Southeast Asia Mathematics Education Journal

Volume 13, No 1 (2023)

Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

1
Fani Yunida Anggraheni, 2Kismiantini & 3Ariyadi Wijaya
1
Magister of Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2
Departement of Statistics, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3
Departement of Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
1
anggrahenify94@gmail.com

Abstract
In this study, two components of metacognition were examined, namely metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive skills. This study aims to analyse the students’ metacognitive
abilities based on predetermined indicators, by looking at the relationship between the
performance of metacognition knowledge and metacognition skill. The study discovers that
the students with low, medium, and high scores perform differently. The conclusion is that
students who have metacognition knowledge do not necessarily have metacognition skills or
abilities.

Keywords: Metacognition, Metacognition Knowledge, Metacognition Skill.

Introduction
Learning is a process that helps students achieve goals actively. These goals are divided into
three areas: 1) cognitive domains in the form of intellectual knowledge and skills; 2) affective
domains in the form of student feelings and assessments; 3) psychomotor domains in the form
of driving or perception skills (Brookhart & Nitko, 2013). The cognitive domain is divided into
two dimensions, namely the process of cognition and knowledge. The process of cognition
includes remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating. On the
other hand, the dimensions of knowledge include factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognition (Anderson et al., 2021). Metacognition is one aspect that influences the learning
process both directly and indirectly, as well as in mathematics.
Metacognition is a combination of ‘meta’ and ‘cognition’. Meta is a prefix that means after,
together with, or outside (National Research Council, 2005). Cognition is a subconscious,
intuitive, and affective experience and feeling based on information processing, emotions,
awareness, and behaviour (Rickheit & Strohner, 1998). Metacognition refers to one’s
awareness of the process and the ability to control it (Ovan et al., 2018). Metacognition is a
skill that can be developed by learning, practicing, and applying a successful approach (Conley,
2014). Metacognition is defined as ‘thinking about thinking’ or ‘cognition about cognition’
which is the ability to self-reflect from ongoing cognitive processes, something unique to
individuals, and which plays an important role in human consciousness (Amin & Sukestiyarno,
2015).
The component of metacognition can be divided into metacognitive knowledge,
metacognitive experiences, and metacognitive skills (Efklides, 2009). Metacognitive
knowledge is a part of the knowledge that is stored in memory as a cognitive process with
various cognitive tasks, goals, actions, and experiences (Flavell, 1979). Metacognitive
knowledge can also be interpreted when we store memories and then retrieve memories. It is a

19
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

process of a task, in which we think about when, why, and what strategies can be used to
complete the tasks that are given so that information can be sorted according to the needs
(Efklides, 2009). Metacognitive knowledge stages consist of awareness, regulation (Hacker et
al., 2009), and planning (Veenman et al., 2004). Awareness is an activity to receive information
given from questions, regulation is an activity to choose and write information needed to solve
a problem, and planning is an activity to give an idea or writing in the form of a plan to complete
a task.
Metacognitive experience is an intentional cognitive or the form of affective experience that
accompanies and alludes to intellectuals (Flavell, 1979), which is defined as a form of cognitive
monitoring when completing information related to tasks or processes. Metacognitive
experience consists of metacognitive feelings, metacognitive judgment/estimates, and special
knowledge of online assignments (Efklides, 2009). The metacognitive experience stages
consist of monitoring and self-control (Baker & Brown, 2001). Monitoring can estimate the
difficulty of a particular problem, whereas self-control is being able to determine the value of
the completion done.
Metacognitive skill is defined as the ability to control actions and use the right strategy when
applying the strategy consciously and automatically by ensuring that the thinking conforms to
what is desired and results in line with its objectives (Efklides, 2009). The metacognitive skill
stages consist of strategies (Flavell, 1979), processes (Hacker et al., 2009), evaluations
(Purnomo et al., 2017), and goals (Flavell, 1979). Strategies are activities that determine the
formula or strategy used to solve the problem, the process is an activity that logically solves
problems following the chosen strategy, and evaluation is an activity that draws conclusions
according to the problem and reflects whether it can be solved in different ways, and the goal
is to achieve objectives following the plan.
Solving mathematical problems will grow the ability of metacognition knowledge and skills.
Performing metacognition involves generating strategies to solve problems, implementing
strategies, and checking whether the answers obtained correspond logically to the problems
identified (Walle et al., 2019). By doing mathematics it means discovering patterns and
relationships, thinking ways, or defining a mathematical sentence (Rahmah, 2018). This
requires an analysis of metacognitive abilities, namely metacognitive knowledge and skills, to
solve mathematical problems to find out how many metacognition abilities students can
explore in solving mathematical problems.
However, currently, the education system in Indonesia does not give sufficient attention to
the metacognition process, especially in terms of student assessment. The assessment only
measures work steps and results, while the process of overview and recheck is rarely done.
Therefore, this study aims to analyse the ability of students to see work outcomes based on
predetermined indicators and examine the relationship between the performance of
metacognition knowledge and metacognition skill. Metacognitive knowledge includes
regulation and planning, while metacognitive skill consists of strategies, processes, evaluating,
and goals. Regulation is an activity in the form of observation of metacognition activities to
control the process, for example, looking for and determining information related to the topic
(Purnomo et al., 2017). Planning is an activity that involves thinking about the tasks, looking
at experience, and thinking about what will happen next, for example, summarizing notes about
the steps to be taken (Larkin, 2006). Strategy, processes, evaluating, and goals are activities to

