The Ability of Students` Mathematical Problem Solving through

the Implementation of Conceptual Understanding Procedures

(CUPs)
Gita Cahyaningtyas 1, Hapizah 2*

1
The Undergraduate Student of Sriwijaya University, Indonesia
2
The Lecturer of Sriwijaya University, Indonesia

* CORRESPONDENCE: gitacahyaningtyas28@@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This study used a descriptive study to find out the ability of students’ mathematical problem
solving after it was applied by CUPs on the angle relationship material at SMPN 18 Palembang.
The subject of this study was the 7th grade junior high school students with the total number of
the students was 30 students. Test and interview were used in data collection. The result showed
that the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving was categorized as good after
applied by CUPs at SMPN 18 Palembang with the details are as follows: the percentage of the
ability of students’ mathematical problem solving which was categorized as excellent was
16,67%, 46,67% of them were categorized as good, 20,00% of them were categorized as
average, and 16,67% of them was categorized as poor. Therefore, the implementation of
Concpetual Understanding Procedures model can be the alternative learning to find out the
ability of students’ mathematical problem solving.

Keywords: Conceptual Understanding Procedures, the ability of students’ mathematical problem

solving

INTRODUCTION
Problem solving is one of the purposes in learning mathematic which has been stated in the Government
Regulation number 22 year 2006 which is making the students able to solve the problem including the
ability of understanding the problem, designing the model, solving the model and interpreting the result
which has been got. This Government Regulation is in line with the problem solving stage stated by Polya
(2004) as follows: (1) Understanding the problem, (2) Devising a plan (3) Carrying out the plan, and (4)
Looking back.
In the syllabus of senior high school subjects (2017), it is explained that students need to have the ability
in developing the reason, communicating, and problem solving. In line with this explanation, learning
mathematic in the school is also hoped to give the contribution to support the achievement of graduate
competence of primary and secondary education in order to be able to solve the problem and communicate
the idea through diagram, symbol, table, or any other media to clarify a situation or problem and solve the
mathematical problem in daily life. Moreover, Zulyadaini (2017) explains that the ability of mathematical
problem solving has become one of the abilities that students’ need to have because it gives the big impact in
seeing the relevance between mathematic and other subjects and its relationship with real life.
The ability of mathematical problem-solving is students’ ability to apply prior knowledge to new
situations which involve high order thinking (Ulya, 2016). The same thing is also said by Febriyanti (2017)
that ability of mathematical problem solving is a way or strategy to be able to solve difficult problems by
exerting all the capabilities possessed so that students are required to be able to think critically, creatively,
and efficiently. So it can be concluded that ability of mathematical problem solving is an ability to apply an
Cahyaningtyas & Hapizah

