Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 158 Download : 2

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Research on the relationship between gender and metacognition in mathematical problem-solving has yielded inconsistent findings. Some studies suggest that gender influences metacognitive activities, while others report no significant differences. This study seeks to explore metacognitive activities during each stage of statistical problem-solving among two 12th-grade students with contrasting gender expressions: a feminine-expressing female and a masculine-expressing male. The instruments utilized in this research include the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) gender questionnaire, a mathematical ability test, a statistical problem-solving task, and an interview guide. Data collection was conducted in two phases: the BSRI questionnaire and mathematical ability test were used to classify participants, followed by problem-solving tasks and semi-structured interviews to capture their metacognitive processes. Employing a descriptive exploratory design with a qualitative approach, the study applied thematic analysis to organize and interpret data from task performance and interview transcripts. These findings were further synthesized into hierarchical diagrams to illustrate the dominance of metacognitive components at different problem-solving stages. Results indicate that the feminine-expressing female predominantly utilized metacognitive knowledge, specifically declarative knowledge, during the problem-understanding phase. In contrast, the masculine-expressing male demonstrated more reliance on metacognitive regulation, particularly in planning and monitoring, during the problem-implementation stage. These findings underscore the importance of developing inclusive curricula and differentiated teaching strategies to enhance metacognitive skills across diverse student populations.

