Beyatlı, ozge., Altinay, Fahriye., & Altinay, Zehra. (2018). “Evaluation of the Users of LMS Content Management System in Secondary Education”. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14 (7): 3191-3195. ISSN:1305-8223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91093
Coutinho, M. V. C., Papanastasiou, E., Agni, S., Vasko, J. M., & Couchman, J. J. (2020). “Metacognitive Monitoring in Test-taking Situations: A Cross-cultural Comparison of College Students”. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 407-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13127a
Cylindrica, VB, Dasna, IW, & Sumari, S. (2021). “Influence Model Learning Cycle 5E assisted by E-scaffolding on Materials Rate Reaction to Student Concept Understanding with Achievement Motivation Different”. Journal of Education: Theory, Research, and Development, 6(7),1115-1133. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/jptpp.v6i7.14934
Efrilla, Giovanni. Amnah, S., & Suryanti, E. (2018). “Profile of Awareness and Metacognition Strategies of State Junior High School Students in Kampar District”. JNSI: Journal of Natural Science and Integration, 1(1): 67-77. ISSN. 2620-5092. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24014/jnsi.v1i1.5197
Fetterly, James M. (2020). “Fostering Mathematical Creativity While Impacting Beliefs and Anxiety in Mathematics”. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 10 (2): 102–128. DOI: 10.5642/jhummath.202002.07
Harrison, G., M. & Vallin, L., M. (2017). “Evaluating the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory Using Empirical Factor-Structure Evidence”. Springer.13(1): 15-38. DOI 10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z .
Hendri, H. (2014). “Pemanfaatan Sharable Content Object Reference Model dalam Menciptakan Aplikasi Web E-Learning”. Jurnal Ilmiah Media Sisfo, 8(1), 21-26.
Heriyanto, H., Zaenuri, Z., & Walid, W. (2021). “Creative Thinking Ability in Habits of Mind-based Ethnomathematics JUCAMA Learning Models”. Journal of Primary Education, 10(3): 348-358. DOI 10.15294/JPE.V10I3.50421
Jia, Xiaoyu; Li, Weijian; Cao, Liren (2019). “The Role of Metacognitive Components in Creative Thinking”. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02404
Kaplan, Danielle E. (2019). “Creativity in Education: Teaching for Creativity Development”. Psychology, 10 (2): 140–147. DOI: 10.4236/psych.2019.102012
Kazempour, Mahsa, Aidin Amirshokoohi, & Katrin Blamey. (2020). “Putting Theory to Practice: Teaching the 5E Learning Cycle through Immersive Experiences for Pre-Service Teachers”. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1): 67–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9547
Liu, J., Dong, Y., Sun, M., Xu, F., Sun, X., & Zhou, Y. (2022). “The mediating effect of creativity on the relationship between mathematic achievement and programming self-efficacy”. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 772093. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.77209
Lubart, T. I. (2001). “Models of the creative process: past, present and future”. Creat Res. J. 13, 295–308. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_07
Krisnaresanti, A., Slamet, A., & Wahyudin, A. (2018). “E-Book Development of Trading Company Adjustment Journal Based on 2013 Curriculum”. Journal of Economic Education, 7(1): 39-44. DOI 10.15294/JEEC.V7I1.24092
Mann, Eric L. (2006). “Creativity: The Essence of Mathematics”. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2): 236–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
Marciniak, Malgorzata A. (2020). “Creative Assignments in Upper-Level Undergraduate Courses Inspired by Mentoring Undergraduate Research Projects”. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 10 (2): 465–483. DOI 10.5642/jhummath.202002.21
Mashitoh, NLD, Sukestiyarno, YL, & Wardono, W. (2021). “Creative Thinking Ability Based on Self Efficacy on an Independent Learning Through Google Classroom Support”. Journal of Primary Education, 10(1): 79-88. DOI 10.15294/JPE.V10I1.45248
McGill, TJ, Klobas, JE, & Renzi, S. (2014). “Critical success factors for the continuation of e-learning initiatives”. The Internet and Higher Education, 22: 24-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.001
Monahan, Ceire, Mika Munakata, Ashwin Vaidya, and Sean Gandini. (2020). “Inspiring Mathematical Creativity through Juggling”. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 10 (2): 291–314. DOI. 10.5642/jhummath.202002.14