earlier strategy which is then applied to a new situation where it requires a high order thinking process in
order to solve a problem.
The facts show that the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving is still low. It happens because
the students in Indonesia are not used to solve the questions or problems with high difficulty level since the
teachers are rarely give them problems which lead to the solution of mathematical problems (Hiltrimartin,
2013).
The weakness of Indonesian students' ability in solving mathematical problems is also caused by
students’ mindset which are still have erroneous and less critical thinking which make them have less
ability in solving problem where the students are only taught with the procedure and its completion
algorithm without understanding the mathematic concept in a problem (Mulhamah, 2016).
Moreover, according to the result of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in
2011, Indonesia was in a fairly low position which was ranked in the 38 th position out of 42 countries (IEA,
2012). The result of TIMSS clearly explains that no matter how the Indonesian students’ ability is,
Indonesia is still not able to compete in international level. This statement is in line with Setiawan (2014)
which states that in mathematic field, Indonesian students are still not able to solve the problems which
lead students to have the ability in high level thinking skills such as the ability of solving problem.
Some questions or problems which were used by TIMSS were in the content of geometry and one of them
was about angle (Kemdiknas, 2011). Based on the questions or problems testing by USBN and UN TP
2017/2018, the angle relationship also becomes one of the materials which will be tested in National
Examination of junior high schools in 2018 (BSNP, 2017). Therefore, the angle relationship is one of the
most important materials that students need to master.
In the Regulation of Minister of Education and Culture number 24 in 2016, it states about the basic
competence of lines and angles, which explains about the solving problem related to angle relationship as
the effect of two parallel lines which is cut by transversal line. Based on this case, the researchers think that
the problem solving in lines and angles materials especially in angle relationship is still indispensable.
There are still a lot of junior high school students which have difficulties in understanding the material
about angle relationship such as in SMP Negeri 18 Palembang. It can be seen from their daily examination
scores in angle relationship material which is categorized as average with 76 as mean score, where only
around 52% that fulfilled the KKM which is agreed by the schools as ≥75. According to the statement of the
teacher in this subject, students still face the difficulties in making the strategy that they will use in solving
the problems that make them certainly get the impacts on the process of its completion. For example,
students are still not able to decide what supplementary angle which is being questioned.
Marpaung (2007 states that teachers still become the only ones who dominate the teaching and learning
process in the class. Therefore, students act passively and only listen to teachers who are teaching. This is
not in line with the current learning paradigm where the orientation of learning should be centered on the
students (students centered) (Permendikbud, 2016).
One of the innovative, constructive and cooperative learning model which can develop the ability of
students’ mathematical problem solving is Conceptual Understanding Procedures (CUPs) model. This is in
line with Sari (2014) which states that one of the learning models which can be the alternative way to
develop students’ ability in mathematical problem solving in CUPs model. According to Monash University
(2014), CUPS is the learning model which includes the design model to help the development of
understanding the high or difficult concepts for students through constructing an individual knowledge so
that students can understand the problems well. This learning model of CUPS is a model based on the
constructivism approach by emphasizing the importance of active role in each individual (Hidayati, 2015).
Through CUPs, students are not only sit down by listening and accepting anything that teachers deliver,
but also become more active in learning process and able to solve a problem together by communicating the
ideas that they have together (Monash University, 2014). This CUPs model has three important steps in its
learning process. They are the individual step, following by triplet and class discussion (Kloot, 2003).
Prastiwi (2014) states that using CUPs in learning process can be an effective way towards the ability of
students’ mathematical connections. Besides it, Munandar (2016) explains that the use of CUPs in learning
can influences to students’ ability it mathematical communication. Based on this case, it can be concluded
that there are still not a lot of researchers which discuss about the students’ ability in mathematical solving

2 http://www.iejme.com
 IEJME-Math Ed

problem. Because of this, the purpose of this study is to find out the ability of students’ in mathematical
problem solving in angle relationship material after it is applied through CUPs at SMP Negeri 18
Palembang.

METHOD
This study used a descriptive study to find out the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving
after it is applied with Conceptual Understanding Prosedurs (CUPs) learning model at SMP Negeri 18
Palembang.

Variabel of the Study

The variable of this study was “the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving of 7 th grade
students of SMP Negeri 18 Palembang.

Subject of the Study

The subject of the study was the 30 7th grade students of SMP Negeri 18 Palembang.

Technique of Collecting the Data

This study used the data test and interview as the techniques of collecting the data. The questions
of the tests were 3 questions of description questions were to find out the ability of mathematical problem
solving of the students. Meanwhile, the interview was used as a booster for the accuracy of test data.

