Email this article Students Metacognitive Knowledge in Numeracy Literacy on Flat Surface Shapes Material
Abstract
Abstract: Students Metacognitive Knowledge in Numeracy Literacy on Flat Surface Shapes Material. Objectives: This research aims to describe the metacognitive knowledge of class VIII students in solving numeracy literacy problems on flat-sided geometric material. Methods: This type of research is qualitative research with 3 students as subjects selected based on test results (each representing high, medium and low abilities), as well as the teacher's consideration that the students are able to communicate well. The data analysis technique used consists of data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions. Findings: The research results show that subjects with high metacognitive knowledge fulfill all indicators of strategy knowledge, knowledge of cognitive tasks and self-knowledge well. Subjects with moderate metacognitive knowledge only met each of the two indicators of strategy knowledge, knowledge of cognitive tasks; as well as self-knowledge. Subjects with low metacognitive knowledge did not meet the indicators of strategy knowledge, 2 indicators of knowledge about cognitive tasks, and 2 indicators of self-knowledge. Another finding is that metacognitive knowledge must be supported by meaningful repetition in terms of clearly identifying problem information and knowing how to solve it. The use of image representation in spatial building materials is necessary in solving problems. Awareness that an error has occurred in the solution must be followed by knowledge of how to correct the error. Conclusion: Metacognitive knowledge is very necessary for students to solve numeracy literacy questions. This knowledge must be followed by good and correct representational skills and procedural knowledge.
Keywords: flat-side shape; numeracy literacy, metacognitive knowledge.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i2.202460
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alzahrani, K. S. (2017). Metacognition and its role in mathematics learning : an exploration of the perceptions of a teacher and students in a secondary school. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(5), 521–537.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Longman. Complete Edition.
Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: a view from the west. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147–164.
CESE: Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2016). How schools can improve literacy and numeracy performance and why it (still) matters. NSW Government Department of Education, Sydney, Australia
Chytrỳ, V., Říčan, J., Eisenmann, P., & Medová, J. (2020). Metacognitive knowledge and mathematical intelligence-Two significant factors influencing school performance. Mathematics, 8(6), 1–18.
Dalman. (2014). Keterampilan Membaca.[ Reading Skills]. Grafindo.
Davis, E. (2024). Mathematics, word problems, common sense, and artificial intelligence. American Mathematical Society, 61(2), 287–303.
Desoete, A., & De Craene, B. (2019). Metacognition and mathematics education: an overview. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 565–575.
Dorji, N., & Subba, P. B. (2023). Unveiling the link between metacognitive skills and mathematics performance: a correlational study in grade X. Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Management Research, 8(1), 43–52.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 103–131.
Fazrul Prasetya Nur Fahrozy. (2023). Pemahaman membaca dan siswa kesulitan memahami soal cerita matematika di sekolah dasar [reading comprehension and students' difficulty understanding mathematics story problems in elementary schools]. Jurnal Elementaria Edukasia, 6(2), 430–441.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring- A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Gal, I., Grotlüschen, A., Tout, D., & Kaiser, G. (2020). Numeracy, adult education, and vulnerable adults: a critical view of a neglected field. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52(3), 377–394.
Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163-176.
Gaunt, L. V. (2024). Designing specific tools to enhance the numeracy of adults with intellectual disabilities. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 36(2), 1-23
Grawe, N. D. (2024). The international crisis in numeracy education. Numeracy, 17(1).
Güner, P., & Erbay, H. N. (2021). Metacognitive Skills and Problem-Solving International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 715–734.
Halloran, C., Jack, R., Okun, J. C., & Oster, E. (2021). Pandemic schooling mode and student test scores: evidence from us states (NBER Worki).
Janiola, F., & Baguin, R. A. (2023). Students ’ level of metacognitive awareness as correlates of their mathematics achievement. Psychology And Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(6), 639–645.
Jiang, Y., Ma, L., & Gao, L. (2016). Assessing teachers ’metacognition in teaching: The teacher metacognition inventory. Teaching and Teacher Education,59, 403–413,
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., & Amin, H. (2019). Effectiveness of literacy and numeracy drive at primary level in punjab: a trend analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 22.(2), 1027–9776.
Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 5, 601–627.
Laamena, C. M. (2019). Strategi scaffolding berdasarkan gaya belajar dan argumentasi siswa: studi kasus pada pembelajaran pola bilangan [scaffolding strategy based on students' learning styles and argumentation: case study on learning number patterns]. BAREKENG: Jurnal Ilmu Matematika Dan Terapan, 13(2), 085–092.
Laamena, C. M., & Laurens, T. (2021). Mathematical literacy ability and metacognitive characteristics of mathematics pre-service teacher. Infinity Journal, 10(2), 259–270.
Lewis, K., & Kuhfeld, M. (2021). Learning during covid-19: an update on student achievement and growth at the start of the 2021–22 school year.” Center for School and Student Progress Brief.
McDowell, M., & Jacobs, P. (2017). Meta-analysis of the efect of natural frequencies on Bayesian reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1273–1312.
Milles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edi). Sage Publications.
Murray, J. (2021). Literacy is inadequate: young children need literacies. International Journal of Early Years Education, 29(1), 1–5.
Nortvedt, G. A., & Wiese, E. (2020). Numeracy and migrant students: A case study of secondary level mathematics education in Norway. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 52(3), 527-539
OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019a). OECD skills strategy 2019: Skills to shape a better future. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019b). Skills matter: Additional results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2021). OECD Member countries and associates decided to postpone the pisa 2021 assessment to 2022 to reflect post-Covid difficulties. This draft vision was created before the crisis. The final version will reflect the new name of the cycle “PISA 2022.” Oecd, 95.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. PISA, OECD.
Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge University Press.
Post, M., & Prediger, S. (2024). Teaching practices for unfolding information and connecting multiple representations: the case of conditional probability information. In Mathematics Education Research Journal, 36 (1), 95-127.
Reys, R. E. et al. (1998). Helping children learn mathematics (5th ed.). Bacon Needham Heights.
Siddiqui, G. K., Taj, S., & Maqsood, F. (2020). Metacognitive awareness, procrastination and its impact on students’ academic performance. SJESR, 3(4), 400–406.
Sikko, S. A. (2023). What can we learn from the different understandings of mathematical literacy? Numeracy, 16(1), 1-23.
Tiwari, S., Obradovic, D., Rathour, L., Mishra, N. L., & Mishra, V. N. (2021). Visualization in mathematics teaching. Journal of Advances in Mathematics, 21, 431–439.
Tout, D. (2020). Evolution of adult numeracy from quantitative literacy to numeracy: Lessons learned from international assessments. International Review of Education, 66(2), 183–209.
Tupamahu, P. Z., Ratumanan, T. G., & Laamena, C. (2023). Students’ mathematical representation and communication ability in mathematics problem solving. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 10(1), 111–130.
Ubah, I., & Bansilal, S. (2019). The use of semiotic representations in reasoning about similar triangles in Euclidean geometry. Pythagoras, 40(1), 1–10.
Veenman, M. V. J., & van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: students’ self-reports versus on-line assessment methods. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 691–701.
Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48.
Zainiyah, U., & Marsigit. (2018). Literasi matematika: bagaimana jika ditinjau dari kemampuan pemecahan masalah matematika siswa sd kelas tinggi? [mathematical literacy: what if judging from the mathematical problem solving abilities of high grade elementary school students]. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 5–14.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats
The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.