This study analyzed the cognitive and metacognitive mathematical problem solving skills of 67 African American third and fourth grade students using the Evaluation and Prediction Assessment (EPA 2000). The results showed the students had somewhat low metacognitive prediction and evaluation skills. The students also performed lower on multi-sentence word problems involving contextual information, mental visualization, and selecting relevant information compared to simple computational problems. Therefore, these students would benefit from targeted math instruction on multi-sentence word problems and developing their ability to predict strategies and reflect on solutions.

1. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
VOLUME 2, NUMBER 1, 2008
An In-Depth Analysis of the Cognitive and Metacognitve
Dimensions of African American Elementary Students’
Mathematical Problem Solving Skills
Dr. Mack T. Hines III
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, Texas
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor and Faculty Mentor
PhD Program in Educational Leadership
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Member of the Texas A&M University System
Prairie View, Texas
Visiting Lecturer (2005)
Oxford Round Table
University of Oxford, Oxford, England
Distinguished Alumnus (2004)
College of Education and Professional Studies
Central Washington University
ABSTRACT
This descriptive research study analyzed the metacognitive and cognitive mathematical
problem solving skills of 67 African American third and fourth grade students. The results
from an administration of Desoete, De Clercq, and Roeyers’ (2000) Evaluation and
Prediction assessment (EPA 2000) showed somewhat low metacognitve prediction and
metacognitive evaluation skills. The students also showed lower performances on multi-
sentence word problems (simple linguistic sentences (L), contextual information (C),
relevant information selection (R), and mental visualization (V) than simple sentence
computational word problems (number system knowledge (K), number sense estimation (N)
, symbol operation (S), numerical information (NR), and procedural calculation (P).
Therefore, these students should receive needs-specific math instruction on multi-sentence
word problems. From a metacognitive perspective, teachers must also develop the students’
ability to predict and reflection on chosen strategies for solving word problems. Such
intensive instruction could enhance African American elementary students’ problem
solving and overall mathematical skills.
1

2. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
2____________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Mathematical problem solving is one of the most pivotal mathematical
experiences for students (O'Connell, 2000). This concept has been called the “starting
point and ending point to well balanced mathematics lessons” (O'Connell, 2000, p.37)
and “site in which all of the strands of mathematics proficiency converge” (Kilpatrick,
Swafford, & Findell, 2001, p. 421). Within the abundance of research on mathematical
problem solving, a few studies have emerged on the mathematical problem solving skills
of African American students. For example, Malloy and Jones’ (1998) study of 24 eighth
grade African American students’ problem solving skills showed that they applied a
holistic approach to mathematical problem solving. In addition, Moyo (2004)
investigated ninth grade students’ use of graphic organizers to organize their
mathematical problem solving procedures. Moyo’s findings showed that the students
used the graphic organizer as a culture tool to analyze the word problems. They also used
the tools to develop holistic and development view of each aspect of the mathematical
word problems. Overall, the findings from this research showed that language and culture
impacted minority students’ problem solving skills. However, these implications for these
studies are limited to African American secondary level students. Meanwhile, African
American elementary students continue to struggle with negotiating mathematics in
American classrooms (Hines, 2008; Martin, 2000; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2001). Evidence of their poor performance is seen in the disparity between
these students’ and Caucasian American students’ performance on national and statewide
mathematics assessments (See Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1: Racial Comparison of NAEP Average Mathematics Scale Scores
for Fourth Grade Students and Eighth Grade Students
Average Scale Scores
National Texas
Grade
Level
Year African
American
Caucasian
American
African
American
Caucasian
American
4 1992 193 228 230 271
4 1996 198 232 212 240
4 2000 203 234 220 241
4 2003 216 243 228 254
4 2005 220 246 226 248
4 2007 222 248 230 253
*NAEP scale scores range from 0 to 500.

3. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________3
Table 2: Racial Comparison of Pass Rate for Mathematics Portion of TAKS Assessment
3rd
Grade Pass Rate Percentage 4th
Grade Pass Rate Percentage
Year African
American
Caucasian
American
African
American
Caucasian
American
2000 47% 78% 75% 93%
2001 69% 93% 83% 95%
2002 77% 90% 88% 97%
2003 72% 92% 68% 90%
2004 82% 96% 76% 93%
2005 70% 91% 75% 77%
2006 70% 91% 64% 94%
2007 70% 91% 76% 93%
In additionally to these results, 31, 877 (70%) of my state’s 254,539 African
American elementary level students passed the math section of statewide testing (Texas
Education Association, 2007). Thirty-one of the 40 test items focused on multi-sentence
problem solving. Specifically, students must engage in conceptually rich thinking to
construct relationships among mathematical principles, ideas, and words. Therefore, 222,
662 African American third grade students struggled with 77% of the test. This outcome
reflects a decade-long trend of poor African American third grade and African American
fourth performances in mathematics and a national downward trajectory of African
American math performance that begins in elementary school (Fryer & Levitt, 2006; Tate,
1995). These factors speak to the need to identify specific determinants of African
American third grade students’ poor performance in mathematical problem solving.
One solution is to measure the specific cognitive and metacognitive aspects of
their mathematical problem solving skills. Thus, the purpose of this study was to
determine how African American third grade students use cognition and metacognition to
make sense of mathematical word problems.
Research Question
The research question for this study is:
1. What are the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of African American elementary
level students’ mathematical problem solving skills?

4. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
4____________________________________________________________________________________
Literature Review
Cognition and Metacognition
This research is centered on the role of cognition and metacognition in
mathematics. Flavell (1976) defined cognition as “one’s ability to organize and execute
processes in a sequential manner”. With problem solving, students translate numerical
comprehension (NR), symbol comprehension (S), simple linguistic sentences (L), and
contextual information (C) into a mental visualization (V) of the word problem. Next,
they organize number system knowledge (K), relevant information (R) and number sense
estimation (N) into a procedural calculation (P). The calculations are translated into
computing the solution (Desoete, Roeyers, & Buysse, 2001).
Flavell (1976) defined Metacognition as “the ability to think about one’s
thinking” (p.232). With mathematics, metacognition measures students’ predictions,
monitoring, and evaluation of word problems. Prediction impacts students’ speed for
working on word problems. Evaluation measures the quality of students’ reflections on
strategies for achieving desired solutions. Early analyses showed that students struggle
with using metacognition to make meaning of mathematical word problems (Cooney,
1985; Flavell, 1976; Schoenfield, 1989). Additionally, many teachers do not model
strategies for thinking about how to validate mathematical solutions.
Empirical Research on the Analysis of Cognitive, Metacognitive Problem Solving
Desoete, De Clercq, and Roeyers (2000) organized cognitive and metacognive
problem solving processes into the Evaluation and Prediction Assessment (EPA2000).
The EPA 2000 allows the teacher to obtain a fair intra-individual picture of students’
metacognitive and cognitive problem solving skills. Desoete et al. (2000) used the
assessment to measure Dutch third grade students’ mathematical problem solving skills.
The findings revealed that the students struggled with cognitive (L,V,C,R) and
metacognitive (P, EV) problem solving. They struggled with making adequate
representations and visualizations of word problems. They also lacked the skills to
effectively cope with contextual information or eliminate irrelevant information. The
teachers translated the results into cognitive and metacognitive profiles of each student.
The profiles were used to develop individualized math instruction for the students.
My research extends the relevancy of the EPA 2000 to American elementary
students. In essence, the National Council of Teachers for Mathematics’ (1999, 2000)
problem solving standard specifies that all students should be able to:
• Build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving.
• Solve problems that are developed from mathematical and other
contextual situations.

5. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________5
• Apply and develop various strategies to solve problems; and
• Reflect on the different processes needed to make sense of problem solving
situations.
In other words, students must be able to engage in conceptually rich thinking by
constructing relationships among mathematical numbers, ideas, facts, and symbols.
However, most elementary teachers do not possess mathematics certification.
Therefore, many of these do not have a clear understanding of how to teach mathematics
to students. Research has shown that elementary teachers are more likely to emphasize
procedural mathematics than conceptual mathematics. In other words, they teach students
how to “do” math instead of think about mathematics. As a result, teachers do not know
how students think about the problems that do no have predetermined solutions. In spite
of these patterns of practice, Caucasian American students continue to outperform
African American students in mathematics.
Given African American elementary students’ problem solving deficiencies
(Dossey, 1993, 1994; Grouws & Cebulla, 2000), the EPA 2000 may effectively diagnose
their cognitive and metacognitive skills. The findings could be translated into needs
driven math instruction for these students.
Methodology
Sample
The sample size for this study consisted of 67 African American elementary
school students. The population consisted of 36 girls and 31 boys, as well as 33 third
grade students and 34 fourth grade students. The students attended a predominantly
African American elementary school in Southeast Texas.
Instrumentation
The Evaluation and Prediction Assessment (EPA2000) (Desoete, De Clerq, &
Roeyers, 2000; Desoete, Roeyers, & Bussye, 2001) The TAKS mathematics benchmark
tests are designed to measure students’ progress in the following areas: 1.) Number
Sense; 2.) Algebra and Functions; 3.) Measurement and Geometry; 4.) Statistics, Data
Analysis, and Probability; and 5.) Mathematical Reasoning. The EPA 2000 is used to
measure the cognitive and metacognitive mathematical problem solving skills of third
and fourth grade students. First, children review word problems and then predict success
on a 5-point rating scale. Children then perform the cognitive tasks without seeing their
predictions.
Numerical comprehension and production (NR) problems encompass reading
single-digit and multiple-digit numerals (Arrange from lowest to highest: 25 26 27). An
example of operation symbol comprehension (S) is “Which is correct? 32+1=33 or

6. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
6____________________________________________________________________________________
32x1=33”. Number system knowledge (K) focuses on comprehension of number
structure (Complete this series: 37, 38,). Procedural calculation (P) measures skills in
computation (34+47=).
Linguistic information (L) focuses on single-sentence language analysis (4 more
than 26 is?). Contextual language (C) analyzes the ability to solve multi-sentence word
problems (Bob owns two dogs. Carol owns four more dogs than Bob. How many dogs
does Carol have?) Mental representation (V) measures visualization of word problems
(23 is 6 less than ?). Relevant (R) word problems require students to use only relevant
information (Tina has 24 dimes. Gabby has 5 dimes and 6 nickels. How many dimes do
they have altogether?) Number sense (N) assesses spatial understanding of numbers (14
is nearest to? 20, 10, 33). After completing these cognitive tasks, children evaluate the
performance without reviewing their calculations.
I validated the instrument through discussions with an 8-member panel of third
grade teachers. The teachers confirmed the test’s measurement of third grade math skills.
I then piloted the instrument on 76 African American third grade students. The findings
yielded strong cronbach alphas for metacognitive prediction (.84), cognitive (.84), and
metacognitive evaluation (.80) skills. Thus, this instrument has the internal consistency to
measure African American third grade students’ problem solving skills.
Results
The students needed 1 hour and 30 0 minutes to complete the EPA2000. The
students predicted (Pr) their performance on the mathematical problem solving tasks.
Then they solved the mathematical problem solving tasks (NF, S, K, P, L, C, V, R, N)
and evaluated (Ev) their performance. As to the prediction (Pr), they got a score of 24/40
or 60% (see Appendix).
Also the NR-tasks, the reading of single-digit exercises (9, 2, 7, 3, 4, 8, 5) was
correct. The reading of multiple-digit exercises was good even when the digit name was
not congruent with the number structure, with exception of the confusion of 71 and 37.
The students read correctly 71, 41, 21, 40, 51, 82, 70, 91, 712, and 978. Furthermore, the
students displayed good verbal numeral. They were able to discern differences between
written and oral number production. The students read 52, 71, 330, 411, and 507 without
mistakes. With regard to operation symbol comprehension (S-problems), the students
knew the meaning of the <,>, x, and + symbols.
The number system knowledge (K-problems) was also assessed. The students
could put 5 numbers (e.g. 19, 28, 37, 72, 46 or 105, 150, 35, 50, 10) in the correct order,
but struggled with 12.1, 12, 16.1, 61 and as to the P-tasks, the students displayed mastery
of procedural additions to be solved by mental arithmetic. But the students did struggle
with double and triple digit calculations.
As to the language related word problems (L-problems), the students solved
correctly 'twice 7 is ?', '1 less than 20 is?' and '1 more than 38 is?' Word problems
involving an additional order factor (e.g. '? is half of 8' and'? is 2 less than 54') were

7. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________7
correct. C-problems or word problems based on additional context information were
correctly solved in the case of the postman problem but not in the case of the baker
problem, key problem and the marbles problem.
However, the students’ experienced difficulties with V-problems. They were
unable to determine the answers to the following problems: “38 is 1 more than?”, “17 is
half of?” ,“ 91 is 2 less than”, “48 is 1 less than?”, and “14 is twice?.” With regard to
relevant information problems, the students were unable to identify irrelevant information
in some problems. In addition, the students struggled with number sense (N-problems).
Word problems based on number sense (N-problems) were correct in the case of the flyer
problem, but not in the case of the car problem, 27 near?, 99 near? and in the case of the
bus problem (see 1/5 or 20% number sense Appendix). The students often misjudged
their own results and got a score of 20/40 or 50% on evaluation (Ev).
In sum, the students’ cognitive strengths were numerical comprehension and
production (NR), symbol comprehension and production (S), number structure (K), and
linguistic information (L). Their cognitive weaknesses were contextual information (C),
mental representation of the answer through visualization (V), selecting relevant
information (R) and estimating in number sense tasks (N). As to the off-line
metacognitive skills, we found the students retarded on prediction (Pr) skills but even
more retarded on evaluation by skills. Therefore, the students should receive
comprehensive cognitive strategy instruction in coping with contextual cues (C), in
problem representation strategies or visualization (V), in selecting relevant information
(R) and in dealing with number sense (N). Furthermore, the students should experience
reflection moments after the mathematic al problem solving. This step could increase
their prediction (Pr) and evaluation skills (Ev).
Concluding Remarks
This research focused on the cognitive and metacognitive aspects of African
American elementary students’ mathematical problem solving skills. The findings
showed that the students have mathematical strengths and weaknesses. In addition,
teachers could use these findings to develop an intra-individual picture of the cognitive
processes involved in mathematical problem solving of these students. They could then
develop needs-appropriate strategies for improving their mathematical problem solving
skills.
References
Barnett, D. (2003). Mathematical problem solving and elementary school: What every
administration should know. Paper presented at the South Carolina Association of
School Administrators Conference. Myrtle Beach, SC.

8. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
8____________________________________________________________________________________
Carlan, V., Rubin, R., & Morgan, B. (2004). Cooperative learning, mathematical
problem solving, and Latinos. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA.
Cooney, T. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 16(5), 324-36.
Desoete, A. (2002). EPA2000: Assessing off-line metacognition in mathematical problem
solving. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 6(2), 18-30.
Desoete, A., De Clerq, A., & Roeyers, H. (2000). Evaluation and prediction assessment computerized
assessment (EPA 2000). Unpublished manuscript. Ghent: RUG.
Dossey, J. (1993). Can students do mathematical problem solving? Results from
constructed-response questions in NAEP’s 1992 mathematics assessment.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Fryer, R., & Levitt, S. (2006). The Black-White test score gap through third grade.
American Law and Economics Review, 5(9), 12-27.
Goldberg, P. (2003). Using metacognitive skills to improve 3rd
graders’ math problem
solving. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 5(10), 29-48.
Grouws, D., & Cebulla, K. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of Education.
Hines, M. (2008). African American children and mathematical problem solving in
Texas: An analysis of meaning making in review. National Forum of Applied
Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 1-17.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Mathematics learning study committee,
National Research Council. In Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics
(pp. 407-432). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Kloosterman, P., & Stage, F. (1992). Measuring beliefs about mathematical problem
solving. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 109-115.
Losey, K. (1995). Mexican American students and classroom interaction: An overview and critique. Review
of Educational Research, 65, 283-318.
Malloy, C., & Jones, M. (1998). An investigation of African American students’
mathematical problem solving skills. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 29, 143-163.
Martin, D. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African American youth: The
roles of sociohistorical context, community forces, school influence, and
individual agency. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moyo, K. (2004). A road that leads to somewhere: The impact of using a graphic
organizer to assist the mathematical meaning making of secondary African
American students. University of Cincinnati: Unpublished Dissertation
National Center of Education Statistics (2001). Educational achievement and Black-
White inequality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1999). Teaching mathematics in
poor communities. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

9. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________9
O’Connell, S. (2000). Introduction to problem solving: Strategies for the elementary
math classroom. Westport, CT: Heinemann Publishing.
Raymond, A. (1997). Inconsistency between beginning elementary school teacher’s
mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 28(5), 550-576.
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of
teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schoenfield, A. (1989). Problem solving in contexts. In R.I. Charles & E.A. Silver (Eds.)
Research agenda in mathematics education. The teaching and assessing of
mathematical problem solving, Volume 3 (pp. 82-92). Reston, VA: National
Council for Mathematics.
Stigler, J. (2006). Algebra learning for All (ALFA). Washington, DC: Institute for Education
Services.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd
ed.). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Swartz, R., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into
elementary instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.
Texas Education Agency (2007). 2007 AEIS Report. Retrieved December 31, 2007 from
www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2007/state.html
Verschaffel, L. (1999). Realistic mathematical modeling and problem solving in the
upper elementary school: Analysis and improvement. In J.H.M Hamers, J.E.H
Van Luit, & B. Csapo (Eds.), Teaching and learning thinking skills. Context of
learning (pp. 215-240). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Press.

10. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
10____________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A
EPA 2000
Metacognitive Prediction
Directions: Read the problems (See the Test: Part II) and then use the scale to rate your
feelings about the item.
1=I am absolutely sure that I will get the wrong answer.
2=I am not really sure that I will get the wrong answer.
3=I am somewhat sure that I will get the right answer.
4=I am sure that I will get the right answer.
5=I am absolutely sure that I will get the right answer.
Scale Scale Scale Scale
1
1 2 3 4 5
2
1 2 3 4 5
3
1 2 3 4 5
4
1 2 3 4 5
5
1 2 3 4 5
6
1 2 3 4 5
7
1 2 3 4 5
8
1 2 3 4 5
9
1 2 3 4 5
10
1 2 3 4 5
11
1 2 3 4 5
12
1 2 3 4 5
13
1 2 3 4 5
14
1 2 3 4 5
15
1 2 3 4 5
16
1 2 3 4 5
17
1 2 3 4 5
18
1 2 3 4 5
19
1 2 3 4 5
20
1 2 3 4 5
21
1 2 3 4 5
22
1 2 3 4 5
23
1 2 3 4 5
24
1 2 3 4 5
25
1 2 3 4 5
26
1 2 3 4 5
27
1 2 3 4 5
28
1 2 3 4 5
29
1 2 3 4 5
30
1 2 3 4 5
31
1 2 3 4 5
32
1 2 3 4 5
33
1 2 3 4 5
34
1 2 3 4 5
35
1 2 3 4 5
36
1 2 3 4 5
37
1 2 3 4 5
38
1 2 3 4 5
39
1 2 3 4 5
40
1 2 3 4 5

11. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________11
Test: Part II
EPA 2000
Cognition
Directions: Solve each word problem. Show your work on the blank pieces of paper.
1. Carlos ate 6 cookies, 3 apples, and 8 doughnuts. Dina ate 4 apples. What is the total
number of apples that were eaten? _____
2. 16 more than 2 is_________
3. Put these numbers in order
31 39 35 32 _____ _____ _____ _____
4. Which is correct?
A. 4-2=2 B. 4x2=2 C. 4+2=2 _____
5. Complete this series
64 63 62 61 _____ _____ _____
6. 41 is farthest from_____
A. 40 B. 45 C. 36 D. 72 _____
7. 26-1= _____
8. Pedro walks 4 blocks to school. Ned walks 2 more blocks than Pedro and 3 fewer
blocks that Ralph. How many blocks does Ned walk to school? _____
9. 2 is nearest to
A. 10 B. 5 C. 0 D. 17 _____
10. 13 is 9 more than _____
11. 18 fewer than 19 is _____
12. Jenna has 7 days left to pick 49 blueberries. She has already picked 14 blackberries.
How many blackberries must Jenna pick for each of the 7 days? _____
13. 8 more than 29 is _____
14. 24 is 6 less than _____
15. Leslie jumped 12 feet from the porch. Marla jumped 6 fewer feet than Leslie. How
far did Marla Jump? _____

12. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
12____________________________________________________________________________________
16. What belongs in the blanks?
99 100 _____ _____ _____
17. Sam has 3 bottles, and Amy has 4 bottles. Carlos has 3 more bottles than Sam. Lena
has 2 bottles less than Amy. How many bottles does Lena have? _____
18. Arrange in the order from highest to lowest
12 26 18 9 32 14 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
19. Choose the correct answer
A. 4+5=20 B. 4/5=20 C. 4 X 5=20 _____
20. 3 less than 16 is _____
21. 77 is closest to
A. 8 B. 32 C. 84 D. 100 _____
22. Sammy ate 2 pieces of chicken for lunch. He ate 5 more pieces of chicken for dinner
than he did for lunch. How many pieces of chicken did he eat for dinner? _____
23. 12 is 11 more than _____
24. 9X2= _____
25. Bob has 12 keys. Ernie has 6 more keys than Bob.
How many keys does Ernie have? _____
26. Monte owns 3 bikes. Jared owns 6 more bikes than Monte, but 4 fewer bikes than
Jan. How many bikes does Jared own? _____
27. Look at Mario’s Work Schedule
Day of the Week Hours Worked
Monday 3 Hours
Tuesday 6 Hours
Wednesday 5 Hours
Thursday 4 Hours
Friday 2 Hours
What is the total number of hours that Mario worked
on the last two days of the week? _____
28. Put these numbers in order from the lowest to highest.
12 12.1 10.1 13 11 9.1 10.1 _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______ _____

13. MACK T. HINES AND WILLIAM ALAN KRITSONIS
____________________________________________________________________________________13
29. Which is correct?
36-7=29 B. 36+7=29 C. 36 X 7=29 _____
30. Fill in the blanks
51 53 55 57 _____ _____ _____
31. Place the numbers in the order from highest to lowest
21 13 57 _____ _____ _____
32. 9 X9=_____
33. 64 divided by 8____
34. 22+39=____
35. 69+52 _____
36. 20 is half of _____
37. ____ is half of 18
38. Bob is 8 years old. Bob’s brother, Chuck, is 3 years older than he. Bob’s cousin, Jim,
is twice his age. How old is Jim? _____
39. Twice 7 is _____
40. 100 is 4 more than _____

14. FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
14____________________________________________________________________________________
EPA 2000
Metacognitive Evaluation
Directions: Read the problems of the new test (See the Test: Part II) and then use the
scale to rate your feelings about the item.
1=I am absolutely sure that I gave the wrong answer.
2=I am not really sure that I gave the wrong answer.
3=I am somewhat sure that I gave the right answer.
4=I am sure that I will gave the right answer.
5=I am absolutely sure that I gave the right answer.
Scale Scale Scale Scale
1
1 2 3 4 5
2
1 2 3 4 5
3
1 2 3 4 5
4
1 2 3 4 5
5
1 2 3 4 5
6
1 2 3 4 5
7
1 2 3 4 5
8
1 2 3 4 5
9
1 2 3 4 5
10
1 2 3 4 5
11
1 2 3 4 5
12
1 2 3 4 5
13
1 2 3 4 5
14
1 2 3 4 5
15
1 2 3 4 5
16
1 2 3 4 5
17
1 2 3 4 5
18
1 2 3 4 5
19
1 2 3 4 5
20
1 2 3 4 5
21
1 2 3 4 5
22
1 2 3 4 5
23
1 2 3 4 5
24
1 2 3 4 5
25
1 2 3 4 5
26
1 2 3 4 5
27
1 2 3 4 5
28
1 2 3 4 5
29
1 2 3 4 5
30
1 2 3 4 5
31
1 2 3 4 5
32
1 2 3 4 5
33
1 2 3 4 5
34
1 2 3 4 5
35
1 2 3 4 5
36
1 2 3 4 5
37
1 2 3 4 5
38
1 2 3 4 5
39
1 2 3 4 5
40
1 2 3 4 5