Technique of the Data Analysis

Analyzing Data Test
The steps of analyzing the data tests are: (1) deciding students’ score based on the score guidance which
has been made, (2) converting the score into the result; (3) deciding the categories of the ability of students’
mathematical problem solving. The tests are checked out based on the guidance of the score which has been
made. It can be seen in table 1 below
Table 1. The Score Guidance of the Ability of Mathematical Problem Solving
No Indicator Rubric Score
1 Understanding the  Does not write down what is known and asked. 0
problem  Write down what is known, ask correctly but not
completely, or make mistake in writing what is known and 1
asked.
 Write down what is known and asked correctly and 2
completely.
2 Devising a plan  Does not write down the answer at all. 0
 Strategy used is not relevant. 1
 Strategy used cannot really be done and finished.
 Strategy used is correct but lead to incorrect answer or 2
does not try another strategy.
 Strategy used is correct and relevant. 3
4
3 Carrying out the plan  Does not write down the answer at all. 0
 The counting results are incorrect. 1
 Some procedures of solving problem is lead to the correct

http://www.iejme.com 3
Cahyaningtyas & Hapizah

answers. 2
 Write down the result of problem solving incorrectly 3
because the incorrect counting result.
 The result and procedure are right and correct. 4
4 Looking back  Does not check back. 0
 There is a checking back but has not finished yet or is not 1
complete or there is a checking back but incorrect.
 The checking back is done completely. 2
(Modification from Rangkuti, 2014)
Analyzing the Interview Data
Analyzing the interview data in this study was based on the steps according to Miles and Huberman
(Sugiyono, 2011), as follows: (1) Data Reduction, which the data was concluded in written, (2), Data
Presentation, when the researcher wrote, designed, and identified the data which referred to the indicator of
the ability of mathematical problem solving. After that, triangulation of sources was done to compare the
test score with the clarification through interview from the sources; (3), Conclusion, which was in the clear
description based on the indicator categories of the ability of mathematical problem solving.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study was started on Monday, 30th of April until Friday, 4th of May 2018. It was done in the 7th
grade class of SMP Negeri 18 Palembang. This study was done in three meetings within the details are two
times meetings for learning and one meeting for having the test of the ability of students’ mathematical
problem solving. The learning process was done based on the steps of CUPs. They are individual, triplet, and
discussion class.
The data of the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving was got from the result of test through
the questions which lead to four indicators of students’ mathematical problem solving. The highest score
which was got by the students was 2 and the lowest score was 0 in indicators of understanding the problem
and checking back. Meanwhile, the highest score which was got by students were 4 and the lowest score was
0 in indicators of designing problem solving strategy and problem solving.
These are the result of students’ score after being analyzed and converted. It can be seen in table below;
Table 2. The Criteria of the Ability of Mathematical Problem Solving
Scores Frequency Percentage (%) Category
85,00 – 100 5 16,67 Excellent
70,00 – 84,99 14 46,67 Good
55,00 – 69,99 6 20,00 Average
40,00 – 54,99 5 16,67 Poor
Total 30 100 -
Mean Score 72,41 Good

It can be seen from Table 2 that there were 5 students which were categorized as having the excellent
ability of mathematical problem solving with the percentage was 16,67% and 14 of them were categorized as
having goof ability of mathematical problem solving with the percentage was 46,67%. Moreover, it can also
be seen that the mean score of the test result of the students was 72,41 which was categorized as good.
The students which were categorized as having the excellent and good ability in mathematical problem
solving generally had already fulfilled all of the indicators of mathematical problem solving. But, there were
only a few students which seemed erroneous and inaccurate in doing the test given so that some indicators
had not fulfilled the maximal score. For example, S was one of the students which was categorized in

