Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran CORE Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas V SD

Authors

  • Selvi Monika UIN Fatmawati Sukarno Bengkulu, Indonesia
  • Juwita Santri UIN Fatmawati Sukarno Bengkulu, Indonesia
  • Khermarinah Khermarinah UIN Fatmawati Sukarno Bengkulu, Indonesia
  • Aam Amaliyah UIN Fatmawati Sukarno Bengkulu, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59698/afeksi.v7i1.879

Keywords:

model CORE, hasil belajar matematika, pembelajaran aktif, quasi eksperimen, sekolah dasar

Abstract

Rendahnya hasil belajar matematika dan dominasi metode pembelajaran konvensional menjadi kendala utama dalam memahami konsep pada siswa sekolah dasar. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji efektivitas model pembelajaran CORE (Connecting, Organizing, Reflecting, Extending) terhadap hasil belajar matematika siswa. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan desain quasi experimental berupa pretest-posttest control group design. Sampel penelitian terdiri dari dua kelas, yaitu kelas eksperimen yang menerapkan model CORE dan kelas kontrol dengan pembelajaran konvensional. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui tes, observasi, dan dokumentasi. Analisis data menggunakan uji normalitas, homogenitas, serta uji Independent Sample T-test. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa nilai thitung sebesar 3,27 lebih besar dibandingkan ttabel sebesar 2,00 pada taraf signifikansi 5%, yang mengindikasikan adanya perbedaan signifikan antara kedua kelompok. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa penerapan model CORE mampu meningkatkan keterlibatan aktif siswa dalam menghubungkan, mengorganisasi, merefleksikan, dan mengembangkan pemahaman konsep matematika. Implikasi penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa model pembelajaran CORE efektif digunakan sebagai alternatif strategi pembelajaran untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar matematika siswa sekolah dasar.

References

An, S. A., & Wu, Z. (2012). Enhancing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of teaching through lesson study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(5), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-012-9210-4

Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching (Updated ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.31.1.v273h48926177751

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Research methods in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506386709

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2020). Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK-12 research. Computers & Education, 152, 103881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103881

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Fitriani, Y., Suryadi, D., & Turmudi. (2022). The role of reflective learning in improving students’ mathematical understanding. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2165(1), 012045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2165/1/012045

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hattie, J. (2021). Visible learning: The sequel—A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003167754

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734798

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2022). On thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00058-x

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM. https://www.nctm.org

Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203090480

OECD. (2021). 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Sugiyono. (2022). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Wieman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111

Zhan, Z., Chang, C., & Wang, Q. (2021). Effects of student-centered learning on academic achievement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09847-2

Downloads

Published

2026-05-06

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

An author who publishes in  AFEKSI agrees to the following terms:
  • Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
  • The author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • The author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Read more about the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.