Keywords

Case Study Dominant Metacognitive Gender Statistical Problem

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Henra, K., Budayasa, I. K., & Ismail. (2024). Revealing the dominant metacognitive activities of high school students in solving central tendency and dispersion problems based on gender. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1357–1382. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1357-1382
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdellah, R. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and its relation to academic achievement and teaching performance of pre-service female teachers in ajman university in UAE. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.707
  2. Abdelrahman, R. M. (2020). Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. Heliyon, 6(9), e04192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04192
  3. Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035098
  4. Agger, C. A., & Meece, J. L. (2015). Gender and academic motivation. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 677–681). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26081-9
  5. Aliu, A., Kadir, R. B., & Isma’il, A. (2021). Metacognition as teaching and learning approach for sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics teaching. Journal of Education in Developing https://journalsplace.org/index.php/JEDA/article/view/270
  6. Al-Sinani, Y., Al-Kaaf, F., & Al-Najjar, N. (2022). The strengths and weaknesses in the experimental approach in the educational research - purposes and circumstances of a research. European Journal of Education Studies, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v9i2.4166
  7. Anasagasti, J., Berciano, A., & Izagirre, A. (2023). A comparison of the effects of different methodologies on the statistics learning profiles of prospective primary education teachers from a gender perspective. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(4), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i4.pp741-756
  8. Auhadeeva, L. A., Yarmakeev, I. E., & Aukhadeev, A. E. (2015). Gender competence of the modern teacher. International Education Studies, 8(2), p32. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n2p32
  9. Azmay, N. A., Rosli, R., Maat, S. M., & Mahmud, M. S. (2023). Educational research trends on statistical reasoning and statistical thinking: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(2), Pages 586-600. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/16921
  10. Barokah, I., Budiyono, B., & Saputro, D. R. S. (2020). Students metacognition in solving mathematical problems based on gender differences. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1469(1), 012158. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1469/1/012158
  11. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
  12. Blummer, B., & Kenton, J. M. (2014). 16—The impact of the tutorial on participants’ metacognitive behaviors in problem solving. In B. Blummer & J. M. Kenton (Eds.), Improving Student Information Search (pp. 189–196). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634623.189
  13. Boyapati, Y. M., & Khan, A. (2023). Gender differences in emotional responses to stress during problem solving. International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 564–570. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00100
  14. Carter, S. (2020). Case study method and research design: flexibility or availability for the novice researcher? In H. Van Rensburg & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Advances in Early Childhood and K-12 Education (pp. 301–326). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2901-0.ch015
  15. Chowdhury, R. (2021). Problem as opportunity: metacognitive learning for doctoral students during the pandemic. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4654
  16. Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  17. Doulik, P., Skoda, J., & Rican, J. (2015). Metacognitive strategies: asset to efficient learning and education. Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal, 4(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.18355/PG.2015.4.1.62-81
  18. Doz, E., Cuder, A., Pellizzoni, S., Carretti, B., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2023). Arithmetic word problem-solving and math anxiety: the role of perceived difficulty and gender. Journal of Cognition and Development, 24(4), 598–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2023.2186692
  19. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  20. Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502500383421
  21. Garzón, D., Bustos, A., & Lizarazo, J. (2020). Relationship between metacognitive skills, gender, and level of schooling in high school students. Suma Psicológica, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2020.v27.n1.2
  22. Güner, P., & Erbay, H. N. (2021). Prospective mathematics teachers’ thinking styles and problem-solving skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100827
  23. Gur, T., Balta, N., Dauletkulova, A., Assanbayeva, G., & Fernández-Cézar, R. (2023). Mathematics achievement emotions of high school students in kazakhstan. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(3), 525-544. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp525-544
  24. Hancock, E., & Karakok, G. (2021). Supporting the development of process-focused metacognition during problem-solving. PRIMUS, 31(8), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1772914
  25. Henra, K., Budayasa, I. K., Ismail, I., & Liu, M. (2024). What is the room for guessing in metacognition? Findings in mathematics problem solving based on gender differences. Perspectives of Science and Education, 69(3), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.32744/pse.2024.3.28
  26. Izzati, L. R., & Mahmudi, A. (2018). The influence of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1), 012107. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012107
  27. Jaleel, S., & Premachandran. (2016). A study on the metacognitive awareness of secondary school students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040121
  28. Jamil, A. F., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Setianingsih, R. (2023). The emergence and form of metacognitive regulation: case study of more and less successful outcome groups in solving geometry problems collaboratively. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 15(1), 25-43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1391471
  29. Jenkins, A. (2018). Gender and subject area differences in academic metacognition and motivation. digitalrepository.trincoll.edu. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/734/
  30. Kane, S., Lear, M., & Dube, C. M. (2014). Reflections on the role of metacognition in student reading and learning at higher education level. Africa Education Review, 11(4), 512–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2014.935001
  31. Kuhn, D. (2022). Metacognition Matters in Many Ways. Educational Psychologist, 57(2), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603
  32. Liliana, C., & Lavinia, H. (2011). Gender differences in metacognitive skills. A study of the 8th grade pupils in Romania. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 396–401. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.255
  33. Maharani, A., Sulaiman, H., Saifurrohman, Aminah, N., & Rosita, C. D. (2019). Analyzing the student’s cognitive abilities through the thinking levels of geometry van hiele reviewed from gender perspective. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188, 012066. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012066
  34. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications. https://t.ly/4fJdG
  35. Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive theories revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9413-7
  36. Moshman, D. (2020). Metacognition and epistemic cognition. In D. Moshman, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.863
  37. Nath, S. (2016). Instructional programme on experiential learning in science education: appraising its impact through students’ reflections. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 7(1), 2238–2246. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2016.0296
  38. Noor, B. (2022). Students’ meta-cognition skills and problem-solving strategies in math: a preliminary literature review. Global Social Sciences Review, 7(4), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2022(VII-IV).09
  39. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (Vol. 85). Princeton university press. https://www.im.ufrj.br/~monica/funcoes/Polya.pdf
  40. Ramlah, R., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Lukito, A. (2024). Revealing the uniqueness of variations in prospective teachers' metacognitive activities in solving mathematical problems based on gender. Infinity Journal, 13(2), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i2.p477-500
  41. Ratumanan, T. G., & Laurens, T. (2011). Penilaian hasil belajar pada tingkat satuan pendidikan. Surabaya: Unesa.
  42. Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., & Ossa, C. (2022). Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 913219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913219
  43. Safari, Y., & Meskini, H. (2015). The effect of metacognitive instruction on problem solving skills in iranian students of health sciences. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(1), 150. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p150
  44. Saks, K., Ilves, H., & Noppel, A. (2021). The impact of procedural knowledge on the formation of declarative knowledge: how accomplishing activities designed for developing learning skills impacts teachers’ knowledge of learning skills. Education Sciences, 11(10), 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100598
  45. Santiago, L., Kestering, D., Pirkey, A., & Follmer, D. J. (2024). Metacognitive intervention to improve problem-solving skills in first-year engineering students. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 46914. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--46914
  46. Saryanto, T., Pramudya, I., & Subanti, S. (2021). Are students’ critical thinking skills in problem solving influenced by gender?: International Conference of Mathematics and Mathematics Education (I-CMME 2021), Surakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211122.036
  47. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
  48. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  49. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  50. Schwartz, N. H., Scott, B. M., & Holzberger, D. (2013). Metacognition: a closed-loop model of biased competition–evidence from neuroscience, cognition, and instructional research. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (Vol. 28, pp. 79–94). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_6
  51. Severiens, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2012). Leaving college: a gender comparison in male and female-dominated programs. Research in Higher Education, 53(4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9237-0
  52. Stanton, J. D., Sebesta, A. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289
  53. Stel, M., Veenman, M. V. J., Deelen, K., & Haenen, J. (2010). The increasing role of metacognitive skills in math: A cross-sectional study from a developmental perspective. ZDM, 42(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0224-2
  54. Taylor, N. E. (1983). Metacognitive ability: a curriculum priority. Reading Psychology, 4(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271830040308
  55. Tuncer, M., & Kaysi, F. (2013). The development of the metacognitive thinking skills scale. International Journal of Learning and Development, 3(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v3i2.3449
  56. 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. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.eduline1702
  57. Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), p100. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
  58. Van Hek, M., Kraaykamp, G., & Wolbers, M. H. J. (2016). Comparing the gender gap in educational attainment: The impact of emancipatory contexts in 33 cohorts across 33 countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1256222
  59. Widiyasari, R. (2023). Metacognition patterns of the students in solving mathematical problems: Analyzed from adversity quotient and gender. Al-Jabar : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(2), 449. https://doi.org/10.24042/ajpm.v14i2.17795
  60. Wrigley-Asante, C., Ackah, C. G., & Frimpong, L. K. (2023). Gender differences in academic performance of students studying Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects at the University of Ghana. SN Social Sciences, 3(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00608-8
  61. Wutsqa, D. U., Prihastuti, P. P., Fauzan, M., & Listyani, E. (2024). Radial Basis Function Neural Network with ensemble clustering for modeling mathematics achievement in Indonesia based on cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(3), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i3.pp751-770
  62. Yin, Y., Shanks, D. R., Li, B., Fan, T., Hu, X., Yang, C., & Luo, L. (2023). The Effects of emotion on judgments of learning and memory: A meta-analytic review. Metacognition and Learning, 18(2), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09335-0
  63. Yuniawatika, Y. (2018). Statistical literacy and its urgency for students. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Educational Management and Administration (CoEMA 2018), Malang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/coema-18.2018.41
  64. Yurt, E. (2022). The mediating role of metacognitive strategies in the relationship between gender and mathematical reasoning performance. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(2), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V11.N2.07
  65. Zulfikar, R. N., & Masni, E. D. (2021). Analisis strategi metakognitif siswa dalam memahami dan menyelesaikan sistem persamaan linear dua variabel ditinjau dari perbedaan gender. EduMatSains : Jurnal Pendidikan, Matematika Dan Sains, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.33541/edumatsains.v6i1.2304