4 http://www.iejme.com
 IEJME-Math Ed

excellent range. Based on the data analysis of the ability of mathematical problem solving test, S could
fulfilled all of the indicators of the mathematical problem solving in number 1. She could write down what
she had known and what was being asked from the question. She could also design the strategy of the
solving problem and the questions themselves, check back, and write down the conclusion of the answers.
This was supported by the result of interviewing the researcher and S. S could clearly explain correctly all of
the answers she had written down in her paper sheet.
,From the result of the test, students in excellent category had already fulfilled all of the indicators of the
ability of mathematical problem solving. One of the students who had already fulfilled those indicators was
S. S could finish the questions number 1 and 3 correctly. Meanwhile, in number 2, S had not fulfilled the
indicator of checking back indicator. She only got 1 for the score because the checking back that she had
done was not complete.
The same with excellent category, those students who were in good category still could not got the
maximal score for the indicators of the ability of mathematical problem solving. One of the students in this
category was CC. CC had already got the maximal score in the questions number 2 which the indicators
were understanding the problem, and designing the strategy of problem solving. Unfortunately, CC could
not get the maximal score for the indicator of checking back. This had also supported by the result of
interview which had been done by the researcher and CC. CC stated that she had already been sure with the
answers that she wrote but she was confused about the steps that she had to do in checking back her own
answers.
. Beside the result of interviewing, the observation which had been done by the researcher to the
students in learning process which was included in the category of excellent and good were the active
students in teaching and learning process. The total of students in category of excellent and good were
involved in the active discussion, active in delivering their opinion in triplet process, and doing the activities
in LLKPD which had been given. They could also understand the problem and solve the problem in LKPD.
The ability of students’ mathematical problem solving in the category of excellent and good was caused by
the learning process which used the CPUs model. This CPUs model was designed to make the students in
learning process able to construct their own individual knowledge so that they can understand well (Monash
University, 2014). This was in line with the study of Sari (2014) which found out that the ability of students’
mathematical problem solving using CUPs was higher than those who did not use CUPs. Therefore, CUPs
had become one of the learning models that could be the alternative way to develop students’ mathematical
problem solving.
. Next, there were 6 students which were categorized as those who had the average ability of
mathematical problem solving with the percentage was 20,00% and 5 of them were placed in poor ability of
mathematical problem solving with the percentage was 16,67%. Those students who were in the category of
average and poor generally only fulfilled a few indicators of mathematical problem solving. One of the
students who was in this category was ESP. ESP’s answers in number 2 had not reached the maximal score
from each of the problem solving indicators. ESP could understand the problem given, design the strategy
based on the problem, but he could not solve the problem correctly and completely. Based on the interview
done, ESP could clearly explain how he got the answer. But, when the researcher asked him to check back
his answers, ESP was still sure that his answers were correct and showed how he could get the result.
The same thing also happened to the students who were in category of poor ability in mathematical
problem solving. One of the students was MHK. His answers in number 1 had not reached the maximal
score of the whole score in mathematical problem solving. He had already known how to understand the
problem and design the strategy of how he solved it. but, the strategy that he used was not the correct one
and he also did not write down his answers and check them back. Picture 1 showed the answer of MKH in
number 1

http://www.iejme.com 5
Cahyaningtyas & Hapizah

Understanding
the problem

Devising a plan
incorrectly

No problem
solving

No looking
back

Picture 1. MHK’s answer for number 1

Based on the interview result of the researcher and MHK, it showed that he had already got the answer
but he did not write it down clearly. He also had already been sure with his answer. These were the
interview transcript of the researcher and MHK.

R : “What did you understand about the question?

MHK : “It is known that ∠𝑃𝑂𝑅 = 110° and ∠𝑄𝑂𝑆 = 90° and ∠𝑃𝑂𝑆 = 140° , and it is asked how big is
∠𝑄𝑂𝑅.”
R : “How did you solve it?”
MHK : “(stammerely answer) It is drawn . ∠𝑃𝑂𝑅 = 110° and ∠𝑃𝑂𝑆 = 140° and ∠𝑄𝑂𝑆 = 90°.”
R : “Then?”
MHK : “what is being asked is ∠𝑄𝑂𝑅, so ∠𝑄𝑂𝑅nya 20°.”
R : “After that, how did you find 20°?”
MHK : “By adding all of them, then the result was 20”
R : “Are you sure?”
MHK : “Yes, I am”
In the teaching and learning process, the students who were in average and poor category seemed to be
passive. When doing the LKPD, there were some of them who were not able to understand each activity
which was ordered and almost all of them could not finish the LKPF given completely. But, in the triplet
step, the researcher had already set the whole thing to make the ability in solving mathematical problems
become equal in each group. Therefore, in the discussion of triplet step process, the students who were
categorized as average and poor were truly seemed poor in participating the learning process and seemed

