Article Sidebar

Published
Jun 12, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 16

Main Article Content

Abstract

A significant amount of scholarly investigation has recently focused on metacognitive activity. However, the examination of metacognitive variations in solving math problems that are still limited in scope. This case study examines gender differences in activity variations of metacognitive activities, specifically awareness, regulation, and evaluation, in prospective teachers solving mathematical problems based on mathematical models. Participants were selected through purposive sampling. Twelve male and sixteen female participants were chosen from those who participated in the 'capita selecta' mathematics course at a public university in West Java, Indonesia. The data were collected through mathematical problem-solving tasks and interviews. The results show that the variations in metacognitive activities between male and female participants are different. Females tend to be more complex and structured in their evaluation activities, while males tend to be more complex and structured in their awareness activities. Based on the results, recommendations are made for future studies.

Keywords

Gender Mathematical Models Mathematical Problem-Solving Metacognitive Activities Prospective Teachers

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abdelrahman, R. M. (2020). Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. Heliyon, 6(9), e04192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04192

  2. Al Shabibi, A. A., & Alkharusi, H. (2018). Mathematical problem-solving and metacognitive skills of 5th grade students as a function of gender and level of academic achievement. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(2), 385-395.

  3. Alifiani, A., & Faradiba, S. S. (2021). Mathematics pre-service teacher's metacognitive failure in mathematics online learning. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 8(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v8i2.43366

  4. Bakar, S. A., Salim, N. R., Ayub, A. F. M., & Gopal, K. (2021). Success indicators of mathematical problem-solving performance among malaysian matriculation students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(3), 97-116. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.7

  5. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., Moerkerke, B., & Valcke, M. (2016). Examining evolutions in the adoption of metacognitive regulation in reciprocal peer tutoring groups. Metacognition and Learning, 11(2), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9141-7

  6. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400505

  7. Erkan, B., & Kar, T. (2022). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ problem-formulation processes: Development of the revised active learning framework. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 65, 100918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100918

  8. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

  9. Goos, M. (2002). Understanding metacognitive failure. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00130-X

  10. Gurat, M., & Medula Jr, C. (2016). Metacognitive strategy knowledge use through mathematical problem solving amongst pre-service teachers. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 170-189.

  11. Händel, M., Artelt, C., & Weinert, S. (2013). Assessing metacognitive knowledge: Development and evaluation of a test instrument. Journal for educational research online, 5(2), 162-188. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8429

  12. Hastuti, I. D., Nusantara, T., Subanji, S., & Susanto, H. (2016). Constructive metacognitive activity shift in mathematical problem solving. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(8), 656-667.

  13. Hidayat, R., Zamri, S. N. A. S., & Zulnaidi, H. (2018). Does mastery of goal components mediate the relationship between metacognition and mathematical modelling competency? Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(3), 579-604.

  14. Hidayat, R., Zamri, S. N. A. S., Zulnaidi, H., & Yuanita, P. (2020). Meta-cognitive behaviour and mathematical modelling competency: mediating effect of performance goals. Heliyon, 6(4), e03800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03800

  15. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction, understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1403_1

  16. Juniati, D. (2020). Fuzzy mathematics. Course assignment. State University of Surabaya.

  17. Kandemir, M., & Karadeniz, I. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ cognitive and metacognitive processes in integrated STEM modeling activity. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(2), 104-127. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.832574

  18. Kaune, C., Cohors-Fresenborg, E., & Nowinska, E. (2011). Development of metacognitive and discursive activities in Indonesian maths teaching: A theory based design and test of a learning environment. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(1), 15-40. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.2.1.777.15-40

  19. Kayashima, M., Inaba, A., & Mizoguchi, R. (2005). What do you mean by to help learning of metacognition? In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology, (pp. 346–353).

  20. Khasanah, N. (2021). Analisis kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematis siswa quitters ditinjau dari kemampuan metakognitif [Analysis of quitters' mathematical problem solving abilities in terms of metacognitive abilities]. Pythagoras: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.21831/pg.v16i1.34509

  21. Laamena, C. M., & Laurens, T. (2021). Mathematical literacy ability and metacognitive characteristics of mathematics pre-service teacher. Infinity Journal, 10(2), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v10i2.p259-270

  22. Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2011). Characterizations of social-based and self-based contexts associated with students' awareness, evaluation, and regulation of their thinking during small-group mathematical modeling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME, 42(5), 486-520. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0486

  23. McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 462-476. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0035-2

  24. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis a methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Inc.

  25. Muhali, M., Yuanita, L., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). The validity and effectiveness of the reflective-metacognitive learning model to improve students' metacognition ability in Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 33-74. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2019.16.2.2

  26. Ozturk, N. (2016). An analysis of pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of metacognition and pedagogies of metacognition. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 5(1), 47-68.

  27. Panaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2005). The mental models of similar mathematical problems: A strategy for enhancing pupils self-representation and self-evaluation In Proceedings of the International Symposium Elementary Mathematics Teaching, (pp. 252-260).

  28. Panjaitan, B. (2016). Metakognisi calon guru bergaya kognitif reflektif dan kognitif impulsif dalam memecahkan masalah matematika [Metacognition of prospective teachers with reflective cognitive style and impulsive cognitive style in solving mathematical problems]. Cakrawala Pendidikan, XXXV(2), 244-253. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v15i2.9463

  29. Pathuddin, P., Ketut Budayasa, I., & Lukito, A. (2019). Metacognitive activity of male students: difference field independent-dependent cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1218(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1218/1/012025

  30. Permadi, H., & Irawati, S. (2023). Metacognitive intervention: Can it solve suspension of sense-making in integration problem-solving? Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(1), 44-66.

  31. Rahman, S., Yasin, R. M., Ariffin, S. R., Hayati, N., & Yusoff, S. (2010). Metacognitive skills and the development of metacognition in the classroom In International Conference on Education and Educational Technologies, (pp. 347-351).

  32. Ramlah, R., Abadi, A. P., Aisyah, D. S., Lestari, K. E., & Yudhanegara, M. R. (2023). Digital puzzle worksheet for identifying metacognition level of students: A study of gender differences. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.795

  33. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). Cognitive science and mathematics education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203062685

  34. Stillman, G. A., & Galbraith, P. L. (1998). Applying mathematics with real world connections: metacognitive characteristics of secondary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(2), 157-194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003246329257

  35. Temur, Ö. D., Özsoy, G., & Turgut, S. (2019). Metacognitive instructional behaviours of preschool teachers in mathematical activities. Zdm, 51(4), 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01069-1

  36. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.

  37. Viseu, F., Martins, P. M., & Leite, L. (2020). Prospective primary school teachers' activities when dealing with mathematics modelling tasks. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.7946.301-318

  38. Wallace, M. P., Li, V. M., Huang, T. C., & He, N. C. (2021). Metacognitive strategy use for EFL readers: Differences in gender and reading ability. TESL-EJ: The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 25(2), 1-22.

  39. Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pasternak, D. P., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(3), 433-455. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589507787382043

  40. Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217394

  41. Yıldız, N., & Dökme, İ. (2017). The effect of metacognition instruction on solving mathematical problems in science lessons. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 7(4), 69-75.

  42. Yurt, E. (2022). The mediating role of metacognitive strategies in the relationship between gender and mathematical reasoning performance. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(2), 98-120. https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V11.N2.07

  43. Zan, R. (2000). A metacognitive intervention in mathematics at university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/002073900287462