Patterns of Metacognitive Levels in Chemistry Problem-posing

This study aims to describe the patterns of metacognitive levels in chemistry problem-posing activity of 76 undergraduate students from the Chemistry Education Department of Yogyakarta State University. Chemistry articles used in this investigation and the chemistry problems were classified based on the taxonomy of chemistry problem-posing skills where problems were later classified into seven metacognitive levels. Semiotic analysis was conducted to find the meaning of the signs found in the chemistry problems. This data analysis used and modified the three steps of the semiotic analysis with a phenomenological reduction method. Chemistry problem-posing in this current study shows the flow of the formulation for each problem. The input aspect for the formulation determines the process and the output result. The seven patterns are sorted into four participant types in submitting the chemistry problems: planning error (for poor, fair, and low intermediate level), evaluation error (for intermediate level), the imbalance metacognitive (for high intermediate and excellent level), and balance metacognitive (for outstanding level). The higher the level, the more complex and multiperspective determinations used for arranging a chemistry problem.

A semiotic analysis was selected to cover the problems above.This semiotic analysis could expose the meaning of the signs (Radford, 2000;Tang, et al., 2014), and how the signs express thinking processes especially in chemical thinking (Liu & Taber, 2016).The signs are meant as signifiers for the problems that students pose as a result of their metacognitive thinking process.Through this analysis, we can have a way to find the metacognitive processes on each problem posed qualitatively.This current study is the advanced research of the chemistry problem-posing taxonomy by Sawuwu (2018) who classified chemistry problem-posing into seven metacognitive levels.Further explanations are needed regarding problem-posing patterns to help users classify metacognition levels based on the taxonomy.Following the phenomenological reduction technique by (Chopra, et al., 2017), this current study will analyse the textual data of chemistry problem-posing to find patterns used by participants in generating the problems.This study aims to describe the patterns of metacognitive levels in chemistry problemposing activity based on the taxonomy.After being given the test, the remaining 99 participants whose data can be processed after being selected cannot determine the dominant reading technique they did.Then it was found that only 76 participants submitted one problem based on the test order and fulfilled all the other test conditions.

Instruments
The test instrument design was named the Metacognition Explorator in Chemical Equilibrium Problem-posing Skills.This instrument consists of a checklist of metacognitive activities during the test, articles on the skills of posing a chemical equilibrium problem, a problem-posing sheet, and a self-assessment sheet to determine the perceived performance of the participant's test.The characteristics and indicators of this instrument set are derived from previous qualitative studies (Sawuwu, 2018).Chemical articles used in the qualitative studies were compiled based on four components of chemical article structure (Herscovitz, et al., 2012), four types of chemical representations (Gilbert & Treagust, 2009a;Kaberman & Dori, 2009a, 2009b), four levels of humanistic approaches in the chemistry education tetrahedral (Sjostrom, et al., 2016), and three characteristics of scientific reading (Norris & Phillips, 2012).Through the think-aloud process, metacognitive reading patterns, and chemical problem-posing activities carried out by participants (in previous studies), six specific aspects were found to perfect the characteristics of the metacognitive stimulating chemistry article as shown in Table 1.Aspects of test instructions and article identity were used as the basis planning and readers' stimulation for the chemistry articles they will read.Aspects of the structure of the article and presentation of chemical representations are used to build the framework of chemical articles which become the main characteristics of chemistry reading and chemical understanding used in reviewing the chemical information provided.Aspects of the humanistic approach and the nature of chemistry articles are used to test the content of chemistry readings against the demands of 21 st -century chemistry learning and the transfer of knowledge from chemistry readings to readers.The actual performance of participants' chemical equilibrium problemposing skills was obtained from the assessment of the problems submitted based on the taxonomy of chemical problem-posing as shown in Table 2.
According to the four parameters above, the classification of the chemical problemposing skill was determined by the attainment in each parameter.The level is converted to the score of each parameter.The sum of all scores is classified into seven categories as shown in Table 3.