6 http://www.iejme.com
 IEJME-Math Ed

lazy. Meanwhile, the other members of their groups lead them and give them motivation. This is in line with
Hikah (2015) which states that students who are not active in the learning process influences to the results
of their learning work or score.
Next, for the percentage of the appearance of each indicator in students’ mathematical problem solving in
each question is presented in Table 3
Table 3. The Percentage of the Indicator Apearance of Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving in the Test
Number of Understanding Devising a Plan Carrying out the Looking Back
Questions the Problem (%) (%) Plan (%) (%)
1 100,00 87,50 65,83 45,00
2 100,00 87,50 65,83 26,67
3 100,00 79,17 64,17 38,00
Mean
100,00 84,72 65,28 35,56
Score

Based on the Table 3, the highest percentage of the ability in mathematical problem solving was placed
in understanding the problem with the percentage was 100,00%. Meanwhile, the indicator of designing the
strategy of solving problem was 84,72% and solving problem was 65,28%. The lowest percentage in the
indicators of the ability of mathematical problem solving was placed in checking back indicator, which was
only 35,56%.
The appearance of understanding problem indicators had been the highest percentage which could be
seen from students’ answers in each question. All of the students were able to write down the information
which was known and asked in the questions correctly and completely. This was because in learning process,
the students had already been used to understand the problem individually and write down all of the
information correctly. In short, all of them had already fulfilled this indicator.
In the indicator of designing strategy of problem solving, it can be seen in the question of the test number
1. Meanwhile, the question number 2 got the high percentage. In the question number 1, students were
asked to find out the measure of an angle. Students were able to design the strategy of solving problem by
drawing the angles which had been known before in the test and combined them to become one angle.
Unfortunately, there were still a few of students who used the incorrect strategy for the question number 1.
Therefore, they could not get the maximal score for this indicator. In the question number 2, there were not
a lot of differences. Students were also able to design the strategy of solving problem by drawing 10 different
lines and pass one point correctly. But, there were still a few of them who did not draw and use the strategy
for this question. After that, in the question number 3, there were 4 students who did not write their
strategy of solving problem at all in their paper sheets. The students who did not get the maximal score in
the indicator of designing the problem solving strategy in questions number 1, 2, and 3 were dominated by
the students who were categorized as poor. If the students could use the correct and relevant strategy based
on the questions given, it could be said that they had fulfilled the indicators as well.
The next indicator from the ability of mathematical problem solving was problem solving. In the question
number 1, the indicator designed the solving strategy by solving the related questions. It could be seen from
the students who had already designed the solving strategy correctly, they got the correct solving problem of
their answers. However, there were still a few of students who had the erroneous in solving process such as
misunderstanding in operations on number which gave impact on their answers. In the question number 2,
out of 30 students, there were only 9 of them who got the maximal score for this indicator. Those students
were categorized in excellent and good. After being able to design the strategy solving by drawing 10
different lines, students should be able to solve the problem by finding out how many pairs of angles which
were the opposite of the picture. Those 9 students who got the maximal score could solve this problem by
finding out the formula to find out how many pairs of angles which were been opposite. But, for other
students who had fulfilled the previous indicator did not write their answer clearly and completely.
Therefore, this gave the impact on the score which they had got. for the last question, a few mistakes which
were done by the students were because they were not really pay attention in doing the counting, writing the

