Students’ Metacognitive Processes in Mathematical Problem Solving Viewed from VARK Learning Styles
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Metacognition plays a crucial role in enhancing students’ problem-solving abilities through the processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluation, enabling more systematic and effective thinking. In addition, students’ learning styles influence how metacognitive processes are applied in solving mathematical problems. Understanding these processes allows teachers to design instructional strategies that align with students’ characteristics. This study aims to describe students’ metacognitive processes in solving mathematical problems based on VARK learning styles. A qualitative case study approach was employed involving eight tenth-grade students of MAN 2 Kota Kediri, with two students representing each learning style identified through the VARK questionnaire. Data were collected using problem-solving tests and semi-structured interviews, then analyzed through data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing, with source triangulation ensuring validity. The findings reveal that visual and read/write learners demonstrate more consistent performance in understanding problems and applying strategies, although evaluation is sometimes incomplete. Auditory and kinesthetic learners tend to rely on previously learned strategies but show less consistency in monitoring and evaluating their solutions. All students exhibit confidence in their approaches based on prior experiences. Further research is recommended to explore metacognitive processes using more diverse problem types.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Pi: Mathematics Education Journal allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Authors submitting a manuscript do so with the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Pi: Mathematics Education Journal
References
[1] N. K. Rahmawati, S. B. Waluya, Rochmad, and I. Hidayah, “Metacognitive skills analysis of students in integral calculus problem solving,” Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 170–179, 2021, doi: 10.26418/jpmipa.v12i2.45052.
[2] J. A. Livingston, Metacognition: An Overview. Buffalo, NY, USA: University at Buffalo, 2003.
[3] Wardawaty, N. Arsyad, and Alimuddin, “Analisis keterampilan metakognitif dalam pemecahan masalah matematika ditinjau dari gaya kognitif,” Makassar: Universitas Negeri Makassar, 2018.
[4] J. H. Flavell, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry,” American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906–911, 1979, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
[5] Marchis, T. Balogh, and N. Johnson, “Examining self regulated learning in relation to certain selected variables,” Acta Didactica Napocensia, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2012.
[6] E. Yurtbakan, T. A. İskenderoğlu, and G. Güneş, “Improving primary school teachers’ problem-posing skills by using narrative texts,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 59, p. 101956, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101956.
[7] Adinda et al., “Characteristics of prospective mathematics teachers’ problem solving in metacognitive awareness,” Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v23i11.6220.
[8] S. Mawaddah et al., “Metacognitive misdirection of prospective mathematics teachers in mathematical problem solving,” Participatory Educational Research, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.17275/per.25.78.12.6.
[9] S. S. Faradiba and A. Alifiani, “Metacognitive blindness in mathematics problem-solving,” Journal of Education and Learning Mathematics Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2020, doi: 10.37303/jelmar.v1i2.27.
[10] R. Maliana et al., “Expectations versus reality: A case study of metacognitive blindness in mathematics problems,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3316, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2025, doi: 10.1063/5.0290041.
[11] M. Wuryanie et al., “Intuition characteristics of student in mathematical problem solving in cognitive style,” Journal of Education and Learning Mathematics Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 31–42, 2020, doi: 10.37303/jelmar.v1i2.25.
[12] K. Beltran et al., “Visual, auditory, read/write and kinesthetic (VARK) model-based peer teaching approach,” Educative: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2025, doi: 10.70437/educative.v3i1.937.
[13] Fikri and K. Nuradina, “Identification of student learning style preference profiles in hybrid learning settings,” West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.58812/wsis.v1i09.205.
[14] Alghamdi, A. K. Jitendra, and A. E. Lein, “Teaching students with mathematics disabilities to solve multiplication and division word problems,” ZDM Mathematics Education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 125–137, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01078-0.
[15] P. A. Udil, T. A. Kusmayadi, and Riyadi, “Metacognition process of students with high mathematics anxiety,” International Journal of Science and Applied Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 261–268, 2017, doi: 10.20961/ijsascs.v2i1.16724.
[16] R. A. Cahdriyana, “Kesulitan metakognisi siswa dalam memecahkan masalah matematika,” Jurnal MathEducation Nusantara, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2021, doi: 10.54314/jmn.v4i2.154.
[17] F. Sharif et al., “The effectiveness of metacognitive knowledge and skills program,” Health Education and Health Promotion, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 549–556, 2023, doi: 10.58209/hehp.11.4.549.
[18] Dinar, Y. Mulyanti, and H. S. Lukman, “Analisis kemampuan metakognisi siswa dalam pemecahan masalah matematika,” De Fermat, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.36277/defermat.v5i2.180.
[19] F. Nuraini, A. Setiani, and N. A. Nurcahyono, “Analisis kemampuan metakognisi siswa ditinjau dari tipe kepribadian,” Jurnal Cendekia, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024, doi: 10.31004/cendekia.v8i1.2678.
[20] S. Campbell et al., “Purposive sampling: Complex or simple?” Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 652–661, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1744987120927206.
[21] D. L. Morgan, “After triangulation, what next?” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 6–14, 2019, doi: 10.1177/1558689818780596.
[22] H. Ames, C. Glenton, and S. Lewin, “Purposive sampling in qualitative evidence synthesis,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 19, no. 26, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0665-4.
[23] E. Trisnawati and N. Riana, “Analisis kemampuan komunikasi matematis siswa,” Hipotenusa Journal of Research Mathematics Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2022, doi: 10.36269/hjrme.v1i2.785.
[24] J. Crossman and S. Bordia, Handbook of Qualitative Research Methodologies in Workplace Contexts. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2021.
[25] Z. N. Ghafar, “The evaluation research: A comparative analysis,” Journal of Language, Literature, Social and Cultural Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024, doi: 10.58881/jllscs.v2i1.122.
[26] R. S. Natow, “The use of triangulation in qualitative studies,” Qualitative Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 160–173, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1468794119830077.
[27] T. S. Sheromova et al., “Learning styles and development of cognitive skills in mathematics learning,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.29333/EJMSTE/8538.