Metacognition and Performance in Mathematical Problem- Solving Among Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) Pre-service Teachers

Abstract

This study assessed the metacognition and performance in mathematical problem- solving of Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) pre- service teachers. A survey questionnaire was used to explore the knowledge and regulation of cognition of the respondents based on the model of Schraw and Dennison (1994). Also, a test was administered to determine the performance of pre- service teachers in mathematical problem- solving. The study involved 151 respondents who already finished their content area courses that included strategies in mathematical problem- solving. Descriptive-correlation design was utilized in the study as it ascertained the association between the metacognition and performance of the pre- service teachers in mathematical problem- solving. The result of the study shows that pre- service teachers have gained the average level of metacognition and have satisfactory performance in mathematical problem- solving. Furthermore, pre- service teachers with high level of metacognition also have high level of performance while those with low level of metacognition also have low level of performance in mathematical problem- solving. The result of the study is an input to further explore metacognition as this is significant not only in the academic activities but also in the complex roles of daily lives. References Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.iheduc.2011.01.005 Allen, B. A., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1993). Construct validation of metacognition. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 203. Barana, A.; Boetti, G.; Marchisio, M.(2022). Self-Assessment in the Development of Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 81. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci12020081 Clark, D. (1999). Learning Domains or Bloom’s Taxonomy. [on-line] available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html. Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142. David, A.P. & Reyes, W.S. (2020). PISA Collaborative Problem Solving Framework vis-à-vis the Kto12 Mathematics, Social Studies and Values Education Curricula. In M.U. Balagtas & MA. C Montealegre (Eds), Challenges of PISA: The PNU Report (pp.262-288). Philippine Normal University and Rex Institute for Student Excellence, Inc.de Carvalho, M, Magno, C, Lajom, J,Bunagan, K, & Regodon, J, (2006). Factors involved in the use of second language learning strategies and oral proficiency among Taiwanese students in Taiwan and in the Philippines. Paper presented at the conference LANDSCAPE: Exploring ways of Teaching English and Literature, de Carvalho, M. (2001). From Socrates to Neuropsychology: A Review on Metacognition. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education – Hiroshima University, 49, 311-320 Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435-450. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1-24. Golla, E.F. & Reyes, A.G. (2020). PISA Mathematics Literacy Framework vis-à-vis the Kto12 Mathematics Curriculum. In M.U. Balagtas & MA. C. Montealegre (Eds), Challenges of PISA: The PNU Report (pp.57-100). Philippine Normal University and Rex Institute for Student Excellence, Inc. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P.D. (2000). A money problem: A source of insight into problem solving action. International Journal for mathematics teaching and learning, 1-21. Gurat, M. G. , & Medula Jr., C. T. (2016). Metacognitive Strategy Knowledge Use through Mathematical Problem Solving amongst Pre-service Teachers. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 170-189. doi: 10.12691/education-4-2-5 Haeruddin, Prasetyo, Z. K., & Supahar. (2020). The Development of a Metacognition Instrument for College Students to Solve Physics Problems. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 767-782. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13149a Magno, C. (2009). Assessing Grade School Students Metacognition in Solving Mathematical Problem. The Assessment Handbook, (2), 1-22. Nunokawa, K. (2005). Mathematical problem solving and learning mathematics: What we expect students to obtain. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3−4), 325−340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.002 OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/7fda7869-en Ozrecberoglu, N., Aydın, S., & Aydın, O. (2022). Students' Skills In Solving NonRoutine Mathematical Problems. Education Quarterly Reviews, 5(2), 446-461. Schraw, G., & Sperling – Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475 Tzohar -Rozen, M. & Kramarski, V. (2014). Metacognition, Motivation and Emotions: Contribution of Self-Regulated Learning to Solving Mathematical Problems. Global Education Review 1(4), 76- 94. Wenceslao, P. (2022). Mathematical Readiness of Freshmen Engineering Students (K-12 2020 Graduates) in Eastern Visayas in the Philippines. Asian Journal Of University Education, 18(1), 191-204. doi:10.24191/ajue.v18i1.17187 Wicaksono, S. C. R., Mardiyana, & Siswanto. (2020). An analysis of the student metacognition level in problem-solving via problem stories in the materials of the two-variable equation system. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(4). 1493-1499. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/978 Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(3), 65- 72. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v5i3.2532 Yapatang, L. & Polyiem, T. (2022). Development of the Mathematical Problem-Solving ability using applied cooperative learning and Polya's Problem-Solving process for grade 9 students. Journal of Education and Learning, 11 (3), 40-46.