015/2016. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and logical mathematical intelligence test. The data analysis technique used was the two-way ANAVA with unbalanced cell. Based on the hypothesis, it was concluded as follows. 1) The mathematics learning achievement of TSI was better than TPS and direct learning model, the mathematics learning achievement of TPS was better than direct learning model. 2) The mathematics learning achievement of the students with high logical mathematics was better than the students with average and low logical mathematics, the students with average logical mathematics was better than the students with low logical mathematics. 3) The students with high logical mathematics who were treated by TSI, TPS, direct learning models had the same mathematics learning achievement, students with low logical mathematics treated with TPS and TSI has the same result for both models and was better direct learning model, the students who were treated by TPS learning model was better than direct learning model, the students with low logical mathematics who were treated by TSI was same as TPS and was better than direct learning model. 4) In TSI learning model, the mathematics learning achievement of students with high logical mathematic was better than the students with both average and low logical mathematics, the students with average logical mathematic was better than students with low logical mathematics, in TPS learning model, the students with high logical mathematics was same as the achievement of students with average logical mathematics and was better than the students with low logical mathematic, in direct learning model, the students with high logical mathematics was better than the students with average and low logical mathematics, the students with average logical mathematics was same as the students with low logical mathematics. Keywords: Three Steps Interview, Think Pair Share Direct Learning Model, Logical Mathematical Intelligence.

Dian Devita Yohanie. S851008011. 2015. Proses Berpikir Mahasiswa Pendidikan Matematika dalam Pemecahan Masalah Pembuktian Tahun Akademik 2014/2015. TESIS. Pembimbing I: Dr. Imam Sujadi, M.Si., Pembimbing II: Dr. Budi Usodo, M.Pd. Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, Program Pasca Sarjana, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta. ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan proses berpikir dalam pemecahan masalah pembuktian pada mahasiswa semester 2 program studi pendidikan matematika Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri, yaitu pada: (1) mahasiswa berprestasi belajar tinggi (2) mahasiswa berprestasi belajar sedang (3) mahasiswa berprestasi belajar rendah. Pendekatan penelitian ini dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Subjek penelitian dipilih secara purposive sampling yaitu 6 mahasiswa pendidikan matematika semester 2 dengan subjek masing-masing terdiri dari dua mahasiswa yang berprestasi belajar tinggi, sedang, dan rendah. Pengambilan data dilakukan dengan wawancara berbasis tugas pemecahan masalah pembuktian. Validasi data dilakukan dengan triangulasi waktu, data valid dianalisa menurut Milles Huberman, yaitu reduksi data, penyajian data, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) Proses berpikir mahasiswa yang berprestasi belajar tinggi dalam pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi pada fase masuk hasil yang diperoleh sama, yaitu subjek memahami masalah dengan menuliskan anteseden sebagai yang diketahui dan konsekuen sebagai yang harus dibuktikan. Fase penyelesaian, subjek benar dan lengkap dalam menjabarkan anteseden menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan penjumlahan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis, benar dan jelas dalam membuktikan konsekuen. Pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan kontraposisi dan kontradiksi pada fase penyelesaian, subjek benar dan lengkap dalam menjabarkan antesen menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan pengkuadratan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis, benar dalam membuktikan konsekuen. Selanjutnya pada fase review untuk pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi, subjek memeriksa jawaban dan yakin dengan jawabannya setelah melihat proses dan hasil pembuktian. (2) Proses berpikir mahasiswa yang berprestasi belajar sedang dalam pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi pada fase masuk hasil yang didapatkan sama, yaitu subjek memahami masalah dengan menuliskan anteseden sebagai yang diketahui dan konsekuen sebagai yang harus dibuktikan. Fase penyelesaian, subjek benar dalam menjabarkan anteseden menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan penjumlahan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis, benar dalam membuktikan konsekuen. Pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan kontraposisi dan kontradiksi pada fase penyelesaian, subjek benar dalam menjabarkan anteseden menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan pengkuadratan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis, benar dalam membuktikan konsekuen. Selanjutnya pada fase review untuk pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi, subjek tidak memeriksa jawaban dan yakin dengan jawabannya saat pembuktiannya terbukti. (3) Proses berpikir mahasiswa yang berprestasi belajar rendah dalam pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi pada fase masuk hasil yang diperoleh sama, yaitu, subjek memahami masalah dengan menuliskan anteseden sebagai yang diketahui dan konsekuen sebagai yang harus dibuktikan. Fase penyelesaian, subjek mengalami kesulitan dalam menjabarkan anteseden menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan penjumlahan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis dengan menggunakan contoh bilangan, subjek membuktikan konsekuen dengan membentuk bilangan agar memenuhi konsekuen. Pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan kontraposisi dan kontradiksi pada fase penyelesaian, subjek benar dalam menjabarkan antesen menjadi premis, melakukan operasi perhitungan pengkuadratan dan sifat distributif untuk mengaitkan konsekuen dengan premis, subjek membuktikan konsekuen namun tidak benar proses pembuktiannya. Selanjutnya pada fase review untuk pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan cara langsung, subjek tidak memeriksa jawaban dan yakin dengan jawabannya setelah melihat contoh-contoh bilangan. Pemecahan masalah pembuktian dengan kontraposisi, dan kontradiksi, subjek tidak memeriksa jawaban dan yakin dengan jawabannya dengan melihat hasil pembuktiannya. Kata kunci: proses berpikir, pemecahan masalah, pembuktian, prestasi belajar. Dian Devita Yohanie. S851008011. 2015. Thinking Process of Mathematic Education Students in Proof Problem Solving in Academic Year of 2014/2015. Thesis. First Counselor: Dr. Imam Sujadi, M.Si. Second Counselor: Dr. Budi Usodo, M.Pd. Mathematic Education Study Program, Postgraduate Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Surakarta Sebelas Maret University. ABSTRACT This research aimed to describe the thinking process in proof problem solving in the 2nd semester mathematic education students of Nusantara PGRI University of Kediri with (1) high, (2) moderate, and (3) low learning achievements. The research method employed was the research with qualitative approach. Subject of research was selected using purposive sampling technique, consisting of 6 2nd-semester mathematic education students: 2 students with high, 2 with moderate, and 2 with low learning achievements. Data collection was carried out using interview based on proof problem solving assignment. Data validation was carried out using time triangulation, and the valid data was analyzed using Miles Huberman’s procedure encompassing data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The result of research showed that: (1) The thinking process of students with high learning achievement in the proof problem solving in direct contraposition, and contradiction ways in entry phase is the same, i.e. subjects understood the problem by writing antecedent as they know and consequence to be proved. In finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise correctly and completely, did algebraic operation with summing procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise, and proved the consequence correctly and clearly. In indirectly proof problem solving with contraposition and contradiction ways in finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise correctly and completely, doing algebraic operation with squaring procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise, and proved the consequence correctly. Then, in review phase for proof problem solving in direct, contraposition, and contradiction ways, the subjects check their answer and were sure with their answer after seeing the process and proof result. (2) The thinking process of students with moderate learning achievement in the proof problem solving in direct, contraposition, and contradiction ways in entry phase is the same, i.e. subjects understood the problem by writing antecedent as they know and consequence to be proved. In finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise correctly, did algebraic operation with summing procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise, and proved the consequence correctly. In indirectly proof problem solving with contraposition and contradiction ways in finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise correctly and completely, doing algebraic operation with squaring procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise, and proved the consequence correctly. Then, in review phase for proof problem solving in direct, contraposition, and contradiction ways, the subjects did not check their answer and were sure with their answer when their proved. (3) The thinking process of students with low learning achievement in the proof problem solving in direct, contraposition, and contradiction ways in entry phase is the same, i.e. subjects understood the problem by writing antecedent as they know and consequence to be proved. In finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise difficultly, did algebraic operation with summing procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise using number example, and proved the consequence by forming the number in order to meet the consequence. In indirectly proof problem solving with contraposition and contradiction ways in finishing phase, the subjects explained antecedent into premise correctly, did algebraic operation with squaring procedure and distributive property to connect consequence to premise, but proved the consequence incorrectly. Then, in review phase for proof problem solving in direct way, the subjects did not check their answer and were sure after seeing number examples. In indirectly proof problem solving using contraposition, and contradiction ways, the subjects did not check their answer and were sure with their answer seeing their proof result. Keywords: Thinking Process, Problem Solving, Proof, Learning Achievement