http://www.iejme.com 7
Cahyaningtyas & Hapizah

solving but could not get the answer, and a few of them did not answer at all. If the students could already
know how to write the procedure and the result of the solving correctly, then it could be concluded that
students had already been able to fulfill the indicator of solving problem.
In the indicator of checking back, it was found that this indicator got the lowest percentage which was
only 50,00%. Out of the three questions given, almost all of the students could not solve this indicator. This
was in line with Afifah (2016) who states that students are used to write down what they have known and
what have been asked and solve the problem directly but they are not used to check back their own answer
results.
Moreover, it could be seen that students were not used to be taught with CUPs model. It was started
from doing the LKPD individually following by grouping the students. When dividing the students into the
groups, some of them could not agree with the members of the groups which had been divided by the
researcher. Those who did not agree had interrupted and this affected to the timing which was wasted a lot.
Therefore, in the first meeting of discussion, the class did not work really well. The less of time was affected
to the low result of students’ ability on mathematical problem solving in checking back indicator. This was
supported by Kurniawati (2013) who states that learning mathematic using CUPs model takes extra time
and energy comparing with the conventional learning.
In the learning process, some students faced difficulties in solving the problems on LKPD. This was
caused by the language which was used by the researcher could not be understood by the students.
Therefore, there were still a lot of them who asked about the meaning of the questions given. However, even
though the researcher had designed the problems in LKPD accordance with the steps of problem solving of
Polya, the researcher still felt that this could have not been enough to make the students used to have this
kind of solving problem in solving every problem given. Therefore, this became one of the causes which made
a lot of students felt confused to answer the questions given.
The result of the study showed that the implementation of CUPs model in learning can be the alternative
way to see students’ ability in their mathematical problem solving. However, there are still some
weaknesses in this study such as the researcher was not really able to set the timing for students which
made the learning process could not be done well. Another reason was the language used in LKPD made the
some students felt difficult to understand so that they could not answer correctly. Also, students were not
used to solve the problem through problem solving step. Another weakness was this study only drew the
ability of students’ mathematical problem solving after being applied with CUPs model without comparing it
with the ability of their mathematical problem solving before being applied with CUPs.

CONCLUSION
Based on the study done, it can be concluded that the ability of students’ mathematical problem solving
after being applied with Conceptual Understanding Procedures in angles relationship material at SMP
Negeri 18 Palembang was categorized as good with the mean score was 72.41. The total number of students
who were categorized in good were 14 students with the percentage was 46,67%. Moreover, the total number
of students who were categorized as average were 6 students with the percentage was 20,00%. Next, the
total number of students who were categorized as poor were only 5 students with the percentage was
16,67%. In addition, the total percentage of problem solving indicator which got the highest score was placed
in the indicator of understanding the problem which percentage was 100,00% for the whole students who
were categorized as excellent, good, average, and poor. Meanwhile, the percentage of the appearance of
students’ ability in mathematical problem solving indicator which got the lowest score was placed in the
indicator of checking back which the percentage was 35,56% and dominated by students who were
categorized as average and poor.
It is suggested for the teachers to be able to make students get involved in the cooperative learning model
and answer the questions using the steps of mathematical problem solving in daily learning especially in the
indicator of checking back the answer. Meanwhile, for the next researchers, it is suggested to use the CUPs
model in learning to see students’ ability in mathematical problem solving.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

8 http://www.iejme.com
 IEJME-Math Ed

Notes on contributors
Gita Cahyaningtyas – Undergraduate Student of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University, South
Sumatra, Indonesia.
Hapizah – Lecturer of Mathematics Education, Sriwijaya University, South Sumatra, Indonesia.

