Mathematical proof was the most difficult MLTA component for students in both teaching approaches¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? On the post-test, mathematical proof received the lowest percentage of ideal score in both classes (34.72% MTL, 28.92% conventional), and on the pretest no student could solve the proof item. → Aminah 2018

Evidence¶

Aminah 2018¶

Aminah, M., Kusumah, Y. S., Suryadi, D., & Sumarmo, U. (2018). The Effect of Metacognitive Teaching and Mathematical Prior Knowledge on Mathematical Logical Thinking Ability and Self-Regulated Learning. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1134a

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Item analysis of MLTA post-test (Table 9): mathematical proof ranked 7th in both classes (34.72% and 28.92% of ideal score); generalization ranked 6th (45.14% and 40.07%).

"However, on post -test, the students who were taught by MTL and by conventional teaching still posed difficulties on solving MLTA on generalization, and mathematical proof."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Metacognitive teaching-learning produced higher MLTA post-test scores and N-gain than conventional teaching among medium-MPK students, but not among low-MPK students or the total sample — related
• Overall, there was no significant difference in MLTA post-test achievement between the metacognitive and conventional classes — related
• Students' mathematical prior knowledge strongly influences MLTA: the higher the MPK, the higher the MLTA and its N-gain in both teaching approaches — related
• There is an interaction between learning approach and MPK on SRL but no interaction on MLTA — related
• Metacognitive teaching-learning improved students' self-regulated learning more than conventional teaching, overall and at high and medium MPK levels — related