The aims of this study were to investigate: (1) among the model of NHT, NHT with AfL and classical model, which learning model can give better mathematics learning achievement. (2) which student’s have better mathematics learning achievement, those with high, medium, or low intrapersonal intelligence. (3) viewed from learning models, which student’s have better mathematics learning achievement those with high, medium or low intrapersonal intelligence. (4) viewed from intrapersonal intelligence, which learning model produces better mathematics learning achievement NHT with AfL, NHT or classical learning model. This research used quasi experimental method with its population included all of students of state junior high school in Tulungagung Regency. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The size of the samples was 266 students. The data collection technique was include the documentation method to get 2013/2014 initial capability data before the experiment, achievement test for mathematics student’s achievements data, and questioner of intrapersonal intelligence. The data was analyzed using analysis of variance. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded as follows. (1) The model of NHT with AfL providing better mathematics learning achievement than the model of NHT and classical, while the model of NHT providing better mathematics learning achievement than classical model. (2) Students with high intrapersonal intelligence have better mathematics learning achievement than students with medium or low intrapersonal intelligence, students with medium intrapersonal intelligence have better mathematics achievement than student’s with low intrapersonal intelligence. (3) Viewed from learning models, student’s with high intrapersonal intelligence have better mathematics learning achievement than medium or low, and medium intrapersonal intelligence have better mathematics learning than low intrapersonal intelligence. (4) Viewed from intrapersonal intelligence, mathematics learning using NHT with AfL resulted students with better mathematics learning achievement than using NHT and classical learning model, learning mathematics using NHT resulted students with better mathematics learning achievement than using classical learning model. K e ywords : Numbered Head Together, Assessment for Learning, Intrapersonal Intelligence

