The Difference of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Model Think Talk Write Type and Numbered Head Together Type

  • Meiva Marthaulina Lestari Siahaan Universitas Pelita Harapan
  • E. Elvis Napitupulu Universitas Negeri Medan
Keywords: students' mathematical communication, cooperative learning model NHT type, TTW type


The purpose of this research was to know there was any difference in student’s mathematical communication ability in cooperative learning Think TalkWrite (TTW) type and Numbered Head Together (NHT) type. The population was all students at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam. The sample was two classes which each consist of 36 students, VII A as experimental class I which taught by TTW and VII B as experimental class II which taught by NHT. The sample was taken by cluster random sampling. Collecting data technique of this research was mathematical comunication ability essay test that was given in the end of learning either in experimental class I or experimental class II. From the data analysis of each of experimental class were obtained that the average of posttest score in TTW classroom was higher than in NHT classroom. It was also obtained that score of mathematical communication indicators in TTW classroom was higher than in NHT classroom. From the data analysis of posttest score by using t-test with significance level α = 0.05, it was obtained that tcount = 4.687 and ttable = 1.667. It means that tcount > ttable then H0 was rejected and Ha was accepted. So, it can be concluded that there was difference of student’s mathematical communication ability who taught by cooperative learning model type TTW with NHT at SMP Negeri 1 Lubuk Pakam.


Download data is not yet available.


Ansari, B., (2012), Komunikasi Matematik dan Politik Suatu Perbandingan : Konsep dan Aplikasi, Banda Aceh, Pena.

Arends, R., (2008), Learning To Teach, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.

Best, J.W., (1981), Research in Education, Prantice – Hall, USA.

Carpenter, J. & Gorg, S. (2000). Principles and Standards for Mathematical School. Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Hudojo, H., (2005), Pengembangan Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran Matematika, Universitas Negeri Malang (UM Press) , Malang.

Ishabu, S., (2013), Online Mathematics Module : The Improve Learning Results and Creativity Student To Lesson Operation Count Numbers Through Cooperative Learning Type NHT, Journal of Mathematics Education 3 : 2225 – 0522.

Khaskan K 2016 The Effectiveness of Using the 7E's Learning Cycle Strategy on the Immediate and Delayed Mathematics Achievement and the Longitudinal Impact of Learning among Preparatory Year Students at King Saud University (KSU). Journal of Education and Practice 7(36) 40-52.

NCTM, (1989), Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, USA.

NCTM, (2000), Principle and Standard for Mathematics, NCTM, USA.

Qohar, Abd., (2011), Online Mathematics Module : Mathematical Communication : What and How To Develop It in Mathematics Learning, Journal of Mathematics Education : 978 – 979 – 16353 – 7 – 0.

Tarigan, Flora Astyana Putri, Edy Surya, and Yusnadi. The Difference in Improving Students’ Mathematics Understanding and Ability of Visual Thinking by Using Cooperative Learning Model types Think Pair Shared (TPS) and Number Head Together (NHT) At SDN Percobaan Medan, vol 7, pp 74-81, Dec. 2017

Ul Husnah, Nida and Edy Surya. The Effectiveness of Think Talk Write Learning Model in Improving Students’ Mathematical Communication Skills at MTs Al Jami’yatul Washliyah Tembung, vol 34, pp. 1-12, Juli 2017

Uno, H., (2011), Model Pembelajaran : Menciptakan Proses Belajar Mengajar Yang Efektif, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta.

Wichelt, L.,(2009), Communication : A Vital Skill of Mathematics, Paper of Research Project, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
How to Cite
Siahaan, M., & Napitupulu, E. (2018). The Difference of Students’ Mathematical Communication Ability Taught by Cooperative Learning Model Think Talk Write Type and Numbered Head Together Type. Scholaria: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 8(3), 231-242.