20
 Fani Yunida Anggraheni, Kismiantini, Ariyadi Wijaya

determine patterns or related formulas, implement process structures, evaluate the process and
examine targets (Flavell, 1979).

Methods
This research is descriptive analysis research using qualitative methods. The aim of
qualitative research is data collection, analysis, and creation of a representation that can be
shared with others.
Research Design, Site, and Participants
The research subjects are mathematics students on “Mathematics Power” subjects that are
aimed at determining the ability of metacognition possessed in solving mathematical problems.
The subjects consisted of 6 students with code names AR, ASM, AD, SH, PAY, and MR.

Figure 1. Research procedures

As shown in Figure 1, the initial stage in the research is developing the questions instrument.
The questions that were asked consisted of two questions that were used to analyse the students’
metacognition abilities. After compiling the questions, the next step is to validate the research
instruments by the validator and then enter the stage of data collection. Data collection was
done by distributing the questions to students completed within a predetermined time limit.
Table 1 shows the indicators and assessment scores of metacognition ability.

Table 1
Indicators and assessment scores of Metacognition Ability
Components of Metacognition Indicators Assessment
Ability Scores
Metacognitive Regulation Select and write down the information needed to 1
Knowledge solve the problem
Planning Provide an overview of the completion plan 2
Metacognitive Strategies determine the formula or strategy used 2
Skills Process Solve the problem logically according to the 3
chosen strategy
Evaluating Make conclusions according to the problem 3
Recheck the questions given in a different way 1
Goal Solve questions in accordance with the goals to be 1
achieved

Data Collection and Analysis

Data analysis is then performed after the test, which aims to describe each student’s
metacognition abilities. Then from the analysed results, we do the categorization of
metacognition abilities. The categorized answers are low, medium, and high levels so it is
necessary to analyze a total of six answers. Students are categorized as ‘low’, if in they make

21
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

errors in the regulation and planning steps in solving questions. Students are categorized as
‘medium’ if they are correct in the regulation steps of the process but have not conducted an
evaluation so they have not achieved the goal. Students are categorized as ‘high’ if they solve
the questions correctly from the regulation steps to evaluating that achieves the goals. The
conclusions are then drawn based on the result of the analysis. The questions are:
1. It takes a boat 2.5 hours to travel down a river from point A to point B, and 3.5 hours to
travel up the river from B to A. How long would it take the same boat to go from A to B in
still water (minutes)?
2. The difference between Ani’s and Budi's money is 7500. If 10% of Ani is money given to
Budi, then Budi's money becomes 80% of Ani's original money. How much money do they
have in total?

Results and Discussion

This section provides several examples of student's work and the analysis of their
metacognitive knowledge and possessed metacognitive skills.