This research aimed to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, TAI model, GI model or direct instruction model, (2) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the high, medium or low independence of learning students, (3) in each learning models, which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the high, medium, or low independence of learning students, (4) in each categories of independence of learning, which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, TAI model, GI model or direct instruction learning model. This research used the quasi-experimental research method. The research design was a 3×3 factorial design. The population were all students of the eight class of junior high school in Surakarta on academic year 2015/2016. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling and consisted of 281 students. The instruments used were independence of learning questionnaire and mathematics achievement test. The proposed hypothesis of the research were analyzed by using two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. The conclusions of this research were as follow. (1) TAI model provided the mathematics achievement as good as GI model, TAI model and GI model provided better mathematics achievement than direct instruction model. (2) The high independence of learning student had better mathematics achievement than medium and low independence of learning students, and the medium had better than low independence of learning students. (3) In TAI model and direct instruction model, the high, medium, and low independence of learning had the same mathematics achievement, in GI learning model, the high independence of learning students had mathematics achievement as good as the medium independence of learning students, the high independence of learning had better than the low independence of learning, and the medium independence of learning students had the same as the low independence of learning students. (4) In high and low independence of learning, TAI model, GI model, and direct instruction model provided the same achievement, in medium independence of learning, TAI model and GI model provided the same achievement, TAI model provided better achievement than direct instruction model, GI model was the same as direct instruction model. Keyword : TAI, GI, Direct Instruction, Independence of Learning, and Mathematics Achievement

The purpose of this research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from student attitude toward mathematics. The learning models compared were Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) based Assessment for Learning (AfL), TAI, and conventional learning model. The research was quasi experimental. The population of this research was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School of the District Karanganyar, academic year 2013/2014. The samples in this research were SMPN 1 Tasikmadu, SMPN 2 Jaten, and SMPN 2 Colomadu taken by stratified cluster random sampling. Instruments used to collect data were mathematics achievement instrument test and questionnaires students toward mathematics instrument. Data analysis technique used hypothesis test with two-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cells. From the results of the analysis, can be concluded that: 1) the learning achievement in mathematics of the students who were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI Based AfL were better than the ones who were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI and conventional learning model, however the students who were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI were better than the ones who were learning mathematics with conventional learning model, 2) the learning achievement in mathematics of the students with the high attitude toward mathematics were better than the ones with the medium and low attitude toward mathematics, however the students with the medium attitude toward mathematics were better than the ones with the low attitude toward mathematics, 3) in the cooperative learning model TAI Based AfL, the learning achievement in mathematics of the students with ones who have the high attitude toward mathematics were better than the students with the low attitude toward mathematics, and students with the medium attitude toward mathematics were as good as the ones who have low attitude toward mathematics as well. In the cooperative learning model TAI and conventional learning model, the students with the high, medium, and low attitude toward mathematics had the same achievement in learning mathematics, 4) in the students with the high attitude toward mathematics, the learning achievement of the students who were learning mathematics with ones who have cooperative learning model TAI Based AfL were better than the students were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI, the students who were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI had the same achievement in learning mathematics with conventional learning model, and the students who were learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI Based AfL had the same achievement in learning mathematics with cooperative learning model TAI. The students with the medium and low attitude toward mathematics had the same achievement in learning mathematics among the ones who were given the cooperative learning model TAI Based AfL, TAI, and conventional learning model. Keywords: Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), Assessment for learning (AfL), students attitude toward mathematics, achievement learning mathematics.

The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models scientific MMP, scientific TPS, scientific classical on mathematics achievement viewed from student Emotional Quotient (EQ). The objectives of research were to find out: 1) which one providing better learning achievement, scientific MMP, scientific TPS, or scientific classical. 2) which one having better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low EQ. 3) in each learning models, which one having better learning achievement, students with high, medium, or low EQ. 4) in each EQ level, which one providing better learning achievement, scientific MMP, scientific TPS, or scientific classical. The type of the research was quasi experimental research using design factorial 3x3. The population was the students in grade VIII junior high school in a city of Pemalang. The size of the sample was 309 students. The hypothesis test used unbalance two ways analysis of variance. The conclusions of the research were as follows. 1) Scientific MMP provided better learning achievement than scientific TPS and scientific classical, while scientific TPS provided better learning achievement than scientific classical. 2) The students with high EQ had better learning achievement than medium and low EQ, while the students with medium EQ had better learning achievement than low EQ. 3) In scientific MMP, scientific TPS, scientific classical, the students with high EQ had better learning achievement than medium and low EQ, while the students with medium EQ had better learning achievement than low EQ. 4) At the students with high, medium, and low EQ, Scientific MMP provided better learning achievement than scientific TPS and scientific classical, while scientific TPS provided better learning achievement than scientific classical. Keywords : scientific MMP, scientific TPS, scientific Classical, Emotional Quotient,n Achievement

