Cognitive Levels towards Performance of Mathematics Score in Secondary School
Cognitive is relating to cognition. It refers to the method by which knowledge is acquired and manipulated. Usually, cognition is mental. The mental processes associated with phenomena such as concentration, logic, thought and evocation. Generally, characterized as reflects the mind. It is not observable directly, but it must be inferred. Malaysian educators trying so hard to make sure all students master or at least having good knowledge in Mathematics. Investigation on cognitive levels towards performance of Mathematics score among secondary school’s students is the main purpose of the study. A secondary data was used for the process of investigation. A total of 118 secondary school’s students in Tapah were involved randomly. The analyses were started using multiple linear regression with the aid of IBM SPSS version 24. Results show that cognitive levels significantly affect the performance of Mathematics score. These cognitive levels include Knowledge (C1), Comprehension (C2), Proficient (C3), Synthesis (C5), and Analysis (C6). Among five levels of cognitive, results show that Comprehension (C2) or in other words understanding of facts and ideas give the highest impact towards the performance of Mathematics score. If the students do not understand well in topics covered from Mathematics, they will not perform well in Mathematics. In this situation, both teachers and students play an important role to make better results in Mathematics.
Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 87–89, 2015.
 A. Lessani, A. S. M. Yunus, R. A. Tarmiz, and R. Mahmud, “Investigating Malaysian
Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Perception of National Philosophy of Education,”
Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 10, 2014.
 A. N. Shuhaimi, M. H. Ismail, N. Sahar, and N. F. Abdul Jabar, Nur Hanim Yaakob, Nurul
Farihah, Mohamad Razi, “Exploring the Relationship between Level of Cognitive Ability in
Mathematics within Two Different Schools in Tapah,” vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 43–50, 2020.
 N. A. Ismail and H. Awang, “Mathematics Achievement among Malaysian Students: What
Can They Learn from Singapore?” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 2, no. 1, 2009.
 X. Ren, Y. Tong, P. Peng, and T. Wang, “Critical thinking predicts academic performance
beyond general cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children,” Intelligence, vol. 82, no.
July, p. 101487, 2020.
 Y. Li, T. Hu, T. Ge, and E. Auden, “The relationship between home-based parental
involvement, parental educational expectation and academic performance of middle school
students in mainland China: A mediation analysis of cognitive ability,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol.
97, no. August, pp. 139–153, 2019.
 Z. Gokalp, E. Faculty, and G. E. Faculty, “The Effect of the Item’ s Type and Cognitive Level
on Its Difficulty Index: The Sample of TIMSS 2015 Mustafa İlhan * Nagihan Boztunç Öztürk
Melek Gülşah Şahin,” vol. 7, no. August, pp. 47–59, 2020.
 M. Musso, E. Kyndt, E. Cascallar, and F. Dochy, “Predicting Mathematical Performance: The
Effect of Cognitive Processes and Self-Regulation Factors,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2012, pp. 1–
 R. S. Decano, “Cognitive Development of College Students and their Achievement in
Geometry: An Evaluation using Piaget’s Theory and Van Hiele’s Levels of
Thinking,” Am. J. Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 899–911, 2017.
 K. Yumniyati, I. Sujadi, and D. Indriati, “Cognitive Level Profile in Solving Mathematics
Problem at Ten Grade of Senior High School Students with Low Ability,” Int. J. Multicult.
Multireligious Underst., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 255, 2019.
 D. Henry, B. Baltes, and N. Nistor, “Examining the Relationship Between Math Scores and
English Language Proficiency,” J. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 2, 2014.
 M. Hilbert, “Formal definitions of information and knowledge and their role in growth through structural change,” Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn., vol. 38, pp. 69–82, 2016.
 O. F. Al-Kurdi, R. El-Haddadeh, and T. Eldabi, “The role of organisational climate in managing
knowledge sharing among academics in higher education,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 50, no.
November 2018, pp. 217–227, 2020.
 E. Virranmäki, K. Valta-Hulkkonen, and A. Pellikka, “Geography tests in the Finnish
Matriculation Examination in paper and digital forms – An analysis of questions based on
revised Bloom’s taxonomy,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 66, no. January, p. 100896, 2020.
 Y. Wu, L. A. Barquero, S. E. Pickren, A. Taboada Barber, and L. E. Cutting, “The relationship
between cognitive skills and reading comprehension of narrative and expository texts: A
longitudinal study from Grade 1 to Grade 4,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 80, no. February, p.
 R. Dennick, “Constructivism: reflections on twenty-five years teaching the constructivist
approach in medical education,” Int. J. Med. Educ., vol. 7, pp. 200–205, 2016.
 C. J. Brame, “Spotlight 1. Writing Learning Objectives Using Bloom’s Taxonomy,” Sci. Teach.
Essentials, pp. 29–34, 2019.
 A. M. Gullickson, “The whole elephant: Defining evaluation,” Eval. Program Plann., vol. 79,
no. January, 2020.
 C. Warwick and M. S. Essay, “Help…I’ve Been Asked to Synthesize!” 2011.