Findings from Analysis of Problem 1

Analysis of problem 2 shows the work of students with the lowest, medium, and highest
scores.
Solution:
A→B following the current = 2.5 hours
A→B following the current = 3.5 hours
speed = distance/time time = distance/speed
A to B goes with the flow B to A goes with the flow
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 = + 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑑 𝑑
2.5 = − 𝑐 3.5 = + 𝑐
𝑠 𝑠
𝑑 3.5 = 2.5 + 𝑐 + 𝑐
2.5 + 𝑐 =
𝑠
𝑑 3.5 − 2.5 = 2𝑐
So = 2.5 + 0.5 = 3 1
𝑠 =𝐴
2

when going with the flow the time will decrease by half an
hour = 30 minutes.
When against the current the time will increase by half an
hour = 30 minutes at the same average speed. so that if in
calm water (without current), the distance from A to B will
be traveled within 3 hours = 180 minutes

Figure 2. Student AR’s solution for Problem 1.

Based on the results of student AR’s solution on the process of metacognitive knowledge,
the student did not write the required information in full accordingly and provided an overview.
In the metacognitive skill process, a student is not yet correct in writing the formula or strategy
used so an error occurs in the process of solving a problem. The AR student did not write other
ways on the results of his work so the conclusions obtained show inaccurate results. The AR
student failed to complete the questions in line with the goals that should be achieved. Then
the score obtained by students is 5.

22
 Fani Yunida Anggraheni, Kismiantini, Ariyadi Wijaya

Solution:
A→B 2.5 hours = 150 minutes
B→A 3.5 hours = 210 minutes
s v p = boat speed
v=
t v a = current speed
s = distance
s
 A → B v p + va = ...(1)
150
s
 B − A v p − va = ...(2)
210
of 1 and 2 obtained
s 185
v p + va = vp =
150 3150
s =
1
v p − va = 175
s...(3)
210
s s
2v p = +
150 210
1 s s 
vp =  + 
2  150 210 
from equation 3 obtained
s s
vp = =
175 t
175s
t= = 175 minutes
1s

Figure 3. Student ASM’s solution for Problem 1.

He wrote down VAB = VP + VA, VBA = VP - VA and drew a graphic form as a plan to be
completed. In the metacognitive skills process, he wrote the process of solving a problem can
be logically solved. However, the ASM student did not recheck the results of the work he
obtained in other ways, so the answer he gets is a single one. He did not write the conclusions
he obtained from a settlement. Based on the results of the work obtained, the question was
completed by AR following the goals that should be achieved but did not show the evaluation
process. The evaluation process that has not been carried out does not re-check the results of
work in other ways and does not draw conclusions. Then the score obtained by students is 9.

23
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

Solution:
known: t (trip from A to B) = 2.5 hours
t (trip from A to B) = 2.5 hours
let : boat speed = x
boat current = y
asked: how long on the same boat going from A to B
answer: s = v.t → we already know in physics
v A→ B , t A→ B = vB → A , t B → A
( x + y ) 2.5 = ( x − y ) 3.5
2.5 x + 2.5 y = 3.5 x − 3.5 y
2.5 x − 3.5 x = −3.5 y − 2.5 y
− x = −6 y
x = 6y
x
= y
6

s
s = v.t → t =
v
to find out how long on the same boat going from A to B,
we use the formula t = s
v
s
t= This is logical when the boat
v length from A to B is 2 hours 55
t=
( x + y ) 2.5 minutes because it means the
x journey from A to B is assisted by
 x the current to 2.5 hours, without
 x +  2.5 being assisted 2 hours 55 minutes
t= 
6
x
6x + x
=  2.5
6x
7
=  2.5
6
7 5 35 11
=  = = 2 = 2 hours 55 minutes
6 2 12 12

Figure 4. Student AD’s solution for Problem 1.

