Students’ Metacognitive Errors based on Newman’s Error Types within Deep Learning Approach

Authors

  • Windi Astuti Universitas Siliwangi, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia
  • Puji Lestari Universitas Siliwangi, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia
  • Mega Nur Prabawati Universitas Siliwangi, Tasikmalaya, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22460/jiml.v9i1.31027

Keywords:

Deep Learning , Metacognitive Ability , Newman’s Error Analysis

Abstract

Students’ difficulties in solving mathematical problems are often closely related to weaknesses in metacognitive regulation, particularly in planning, monitoring, and evaluating problem-solving processes. One systematic framework to identify these difficulties is Newman’s Error Analysis, which classifies students’ errors into sequential stages of problem solving. This study aims to describe students’ metacognitive errors based on Newman’s error types in mathematics learning using a Deep Learning approach. This research employed a mixed methods approach with a sequential explanatory design, focusing on qualitative descriptive analysis. The participants consisted of three ninth-grade students from SMP Islamiyah Ciawi in the 2025/2026 academic year, selected purposively to represent high, moderate, and low levels of metacognitive ability. Data were collected through open-ended problem-solving tests on solid figures, a metacognitive questionnaire using a Likert scale, and semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was conducted by identifying students’ errors at each stage of Newman’s procedure—reading, comprehension, transformation, process skills, and encoding—and relating them to metacognitive indicators. Methodological triangulation was applied to enhance the credibility of the findings. The results indicate that students with high metacognitive ability tend to exhibit minimal errors, mainly at the encoding stage. In contrast, students with moderate and low metacognitive abilities demonstrate dominant errors at the transformation and process skills stages, with low-metacognitive students also experiencing reading and comprehension errors. These findings suggest that metacognitive regulation significantly influences the type and stage of students’ errors. In conclusion, integrating explicit metacognitive scaffolding within Deep Learning practices is essential to reduce students’ errors and enhance mathematical problem-solving performance.

References

Amir, M. F., Widodo, S. A., & Waluya, S. B. (2019). Students’ errors in solving mathematics problems based on Newman’s error analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1321(2), 022012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1321/2/022012

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Information Age Publishing.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.

Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/749507

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968–970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204537

Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/748434

Chen, L., & Yang, Y. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of problem-based learning: Implications for assessment and instructional design. Educational Research Review, 38, 100513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100513

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Desoete, A. (2007). Evaluating and improving the mathematics teaching–learning process through metacognition. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5(3), 705–730.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin.

Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/748391

Gutiérrez, A. (2013). Spatial reasoning and visualization. In M. A. Clements et al. (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 63–89). Springer.

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Donoghue, G. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. NPJ Science of Learning, 1, 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13

Jones, K. (2002). Issues in the teaching and learning of geometry. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics (pp. 121–139). RoutledgeFalmer.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001281

Laurens, T., Batlolona, F. A., Batlolona, J. R., & Leasa, M. (2018). How does realistic mathematics education improve students’ metacognitive ability? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(2), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/7695

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Newman, M. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils’ errors on written mathematical tasks. Victorian Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31–43.

Özcan, Z. Ç., & Eren Gümüş, A. (2019). Metacognitive skills and mathematical problem solving. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 259–272.

Özsoy, G., & Ataman, A. (2017). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem-solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(1), 67–75.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Prakitipong, N., & Nakamura, S. (2006). Analysis of mathematics performance of grade five students in Thailand using Newman’s procedure. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 9(1), 111–122.

Radatz, H. (1979). Error analysis in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/748804

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_7

Singh, P., Rahman, A. A., & Hoon, T. S. (2010). The Newman procedure for analyzing primary four pupils’ errors on written mathematical tasks. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.036

Stillman, G. A. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9272-1

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.

White, A. L. (2010). Numeracy, literacy, and Newman’s error analysis. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 33(2), 129–148.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Zakaria, E., & Maat, S. M. (2010). Analysis of students’ error in learning of quadratic equations. International Education Studies, 3(3), 105–110.

Downloads

Published

2026-03-02

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): VOLUME 9 NUMBER 1, MARCH 2026

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author is responsible for acquiring the permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 773 times