Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

COGNITIVE LEVEL PROFILE AT THE TENTH GRADE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS PROBLEM SOLVING ON THREE VARIABLES OF LINEAR EQUATION SYSTEM

Journal
IOJET
Pages
473–485
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results reveal that at the cognition level, students with highability have an understanding related to conceptual and procedural knowledge, but the abilityof students in factual knowledge is low, especially in terminology skill; at the metacognitionlevel, the students are able to write down each strategy in each method, but it is not detailed;while at the epistemic cognition level, they are able to explain the weaknesses of a method,but they have not been able to provide a solution to overcome its weaknesses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Problem-solving is a significant skill in facing the 21st century.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The cognitive level influences the individual in understanding theproblem and deciding the right strategies to solve it.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results reveal that at the cognition level, students with highability have an understanding related to conceptual and procedural knowledge, but the abilityof students in factual knowledge is low, especially in terminology skill; at the metacognitionlevel, the students are able to write down each strategy in each method, but it is not detailed;while at the epistemic cognition level, they are able to explain the weaknesses of a method,but they have not been able to provide a solution to overcome its weaknesses.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Problem-solving is a significant skill in facing the 21st century. Students have differentlevels of problem-solving. The levels that explain individual abilities in solving mathematicsproblems are called as cognitive level. It consists of three levels; cognition, metacognition,and epistemic cognition. The cognitive level influences the individual in understanding theproblem and deciding the right strategies to solve it. The material used to obtain the data isthree variables linear equation system, by involving two high ability students at the tenthgrade from one of the state senior high schools in Pati. This research employs a qualitativemethod in which the data are collected through task-based interview and time triangulation isapplied to validate the data. The results reveal that at the cognition level, students with highability have an understanding related to conceptual and procedural knowledge, but the abilityof students in factual knowledge is low, especially in terminology skill; at the metacognitionlevel, the students are able to write down each strategy in each method, but it is not detailed;while at the epistemic cognition level, they are able to explain the weaknesses of a method,but they have not been able to provide a solution to overcome its weaknesses.

🔖

Cite This Article

INDRİATİ, D., SUJADİ, I., YUMNİYATİ, K. (2022). COGNITIVE LEVEL PROFILE AT THE TENTH GRADE OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS PROBLEM SOLVING ON THREE VARIABLES OF LINEAR EQUATION SYSTEM. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 473–485. https://ajindex.com/articles/542336

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ali, R., Hukamdad, Akhter, A., & Khan, A. 2010. Effect of using problem solving method in teaching mathematics on achievement of mathematics on the achievement of mathematics students. Asian Social Science Journal (3), 67-72.
  2. Anderson, L., & Karthwohl, D. 2001. A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing. New York: Longman. Ameliah, I. H., Munawaroh, M., Muchyidin, A. 2016. The influence of curiosity and Self- Confidence of Students Toward Outcome Studied Mathematics Grade VII MTs Negeri 1 Cirebon. Mathematics Education Learning and Teaching. 5 (1): 9-21
  3. Baimba, Brown, & Hardimah. 2008. The mismatch between science teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Journal of Applied Research and Education (JARE), 12(1), 194- 203. Bandura, A. 2006. Autobiography. MG Lindzey & WM Runyan (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. IX). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Benjafield, J. G. 1992. Cognition. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 2005. Interpersonal intelligence. Jakarta: Amara Books. Budiyono. 2003. Educational research methodology. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.
  4. Carlson, M.P. and Bloom, I. 2005. The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving (MPS) framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(1), 45 – 75. Chinn, C., Buckland, L., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 141–167.
  5. Cleopatra, M. 2015. The effect of life style towards mathematics learning motivation. Jurnal Formatif, 5(2), 168-181. National Education Department. 2003. The law of national education system. Jakarta: National Education Department. Downing K.J. (2009). Self-efficacy and metacognitive development. The International Journal Of Learning, 16(4), 111-112.
  6. Ferguson, L., Brathen, I., & Stromso, H. 2012. Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 103-120.
  7. Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
  8. Kamaleswaran, J., Rohaida, M., & Rose, A. 2014. A review of science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) education research from 1999–2013.
  9. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(3