International Journal of Educational

Science and Research (IJESR)

ISSN(P): 2249-6947; ISSN(E): 2249-8052
Vol. 6, Issue 2, Apr 2016, 107-114
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

10TH GRADE STUDENTS METACOGNITION IN A MATHEMATICS PROBLEMBASED LEARNING (PBL) CLASSROOM

JATURONG LERTCHUWONGSA & DUANGHATHAI KATWIBUN
Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
ABSTRACT
In the twenty first century, students need to have metacognition to be self-directed learners. Problem-Based
Learning (PBL) is one of the active approaches (Barrows, 1996;
Gijselaers, 1996) that allow students to utilize their own metacognition as one of their learning tools (Schraw,
1998). Hence, the researchers were interested in studying 10th grade students in a PBL classroom. The researchers used the
PBL lesson plans that had been adapted the PBL processes from Othman, Salleh, and Sulaimans work (2013); including
1) an introduction to the problem 2) self-directed learning 3) group meetings 4) presentations, and 5) exercises. This study
presented the results of students metacognition in a mathematics PBL classroom from the Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994), students interview forms, students reflections and teachers notes. The descriptive

researchers found that in the PBL classroom, the students demonstrated their metacognition in all dimensions.
KEYWORDS: Metacognition, Problem-Based Learning, PBL, Mathematics Classroom

Received: Mar 22, 2016; Accepted: Apr 04, 2016; Published: Apr 09, 2016; Paper Id.: IJESRAPR2016013

Original Article

analysis and descriptive statistics (percentage, mean, and standard deviation) were used to analyze the data. The

INTRODUCTION
Background/ Objectives and Goals
In the twenty first century, students can access many learning resources in order to support themselves to
be self-directed learners. One of necessities for self-directed learners is metacognition. What is metacognition?
Metacognition is cognition about cognition, which was first defined by Flavell (1976). After that, Lai (2011)
summarized that metacognition is a set of skills that involve thinking about thinking. In general, metacognition
has two major components (Brown, 1987); in this study, the researchers use the metacognition framework of Schraw
& Dennison (1994) that divided metacognition as follows: 1) metacognitive knowledge consisting of three kinds of
knowledge including declarative knowledge; procedural knowledge; and conditional knowledge; and 2)
metacognitive regulation involving five skills: planning; information management strategies; comprehension
monitoring; debugging strategies; and evaluation. Since Metacognition could be improved through classroom
practices (Schraw, 1998) and there are a few researchers (Schneider & Artelt, 2010; Downing, Kwong, Chan, Lam,
& Downing, 2009) focusing on how students build their metacognition by themselves in an active mathematics
classroom. So, the researchers proposed to study students metacognition in one of the active approaches such as a
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in a mathematics classroom. The PBL processes employed in this study was
adapted from Othman, Salleh, and Sulaimans work (2013); including 1) an introduction to the problem 2) selfdirected learning 3) group meetings 4) presentations, and 5) exercises that allow students to show their own

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

108

Jaturong Lertchuwongsa & Duanghathai Katwibun

metacognition in the classroom.

METHODS
The present mixed method research aims to study students metacognition in a mathematics classroom
implementing a PBL approach. The participants in this study are 47 tenth graders (37 females, 10 males) from a high
school in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. The research instruments were 1). eight PBL lesson plans, one of the researchers
as the teacher generating the scenarios or problems with his colleagues. The PBL processes in this study are adapted from
Othman, Salleh, and Sulaimans work (2013). The process involved 1) an introduction to the problem 2) self-directed
learning 3) group meetings 4) presentations, and 5) exercises. The PBL lesson plans are used as the core of learning in each
period (100 minutes per period) for 4 weeks in the second semester of 2015 academic year (2nd week of November to the
2nd week of December 2015). 2). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), based on Schraw & Dennisons work (1994),
consisted of 52-item self-report instrument with 5-likert scale (15-20 minutes). In order to prepare MAI in Thai version, the
researchers translated MAI into Thai language and checked their meaning with English teachers. Then, the researchers
tested readability of the instrument by having some other 10th grade students in the school, who were not the participants of
this study, read the translated MAI. Later, the researchers tested the reliability of this instrument by trying out with a
parallel group of the students from the same school classroom (Alpha Cronbach Coefficient, r = .92). 3). students
interview forms 4). students reflections and 5). teachers notes. In gathering the data, one of the researchers taught the
classroom as the teacher with the eight PBL lesson plans. Meanwhile, other sources of the students metacognition were
drawn from teachers notes and students reflections. At the end of all PBL lessons, the MAI was administrated to the
participants; Alpha Cronbach Coefficient was once more calculated with descriptive statistics (mean and standard
deviation). For the triangulation of the data, the researchers selected a group of the students made up of 6 students with
mixed mathematics abilities (2 high, 2 average, and 2 low) as a focus group to observe and be interviewed about
metacognition. The researchers used video recording and voice recording to provide support data of each teaching period.
The collected qualitative data were analyzed by means of descriptive analysis.

