An Analysis of Students' Commognition with Low Working Memory Capacity in Solving Calculus Problems

Background/purpose. This study analyzes the commognition of students with low Working Memory Capacity (WMC) when solving calculus problems, particularly in integral material. Commognition, which merges cognition and communication, is explored through four indicators: keywords (stating knowns and unknowns), visual mediators (graphical representations), endorsed narratives (use of formulas and definitions), and routines (drawing conclusions). Understanding these indicators helps reveal the thinking patterns and communication breakdowns students experience in mathematical problem-solving.

Materials/methods. This study employed a qualitative descriptive method involving 62 (20 men and 42 women) undergraduate students of mathematics education from a State Islamic University in Makassar, Indonesia. Two instruments used were the Complex Span Task (CST) to measure students' working memory capacity and the Calculus Problem Test (CPT) to evaluate problem-solving performance in Calculus, especially integral material. The instrument CST was modified by the researcher from the original instrument before use.

Results. Students with low working memory capacity struggle to meet commognition indicators: determining what is known and asked (keywords), making graphs (visual mediators), applying formulas (endorsed narratives), and drawing conclusions (routines). These difficulties highlight significant cognitive impacts and the importance of tailored instructional strategies to support mathematical understanding.

Conclusion. The study concludes that students with low WMC have difficulty in solving calculus problems, especially on integral material, namely difficulty in determining what is known and asked (keywords), making graphs (visual mediators), applying or using the correct formula (endorsed narratives), and drawing conclusions (routines). These difficulties emphasize the significant impact of limited WMC on both cognitive function and mathematical communication.

Keywords: Students’ Commognition, Low Working Memory Capacity, Calculus Problems

References

Absatova, K. A. (2023). Applying an automated working memory assessment and a working memory rating scale. The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 8(1), 21-33.

Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2020). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003

Berger, M. (2021). A commognitive perspective on mathematics learning: Analyzing students’ participation in mathematical discourse. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(3), 467-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10025-6

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Volume 8 (47-49). Online Publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1.

Baddeley, A. D. (2021). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.11.851

Baddeley, A. D. (2023). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 829‐839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201

Broadway, J. M., & Engel, R. W. (2022). Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence. Journal of Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 563-570. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.563

Broadway, J. M., & Engel, S. (2022). Working memory capacity: Components and mechanisms. In R. G. Morrison & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (2nd ed., pp. 167-187). Cambridge University Press.

Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain science, 24, 87-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01003922

Clark, et al. (2020). Clinical and educational supervision. London Faculty of Medical Sciences.

Copeland, D. E., & Radvansky, G. A. (2004). Working memory and syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimenta Psychology, 57A(8), 1437-1457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000846

Danoebroto, S. W. (2021). Teori belajar konstruktivis Piaget dan Vygotsky. Indonesian Digital Journal of Mathematics and Education, 7(2), 191-198. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.2.2021

Daneman, M. (2021). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.

De Neys, W. (2022). Working memory capacity and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 123-131.

Elias, M. F. (2021). Cognitive interactions and learning frameworks in mathematics education. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000120-008

Gazzaniga, M. S., Heatherton, T. F., Heine, S. J., & McIntyre, D. C. (2007). Psychological Science. Second Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Goos, M. (2021). Metacognitive communication in mathematics learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429295994

Hicks, R. (2022). The Big Five, Type A personality, and psychological well-being. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10(1), 49.

Kaur, B. (2020). Mathematical communication and its role in learning. World Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811218652_0001

Manolio, T. A. (2023). Cognitive development in mathematical discourse: A neuropsychological perspective. Current Mathematics Education Reports, 8(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-023-0029-6.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (2020). Model of working memory, mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge University Press.

Nardi, E. (2022). Comognitive analyses of mathematical learning at the university level. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.918338

Sanchez, C. A., Wiley, J., Miura, T. K., Colflesh, G. J. H., Ricks, T. R., Jensen, M. S., & Conway, A. R. A. (2010). Assessing working memory capacity in a non-native language. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 488–493. Online publication. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.001.

Santrock, J. W. (2010). Educational Psychology (5th Ed.). New York: Mc. GrawHill.

Sfard, A. (2023). Thinking as communication: Human development, development of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108573790

Sfard, A. (2023). Learning mathematics as developing a discourse: The case of commognition. In U. Gellert, J. Gimenez Rodriguez, C. Hahn, & S. Kafoussi (Eds.), Educational paths to mathematics: A C.I.E.A.E.M. sourcebook (pp. 45-67). Springer.

Solso, Robert, Maclin, OH, Maclin, MK. (2008). Cognitive Psychology. Eighth Edition. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Stillman, G. (2020). Mathematical processing and cognitive demand in problem-solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 174-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03217296

Wichelt, L., & Kearney, N. E. (2022). Communication: A vital skill in mathematics. Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000735

Wichelt, B., & Kearney, M. (2022). Visual mediators in mathematical problem-solving: A study on student interactions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 66, 100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.100931

Willey, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2021). How working memory capacity affects problem-solving. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394393

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!