Main Article Content

Aloisius Loka Son
Siti Fatimah


There is a strong relationship between field-dependent (FD), field-independent (FI) cognitive styles, and problem-solving performance. FD students are more oriented towards the outside world, while FI students rely more on their knowledge and experience. The present study aimed to reveal the position of the FI and FD student's errors in algebraic problem-solving. The subjects of this study were 27 students of class VII in one of the Junior High Schools in Kefamenanu, Indonesia, Academic Year 2018/2019. Data collection involved tests of algebraic problem-solving ability, interviews, and Group Embedded Figure Test. The case study results showed that the algebraic problem-solving abilities of FI students were better than FD students. The scores of algebraic problem-solving abilities of FI students were dominant in the medium and high categories. In contrast, the FD students were dominant in the medium and low categories. Also, FI students predominantly committed procedural errors. Whereas, most FD students made errors on all types of errors, specifically factual, conceptual, and procedural errors. Thus, it is recommended that FI and FD students' algebraic problem-solving ability become the focus of attention and importance to characterize them as a basis for further research.

Article Details

How to Cite
Loka Son, A., Darhim, & Fatimah, S. (2021). THE POSITION OF STUDENTS’ ERRORS IN ALGEBRAIC PROBLEM-SOLVING BASED ON FIELD DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT. Kalamatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1), 57-70.


Abrams, J., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2013). Field Dependence. The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, II(1), 1–3.

Agoestanto, A., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Isnarto, Rochmad, & Lestari, M. D. (2019). The Position and Causes of Students Errors in Algebraic Thinking Based on Cognitive Style. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1431-1444.

Anderson, J, Milford, T., & Ross, S. P. (2009). Multilevel Modeling with HLM: Taking a Second Look at PISA. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards, 263–286.

Anthycamurty, C. C., Mardiyana, & Saputro, D. R. S. (2018). Analysis of Problem Solving in Terms of Cognitive Style. International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Education, 83, 1–5.

Badger, M., Sangwin, C. J., Hawkes, T. O., Burn, R. P., Mason, J., & Pope, S. (2012). Teaching Problem-Solving in Undergraduate Mathematics. Coventry, UK: Coventry University.

Brown, J., & Skow, K. (2016). Mathematics: Identifying and Addressing Student Errors. In The Iris Center. United States of America: The Iris Center.

Carraher, E., Smith, R. E., & De Lisle, P. (2017). Cognitive Styles. In E. Carracer & P. De Lisle (Editors), Leading Collaborative Architectural Practice (pp. 179–195). New Jersey: Jhon Wiley & Sons.

Chariri, A. (2009). Landasan Filsafat dan Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.

Chrysostomou, M., Tsingi, C., Cleanthous, E., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2011). Cognitive Styles and Their Relation to Number Sense and Algebraic Reasoning. Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 387–396.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research, Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. USA: Pearson.

Ganesen, P., Osman, S., Abu, M. S., & Kumar, J. A. (2020). The Relationship Between Learning Styles and Achievement of Solving Algebraic Problems Among Lower Secondary School Students. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(95), 2563-2574.

García, T., Boom, J., Kroesbergen, E. H., Nunez, J. C., & Rodriguez, C. (2019). Planning, Execution, and Revision in Mathematics Problem Solving: Does the Order of the Phases Matter? Studies in Educational Evaluation Journal, 83–93.

Hartanto, F. D., & Mariani, S. (2019). An Analysis of Mathematical Problem Solving Ability in Terms of Students’ Cognitive Style in Learning PBL Includes Ethnomathematics. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 8(1), 65–71.

IEA. (2016). The TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Retrieved from

Karaçam, S., & Baran, A. D. (2015). The Effects of Field Dependent/Field Independent Cognitive Styles and Motivational Styles on Students’ Conceptual Understanding About Direct Current Circuits. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 16(2), 1–19.

Mefoh, P. C., Nwoke, M. B., & Chijioke, J. B. C. C. A. O. (2017). Effect of Cognitive Style and Gender on Adolescents’ Problem Solving Ability. Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 47–52.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report. In IEA. Retrieved from

NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. United States of America: NCTM.

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. New York: OECD Publishing.

Pithers, R. T. (2006). Cognitive Learning Style: A Review of the Field Dependent-Field Independent Approach. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54(1), 117–132.

Polya, G. (1957). How To Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method.

Puspendik. (2017). Capaian Nilai Ujian Nasional Matematika SMP Tahun Ajaran 2016/2017. Retrieved from

Puspendik. (2018). Capaian Nilai Ujian Nasional Matematika SMP Tahun Ajaran 2017/2018. Retrieved from

Ulya, H., & Retnoningsih, A. (2014). Analysis of Mathematics Problem Solving Ability of Junior High School Students Viewed From Students’ Cognitive Style. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(10), 577–582.

Volkova, E. V., & Rusalov, V. M. (2016). Cognitive Styles and Personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 266–271.

Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. Field Dependence and Field Independence. In Psychological issues.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 47(1), 1–64.