RESULTS
After using PBL in classroom, students responded the MAI, based on Schraw & Dennison (1994) showed
Cronbachs alpha of r = 0.95. The statistical analysis showed the students metacognition as table 1 illustrates the means
and standard deviations for the dimensions of the MAI used in this study.
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation from the MAI (N=47)
Metacognitive Knowledge
1. Declarative Knowledge
2. Procedural Knowledge
3. Conditional Knowledge
Metacognitive Regulation
1. Planning
2. Information Organizing
3. Comprehension Monitoring
4. Debugging Strategies
8. Evaluation
Overall

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.3912

Mean

S.D.

3.60
3.49
3.61

0.52
0.53
0.56

3.67
3.57
3.44
3.81
3.43
3.58

0.53
0.46
0.50
0.61
0.59
0.45

NAAS Rating: 2.72

10th Grade Students Metacognition in a Mathematics

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Classroom

109

From Table 1: The level of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in all dimensions are at good
level. Regarding metacognitive knowledge,
knowledge declarative knowledge and conditional knowledge they are nearly at the same
good level. Focusing on metacognitive regulation, students have the highest level of debugging strategies; while the other
dimensions are nearly the same, with good levels.
Speaking of students metacognition over all, most of 10th grade students (89.36%) in this study have overall
over
greater metacognition than or equal to the neural level (see Figure 1). Additionally, most of the students (87.23%) have
metacognition knowledge greater than or equal to the neural level (see Figure 2). Last but not least, most of the students
(91.49%) have metacognition regulation greater than or equal to the neural level (see Figure 3).

Figure 1: Students Metacognition in Overall

Figure 2: Students Metacognitive Knowledge

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

110

Jaturong Lertchuwongsa & Duanghathai Katwibun

Figure 3: Students Metacognitive Regulation

In addition, interviews revealed more details on students metacognition in the focus groups. Tables 2 and 3
display details of the students metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation, respectively, in the PBL classroom.
Table 2: Characteristics of Metacognitive Knowledge from the Students Interviews
Mathematics
Achievement Levels

High

Average

Low

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.3912

Metacognitive Knowledge in the

PBL Classroom in Overall
1. Declarative knowledge: The students showed their
knowledge about what are relations and functions. They
could briefly explain some definitions and vocabularies in
relations and functions.
2. Procedural knowledge: The students clearly showed their
knowledge
ge about how to implement mathematical processes
such as how to draw linear or parabola graphs.
3. Conditional knowledge: The students showed their
knowledge about complicated conditions in relations and
functions, such as identifying the point where the parabola
changes direction (turning point) from a quadratic equation.
1. Declarative knowledge: The students showed their basic
knowledge about what are the relations and functions such
as definitions of order pairs and functions.
2. Procedural knowledge:
nowledge: The students showed their
knowledge about how to implement mathematical processes
such as finding order pairs from functions to plot graphs but
they could not draw the graph correctly.
3. Conditional knowledge: The students showed their
knowledgee about conditions in relations and functions, such
as indicating trends of a parabola curve when moving a
changes in function y = ax2.
1. Declarative knowledge: The students rarely showed their
knowledge about what are relations and functions.
2. Procedural
rocedural knowledge: The students rarely showed their
knowledge about how to implement mathematical processes
such as substituting the variable x to find y from given
functions.
3. Conditional knowledge: The students showed their
knowledge about easily conditions
nditions in relations and functions
such as telling from quadratic equation, when the parabola
is right-side-up or upside-down.