Analysis
Problems posed by participants were analysed based on the taxonomy (Table 2).Then, the problems were classified into seven metacognitive levels based on Table 3.The semiotic analysis was conducted to find the meaning of the signs found in the chemical problems.This data analysis used and modified the three steps of semiotic analysis (for finding the signifier-signified relationship) with a phenomenological reduction method.
The first was an initial analysis that was the re-representation of the problems.The problems posed by the students were used as the particular signs in this analysis.Problems were identified according to its components: initial state (the data), final state (the goal), and operator (the limitation or possible ways to bridge the data problem to the goal).Chemical representations of the problems were also identified in the phenomenological, symbolic, model, or process representations.The second was the semiotic affordances.In this second phase, the first identification was on the question words they used in their final states as the signifier.The transcriptions about the problem-posing activities were used to reveal the meaning of the question words for each participant (to find why students used the question words).The meaning found was encoded to a semiotic expression.Every code was collected for each theme and was undertaken a secondcycle coding.The second identification was determined from the various expressions of each code in the first identification, so it was also for the next identification.The identification was terminated when the parameter found was estimated to complete the shortcomings of the previous parameter.The third was the iterative nature of the analysis.Comparing the analysis of patterns was conducted to have a consistent meaning for each signifier found.After each signifier had its own signified meaning, the themes were sorted ascendingly toward the complexity of the signified thinking towards the taxonomy.
A phenomenological reduction method was used to analyse the problems posed.All data was then reduced (horizontalization of data).After this reduction, the data was encoded and categorised in the same theme that represents the specific expressions and findings towards the metacognitive processes in the problems.The coding from the patterns were used to find neomatic themes (what the phenomenon is) and the coding from the semiotic analysis was used to find neosis themes (how the phenomenon is).Then, data verification was conducted to clarify and reinforce the themes.The neomatic themes were unified as a formulation of the textural definition and the neosis themes as the structural definition.By blending the textural and structural definitions and adding data interpretations, the themes were merged to be the essential definition of each pattern.

Pattern of The Chemistry Posing Activities of Each Metacognitive Level
The semiotic analysis of previous studies showed the classification of metacognitive levels based on the signifiers contained in the problems posed by participants.However, this present study can reveal the process of problem-posing chronologically.This process will help analyse and find the causes of low-level metacognition.If in previous studies the discussion of stages of chemistry problem-posing activities is separated from the chemistry problem-posing analysis, this current study will parallelise the pattern analysis in the five stages of chemistry problem-posing process and simplify them into an input-process-output diagram.

a. Poor level
The pattern of the problem-posing process for participants in the poor or very low category is shown in Figure 1.This pattern does not result in chemical problems.This is observed in the PC031 participant problem submission sheet as follows.

"Fishing with dynamite can kill shellfish because dynamite can destroy the calcium carbonate skeleton."
If the proposed statement is analysed (PS: 1), it is found that the statement is not in accordance with the test instructions (TL: 1), does not focus on the context of chemical equilibrium discussed in the article (CC: 2), and only examines phenomenological representations.(CU: 2).

Input:
The chemical problem is the conclusion of a chemistry article.The poor level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participants needed task understanding.From Figure 1, the pattern indicates that the statement posed is not a question but just a repetition of information.

b. Fair level
The pattern of the chemical problem submission process for the fair or low category is shown in Figure 2. Slightly superior to the very low level which does not pose a problem, this level is able to recognize the limits of the required chemical problems.This is observed from the PC042 participants' problem submission sheet as follows.
"The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on coral reefs.The availability of CaCO3 is influenced by the carbonate balance in the ocean." The analysis of the proposed statement (PS: 1) is not in accordance with the test instructions (TL: 1).Two types of chemical representations were used, namely phenomenology and process, but no relationship was found between the two (CU: 4).Although the first sentence is correct, the second sentence gives rise to a different interpretation of the phrase "availability of CaCO3" because it does not show a relationship in the context of the previous sentence.This phrase can express a misunderstanding (CC: 3) that carbonate equilibrium is a source of CaCO3 or CaCO 3 is produced from the sea.

Input:
1) The chemical problem is the conclusion of a chemistry article.
2) The problem is limited to the concept of chemical equilibrium in chemistry articles.

Output:
Paraphrase the statement about the case of the chemical object.The fair level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018)  (phenomenology and process) which were correlated.However, the participant misunderstood (CC: 3) that blasting fishing is a factor that destroys the carbonate balance and acidification that causes coral bleaching.

Initiation
Types B and C ask single question sentences (PS: 3).Type B tends to ask as a formal action that does not need to be explained (TL: 2) and the answer can be found explicitly in the article, while type C tends to ask for contributions to the problems found (TL: 3).Examples of types B and C, respectively, are shown from the following CE042 and CE041 participant problem submission sheets.
Type C only uses a phenomenological representation (CU: 2), while type B uses two implicit phenomenological representations (CU: 3) (researchers perceive that the context of the second sentence is a unity or explanatory sentence from the main question sentence).But the biggest weakness of the two is that the question sentence is outside the concept of chemical equilibrium (CC: 2).
The lower intermediate level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participant needed the understanding of chemistry in the text.Figure 3 indicates that participants in this level posed an out of context chemistry question regarding their curiosity or reflection of the text.