Based on the results of the work of student AD’s solution to the process of metacognitive
knowledge, she wrote the required information in full accordingly and provided an overview
of the complete plan. The plan is to write down the speed when assisting with the flow and not
the flow. In the metacognitive skill process, she wrote the exact strategies used to obtain a
reasonable answer. The AD student re-check the results of the work that she obtained by
making statements about the results that she obtained by comparing if influenced by the flow.
She also drew conclusions from the settlement that she obtained. Based on the results of the
work obtained, The AD student completed the questions in accordance with the goals that
should be achieved and met the completion criteria in accordance with the ability of
metacognition. Then the score obtained by students is 13.

24
 Fani Yunida Anggraheni, Kismiantini, Ariyadi Wijaya

Findings from Analysis of Problem 2

Analysis of problem 2 shows the work of students with the lowest, medium, and highest
scores.

Figure 5. Student SH’s solution for Problem 2.

Based on the results of the work of student SH’s solution to the process of metacognitive
knowledge, the student did not write the required information in full as per the questions. The
SH Student made plans by writing the initial clues of B + (10%)A = (80%)A and A – B = 7500.
In the metacognitive skill process, the student wrote the formula or strategy used correctly so
that the process of solving a problem can be s logically solved. However, the SH student did
not recheck the results of the work he obtained and she did not conclude the completion she
obtained. Based on the results of the work that the SH student obtained, the problem was
completed in accordance with the objectives that should be achieved. However, she did take
all the completion steps such as not writing the required information, not writing other
completion steps as evidence of completion and not concluding the results. The score obtained
by students is 9.

Solution:
Known: let: Anis’s money = x
Budi’s money = y
x − y = 7500...(1)
10% x + y = 80% x
0.1x + y = 0.8 x...(2)
Asked: the amount of their money…?
The answer:
from equations 1 and 2 are obtained
x − y = 7500 y = 7500 + 25000
0.1x + y = 0.8 x = 17500
1.1x = 7500 + 0.8 x so the total amount of
their money
1.1x − 0.8 x = 7500 x + y = 25000 + 17500
0.3 x = 7500 = 42500
7500 so the amount of their
x= = 25000
0.3 money Rp42.500

Figure 6. Student PAY’s solution for Problem 2.

25
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

Based on the results of the work of student PAY’s solution on the process of metacognitive
knowledge, the student completed the information required and wrote a completion plan in the
form of writing equation 1 and equation 2. In the metacognitive skill process, the student wrote
the formula or strategy used to solve a problem logically. However, the PAY student does not
re-check the results of the work she obtained in such a way that the completion conclusion was
obtained without re-checking. Based on the results of the work obtained, the PAY student
completed the questions in accordance with the objectives to be achieved but did not check
other solutions to the questions in the form. Then the score obtained by students is 12.

Solution:
The difference between Ani's and Budi’s money is 7500.
Then Budi’s money becomes 80% of the original money.
How much money?
A − B = 7500 this means A > B (Ani has more money
than Budi)
Anis’s money = A  10% of Ani’s money is given to
Budi and Anis’ money = A −10% A
The Budi’s money = B  because Budi gets an additional
10% of Anis’s money, Budi’s money = B + 10% A
There is a statement:
Budi’s money = 80% of Anis’s original money
Now: B + 10% A = 80% A
Obtained: B = 70% A  A − B = 75000
A − 70% A = 7500 2nd way
30% A = 7500 B = 70% A
30 B 70%
A = 7500 Then =
100 A 100%
A = 25000  A − B = 7500
A − B = 7500 So
A − 7500 = B 100% + 70%
A+ B =  7500
25000 − 7500 = B 100% − 70%
17500 = B 170%
=  7500
So their money 30%
= A+ B = 42500
= 25000+17500
= 42500

Figure 7. Student MR’s solution for Problem 2.

Based on the results of the work of student MR’s solution on the process of metacognitive
knowledge, the student wrote down the required information in full according to the questions
and drew up a plan for systematically solving it. In the metacognitive skill process, the student
wrote a formula or strategy used appropriately so that the process of solving problems can be
logically solved. The MR student rechecks his work by using a different way to find the results.
Thus, it is obtained that the previous answer with the second way is the same. Based on the
results of the work obtained, the MR student completed the questions in accordance with the
goals to be achieved and met the completion criteria according to the metacognition ability.
Then the score obtained by students is 13.