REFERENCES
Afifah, SN. (2016). Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa Kelas VII.1 Dalam Pembelajaran
Berbasis Proyek Materi Aritmatika Sosial Di SMP Negeri 1 Palembang. Skripsi. Palembang:
Universitas Sriwijaya.
BSNP. (2017). Kisi-Kisi USBN dan UN Tahun Pelajaran 2017/2018. http://bsnp-indonesia.org . Diakses 3
Maret 2018.
Febriyanti, C., & Irawan, A. (2017). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah dengan Pembelajaran
Matematika Realistik. Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1): 2541-2906.
Hidayati, F., & Sinulingga, K. (2015). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Conceptual Understanding Procedurs
(CUPs) Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa pada Materi Pokok Listrik Dinamis di Kelas X Semester II
SMA Negeri 1 Binjai T.P. 3(4).
Hiltrimartin, Cecil. (2013). Quality Of Students Problem Solving Worksheet Designed By Junior High School
Mathematics Teachers In Gunung Megang. Disajikan dalam 1st SEA-DR PROCEEDING.
Hikmah, N. (2015). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Conceptual Understanding Procedures (CUPs) Untuk
Meningkatkan Aktivitas dan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas X SMA Negeri 7 Mataram.
Jurnal Pijar MIPA, 9(2): 84-88.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2012). TIMSS 2011
International Results in Mathematics. Boston College.
Kemendikbud. (2016). Peraturan Materi Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun
2016 Lampiran 15 Kompetensi Inti dan Kompetensi Dasar Matematika SMP/MTs. Jakarta :
Kemendikbud.
------------------. (2017). Silabus Mata Pelajaran Sekolah Menengah Pertama/ Madrasah Tsanawiyah
(SMP/MTs). Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Kloot, D. (2003). Conceptual Understanding Procedurs Guide. http://monash.edu/science-
education/2015/resources/conceptual-understanding-procedure/#1449403306036-7ae30616-a1b5.
Diakses 19 September 2017.
Kurniawati, E. (2013). Pengaruh Penerapan Pembelajaran Modifikasi Conceptual Understanding
Procedures (M-CUPs) Terhadap Peningkatan Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematik Siswa SMP. Tesis.
Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
Marpaung, Y. (2007). Karakteristik PMRI (Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia). Disajikan pada
Penataran dan Lokakarya Widyaiswara Matematika LPMP Angkatan I dan II, di PPPG Matematika
Yogyakarta.
Monash University. Conceptual Understanding Procedurs (CUPs). http://monash.edu/science-
education/2015/resources/conceptual-understanding-procedure/ . Diakses 19 September 2017.
Mulhamah., & Susilahudin P. (2016). Penerapan Pembelajaran Kontekstual dalam Meningkatkan
Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1).
Munandar. (2016). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa SMA Melalui Penerapan
Model Pembelajaran Conceptual Understanding Procedures (CUPs). Skripsi. Bandung: Universitas
Pasundan.
Permendiknas. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2006
Tentang Standar Isi Untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Kemendiknas.
Polya. (2004). How to Solve It. Pricenton New Jersey : Princenton University Press.
Prastiwi, I. (2014). Efektivitas Pembelajaran Conceptual Understanding Procedures Untuk Meningkatkan
Kemampuan Siswa Pada Aspek Koneksi Matematika. Jurnal Kreano, 5(1).

http://www.iejme.com 9
Cahyaningtyas & Hapizah

Rangkuti, Rizki Kurniawan. (2014). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah dan Motivasi Belajar
Siswa Berbantuan Autograph Melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah.
http://www.slideshare.net/RizkiKurniawanRangkuti/makalah-penuh-penelitian-pendidikan-berbasis-
ict?from_action=save. Diakses pada 13 Januari 2018.
Sari, Indah. (2014). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Conceptual Understanding Procedurs (CUPs) Terhadap
Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Siswa (Penelitian Quasi Eksperimen di SMP Negeri 1 Babelan).
Skripsi. Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Setiawan, RH., & Harta, I. (2014). Pendekatan Kontektual Terhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah
Siswa dan Sikap Siswa terhadap Matematika. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 1(2).
Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Ulya, H. (2016). Profil Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Siswa Bermotivasi Belajar Tinggi Berdasarkan
Ideal Problem Solving. Jurnal Konseling Gusjigang, 2(1).
Zulyadaini. (2017). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Creative Problem Solving Terhadap Kemampuan
Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa di SMA. Jurnal Ilmiah DIKDAYA.

http://www.iejme.com

10 http://www.iejme.com