Type A
Input: 1) Chemical problems are the result of reflection on the content of chemistry articles.
2) The problem is limited to the concept of chemical equilibrium in chemistry articles.

Process: 1) Find the concept of chemical equilibrium which is characterized by chemical characters (such as chemical symbols, chemical formulas, and chemical quantities).
2) Explain the chemical concept in chronological order in the selected chemical representation.3) Provide reflection results.

Output:
Presenting the results of reflection and explanation of the chemical problems found.

Initiation
Metacognitive reading

Problem determination
Writing the problem Termination Type B

Input:
A chemistry problem is a question about which the reader cannot find an explanation in the article.

Process:
Finding the main phenomenological aspects of the discussion of the topic of chemistry articles.

Output:
Inquiry questions whose answers can be found in chemistry articles.The intermediate level has two types of chemistry problem-posing skills as shown in Figure 4. Type A produces a statement of the initial state and its reflection but does not form a question (PS: 2), while type B has become a simple problem (PS: 5).To find out the difference, analyse the PC061 and PC036 participant chemistry problem submission sheets for the following types A and B.

Initiation
Type A: "The problem of the threat of coral reefs in aquatic ecosystems is not a trivial problem.Many other problems arise with this problem.Damage to coral reefs is certainly not only caused by the greenhouse effect or other global warming.However, direct human actions such as throwing garbage in the sea can also cause damage to coral reefs and other life in the sea.In addition, the way fishermen find fish using explosives is also a factor in the damage to coral reefs.Garbage that is wasted in the sea, especially plastic, is certainly difficult and takes a long time to be degraded, resulting in landfilling of garbage which even creates new substances that disrupt ecosystem processes in the sea.In this case, it is most likely that CO3 2-calcification is more difficult to occur so it is difficult to form coral reefs.Then, explosives that enter the sea leave chemical residues that can inhibit the formation of coral reefs.Therefore, there is a need for socialization and punishment for people who do not want to preserve the ecosystem in the sea."

Type B: "High CO2 concentrations can destroy CaCO3. This problem is avoided by reducing CO2 production (mainly from human activities). However, marine plants are also capable of producing O2. Then, what marine plants can reduce the concentration of CO2 in the sea so as not to dissolve CaCO3?"
Type A uses two types of representation (phenomenology and process), but they are not complementary (CU: 4), while type B uses symbolic representations that support the phenomenological representation (CU: 5).The reflections made by type A on the problem headings found in the article are well packaged by connecting several appropriate concepts (TOR: 6).While type B makes a considerable error because of the desired final state the problem does not focus on the concept of chemical equilibrium (CC: 2).Based on these two types, the intermediate level still cannot distinguish between chemical problems and non-chemical problems.The intermediate level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participants did not understand the structure of a problem.From Figure 4, we find this level can arrange an initial state of the problem using a chemical representation without a complete final state (or well-structured problem).

e. Higher intermediate
The higher intermediate level also has two types of chemistry problem-posing skills with the final state in the form of a question sentence as shown in Figure 5. Generally, the achievement of all parameter levels 3. Submissions of type A and B problems can be seen in the following CE005 and PC022 participant problem submission sheets.
Type A: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that causes the acidification of seawater so that CaCO3 cannot be formed because it shifts the equilibrium that occurs.What other substances besides CO2 are able to shift the equilibrium? in other words it is more dangerous than CO2."Type B: "According to the prediction that there will be the year 2100, of course by looking at the facts that exist today, it is very possible if the prediction can come true.

Furthermore, what can be done to prevent this? can the concept of chemical equilibrium be used to change the reaction equilibrium to shift to the right, so that the leaching of calcium carbonate can be reduced? On reaction: CaCO3(s) + CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇄ Ca 2+ (aq) + 2HCO3 -(aq). Because the nature of the reaction is also reversible? Can it be?"
Referring to the chemical information used, type B has a better chemical representation because it uses phenomenological, symbolic, and process representations (CU: 6).In type A, the two process phrases ("acidification process" and "equilibrium shift") become one clause that describes CO2, so it is assessed using only one type of representation to explain the CO2 (CU: 3).Types A and B cannot be classified as a problem because there are no discrepancies between the disclosed data.
Structurally, type A questions (PS: 3) are less complex than type B (PS: 4).However, the question word used in type A is a signifier for a higher level of thinking based on the previously created taxonomy (TL: 5).In addition, the chemical concept used by type A (CC: 5) is better than type B, it's just that there are concepts that require special explanation when participants use the clause "that substance is more dangerous than CO2" (participants have prior knowledge that the level of reactivity of a substance indicates the level of danger of the effect of a substance).Type B erred in applying Le Chatelier's principle in preventing the loss of CaCO3 in the given reaction (AC: 3).