The aim of the research was to determine the effect of learning models on mathematics achievement viewed from student’s social interaction. The learning models compared were TAI with scientific approach, TPS with scientific approach, and classical with scientific approach. The type of the research was a quasi experimental research with the factorial design of 3 x 3. The population were all eight grade students of Junior High School in Ngawi regency on academic year 2014/2015. The sample consisted of students of SMPN 3 Ngrambe, SMPN 2 Paron, and SMPN 2 Widodaren, which taken by using stratified cluster random sampling technique. The data of the research were collected through documentation, questionnaire, and test. The data was analyzed using unbalanced two-ways anova at the significance level of 0,05. Based on the data analysis, it can be concluded as follows. (1) TAI with scientific approach gives better mathematics achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach, TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach gives same mathematics achievement. (2) Students with high social interaction have better mathematics achievements than students with medium social interaction and low social interaction, while students with medium social interaction have better mathematics achievements than students with low social interaction. (3) For TAI with scientific approach, students with high and medium social interaction have the same mathematics achievements, and both have better mathematics achievement than low social interaction. For TPS with scientific approach, students with high social interaction have better mathematics achievement than students with medium and low social interaction, and students with medium and low social interaction have the same mathematics achievement. For classical with scientific approach, students with high social interaction have better mathematics achievement than students with medium social interaction, and both have the same mathematics achievement as students with low social interaction. (4) For students with high and low social interaction, all learning models gives the same mathematics achievement. For students with medium social interaction, TAI with scientific approach gives better mathematics achievement than TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach, TPS with scientific approach and classical with scientific approach gives the same mathematics achievement. Keywords : TAI with scientific approach, TPS with scientific approach, classical learning, social interaction, learning achievement.

The objectives of research were to find out: 1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, TTW by using talking stick model, TPS by using talking stick model or classical learning model, 2) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, linguistic intelligence, mathematics logic intelligence or interpersonal intelligence, 3) in each multiple intelligence level, which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, TTW by using talking stick model, TPS by using talking stick model or classical learning model, and 4) in each learning models, which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, linguistic intelligence, mathematicslogic intelligence or interpersonal intelligence. This research used the quasi experimental research method. The design of the research was 3 × 3 factorial. The population was the students of the seven class of Junior High School in Surakarta City on academic year 2014/2015. The tecnique of sampling was stratified cluster random sampling. The proposed hypothesis of the research were tested by using the unbalanced two-way analysis of variance.The conclusions of this research were as follows: 1) TTW by using talking stick model provided better mathematics achievement than TPS by using talking stick model and classical learning model. 2) the mathematics logic intelligence students had mathematics achievement better than linguistic intelligence, the mathematics achievement of linguistic intelligence is the same as interpersonal intelligence, and the mathematics logic intelligence students had mathematics achievement better than interpersonal intelligence. 3) in each of multiple intelligence categories, students mathematics learning achievement is in constancy with result of learning models.4) in each learning models, the students mathematics learning achievement is in constancy with result of multiple intelligence categories. Keywords: TTW, TPS, classical learning, multiple intelligence, talking stick, achievement of learning.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of learning models on the learning achievement in Mathematics viewed from emotional intelligence of the students. The learning models compared were learning model of the Numbered Head Together (NHT) with scientific approach, Roundtable with scientific approach, and classical with scientific approach. The type of this study was a quasi-experimental study with a 3x3 factorial design. The population was all grade VIII students of Public Junior High Schools in Sukoharjo Regency. Instruments used for data collection were mathematics achievement test and emotional intelligence questionnaire. The data analysis technique used was the two-way ANOVA with unequal cell. Based on hypothesis, the results of the study concluded as follows. (1) Roundtable model with scientific approach got better learning achievement than NHT model with scientific approach and with classical model with scientific approach, NHT model with scientific approach got better learning achievement than classical model with scientific approach. (2) Students with high emotional intelligence gave the same learning achievement with the students who had middle emotional intelligence. In addition, students who had high and middle emotional intelligence have better learning achievement than students who had low emotional intelligence. (3) In each learning models, student with high emotional intelligence gave the same learning achievement with the students who had middle emotional intelligence, then students who had high and middle emotional intelligence have better learning achievement than students who had low emotional intelligence. (4) In each category of emotional intelligence, Roundtable model with scientific approach got better learning achievement than NHT with scientific approach and classical model with scientific approach, NHT model with scientific approach got better learning achievement than classical model with scientific approach. Keywords : Numbered Head Together (NHT), Roundtable, Classical, Scientific Approach, Emotional Intelligence.

The purposes of this research were to investigate: (1) which learning models of Team Assisted Individualization learning model with scaffolding based on module (TAI-S), Team Assisted Individualization learning model (TAI), or direct learning model (DL) results in a better learning achievement in the material of three-dimensional geometry; (2) which independence category of student learning, high, medium or low results in a better learning achievement on the material of three-dimensional geometry; (3) in each category of student learning independence, which learning models of the TAI-S, TAI, or DL model results in better learning achievement on the material of three-dimensional geometry. This research used the quasi experimental method with the factorial design of 3x3. Its population was all the students in Grade XI of Vocational High Schools in Sragen regency. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified random sampling technique. The data of the research were gathered through documentation, questionnaire, and test. The documentation was employed to investigate the scores of semester test in Mathematics of the students in Semester 1, Academic Year 2012/2013, and was used for balance test among the classes exposed to the TAI-S, TAI, and DL models. The questionnaire was used to find out the independence category of student learning. The test was used to know the students learning achievement in Mathematics with material of three-dimensional geometry. The data of the research were analyzed by using the unbalanced two-way analysis of variance at the significance level of 5%. The results of the research are as follows: (1) the TAI-S learning model result in a better learning achievement than both the TAI and DL models. There are no any differences in the learning achievement of the students with the TAI learning model and DL model. (2) the students with the high independence category result in better learning achievement than students with medium and low independence category. The students with medium independence category result in better learning achievement than students in low independence category (3) in each category of student learning independence, based on the material of three-dimensional geometry, the TAI-S learning model, TAI learning model and DL model do not have correlation between one and another. Keywords : TAI-S learning model, TAI learning model, DL learning. Three Dimensional Geometry, Learning Independence.

