The influence of digital literacy and cognitive strategies on junior high school students’ conceptual understanding

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29407/jmen.v12i1.28160

Keywords:

digital literacy, cognitive strategies, conceptual understanding

Abstract

The rapid integration of digital technology into mathematics learning has transformed how students access, process, and internalize conceptual knowledge. This study aims to analyze the influence of digital literacy and cognitive strategies on students’ conceptual understanding at SMP Islam Kota Denpasar. Using a quantitative explanatory design, the study involved 93 eighth-grade students selected through Slovin’s formula from a population of 120 students. Data were collected using validated and reliable instruments, including a digital literacy questionnaire, a cognitive strategy questionnaire, and a conceptual understanding test. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression after meeting all classical assumptions, such as normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and heteroscedasticity. The results show that all instruments were valid and reliable, and the regression model met the required statistical assumptions. Partially, digital literacy significantly influenced conceptual understanding (t = 5.832; p = 0.000), and cognitive strategies also had a significant effect (t = 5.112; p = 0.000). Simultaneously, both variables significantly contributed to conceptual understanding, as indicated by the F-value of 56.214 (p = 0.000). The coefficient of determination (R² = 0.603) reveals that 60.3% of the variance in conceptual understanding was explained by digital literacy and cognitive strategies. These findings highlight the essential role of digital competence and higher-order cognitive processing in strengthening students’ conceptual mastery in mathematics.

Abstract views: 7 , PDF (Indonesian) downloads: 17

Author Biography

  • Diah Ary Puspitarini, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

    .

References

Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (2022a). Cognitive strategies and learning. Educational Psychologist.

Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (2022b). A framework for understanding research on self-regulated learning and metacognition. Educational Psychologist.

Baddeley, A. (2020). Working Memory and Learning: A Practical Guide. Routledge.

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2022). Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 2.2: The European Model. Joint Research Centre Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Fauziyah, R., & Lestari, D. (2021). Digital media and conceptual understanding. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains.

Field, A. (2020). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. SAGE Publications.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2023). Cognitive Load Theory and Its Application in Digital Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09703-5

Lubis, H., & Nasution, Z. (2022). Analisis Kognitif Siswa dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Berbasis Neurosains. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan, 9(3), 150–162.

Mayer, R. E. (2022). Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009153576

O.e.c.d. (2021). Education Governance and Sustainability. OECD Publishing.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual (7th ed.). Open University Press.

Pramudito, M., & Zakiah, L. (2022). Digital resources and conceptual understanding. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2020). Not a One-Way Street: Bidirectional Relations Between Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge of Mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 51–71.

Schleicher, A. (2022). World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System. OECD Publishing.

Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2021). The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09530-8

Siddiq, F., Scherer, R., & Tondeur, J. (2021). Teachers' emphasis on developing students' digital information and data literacy. Computers & Education, 165, 104149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104149

Surya, E., & Rahmat, A. (2023). Digital literacy and student conceptual mastery. International Journal of Instructional Technology.

Taherdoost, H. (2020). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology: How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 9(3), 1–10.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2020). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education.

Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2023). Educational Neuroscience: Progress and Prospects. Npj Science of Learning, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00166-0

Wan, N. (2021). Digital literacy and learning. Education and Information Technologies.

Wan, N. (2022). Digital Literacy and Cognitive Engagement in Online Learning Environments. Computers & Education, 187, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104582

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3, 315–327.

Zhao, J., Lin, W., Huang, Y., & Wang, Q. (2021). Cognitive Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning in Mathematics: A Neuroscience Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 640122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640122

PlumX Metrics

Published

2026-05-20

How to Cite

Puspitarini, D. A., & Cholily , M. Y. . (2026). The influence of digital literacy and cognitive strategies on junior high school students’ conceptual understanding. Jurnal Math Educator Nusantara: Wahana Publikasi Karya Tulis Ilmiah Di Bidang Pendidikan Matematika, 12(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.29407/jmen.v12i1.28160

Similar Articles

31-40 of 51

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.