Validity of Metacognitive Awareness Inventory as A Measuring Tool for Metacognitive Ability in Mathematics Problem Solving
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v12i1.2246Keywords:
validity, metacognitive awareness inventory, measuring tool, metacognitive ability, mathematics problem solvingAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore various theories about metacognition, especially the measurement of metacognition using the Metacognition Awareness Inventory (MAI) and its relation to problem solving. The goal of this research is to describe the validity of the metacognition ability instrument in solving mathematical problems that require metacognition awareness.
Theoretical Framework: Problem solving is an essential part of the mathematics learning process. Metacognition becomes an important issue along with the trend of 21st century learning. Metacognition is important in achieving student cognitive learning outcomes, specifically in increasing the effectiveness of learning strategies. Many methods have been used to assess metacognition, including questionnaires, interviews, analysis of thinking-aloud protocols, observations, awareness-raising tasks, diaries, and autobiographies. The Metacognition Awareness Inventory is one tool for determining the level of student metacognition (MAI).
Method: Various studies related to metacognition have been carried out. This is a descriptive leather research to assess and obtain a valid quality instrument to characterize metacognitive ability in solving mathematical problems. Five Evaluation Experts in Mathematics Education validated the instruments. Expert judgment is used to validate constructs using the Objective Concruence Index assessment. MAI are also empirically validated by using 157 high school students as respondents.
Results: According to the results and research findings, MAI has eight indicators: 1) declarative knowledge, 2) procedural knowledge, 3) conditional knowledge, 4) planning, 5) information management, 6) monitoring, 7) debugging, and 8) evaluation. Cronbach's alpha = 0.671) was declared reliable for measuring students' metacognitive awareness. To obtain a truly valid instrument, several points of the MAI statement on the components must be improved: (1) procedural knowledge; (2) planning; and (3) information management. Furthermore, performance assessment through student activities or activities during learning is required to confirm MAI results and students' metacognitive knowledge.
Conclusions: MAI meets the construct validity criteria, especially in terms of content validation and internal consistency (reliability), by maintaining 51 statements from the original questionnaire. Overall, MAI that has been compiled is valued valid and reliable to be used as a metacognition assessment instrument in solving mathematical problems. It can be concluded that the MAI is a valid instrument in measuring metacognition in problem solving.
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA Pearson Education Group.
Aydin U, Ubuz B. (2010). Turkish version of the junior metacognitive awareness inventory: the validation study. Education and Science. 35(157).
Balcikanli, C. (2011) Metacognitive Awareness Inventory for Teachers (MAIT). Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1309-1332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v9i25.1620
Corebima, Y. A. D. (2017). Empowering Students Metacognitive Skills on SSCS Learning Model Integrated with Metacognitive Strategy. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 4(5), 3476-3481.
Emmer, E.T., & Gregg, B.M. (1970). Improving teaching through experimentation; a laboratory approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall p. 24.
Faradiba, S. S., Sadijah, C., Parta, I. N., & Rahardjo, S. (2019). Metacognitive therapy for mathematics disorder. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4), 042079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042079
Flavell. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologyst, 34, 906-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. Whit (Eds.), The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning (p.131-146) Washingto, D.C.
Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., and Dori, Y.J. (2012). The Relationship between Metacognition and the Ability to Pose Questions in Chemical Education. In A. Zohar and Y.J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in Science Education, Trends in Current Research, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. (pp 165-195). New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_8
Hodosyova, M., Útla, J., Vanyová, M., Vnuková, P., & Lapitková, V. (2015). The Development of Science Process Skills in Physics Education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 186, pp. 982-989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.184
Howard B, McGee S, Shia R, Hoong N. (2000). Metacognitive self-regulation and problem-solving: expanding the theory base through factor analysis. American Educational Research Association. Vol. 1, pp.1-8
Irawan, Priatna, H., Gustini, N., & Mulyani , H. (2023). Facing Global Challenges and a New Post Pandemi Era in Indonesia: Curriculum Changes and Innovations in the Bachelor of Islamic Education Management Program. Revista De Gestão Social E Ambiental, 17(7), e03644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v17n7-025
Kapa, E. A. (2002). Metacognitive Suport During the Process of Problem Solving in a Computerized Environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics.
