VOlUME 04 ISSUE 09 SEPTEMBER 2021
1Fajar Arianto,2 Mustaji, 3Bachtiar S. Bachri
1,2,3Teknologi Pendidikan, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia
Google Scholar Download Pdf
Abstract
This research aimed to analyze the effect of metacognitive strategies on elementary school students' problem- solving abilities. This research used an experimental method with a quasi-experimental type of research by comparing two groups, namely the groups taught with metacognitive strategies and non-metacognitive strategies. The research subjects consisted of 100 fifth-grade students of elementary school. They were divided into 50 students in the metacognitive strategy group and 50 students in the non-metacognitive strategy group. The analytical technique was used to compare the two groups statistically. The research results showed differences in problem-solving that were taught by using metacognitive strategies and non-metacognitive strategies. Non-metacognitive strategies were better in problem-solving than metacognitive strategies. Problem-solving that had been done in learning was only focused on results. In conclusion, elementary school students needed assistance in the learning process to monitor their knowledge by providing feedback.
KEYWORDSMetacognitive strategy, problem-solving, cognitive, self-question
REFERENCES
1) Akyol, G., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to students'
science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1–21.
2) Baas, D., Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., Martens, R., & Segers, M. (2015). The relation between Assessment for Learning
and elementary students' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. Educational Psychology, 33-46.
3) Baas, D., Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., Martens, R., & Segers, M. (2015). The relation between Assessment for Learning
and elementary students' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 33–46.
4) Cavanaugh, J. C., & Borkowski, J. G. (1979). The Metamemory-Memory “Connection”: Effects of Strategy Training and
Maintenance. The Journal of General Psychology, 161-174.
5) Demircioğlu, H., Argün, Z., & Bulut, S. (2010). A case research: assessment of preservice secondary mathematics
teachers’ metacognitive behaviour in the problem-solving process. ZDM, 493–502.
6) Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive—Developmental Inquiry.
American Psychologist, 906-911.
7) Gourgey, A. F. (2002). Metacognition in Basic Skills Instruction. In H. J. Hartman, Metacognition in Learning and
Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 17-32). New York: Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht.
8) Gunstone, R. F., & Northfield, J. (1994). Metacognition and learning to teach. International Journal of Science Education,
523-537.
9) Hammouri, H. A. (2003). An investigation of undergraduates' transformational problem-solving strategies:
cognitive/metacognitive processes as predictors of holistic/analytic strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 571-586.
10) Houtveen, A. A., & van de Grift, W. J. (2007). Effects of metacognitive strategy instruction and instruction time on
reading comprehension. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 173 – 190.
11) Jokić, C. S., & Whitebread, D. (2011). The Role of Self-Regulatory and Metacognitive Competence in the Motor
Performance Difficulties of Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Theoretical and Empirical Review.
Educ Psychol Rev, 75-98.
12) King, A. (1991). Improving Lecture Comprehension: Effects of a Metacognitive Strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
31-346.
13) Kurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, J. G. (1984). Children's metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge, process, and
motivational variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 335-354.
14) Kuster, G., Johnson, E., Keene, K., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Inquiry-Oriented Instruction: A Conceptualization of
the Instructional Principles. PRIMUS, 1–18.
15) Lee, C. B., Teo, T., & Bergin, D. (2009). Children’s use of metacognition in solving everyday problems: An initial
research from an Asian context. The Australian Educational Researcher, 89-102.
16) Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem-solving. Instructional Science, 49–63.
17) Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem
solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 230–248.
18) Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
7-15.
19) Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 801-813.
20) Roebers, C. M., Schmid, C., & Roderer, T. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring and control processes involved in primary
school children’s test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 749–767.
21) Roebers, C. M., Schmid, C., & Roderer, T. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring and control processes involved in primary
school children's test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 749–767.
22) Santrock, J. W. (2010). Educational Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23) Slavin, R. E. (2005). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. United States of America: Pearson.
24) Swanson, C. C. (1984). Journal Writing: A Metacognitive Strategy. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 185-191