NAAS Rating: 2.72

10th Grade Students Metacognition in a Mathematics

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Classroom

111

Table 3: Characteristics of Metacognitive Regulation from the Students Interviews

Mathematics
Achievement Levels

High

Average

Low

Metacognitive Regulation in the PBL Classroom in Overall

1. Planning: The students set goals to accomplish the assignments,
planning to find various strategies to solve problems and selecting
the best way to explain or present their ideas.
2. Information Management: The students showed how to manage
information more effectively by taking notes only selected
information that they havent yet understood.
3. Comprehension Monitoring: The students showed assessment of
their own learning by checking their understandings in a group and
other groups presentations.
4. Debugging strategies: The students used careful reading and peerchecking in order to correct their mistakes on calculations and
mathematical processes.
5. Evaluation: The students evaluated their understandings by
explaining to their peers then checking whether or not their friends
understood what they explained.
1. Planning: The students planned their works by discussing each
other in the group about suitable strategies to solve problems; but
they didnt allocate time to do tasks, effectively.
2. Information Management: The students showed how to manage
information more effectively by drawing graphs or pictures to make
their peers understand easier.
3. Comprehension Monitoring: The students either reviewed
strategies or considered other ways to solve the problems.
4. Debugging strategies: The students corrected their comprehension
by asking in their group and re-checking with other groups.
5. Evaluation: The students evaluated that the strategies they used in
doing tasks in the group were at a fair level. Since, they spent time to
figure out the solutions; thus, they forgot some important details in
order to finish the tasks.
1. Planning: The students set learning goals to do complicate tasks
and try to solve them. They thought of several ways to solve
problems and organized their time to reach their goals.
2. Information Management: The students showed how to manage
information more effectively by taking notes the methods that they
understood and the methods that came from discussions with their
peers.
3. Comprehension Monitoring: The students found themselves
pausing to check comprehension with their peers.
4. Debugging strategies: When the students found their mistakes
such as miscalculations; they revised these calculations.
5. Evaluation: The students knew that they did not do well at group
work because they could not follow the group discussion.

Overall, high achievers had more complicated metacognitive knowledge than average and low achievers. High
achievers could explain their knowledge based on their understanding. Meanwhile, average achievers explained their
knowledge based on their memory. Whereas, low achievers showed simple metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
regulation. High achievers were also able to control themselves to do and focus on tasks; meanwhile, average achievers
were able to manage themselves to understand their work. Low achievers put in a lot of effort to understand everything; but
they still could not follow the classroom material.
Data analysis revealed that students metacognitions in the PBL classroom from teachers notes and students
reflections based on the framework of Schraw & Dennison (1994) focusing on metacognitive regulation dimension,
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

112

Jaturong Lertchuwongsa & Duanghathai Katwibun

including planning, information management, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies and evaluation were as
follows:

Planning: The students showed their metacognitions in planning in the 3rd step of the PBL processes: group
meetings. The students listed important information such as variables and constants that they could have observed
from the problem scenarios, discussed ideas with each other in the group, shared and summarized their ideas to
solve the problems. Students also reported that planning how to use the information helped them to easily
formulate functions, to work faster, and allowed them to finish the assignments on time.

Information Management: The students information management was observable in the 2nd and 3rd steps of the
PBL processes: self-directed learning and group meetings. Students showed how to manage information more
effectively by taking notes of what they understand and what they learned from group discussions, using tables or
diagrams in order to organize the information.

Comprehension Monitoring: The students obviously showed their strategies to monitor their comprehension in
the 2nd and 3rd steps of the PBL processes: self-directed learning and group meetings. The students checked their
own understandings by asking questions to themselves about the tasks and answering in their mind. They
examined the answers with learning goals. Additionally, they tried to explain and listen to their colleagues in order
to verify their comprehension. They also considered several options to find and present the solutions.

Debugging strategies: The students debugged their comprehension and performance errors in the 3rd, 4th and 5th
steps in the PBL classroom: group meetings, presentations and exercises. The students had performance errors
such as drawing graphs that were not related to domains of the functions. They corrected their performance in
group discussions and presentations. They also asked teacher and the others to explain things to them when they
failed to understand exercises.