The objective of research was to investigate the effect of learning models on Mathematics learning achievements viewed from students’ emotional intelligence. The learning models compared were PjBL, GI and 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 VIII graders of Junior High Schools in Metro City. The sample was taken using stratified cluster random sampling. The sample of research consisted of 238 students with details 80 students for the experiment 1, 80 students for experiment 2 and 78 students for control classes. The instruments used for collecting data were mathematics learning achievement test and student EI questionnaires. The results of this research were as follows: (1) the use of the PjBL model couldresult better learning achievement than both GIandthe direct learning. The use of GI could result better learning achievement than the direct learning model, (2) Students with high EI, resulting better learning achievement than students with moderate or low EI, and students with moderate EI hadbetter learning achievement than students with low EI, (3) For those students with high and moderate EI, the PjBL modelresulted better learning achievement than direct learning model, while the PjBL models gave the same learning achievement asGI, and the GIgavethe same learning achievement as the direct learning model. For students with low EI, PjBL, GIand direct learning model gave the same learning achievement, (4) In learning using PjBL model, students with high EI had better learning achievement than students with low EI, and students with moderate EI had better learning achievement than students with low EI, while students with high EI had the same learning achievement as students with moderate EI. On learning using GImodel, students with a high EI had better learning achievement than thosewith low EI, while students with high EI had the same learning achievement as students with moderate EI and students with moderate EI had the same learning achievement as students with a low EI. Direct learning model gave the same effect on learning outcomes among students who had high, moderate and low EI. Keywords : Project Based Learning (PjBL), Group Investigation (GI), Direct learning andEmotional Intelligence (EI).

The purpose of this research was to know the effect of the learning models on the learning achievement and mathematics communication ability viewed from the spatial quotient. The learning models compared were Inquiry learning, Discovery learning and Classical model. The type of this study was a quasi-experimental study with a 3 x 3 factorial design. The study population was all grade VIII students of Junior High School in Solo city. Sample was collected by stratified cluster random sampling and consisted of 260 students which where divided into three groups, 86 students in Experimental Group 1, 86 students in Experimental Group 2, and 88 students in Control Group . The instruments of the research include mathematics achievement test, mathematics communication ability test and spatial intelligence test. The technique of analyzing data used the two-way multivariate analysis of variance with unbalanced cell. The results of this research could be concluded as follows , (1) Inquiry Learning and Discovery Learning have better learning achievement and mathematics communication ability aspects than the Classical learning, Besides that, Inquiry Learning and Discovery Learning have the same learning achievement and mathematics communication ability; (2) The students with high spatial intelligence have the same learning achievement and mathematics communication ability as middle spatial intelligence. In addition, students who have high and middle spatial intelligence have better learning achievement and mathematics communication ability than students who have low spatial intelligence.; (3) In each learning model, the students with high and middle spatial intelligence have better learning achievement and mathematics communication ability than students who have low spatial intelligence, and the students with high and middle spatial intelligence have the same learning achievement and mathematics communication ability; (4) In each of the spatial intelligence, the cooperative learning model of Inquiry Learning and Discovery Learning give a better learning achievement and mathematics communication ability than the Classical model, and the cooperative learning model of Inquiry Learning and Discovery Learning give the same learning achievement and mathematics communication ability. Keywords: Inquiry Learning, Discovery Learning, Spatial Quotient, Learning Achievement, Mathematics Communication Ability.

This research aimed to find out: (1) which one is better among cooperative learning models of TSTS with scientific approach (TSTS-PS), TAI with scientific approach (TAI-PS) or classical with scientific approach one in giving mathematics learning achievement, (2) which one is better among students’ anxiety categories, students having high, middle or low categories giving mathematics learning achievement. (3) in each learning model, which one is better among students’ anxiety categories in giving mathematics learning achievement and (4) in each anxiety categories, which one is better among TSTS with scientific approach (TSTS-PS), TAI with scientific approach (TAI-PS) or classical with scientific approach in giving mathematics learning achievement. This research was the quasi-experimental research with 3×3 factorial design. The population of research was all grade VII students of Junior High School (SMP) in Karanganyar Regency. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments that were used to collect the data were the test of mathematics achievement and questionnaire of students’ anxiety categories. Prior knowledge data are examined by using one-way ANOVA with unbalanced cells. It shows that three classes have balance prior knowledge. Meanwhile, the technique of analyzing the data was two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The result of research showed as follows. (1) The TSTS-PS had better learning achievement than the TAI-PS and classical with scientific approach. TAI-PS had learning achievement as good as the classical with scientific approach, (2) The students having low anxiety categories had better learning achievement than those having middle and high categories. The students having middle anxiety categories had learning achievement as good as those having high categories. (3) In each learning models, the students having low anxiety categories had better learning achievement than those having middle and high categories. The students having middle anxiety categories had learning achievement as good as those having high categories. (4) In each of students’ anxiety categories, the TSTS with scientific approach had better learning achievement than the TAI and classical with scientific approach. TAI with scientific approach had learning achievement as good as the classical with scientific approach. Keywords : Two Stay Two Stray (TSTS), Teams Assisted Individulization (TAI), Classical, Scientific Approach, Students’ Anxiety.