Koutselini, M. (1995). Metacognition: conceptual instruction, Nea Pedia, 74, pp. 48-56.
Kuzle, A. (2013). Patterns of metacognitive behavior during mathematics problem-solving in a dynamic geometry environment. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 20-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/272
Lestari, Rohaeti, & Purwasih. (2018). Profil Kemampuan Koneksi Matematis Siswa Smp Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Bangun Ruang Sisi Datar Ditinjau Dari Kemampuan Dasar. JIPMat, 3(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26877/jipmat.v3i1.2220
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, 42(5), 486-520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0486
Malhotra, N. K. (2011). Review of marketing research: Spesial issue marketing legends. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)8
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mevarech, Z.R & Fridkin, S.(2006). The Effects of IMPROVE on mathematical knowledge, mathematical reasoning and metacognition. Metacognition Learning, 1, 85-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6584-x
Mokos, E., & Kafoussi, S. (2013). Elementary Students Spontaneous Metacognitive Functions in Different Types of Mathematical Problems. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2(2), 242–267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4471/redimat.2013.29
Phan, H.P. (2006). Examination of student learning approaches, reflective thinking, and epistemological beliefs: A latent variables approach. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, no. 10 vol. 4(3), pp. 557-610.
Pertiwi, P. D., & Nindiasari, H. (2022). Pengaruh Pendekatan Metakognitif terhadap Kemampuan Komunikasi Matematis Siswa. EDUKATIF : JURNAL ILMU PENDIDIKAN, 4(1), 556–564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v4i1.1820
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., & Sullivan, J.J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. London: Sage Publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
Pressley, M., & Harris, K.R. (2006). In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). San Diego: Academic.
Reyes, V. M., Luján, V. W. R., Rodríguez, Óscar F. S., Jiménez, J. R. R., Antepara, D. N. C., Mendoza, G. R. G., Morales, A. G. S., Bustillos, J. K. L., Farías, W. B., & Varela, R. E. P. (2023). Student Perspective of Learning in Research Courses in Law Under the Flipped Classroom Modality. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(11), e1441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i11.1441
Rickey, D. & Stacy, A.M. (2000) The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(7) p.915-920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p915
Rompayom, P., Tambunchong, C., Wongyounoi, S. & Dechsri, P. (2010). Paper presented at International Association for Educational Assessment (pp. 1-7). Thailand: IAEA Thailand.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1987). Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. pp. 189-215. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 19(1), 460-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Sugiyono. (2011). Metode penelitian pendidikan (pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta.
Veenman, M.V.J. (2012). In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in
science education (pp. 21-36). London: Springer.
Waskitoningtyas, R. S. (2015). Pembelajaran Matematika dengan Kemampuan Metakognitif Berbasis Pemecahan Masalah Kontektual Mahasiswa Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Balikpapan. Math Didactic: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 1(3), 211–219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33654/math.v1i3.21
Wismath, S., Orr, D., & MacKay, B. (2015). Threshold Concepts in the Development of Problem solving Skills Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(2), 69-90.
Zulfayanto, I., Faradiba, S. S., & Alifiani, A. (2021). Kegagalan Metakognitif Peserta Didik Kelas VII SMPN 1 Moyo Utara Dalam Menyelesaikan Masalah Aritmatika Sosial. Jurnal Pendidikan (Teori Dan Praktik), 16(12), 196–209.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Meilani Safitri, Nunuk Suryani, Asrowi, Sukarmin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms: the author(s) authorize(s) the publication of the text in the journal;
2. The author(s) ensure(s) that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not in the process of evaluation by another journal;
3. The journal is not responsible for the views, ideas and concepts presented in articles, and these are the sole responsibility of the author(s);
4. The publishers reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt texts to meet with publication standards.
5. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição NãoComercial 4.0 internacional, which allows the work to be shared with recognized authorship and initial publication in this journal.
6. Authors are allowed to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
7. Authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on a personal web page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate positive effects, as well as increase the impact and citations of the published work (see the effect of Free Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
• 8. Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
