Identifying Field-Independent Cognitive Styles of Junior High School Students on Numeracy
Abstract
Abstract: Numeracy encompasses not only the manipulation of numbers and their operations, but also the application of concepts, procedures, facts, and mathematical tools to problem solving. In numeracy, there are cognitive levels that form a hierarchy of thinking, which includes knowing, applying, and reasoning. The cognitive level of reasoning involves the process of formulating problems, using mathematical concepts or procedures, and interpreting solutions in real-life contexts. To reach this level, analytical thinking is required, as FI individuals have a tendency to organize unorganized objects and vice versa. This research aims to describe how FI students use their numeracy skills to solve social arithmetic problems that arise in daily life at each cognitive numeracy level. A case study design was chosen as an alternative to achieve research objectives. Data collection was carried out using test-based interviews. Students are given two stimuli related to ratios and percentages, with each stimulus having three questions adjusted to the cognitive level of numeracy and followed by an interview. The data is then reduced and presented until valid conclusions are obtained based on data saturation. The results of the research show that FI students are able to identify known things related to ratios/percentages and explain the concept of ratios/percentages in solving social arithmetic problems. They are able to create mathematical models and apply these models to solve social arithmetic problems, provided that they pay more attention to writing down the solution steps to minimize writing errors. FI students can draw conclusions based on ratio/percentage information and provide arguments to support claims related to ratios/percentages in solving social arithmetic problems. If FI students remember to always use notation, the conclusions they draw will be correct. The research's three FI students met the indicators, but there are a few points that need further emphasis.
Keywords: numeracy, cognitive level, field-independent, ratio and proportion.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i1.pp373-385
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Acero-Mondragon, E. J., & Tuta-Quintero, E. (2023). Neuromorphological evidence for Witkin’s fieldindependent cognitive style. Gaceta Médica de Caracas, 131(1). https://doi.org/10.47307/GMC.2023.131.1.21
Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., Ilany, B.-S., & Hany, B.-S. (2012). Ratio and proportion: Research and teaching in mathematics teachers’ education (pre- and in-service mathematics teachers of elementary and middle school classes). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Brase, G. L., Osborne, E. R., & Brandner, J. L. (2019). General and specific personality traits as predictors of domain-specific and general conditional reasoning. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.017
Chew, K. S., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Durning, S. J. (2019). Perception of the usability and implementation of a metacognitive mnemonic to check cognitive errors in clinical setting. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1451-4
Coffey, P., & Sharpe, R. (2023). An investigation into the teaching of numeracy in subjects other than mathematics across the curriculum. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(5), 860–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1978570
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed. (pp. xxix, 260). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Díez-Palomar, J., Ramis-Salas, M., Močnik, I., Simonič, M., & Hoogland, K. (2023). Challenges for numeracy awareness in the 21st century: Making visible the invisible. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1295781. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1295781
Edwards, A. M., & Auger‐Méthé, M. (2019). Some guidance on using mathematical notation in ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(1), 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13105
Ekawati, R., Susanti, S., & Chen, J.-C. (2020). Primary students’ mathematical literacy: a case study. Infinity Journal, 9(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i1.p49-58
Escudero, A., Lago, M. O., & Dopico, C. (2022). Gender similarities in the mathematical performance of early school-age children. Mathematics, 10(17), 3094. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10173094
French, G. (2013). Early literacy and numeracy matters. 7. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7076W
Geiger, V., & Schmid, M. (2024). A critical turn in numeracy education and practice. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1363566. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1363566
Gnoli, C. (2018). Notation. Knowledge Organization, 45(8), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-8-667
Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2014). Transforming professional practice in numeracy teaching. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming Mathematics Instruction (pp. 81–102). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_6
Gudladt, P. (2023). Deskriptive Grundvorstellungen von Lernenden zum Prozentbegriff: Eine qualitative Untersuchung zu Eigenproduktionen von ikonischen Darstellungen. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 44(1), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-022-00212-y
Helmold, M. (2021). Problem-solving, process and idea creation tools. in m. helmold, successful management strategies and tools (pp. 81–96). cham: springer international publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77661-9_8
Höfer, T., & Beckmann, A. (2009). Supporting mathematical literacy: Examples from a cross-curricular project. ZDM, 41(1–2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0117-9
Huntington, B., Goulding, J., & Pitchford, N. J. (2023). Pedagogical features of interactive apps for effective learning of foundational skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1273–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13317
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(43), 18243–18250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012933107
Kolar, V. M., & Hodnik, T. (2021). Mathematical literacy from the perspective of solving contextual problems. European Journal of Educational Research, volume–10–2021(volume–10–issue–1–january–2021), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.467
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: a modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614525555
Langelaan, B. N., Gaikhorst, L., Smets, W., & Oostdam, R. J. (2024). Differentiating instruction: Understanding the key elements for successful teacher preparation and development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 140, 104464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104464
Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. (pp. xxiii, 756). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001
McMullan, R. D., Urwin, R., Wiggins, M., & Westbrook, J. I. (2023). Are two-person checks more effective than one-person checks for safety critical tasks in high-consequence industries outside of healthcare? A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103906
Menduni-Bortoloti, R. D., & Barbosa, J. C. (2017). A construção de uma matemática para o ensino do conceito de proporcionalidade direta a partir de uma revisão sistemática de literatura. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 31(59), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v31n59a05
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Edition 3). Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC: Sage.