The aims of this research were to find out the different effect of the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach, the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type, and the direct learning model towards students mathematics learning achievement and affective aspect on the subject of plane geometry viewed from the students spatial ability, and category of spatial ability consisted of high, medium and low. The research was quasi experimental. The population was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School in Madiun City on the second semester of 2013/2014 academic years. The sample of this research consisted of 261 students. The instrument used to collect data was mathematics achievement test, questionnaire of students affective aspect and spatial ability test. The hypothesis test used unbalanced two ways multivariate analysis of variance. The results of the research were as follows. (1) The cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach and the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type gaves a better achievement than direct learning model, and the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach gaves the same achievement as the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type. (2) The cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach gaves a better achievement than the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type and direct learning model, and the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type gaves a better achievement than direct learning model. (3) Students with the high spatial ability had better achievement than students with the medium and low spatial ability, and students with the medium spatial ability had better achievement than students with the low spatial ability. (4) Students with the high spatial ability had better affective aspect than students with the medium and low spatial ability, and students with the medium spatial ability had the same affective aspect as students with the the low spatial ability. (5) On the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach, Jigsaw type and direct learning model, students with the high spatial ability had better achievement than students with the medium and low spatial ability, and students with the medium spatial ability had better achievement than students with the low spatial ability. (6) On the cooperative learning models of Jigsaw type with CTL approach and Jigsaw type, students with the high, medium and low spatial ability had the same affective aspects. On the direct learning model, students with the high spatial ability had better affective aspects than students with the medium spatial ability, while students with the high and low spatial ability and students with the medium and low spatial ability had the same affective aspects. (7) On students spatial ability high, medium and low, the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach and the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type gaves a better achievement than direct learning model, and the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach gaves the same achievement as the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type. (8) On students with the high and medium spatial ability, the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type with CTL approach, Jigsaw type and direct learning model gives the same affective aspect. On students with the medium spatial ability, the cooperative learning of Jigsaw type with CTL approach gaves a better affective aspect than the direct learning model, while the cooperative learning of Jigsaw type with CTL approach and Jigsaw and also the cooperative learning of Jigsaw type and direct learning model gaves the same affective aspect.Keywords: Jigsaw, CTL approach, spatial ability, learning achievement, and affective aspect.

This research aimed to find out: (1) which one gives better in mathematics learning achievement, learning model of Think Pair Share (TPS) with Problem Posing, Think Pair Share (TPS) or conventional, (2) which one have better in mathematics learning achievement, students having climbers, campers or quitters of Adversity Quotient, (3) in each learning model, which one have better mathematics learning achievement, students having climbers, campers or quitters of Adversity Quotient, (4) in each student’s level of Adversity Quotient which one gives better in mathematics learning achievement, learning model of TPS with Problem Posing, TPS or conventional. This research was a quasi-experimental research with 3 x 3 factorial design. The population of the research was all students class XI majors group technology, health and agriculture of SMK in Boyolali. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The instruments that were used to collect the data were the documentation of mathematics achievement, questionnaire of Adversity Quotient and test of mathematics achievement. The technique of analyzing the data was two-ways ANOVA with unbalanced cells. The result of research showed as follows: (1) learning model of TPS with Problem Posing provided better learning achievement than model of TPS and conventional, learning model of TPS provided better learning achievement than conventional, (2) the students having climbers and campers had same achievement, and the students having climbers and campers had better achievement than those having quitters, (3) in each learning model, the students having climbers and campers had the same achievement, and the students having climbers and campers had better achievement than those having quitters, (4) in each Adversity Quotient, learning model of TPS with Problem Posing provided better learning achievement than TPS and conventional, learning model of TPS provided better learning achievement than conventional.Key words: Think Pair Share (TPS), Problem Posing, and Adversity Quotient (AQ)