Evaluation: The students evaluated their works in the 3rd step of the PBL processes: group meetings. After
students finished their tasks, they assessed their work on clarification and simplification issues. In the 4th step of
the PBL process: presentations, the students compared their work with other groups and looked back on their own
work to get better understandings.
In conclusion, the main objective of the study was to focusing on how students show their metacognition by

themselves in the PBL classroom. From the results, the researchers have the points to discussion as follows:

The overall level of declarative knowledge is at good level. The researchers found that students with high
mathematics achievement levels were students who showed their useful knowledge about what are relations and
functions. Students with average mathematics achievement levels showed their basic knowledge about what the
relations and functions are? Students with low mathematics achievement levels rarely showed their knowledge
about what relations and functions are. Therefore, the higher mathematics achievement level is, the more
declarative knowledge students have.

The overall level of procedural knowledge is at a good level. The researchers found that students with high
mathematics achievement level showed their clear knowledge about how to implement mathematical processes.
Students with average mathematics achievement levels showed their knowledge about how to implement

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.3912

NAAS Rating: 2.72

10th Grade Students Metacognition in a Mathematics

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Classroom

113

mathematical processes. Students with low mathematics achievement levels rarely showed their knowledge about
how to implement mathematical processes. Therefore, the students with higher mathematics achievement levels
implement mathematical processes better than the students with lower mathematics achievement levels.

The overall level of conditional knowledge is at a good level. The researchers found that students with a high
mathematics achievement level showed their knowledge about complicated conditions in relations and functions.
Students with an average mathematics achievement level showed their knowledge about conditions in relations
and functions. Students with a low mathematics achievement level showed their knowledge about simple
conditions in relations and functions Therefore, the students with higher mathematics achievement level can
understand more complicated conditions than the students with lower mathematics achievement levels.

The overall level of planning is at good level and it is obviously seen in the 3rd step: group meetings in the PBL
classroom because the students can list the useful information and discuss with each other and share their ideas
before solving the problems.

The overall level of information management is good and it is obviously seen in 2nd and 3rd steps in the PBL
processes: self-directed learning and group meetings, because the students can use note taking, tables or diagrams
to manage the information.

The overall level of comprehension monitoring is at a good level and it is obviously seen in 2nd and 3rd steps in the
PBL processes: self-directed learning and group meetings because the students can monitor their own
understandings by verifying their comprehension with themselves and with their friends.

The overall level of debugging strategies is at a good level and it is obviously seen in the 3rd, 4th and 5th steps in
the PBL classroom: group meetings, presentations and exercises because the students can debug their
comprehension and performance errors by discussing it with, and asking their teacher or friends.

The overall level of evaluation is good and it is obviously seen in the 3rd step in the PBL processes: group
meetings, because the students can evaluate the work and make it more clear and simple for themselves.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers would like to thank all of the people involved who inspired and commented the researchers to do
this study, including the teachers at mathematics department of Wattanothaipayup School, the faculty members in
mathematics education program, Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University, the experts, the teacher observers, my
friends, and families.
REFERENCES
1.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. In L. Wilkerson, & W. H. Gijselaers
(Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning, N.68 (pp. 311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

2.

Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S.-W., Lam, T.-F., & Downing, W.-K. (2009). Problem-Based Learning and the development
of metacognition. Higher Education, 57, 609-621.

3.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), the nature of intelligence. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

114

Jaturong Lertchuwongsa & Duanghathai Katwibun

4.

Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. In L. Wilkerson & W. Gijselaers
(Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. New Directions in Teaching and Learning.
No. 68, Winter 1996 (pp. 13-21). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

5.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Pearson Assessments Research Reports.Retrieved November 12, 2012
from https://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf.

6.

Kalaivani, K., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2014). Assessing Thinking Skills: A Case of Problem-Based Learning in Learning of Algebra
among Malaysian Form Four Students. Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary, 2(3), 166173.

7.

Othman, H., Salleh, B. M. & Sulaiman, A. (2013). 5 ladder of Active Learning: An Innovative Learning Steps in PBL Process.
The 4th International Research Symposium on Problem-Based Learning (IRSPBL). Malaysia.

8.

Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM - The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149-161.

9.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 19, 460475.

10. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. International Science, 26, 113-125.

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.3912

NAAS Rating: 2.72