Model PBL Scaffolding Untuk Meningkatkan Aktivitas Metakognisi Siswa Slow Learner
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37680/ssa.9862Keywords:
PBL Scaffolding; Metakognisi; Slow LeanerAbstract
Slow learner students often face difficulties in metacognitive activities such as awareness, evaluation, and regulation when solving mathematical problems, which leads to low problem-solving achievement. This study aims to develop and test the validity, practicality, and effectiveness of a Problem Based Learning model integrated with Level 2 scaffolding, called PBL Scaffolding, to enhance metacognitive activities of slow learners in junior high school mathematics. The research employed the Borg & Gall R&D method through nine stages, from preliminary study to limited field testing. The model and learning tools were validated by two experts in mathematics education and educational psychology, tested for practicality through observation of teacher implementation and student-teacher questionnaires, and evaluated for effectiveness using pretest-posttest design on 20 slow learner students. Data were analyzed descriptively using content validity ratio, percentage, and normalized N-Gain. The results indicated that the PBL Scaffolding model achieved a mean validity score of 3.57 or 89.06% in the very valid category. The model was very practical with syntax implementation of 84.38% and student-teacher response rates of 86.45% and 88.20%. Effectiveness testing showed an average N-Gain of 0.55 in the medium category, with the highest improvement in the evaluation indicator at 0.60. It is concluded that PBL Scaffolding is valid, practical, and effective for improving metacognitive activities of slow learners because each PBL phase is paired with structured scaffolding prompts that guide students’ thinking processes.
References
Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9005-9
Barrett, T. (2010). The problem-based learning process: Student perspectives. In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn, & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry & problem based learning (pp. 17–26). AISHE.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Pearson.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
Goos, M. (2002). Understanding metacognitive failure. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00133-1
Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain scores. AERA Division D, 1–8. https://www.phys.indiana.edu/~hake/ARIC/AERA-D.PDF
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (14th ed.). Pearson. Kemendikbudristek. (2021). Hasil asesmen nasional 2021. Pusat Asesmen Pendidikan.
Liu, J., & Pásztor, A. (2022). Metacognitive interventions for low-achieving students: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09641-5
Magiera, M. T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2011). Characterizations of social-based and self-based contexts of metacognitive activity. ZDM, 43(4), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0315-4
Molenaar, I. (2011). Scaffolding of self-regulated learning through computer-based tools. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9073-9
Muhtarom, M., Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2023). Metacognition-based problem solving in junior high school mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 621–636. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16134a
Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In J. van den Akker et al. (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 125–140). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_10OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Volume I. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Pramesti, G., & Retnawati, H. (2022). Effectiveness of PBL with scaffolding for students with special needs. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2157(1), 012001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2157/1/012001
Riduwan. (2015). Skala pengukuran variabel-variabel penelitian. Alfabeta.
Santrock, J. W. (2018). Educational psychology (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Smith, R., Brown, K., & Taylor, M. (2023). Integrating scaffolding within problem-based learning for low-achieving students. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09732-1
Veenman, M. V. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 21–36). Springer.
Westwood, P. (2017). Common sense methods for children with special educational needs (7th ed.). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nopem Kusumaningtyas Sumitro, Era Dewi Kartika, Lailatul Mubarokah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