The aims of this research were to find out the different effect of each categories of learning model, students interpersonal intelligence and their interaction towards students mathematics learning achievement on the subject of plane geometry. The research was quasi experimental with 3×3 factorial design. The population was all students of grade VIII State Junior High School in Madiun City on the second semester of 2013/2014 academic years. Sampling was done by stratified cluster random sampling technique. The sample of this research consisted of the students of SMP N 3 Madiun, SMPN 7 Madiun, and SMPN 10 Madiun. The sample consisted of 260 students. 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 that: (1) the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type gives a better mathematics achievement than cooperative learning model of NHT type and direct learning model, and the cooperative learning model of NHT type gives a better mathematics achievement than direct learning model; (2) students with the high interpersonal intelligence had the same achievement as students with the medium interpersonal intelligence, students with the high interpersonal intelligence had better achievement than students with the low interpersonal intelligence and the students with the medium interpersonal intelligence had the same achievement as students with the low interpersonal intelligence; (3) on the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type, NHT type and direct learning model, students with the high interpersonal intelligence had the same achievement as students with the medium interpersonal intelligence, students with the high interpersonal intelligence had better achievement than students with the low interpersonal intelligence and the students with the medium interpersonal intelligence had the same achievement as students with the low interpersonal intelligence; and (4) on students interpersonal intelligence high, medium and low, the cooperative learning model of Jigsaw type gives a better mathematics achievement than cooperative learning model of NHT type and direct learning model, and the cooperative learning model of NHT type gives a better mathematics achievement than direct learning model.Keywords: Jigsaw, NHT, interpersonal intelligence

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. Key words : Reciprocal Teaching with Learning Tools, Reciprocal Teaching, Conventional Approach, Creativity, Mathematics Learning Achievement.

The aims of this study were to: (1) produce a learning device in STAD cooperative learning model with a portfolio that was good for the subject of algebra in seventh grade junior high school, (2) know the effectiveness of cooperative learning of STAD type with portfolio assessment when it is viewed from early ability. This research was a kind of research and development. The development procedure used in this study was the development of a learning device according Thiagarajan et al, which was consisted of four stages: define, design, development, and disseminate. In disseminate stage, the experiment was conducted with portfolio assessment. Experiments conducted on the two junior high schools, they were Muhammadiyah Yanggong junior high school and Muhammadiyah Jenangan junior high school. Based on the inferential analysis, it showed that (1) the learning outcomes of students who were taught mathematics STAD cooperative learning with portfolio assessment was better than the mathematics learning outcomes of students who were taught STAD cooperative learning on the subject of algebra, (2) students who had high early ability had better performance than who had low early ability, (3) in the high ability, the students who were taught by using STAD cooperative learning model with portfolio assessment had better learning achievement than the students who were taught by using STAD cooperative model STAD without portfolio assessment, (4) in the low early ability, the students who were taught using STAD cooperative learning model with portfolio assessment had the same performance with STAD cooperative learning model without portfolio assessment, (5) the students who were taught by the STAD cooperative learning without portfolio assessment, students who had high early ability had better performance than who had low early ability, and (6) the students who were taught by using STAD cooperative learning model with portfolio assessment, the students who had high early ability had better performance than the students who had early ability. Key words : Cooperative STAD, Portfolio Assessment, Early ability

The objectives of this research were to investigate: (1) which one providing better learning achievement, the Jigsaw learning model, GI or direct instruction; 2) which one having better learning achievement, the students with high, medium or low emotional quotient (EQ); 3) in each category of EQ, which one providing better learning achievement, the Jigsaw, GI or direct instruction; 4) in each type of the learning model, which one having better learning achievement, the students with high, medium or low EQ. This research was a quasi-experimental research using factorial design of 3x3. The population of the research were all students of the Public Senior High Schools in Wonogiri Regency. The samples were chosen by using stratified cluster random sampling. The samples of the research were tenth grade students of SMA N 1 Wonogiri, SMA N 2 Wonogiri, and SMA N 1 Sidoharjo. In collecting the data, the instruments used were test and questionnaire. The technique of analyzing the data was unbalanced two-ways Anova. The results of the research are as follows: (1) the Jigsaw result in a better learning achievement than GI and direct instruction, the GI result in a better learning achievement than direct instruction; (2) the students with the high EQ result in a better learning achievement than the students with the medium or low EQ, the students with the medium EQ result in a better learning achievement than the students with the low EQ; (3) the students with the low EQ, the Jigsaw, GI and direct instruction have the same learning achievement; the students with the medium EQ, the Jigsaw and GI result in the same learning achievement, the GI learning model and direct instruction result in the same learning achievement and the Jigsaw result in a better learning achievement than direct instruction; the students with the high EQ the Jigsaw and GI result in the same learning achievement, and both result in a better learning achievement than the direct instruction; (4) in the Jigsaw and GI, the students with the low and medium EQ result in the same learning achievement, but students with the high EQ result in a better learning achievement than the students with the low or medium EQ, in the direct instruction, the students with the low, medium and high EQ result in the same learning achievement. Key words: learning model, Jigsaw , GI, emotional quotient.