Molina-Muñoz, D., Contreras-García, J. M., & Molina-Portillo, E. (2023). Does the psychoemotional well-being of Spanish students influence their mathematical literacy? An evidence from PISA 2018. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1196529. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1196529
OECD. (2018). Pisa 2022 Mathematics framework (draft). Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://pisa2022-maths.oecd.org/files/PISA%202022%20Mathematics%20Framework%20Draft.pdf
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results Indonesia.
Pantaleon, K., Payong, M., Sugiarti, L., Tamur, M., & Tato, M. (2023). Does cognitive style affect mathematics creative thinking ability? proceedings of the 2nd international conference on education, humanities, health and agriculture, ICEHHA 2022, 21-22 October 2022, Ruteng, Flores, Indonesia. Presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Humanities, Health and Agriculture, ICEHHA 2022, 21-22 October 2022, Ruteng, Flores, Indonesia, Ruteng, Indonesia. Ruteng, Indonesia: EAI. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.21-10-2022.2329635
Prabawati, M., Herman, T., & Turmudi. (2019). Mathematical literacy skills students of the junior high school in term of gender differences. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1315(1), 012084. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1315/1/012084
Pugalee, D. K. (1999). Constructing a model of mathematical literacy. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 73(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098659909599632
Purnomo, H., Sa’dijah, C., Hidayanto, E., Sisworo, S., Permadi, H., & Anwar, L. (2022). Development of instrument numeracy skills test of minimum competency assessment (MCA) in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15335a
Pusmenjar. (2021). Framework asesmen kompetensi minimum. Jakarta. Kemendikbudristek.
Rachmani, N., & Farah, N. (2023). The development of STEM-nuanced mathematics teaching materials to enhance students’ mathematical literacy ability through information and communication technology-assisted preprospec learning model. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(2), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.2.409
Rahayu, W., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Istiandaru, A. (2021). The innovative learning of social arithmetic using realistic mathematics education approach. Jurnal Elemen, 7(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v7i1.2676
Rapor Pendidikan Indonesia 2022. (2022).
Rapor Pendidikan Indonesia 2023. (2023).
Riding, R. J., Glass, A., & Douglas, G. (1993). Individual differences in thinking: cognitive and neurophysiological perspectives. Educational Psychology, 13(3–4), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341930130305
Runtu, P. V. J., Pulukadang, R. J., Mangelep, N. O., Sulistyaningsih, M., & Sambuaga, O. T. (2023). Student’s mathematical literacy: a study from the perspective of ethnomathematics context in North Sulawesi Indonesia. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i3.5840
Uno, H. B. (2008). Orientasi baru dalam psikologi pembelajaran. Jakarta: Jakarta Bumi Aksara.
Vysotskaya, E., Lobanova, A., Rekhtman, I., & Yanishevskaya, M. (2021). The challenge of proportion: Does it require rethinking of the measurement paradigm? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106(3), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09987-8
Widarti, H. R., Rokhim, D. A., Septiani, M. O., & Dzikrulloh, M. H. A. (2022). Identification of science teacher practices and barriers in preparation of minimum competency assessment in the covid-19 pandemic era. Orbital: The Electronic Journal of Chemistry, 14(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.17807/orbital.v14i1.1695
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001
Yanishevskaya, M. A. (2023). The deficits of students’ orientation in solving proportion problems, as revealed through task modifications. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 16(3), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2023.0303
Zhang, L. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability?––validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1295–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.015
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.