Exploring Students' Metacognition in Numeracy Problem Solving: The Role of Reflective and Impulsive Cognitive Styles
), Pathuddin Pathuddin(2), Rita Lefrida(3), Alfisyahra Alfisyahra(4)
| 
Country:
(1) Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
(2) Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
(3) Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
(4) Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia
Corresponding Author
10.23960/jpmipa.v26i1.pp688-707
| Metrics→ |
| Indexing Site→ |  |
 |
 |
 |
Copyright (c) 2025 Arwini Puspita Hermin, Pathuddin Pathuddin, Rita Lefrida, Alfisyahra Alfisyahra
The purpose of this study was to describe the metacognition of grade IX students of SMP Negeri 19 Palu in solving numeracy problems based on reflective and impulsive cognitive styles. Metacognition in this study includes three aspects namely awareness, regulation, and evaluation observed at each stage of problem solving according to Polya's model. This descriptive qualitative research used Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT-2021), numeracy written test, think-aloud protocol, and in-depth interviews for data collection. In-depth study subjects consisted of two students, one each with reflective cognitive style and one with impulsive cognitive style. The results showed that at the stage of understanding the problem, reflective students showed high awareness and were able to organize their thoughts to understand the context of the problem in depth, while impulsive students tended to be faster in understanding the problem without in-depth analysis. At the stage of developing a plan, reflective students perform good regulation and evaluate the plan made, while impulsive students show awareness and regulation, but the evaluation of the plan is not always consistent. At the stage of implementing the plan, reflective students are able to evaluate the ongoing process, although this evaluation is more visible at the final stage, while impulsive students are less consistent in evaluation during the implementation of the plan, with evaluation only appearing at the final stage. Finally, at the looking back stage, reflective students showed a clear evaluation, although awareness and regulation were not significantly visible, while impulsive students only showed evaluation at the final stage without any deep reflection on the process that had been passed. Overall, reflective cognitive style tends to produce a more complete and in-depth metacognitive involvement in each stage of problem solving, while impulsive style shows a more limited and less consistent involvement in the evaluation aspect.
Keywords: metacognition, numeracy, cognitive style, reflective, impulsive.
Adinda, A., Purnomo, H., Rahmatina, D., & Siregar, N. C. (2023). Characteristics of students’ metacognitive ability in solving problems using awareness, regulation and evaluation components. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 10(1), 48–62.
Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. (2021). Conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognition in routine and nonroutine problem solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13048.
Demitra, Haryani, D., Yunita, M., & Pebriani, L. Y. (2023). The reflective and impulsive graduate student’s creativity problem solving of three variables of linear equations system. Jurnal Matematika Kreatif-Inovatif, 14(1), 42–60.
Erlangga. (2020). Fokus assesmen kompetensi minimum (AKM) SMP/MTs. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Fathima, M. P., & Vimala, J. (2020). Metacognitive intervention strategies in enhancing teaching competency among prospective eachers. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3s), 202–212.
Güner, P., & Erbay, H. N. (2021). Metacognitive skills and problem-solving. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 715–734.
Ikhwani, A. D., Subanji, & Susanto, H. (2023). Aktivitas metakognitif siswa dengan gaya kognitif reflektif dalam memecahkan masalah matematika. Jurnal Cendekia : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(3), 2581–2594.
Izzati, L. R., & Mahmudi, A. (2018). The influence of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1), 012107.
Kartika, D. L., & Muhassanah, N. (2023). Profile of student metacognition in solving elementary linear algebra problems viewed from tempo conceptual cognitive style. Edumatica: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 13(03).
Kemendikbud. (2020). AKM dan implikasinya pada pembelajaran. jakarta: pusat asesmen dan pembelajaran badan penelitian dan pengembangan dan perbukuan.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Arizona State University: SAGE Publications.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. In The Mathematics Teacher (Vol. 43, Issue 5). United States of America: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nguyen, L. C., Thuan, H. T., & Giang, T. T. H. (2023). Application of G. Polya’s problem-solving process in teaching high-school physics. Journal La Sociale, 4(1), 26–33.
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. United State of America: Princenton University Press, Princenton, New Jersey.
Purnomo, D., Nusantara, T., Subanji, S., & Rahardjo, S. (2017). The characteristic of the process of students’ metacognition in solving calculus problems. International Education Studies, 10(5), 13–25.
Son, A. L., Darhim, & Fatimah, S. (2020). Students’ mathematical problem-solving ability based on teaching models intervention and cognitive style. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 209–222.
Susandi, A. D., Sa’Dijah, C., As’Ari, A. R., & Susiswo. (2019). Students’ critical ability of mathematics based on cognitive styles. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1315(1).
Trisna, B. N., Budayasa, I. K., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2018). Students’ metacognitive activities in solving the combinatorics problem: the experience of students with holist-serialist cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1), 012072.
Utami, D. D., Setyosari, P., Fajarianto, O., Kamdi, W., & Ulfa, S. (2023). The correlation between metacognitive and problem solving skills among science students. EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation, 3(1), 138–143.
Viator, R. E., Wu, Y. J., & Viator, A. S. (2022). Testing the validity and reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test-2021: An updated behavioral measure of reflection–impulsivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(November), 1–14.
Vula, E., Avdyli, R., Berisha, V., Saqipi, B., & Elezi, S. (2017). The impact of metacognitive strategies and self-regulating processes of solving math word problems. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(1), 49–59.
Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48.
Zakiah, N. E. (2020). Level kemampuan metakognitif siswa dalam pembelajaran matematika berdasarkan gaya kognitif. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 132–147.
Zulfa, F. N., Sujadi, I., & Riyadi. (2024). Identifying field-independent cognitive styles of junior high school students on numeracy. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 25(1), 373–385.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.