The objectives of this research were to find out: (1) which learning model of the GI with CTL approach, TAI with CTL approach or conventional learning results in a better learning achievement in mathematics; (2) which students attitudes toward mathematics of the positive, neutral, or negative types results in a better learning achievement in mathematics; (3) in each students attitudes toward mathematics, which learning model of the GI with CTL approach, TAI with CTL approach or conventional learning results in a better learning achievement in mathematics; and (4) in each learning model, which students attitudes toward mathematics of the positive, neutral, or negative types results in a better learning achievement in mathematics. This research used the quasi experimental research method with the factorial design of 3x3. Its population was all of the students in Grade VII of State Junior High Schools in Ngawi regency. The samples of the research were taken by using the stratified cluster random sampling technique. The data of the research were analyzed by using the unbalanced two-way analysis of variance at the significance level of 5%. The results of this study showed that: (1) the GI and TAI with CTL approach learning models result in the same good learning achievement in mathematics, but both result in a better learning achievement in mathematics than the conventional learning model; (2) the mathematics learning achievement with positive attitudes toward mathematics was better than that with neutral and negative attitudes towards matematics, that with neutral attitude towards matematics was better than that with negative attitudes toward mathematics; (3) in each students attitudes toward mathematics type, the GI and TAI with CTL approach learning models result in the same good learning achievement in Mathematics, but both result in a better learning achievement in mathematics than the conventional learning model; (4) in each learning model, the mathematics learning achievement with positive attitudes toward mathematics was better than that with neutral and negative attitudes towards matematics, that with neutral attitude towards matematics was better than that with negative attitudes toward mathematics. Key words : learning model, GI, TAI, conventional, CTL approach, students attitudes toward mathematics.

This research was conducted to find out: (1) which produces better mathematics achievement: students who were given TGT cooperative learning with mind mapping, TGT cooperative learning, or conventional learning; students who have high emotional spiritual intelligence or low one; students who have a positive or negative self-concept. and (2) which is better, the mathematics achievement of students in each category of spiritual emotional intelligence (high or low) and the category of self-concept (positive or negative) on the TGT with mind mapping, TGT cooperative learning, and conventional learning. This study used a quasi-experimental study with a factorial design 3x2x2. The population in this study were all students of Science Second Grade Students of senior high schools in Banyumas Regency in the Academic Year of 2012/2013. The hypothesis test used three-way analysis of variance with unbalanced cell. Based on the analysis, we concluded as follows. (1) The mathematics achievement of students given TGT learning model with mind mapping was better than students given TGT learning model and the conventional model of learning. However, there was no difference in achievement between students given TGT learning models with conventional learning model; there was no difference in mathematics achievement of students with high emotional spiritual intelligence with students with low emotional spiritual intelligence; the mathematics achievement of students with positive self-concepts better than students with a negative self-concept. (2) In every model of learning, students with high emotional spiritual intelligence always provide a better learning achievement than students with low emotional spiritual intelligence. In the learning model TGT with mind mapping, students with a positive self-concept provided better mathematics achievement than students with a negative self-concept, while in the TGT and conventional learning model, there was no difference in achievement between students with a positive self-concept and students with negative self-concept. Key words : Mathematics Learning Achievement, TGT, Mind Mapping, ESQ, Self Concept

This research aims to find out: (1) which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the learning using guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model, Jigsaw type of cooperative or conventional learning model in rectangular flat structure material, (2) which one having mathematics learning achievement, the student with high, medium, or low mathematics reasoning skill in rectangular flat structure material, (3) in each mathematics reasoning skill (high, medium, and low), which one providing better learning achievement between guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model with visual aid use, Jigsaw type of cooperative or conventional learning model in rectangular flat structure material, (4) in each learning model (guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model with visual aid use, Jigsaw type of cooperative or conventional), which one providing better mathematics learning achievement, the students with high, medium or low mathematics reasoning skill in rectangular flat structure material. This study belonged to a quasi-experimental research with a 3x3 factorial design taken place in VII grade of SMPN Ponorogo in second semester of 2011/2012 school year. The population of research was all VII graders of Junior High Schools in Ponorogo, consisting of 51 school. The sampling technique used was stratified cluster random sampling. The classification of school was made according to National Examination value in the school year of 2010/2011. The samples of research were 280 students from SMPN 2 Ponorogo for high classification, SMPN 6 Ponorogo for medium classification, SMPN 2 Babadan for low classification. The data of mathematic reasoning skill and learning achievement were collected using a multiple-choice test. Technique of analyzing data used was a two-way variance analysis with different cells. The conclusions of research were (1) there was an effect of learning model on the learning achievement (F obs = 8.10 > F­ table = 3), from inter-row mean comparative test, it could be found that the guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model with visual aid use (marginal mean of 74.0833) provided better achievement than Jigsaw type of cooperative did (marginal mean of 69.5652) and both of them provided better achievement than the conventional learning model did (marginal mean of 65); (2) there was an effect of student mathematics reasoning skill on the learning achievement (F obs = 32.74 > F­ table = 3), from inter-row mean comparative test, it could be found that the students with high reasoning skill (marginal mean of 74.8785) provided reasoning skill equaling to the students with medium reasoning skill did (marginal mean of 71.5506), and both of them provided better achievement than the students with low reasoning skill did (marginal mean of 60.8571); (3) in high reasoning skill, the guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model with visual aid use provided achievement equaling to the Jigsaw type of cooperative did and both of them provided achievement equaling to the conventional learning model did, while in medium and low reasoning skill, the three learning model provided the same learning achievement; (4) in the guided inquiry-oriented Jigsaw type of cooperative learning model with visual aid use, the students with high mathematics reasoning skill had mathematics learning achievement as same as those with medium mathematics reasoning skill had, and both of them had mathematics learning achievement as same as those with low mathematics reasoning skill had, while in Jigsaw type of cooperative and conventional learning model, the students with high mathematics reasoning skill had mathematics learning achievement as same as those with medium and low mathematics reasoning skill had.