Characteristics of Students’ Metacognition Process At Informal Deduction Thinking Level in Geometry Problems

Authors

  • Ahmad Rofii Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia
  • Sunardi Sunardi Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia
  • Muhtadi Irvan Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v2i1.7684

Keywords:

Metacognition, Informal deduction, Geometry problem

Abstract

This study aims to determine the characteristics of students’ metacognition process at the level of informal deduction thinking in solving geometry problems. This research is a qualitative descriptive research. 66 elementary students were tested about their thinking ability of Van Hiele geometry by dividing them into some groups according to their geometry thinking level. The informal deductive thinking level group was tested for problem-solving geometry. Furthermore, interviews were conducted to explore the characteristics of their metacognition process. Based on the data analysis, the characteristics sequence of the metacognition process is complete through the process of planning, monitoring, and evaluation. The metacognition process indicator appears in each problem-solving component, from understanding the problem, preparing a problem-solving plan, implementing a problem-solving plan to check the solutions obtained.

References

Abdullah, A.H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). Enhancing Students’ Level of Geometric Thinking through Van Hiele’s Phase-based learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 6(5), 4432-4446.

Clements, D.H., & Batitista. (1992). Geometry and Spatial Reasioning. New York: MacMillan Publisher Company.

Crowley, M.L. (1987). The Van Hiele Model of Development of Geometric Though. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. K-12, 1-16.

Duffin, J.M., & Simpson, A.P. (2000). A search for understanding. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(4), 415-427.

Foong, P.Y. & Ee, J. (2002). Enhancing the learning of underachievers in mathematics. ASCD Review, 11(2), 25-35.

Haryani, S. (2012). Pengembangan Mahasiswa Model Praktikum Kimia Analitik Instrumen Berbasis Masalah Untuk Meningkatkan Metakognisi Mahasiswa Calon Guru. Doctoral dissertation. Bandung: UPI.

Ikhsan, M. (2008). Meningkatkan Prestasi dan Motivasi Siswa dalam Geometri melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis teori Van Hielle. Doctoral dissertation. Bandung: UPI.

In’am, A. (2012). A metacognitive Approach to Solving Algebra Problem. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 1(4), 162-173.

In’am, A. (2016). Euclidean Geometry's Problem-solving Based on Metacognitive in Aspect of Awareness. IEJME-Mathematics Education, 11(4), 961-974.

Kafoussi, S. (2013). Elementary Students’ Spontaneous Metacognitive Function Different Type of Mathematical Problems. Journal Research in Mathematics Education (Online), 2(2), 242-267.

Karan, E.P., & Irizarry, J. (2011). Effects of Metacognitive strategies on Problem Solving Ability in Construction Education. Proceedings of the 50th ASC Annual International Conference, Retrieved from http://www.ascpro.ascweb.org

Kuzle, A. (2011). Pattern of Metacognitive Behavior During Mathematics Problem Solving in a Dynamic Geometry Environment. International Electronic Journal Of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 20-40.

Latifah L.N. (2010). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Co-Op Co-Op terhadap Peningkatan Berpikir Kritis dan Ketuntasan Belajar Matematika Siswa SMA Bandung. Doctoral Dissertation. Bandung: UPI.

Livingstone, J.L. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview (On Line), Retrieved from http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas

Matlin, M. (1998). Cognition. Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.

Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought in Undegraduate Preservice Teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 58-69.

Panaoura, A. (2009). An Intervention to the Metacognitive Performance: Self-Regulation In Mathematics and Mathematical Modeling. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics (online), 9, 63-79.

Pierce, W. (2003). Metacognition: Study strategies, monitoring and motivating. A workshop paper presented at Prince George’s Community College. Retrieved from http://academic.pg.cc.md.us

Polya. (1973). How to solve it. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Purnomo, D., Nusantara, T., Subanji, & Rahardjo, S. (2016). Metacognition Process Characteristics of the Students in Solving Mathematics Problems. IOSR Journal of Research and Education (IOSR-JRME), 6(5), 26-35.

Purnomo, D., Nusantara, T., Subanji, & Rahardjo, S. (2017). The Characteristic of the Process of Students’ Metacognition in Solving Calculus Problems. International Education Studies, 10(5), 13-25.

Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Hand Book of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Mc Millan Co.

Suherman, E. (2001). Strategi Pembelajaran Matematika Kontemporer. Bandung: JICA-Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Weldana, H.N. (2014). Gender Position and High School Student’s attainment in Local Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1331–1354

Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Toward the Modelling of Mathematical Metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25-48.

Woolfolk, A. (2008). Educational Psychology (9th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Yeo, J.K.K. (2004). An exploratory study of secondary two students’ mathematics anxiety and mathematical problem solving. Doctoral Dissertation. Singapore: National Institute of Education.

Zainal, Z., & Tajudin, N.M. (2013). Metacognitif process in Solving non-routine Mathematics Problems. Retrieved from http://www.psmm.upsi.edu.my.

Downloads

Published

2018-02-24

How to Cite

Rofii, A., Sunardi, S., & Irvan, M. (2018). Characteristics of Students’ Metacognition Process At Informal Deduction Thinking Level in Geometry Problems. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 2(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v2i1.7684

Issue

IJEME, Vol. 2 No. 1, March 2018

Section

Articles

License

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal. Please also carefully read the International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education (IJEME) Author Guidelines at http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/IJEME/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities, tacitly or explicitly, of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

Copyright

Authors who publish with the International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education (IJEME) agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

 


Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.