26
 Fani Yunida Anggraheni, Kismiantini, Ariyadi Wijaya

Based on the above description of students’ solutions, there is a noticeable difference in the
students’ metacognitive abilities. Moreover, a study also stated that mathematics learning
students have different levels (Lestari et al., 2019). The level consists of levels students read,
wrote, and determined the strategy. Medium-level students planned and corrected the mistakes,
while high-level students implement the best strategies, analyze, and represent. The research
by Izzaati and Mahmudi (2019) also showed different levels of metacognition that students
with medium and low levels did not well aspects of planning, monitoring, and evaluating
compared to high levels. Blumer and Keton’s (2014) research discussed that with high
metacognition abilities, it will have high performance. Meanwhile, Amin and Sukestiyarno
(2015) showed that students’ metacognition abilities related to cognitive skills. The ability of
metacognition will affect metacognition skills, students who have high metacognition abilities
will have high metacognition skills.
Metacognition knowledge and metacognition skills are two aspects that are interrelated and
important in the learning process (Hartman, 2001). Students’ metacognitive skills are
influenced by their knowledge. Students lacking the ability of metacognitive knowledge, the
ability of students is metacognitive skills will be wrong too, and the ability of metacognitive
knowledge is thus very influential on the ability of metacognitive skills.

Conclusion
This is evident in student work outcomes where all aspects of metacognition abilities are
met by the lowest, medium and highest students. As far as metacognitive knowledge ability is
concerned, namely in the regulatory aspect, students can determine the information in the
problem but if the strategy used is wrong or wrong then the next process is also wrong. Another
drawback is that students often do not double-check with different methods or ways to ensure
the results are met.
The limitations in this study are the relatively small subjects and there are only two problems
in the study. Further research is suggested to include a sufficient number of subjects and several
problem models. Despite the limitations, this research is expected to contribute to the studies
on metacognition.

Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank those who helped in the process of completing the
article.

References
Amin, I., & Sukestiyarno, Y. L. (2015). Analysis metacognitive skills on learning mathematics
in high school. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(3), 213–222.
http://www.ijern.com/journal/2015/March-2015/18.pdf
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2021). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

27
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (A
Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives). In Handbook of Reading
Research. Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
Blummer, B., & Kenton, J. M. (2014). Improving student information search. Chandos
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634623.33
Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2013). Educational assessment of students: Pearson new
international edition. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Conley, D. (2014). Learning strategies as metacognitive factors: A critical review. Eugene,
OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema,
21(1), 76–82.
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
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in
education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876428
Hartman, H. J. (Ed.). (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and
practice (Vol. 19). Springer Science & Business Media.
Izzati, L. R., & Mahmudi, A. (2019). Analysis of metacognition skills of students in junior high
school based on cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(3).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032089
Larkin, S. (2006). Collaborative group work and individual development of metacognition in
the early years. Research in science education, 36, 7-27.
Lestari, W., Pratama, L. D., & Jailani, J. (2019). Metacognitive skills in mathematics problem
solving. Jurnal Daya Matematis, 6(3), 286-295. https://doi.org/10.26858/jds.v6i3.8537
National Research Council. 2005. How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11102.
Ovan, Waluya, S. B., & Nugroho, S. E. (2018). Analysis mathematical literacy skills in terms
of the students’ metacognition on PISA-CPS model. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 983(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012151
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. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n5p13
Rahmah, N. (2018). Hakikat pendidikan matematika. Al-Khwarizmi: Jurnal Pendidikan
Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam, 1(2), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.24256/jpmipa.v1i2.88

28
 Fani Yunida Anggraheni, Kismiantini, Ariyadi Wijaya

Rickheit, G. & Strohner, H. (1998). Cognitive systems theory. In G. Altmann & W. Koch
(Ed.), Systems: New Paradigms for the Human Sciences (pp. 404-420). Berlin, New York:
De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801194.404
Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual
and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction,
14(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004
Walle, J. A. Van de, S.Karp, K., Bay-Williams, J. M., Wray, J., & Brown, E. T. (2019).
Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. Pearson

29
Analysis of Metacognition Ability to Solve Mathematics Problem

30