Agus Alamsyah


Artikel ini sebagai hasil dari studi untuk menganalisis proses metakognisi pada siswa saat menyelesaikan masalah Open-Ended. Penelitian ini mencoba mengkelompokan jawaban siswa dalam menyelesaikan masalah open-ended berdasarkan karakteristik metakognisinya. Jawaban siswa saat menyelesaikan masalah Open-Ended dikelompokan kedalam metacognitive awareness, metacognitive evaluation, dan metacognitive regulation. Proses metakognisi siswa dalam menjawab masalah akan diamati dan dikarakterkan. Hasil proses metakognisi siswa saat menyelesaikan masalah open-ended menujukan siswa mengalami proses metakognisi yang berbeda-beda ketika menyelesaikan masalah sama. Siswa mengalami metacognitive awareness berupamemikirkan kembali masalah yang diketahui (A1),memikirkan ulang pertayaan dalam masalah (A2), dan memikirkan ulang tahap selanjutnya (A4). Siswa mengalami metacognitive evaluation berupa mengecek jawaban pada masalah yang diberikan (E3), dan memikirkan kembali kebenaran jawaban yang ada (E4). Siswa mengalami metacognitive regulation berupa memikirkan kembali membuat rencana untuk menyelesaikan masalah selanjutnya (R1), dan memikirkan kembali cara berbeda yang digunakan untuk menjawab masalah yang ada (R2).

Full Text:



Agustini, R. Y., Suryadi, D., & Jupri, A. (2017). Construction of Open-Ended Problems for Assessing Elementary Student Mathematical Connection Ability on Plane Geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895(1).

Çakır, H., & Cengiz, Ö. (2016). The Use of Open Ended versus Closed Ended Questions in Turkish Classrooms, (April), 60–70.

Flavell, J. H. (Stanford U. (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring A New Area of Cognitive — Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

In’am, A., Saad, N., & Ghani, S. A. (2012). A Metacognitive Approach to Solving Algebra Problems. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 1(4), 162–173.

Inoue, N., & Buczynski, S. (2011). You Asked Open-Ended Questions, Now What? Understanding the Nature of Stumbling Blocks in Teaching Inquiry Lessons. Mathematics Educator, 20(2), 10–23. Retrieved from,+Now+What?+Understanding+the+Nature+of+Stumbling+Blocks+in+Tea

Irawan, A., & Surya, E. (2017). Application of the Open Ended Approach to Mathematics Learning in the Sub-subject of Rectangular. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 33(3), 270–279.

Kazemi, F., Fadaee, M. R., & Bayat, S. (2010). A subtle view to metacognitive aspect of mathematical problems solving. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 420–426.

Klavir, R., & Hershkovitz, S. (2014). Teaching and Evaluating “Open - Ended” Problems. ResearchGate, (5), 1–24. Retrieved from’Open-Ended'_Problems

Kwon, O. N., Park, J. S., & Park, J. H. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61.

Marta T. Magiera, dan J. S. Z. (2011). Characterizations of Social-Based and Self-Based Contexts Associated With Students’ Awareness, Evaluation, and Regulation of Their Thinking During Small-Group Mathematical Modeling. 10.5951 Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(5), 486–520.

Munroe, L. (2015). The Open-Ended Approach Framework. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 97–104.

Murni. (2013). Open-Ended Approach in Learning to Improve Students Thinking Skills in Banda Aceh. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 2(2), 95–101.

Ninomiya, H., & Pusri, P. (2015). The Study of Open-ended Approach in Mathematics Teaching Using Jigsaw Method : A Case Study of the Water Beaker Problem. 埼玉大学紀要教育学部,, 64(2), 11–22.

Nool, N. R. (2012). Exploring the Metacognitive Processes of Prospective Mathematics Teachers during Problem Solving. 2012 International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, 30, 302–306.

Nusantara, T., Subanji, & Rahardjo, S. (2016). Metacognition Process Characteristics Of The Students In Solving Mathematics Problems Solving Mathematics Problems. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(5), 26–35.

Nylén, A., Daniels, M., Isomöttönen, V., & McDermott, R. (2017). Open-ended projects opened up - Aspects of openness. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2017-Octob, 1–7.

Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Mainguy, M. (2010). Metacognition, executive functions and aging: The effect of training in the use of metacognitive skills to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Adult Development, 17(3), 168–176.

Polya, G. (1973). How To Solve It. How To Solve It.

Purnomo, D., & Bekti, S. (2017). Patterns Change of Awareness Process, Evaluation, and Regulation on Mathematics Student, 12(7), 715–733.

Reilly, E. M. (2015). Supermath: A Creative Way To Engage Talented Math Students. The 9th Mathematical Creativity And Giftedness. The 9th Mathematical Creativity And Giftedness International Conference.

Shahbari, J. A., Daher, W., & Rasslan, S. (2014). Mathematical knowledge and the cognitive and metacognitive processes emerged in model-eliciting activities. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(2), 209–219.

Suastika, K. (2017). Mathematics Learning Model of Open Problem Solving to Develop Students ’ Creativity, 12(6), 569–577.

Viseu, F., & Oliveira, I. B. (2012). Open-ended tasks in the promotion of classroom communication in Mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 287–300.

Yuniarti, Y., Kusumah, Y. S., Suryadi, D., & Bana, G. (2017). The Effectiveness of Open-Ended Problems Based Analytic-Synthetic Learning on the Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability of Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education (IEJME-Mathematic Education), 12(7), 655–666.


  • There are currently no refbacks.