Validity of Metacognitive Awareness Inventory as A Measuring Tool for Metacognitive Ability in Mathematics Problem Solving

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore various theories about metacognition, especially the measurement of metacognition using the Metacognition Awareness Inventory (MAI) and its relation to problem solving. The goal of this research is to describe the validity of the metacognition ability instrument in solving mathematical problems that require metacognition awareness.   Theoretical Framework: Problem solving is an essential part of the mathematics learning process. Metacognition becomes an important issue along with the trend of 21st century learning. Metacognition is important in achieving student cognitive learning outcomes, specifically in increasing the effectiveness of learning strategies.  Many methods have been used to assess metacognition, including questionnaires, interviews, analysis of thinking-aloud protocols, observations, awareness-raising tasks, diaries, and autobiographies.  The Metacognition Awareness Inventory is one tool for determining the level of student metacognition (MAI).   Method: Various studies related to metacognition have been carried out. This is a descriptive leather research to assess and obtain a valid quality instrument to characterize metacognitive ability in solving mathematical problems. Five Evaluation Experts in Mathematics Education validated the instruments. Expert judgment is used to validate constructs using the Objective Concruence Index assessment.  MAI are also empirically validated by using 157 high school students as respondents.   Results: According to the results and research findings, MAI has eight indicators: 1) declarative knowledge, 2) procedural knowledge, 3) conditional knowledge, 4) planning, 5) information management, 6) monitoring, 7) debugging, and 8) evaluation. Cronbach's alpha = 0.671) was declared reliable for measuring students' metacognitive awareness. To obtain a truly valid instrument, several points of the MAI statement on the components must be improved: (1) procedural knowledge; (2) planning; and (3) information management. Furthermore, performance assessment through student activities or activities during learning is required to confirm MAI results and students' metacognitive knowledge.   Conclusions: MAI meets the construct validity criteria, especially in terms of content validation and internal consistency (reliability), by maintaining 51 statements from the original questionnaire. Overall, MAI that has been compiled is valued valid and reliable to be used as a metacognition assessment instrument in solving mathematical problems. It can be concluded that the MAI is a valid instrument in measuring metacognition in problem solving.