Nurjannah, Putri EI, Hendriana, Heris., & Fitrianna, Aflich Y. (2018). “Factors of Mathematical Habits of Mind and Mathematical Literacy Ability of Junior High School Students in West Bandung Regency”. Journal of Mercutika: Journal of Mathematics Research and Mathematics Education, 2 (2): 51-58. ISSN. 2548-1819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26486/jm.v2i2.423
Ramdani, A., Jufri, AW, Gunawan, G., Fahrurrozi, M., & Yustiqvar, M. (2021). “Analysis of Students' Critical Thinking Skills in terms of Gender UsingScience Teaching Materials Based on the 5E Learning Cycle Integrated with Local Wisdom”. Indonesian Science Education Journal, 10(2): 187-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.29956
Rosikhoh, D., Abdussakir, A., & Harini, S. (2021). “Module development learning triangle based on metacognition and integration”. Journal of Analysis, 7(1): 99-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/ja.v7i1.12104
Ibrokhimovich, F. J., & Mirzaxolmatovna, X. Z. (2022). “The Most Important Role of Mathematics in Primary School”. Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(3): 652-655.
Wang, L., Li, M., Yang, T., Wang, L., & Zhou, X. (2022). “Mathematics meets science in the brain”. Cerebral Cortex, 32(1): 123-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab198
Sulistyawati, A., & Walid, MM (2018). “Analysis of Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability and Metacognition of Students on Probing-Prompting Learning Models with Scaffolding Strategy”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 7(1), 174-181.
Tanfiziyah, R., Khasanah, M., Riandi, R., & Supriatno, B. (2021). “Innovation Information Technology-Based Learning: Learning Cycle Model 5E Using Gather Town on Protist Material”. Biodik, 7(3): 1-10.
Ulinnuha, R., & Rochmad, R. (2021). “Creative Thinking Ability with Open-Ended Problems Based on Self-Efficacy in Gnomio Blended Learning”. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 10(A): 20-25.
Volz, Sarah, Marc-André Reinhard, & Patrick Müller. (2022). “The Confidence-Accuracy Relation – A Comparison of Metacognition Measures in Lie Detection”. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36 (3): 673–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3953.
- Abstract viewed - 144 times
- PDF downloaded - 122 times
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright
© Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 2022
Affiliations
Anita Aulia Firdaus
Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Semarang
Wardono wardono
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Walid Walid
Universitas Negeri Semarang
How to Cite
The Analysis of Creative Thinking Ability Viewed from Student Metacognition in Learning Cycle 5E Assisted by Learning Management System
Vol 11 No 1 (2022): June 2022
Submitted: Mar 9, 2022
Published: Jun 30, 2022
Abstract
This study aims to describe the ability to think creatively in terms of students' metacognition with the 5E learning cycle assisted by LMS. The research subjects were twelve students with the high metacognition, ten students with the medium metacogniton, and ten students with low metacognition. Methods of collecting data using observation techniques using questionnaires or metacognition questionnaires. Based on the results of this study indicate that subjects with a high metacognition category have good knowledge of understanding important information. On the other hand, the subject is conscientious, focused, and confident that the implementation of the strategy is effective in solving problems. Subjects understand well the questions and organize important information. The results of the work are systematic and correct, and the subject is also aware of errors in the work process. In contrast to the metacognitive category of subjects who currently have good knowledge. In addition, the subject is quite good at writing conclusions. Subjects still need to be careful in monitoring the results of their work. The subject is quite good at evaluating the results of his work. Meanwhile, subjects with low metacognition have sufficient knowledge in understanding information. The subject has difficulty managing his strategy well. In addition, the subject cannot justify the wrong answer and is not careful in monitoring the results of the answer. Subjects do an adequate assessment of the results of their work.