Culaste, Irene C., (December 2011). Cognitive skills of mathematical problem solving of grade 6 children.

International Journal of Innovative

Interdisciplinary Research, Issue No.1 pp. 120-125. Retrieved from http://auamii.com/jiir/Vol-01/issue-01/X12.Culaste.pdf on August 12, 2013
Problem Theory Design Participants Instrument Procedure Result

This study aims Two hundred 1. Cognitive Task were 1. SAMPLING. Schools 1. Based from the
to - It was posited This study seventy-five used to determine the were classified into big- cognitive task
that utilized grade 6 pupils cognitive levels of the sized, medium sized, and scale it was
a) describe the Mathematical hypothesi from 5 students using the small –sized school found out that
level of the structures can s testing. elementary following scale : Very according to its the participants
cognitive skills in be built up in schools in Poor (0.00-0.50), Poor population. Out of 275 were below
mathematical the mind of Quezon 1 (0.51-1.50),Below participants, 9 pupils were average level on
problem solving learners by district, Average (1.50- randomly selected for the eight of the nine
among the grade providing Bukidnon 2.50),Average(2.51- oral interview. Through cognitive skills
six pupils in experiences that were the 3.50),Above the help of the Math yielding a total
terms of allows them to participants in Average(3.51-4.50),and teacher, the researcher mean score of
numerical develop inactive this study. Excellent (4.51-5.00) selected 3 pupils from 2.12.
comprehension, icon and 2. Prediction and each school classification
symbol symbolic Evaluation Task. To giving them a total of 9 2. The
comprehension, representation determine the pupil’s pupils (three of them participants’
simple linguistic of concepts of level of meta cognitive performed well in class, prediction and
sentences, Mathematics prediction and another three are average evaluation mean
contextual based from the evaluation dimensions, pupils in Math class and scores in all the 9
information, cognitive theory their mean scores in the other three are cognitive skills
mental of learning cognitive skills and performing low in their were above
visualization, (Bruner). prediction and Math class). average which
number evaluation were 2. The participants were was inconsistent
knowledge, -It was compared. Pupils are given two hours to answer with their
relevant presumed that considered to have high the questionnaire. cognitive mean
information, students ability meta cognitive levels if Students were first asked scores, therefore,
number sense to solve word their cognitive skills are to fill in the prediction the meta
estimation, problems falls consistent with tasks by reviewing the cognitive and
procedural far below their prediction and cognitive tasks, then, evaluation
calculation; ability to evaluation. predicted their success on dimensions of
compute 3. Semi-Structured a 5-point rating scale. the participants
b) determine the because Interview Protocol with Afterwards, they were low.
level of the children do not some revisions made by performed the cognitive
metacognitive know how to the researcher was used task, then, filled in the 3. There was a
dimensions in choose the for descriptive purposes evaluation tasks to significant
terms of correct only to support or refute evaluate their difference on the
prediction, operation to the finding from other performance. Individual prediction and
evaluation ; and apply to the data sources especially in oral interview lasted in evaluation of the
problem meta cognitive approximately 10-15 grade 6 pupils.
c) compare if (Burns,as cited dimensions. minutes right after the
there is a in pupils finished answering
significant Goldberg,2003) the prediction& evaluation
difference tasks and the cognitive
between their task.
prediction and
evaluation on the
cognitive tasks.