Type A
Input: Chemical problems are questions that contain chemical equilibrium problems found in chemistry articles and their solutions are speculativemanipulative.
Process: 1) Find the topic of chemistry problems in chemistry articles.
2) Comparing the knowledge possessed with the topic of the problem.

Output:
Explaining the initial state containing chemical problems and the final state in the form of questions confirming the prediction of a solution or predicting chemical aspects that can be used as a solution.The high intermediate level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participants did not use chemical multirepresentations. From Figure 5, we find this level can arrange a problem with initial and final states using certain chemical representation with a directed operator (set solution limits).

f. Excellent
The excellent levels can already produce chemical problems but with some errors in the chemical concepts used.There are two types in this high level as shown in Figure 6.Examples of Types A and B are given in the following CE025 and CE022 participant chemistry problem submission sheets, respectively.

Type A: "Carbonic acid from the reaction between CO2 and water will release its proton to become bicarbonate ion reaction: CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇄ H2CO3(aq); H2CO3(aq) + H2O(l) ⇄ H3O + (aq) + HCO3 - (aq). The reaction for the formation of bicarbonate ions from the reversible conversion of bicarbonate ions: HCO3 -+
H2O ⇄ H3O + + CO3 2-.The addition of HCO3 - will produce a lot of CO3 2-ions which will cause the equilibrium of the formation of CaCO3(s) to shift towards CO3 2-so that CaCO3(s) becomes soluble.Are there other reagents that can bind the HCO3 -ion so that it doesn't react so that not much CO3 2-is formed?How to prevent CO2 from reacting with H2O so that acidification does not occur in the sea?" Type B: "CO2 will protonate H2CO3 to HCO3 -.Whereas CO3 2-is a rock-forming (CaCO3) when reacted with Ca 2+ .If the CO2 content increases, the HCO3 -will also increase, resulting in a shortage of CO3 2-to form CaCO3.So the carbonate equilibrium is unstable.Coral formation and CO2 solubility are also affected by temperature.Can the excess CO2 react with other compounds in seawater so that it does not protonate H2CO3?And also whether the equilibrium can be re-stabilized by the addition of Ca 2+ in seawater?Water pollution also affects the carbonate balance?
Both types use a questioner signifier which is equivalent to thinking level 5 (TL: 5) in taxonomy and uses multiple chemical representations (CU: 6).Type A is classified as a simple problem (PS: 5) although the final state is composed of two questions centred on preventing seawater acidification.Type B is classified as a complex problem (PS: 6) because the final state contains two focus questions, namely protonated CO2 and the effect of adding Ca 2+ .However, these two types have quite serious chemical misconceptions (CC: 3).Type A is wrong in understanding the contents of the article that the decay of CaCO3 is due to the increase in carbonate ions (supposedly due to the influence of excess hydronium ions from the acidification process), while Type B is wrong in the concept of protonation of CO2.The excellent level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participants did not monitor the limitation of problem context.This is difficult to observe because the monitoring aspect is not easily detected in text form.From Figure 6, we find this level can arrange a problem with initial and final states using chemical multirepresentation.

g. Outstanding
The results of the problem analysis for this outstanding level identify one type of chemistry problem-posing skills as shown in Figure 7.An example of this level is the CE013 participant chemistry problem submission.
"With the increasing acidity of seawater, coral reef ecosystems will be disturbed due to the low level of CaCO3 saturation caused by an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.In this case I think whether we can develop a solution such as other than reforestation (to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere) or prohibition to exploit marine life on a large scale or prohibition to dispose of waste (household/industrial), I think that whether we can develop a biota that can produce a compound that is alkaline maybe for example like a biota that can produce ammonia (by symbiosis with other biota) is this possible?Or is there a biota that can produce protein (for example) and then in symbiosis with other biota will produce ammonia, but will the balance of the ocean be disturbed?I was wondering whether to throw away the shells (because I'm originally from the coast and I saw that people have a belief that by taking marine treasures (shellfish, fish, etc.) we must also return the rest to the sea) so whether to throw the shells back? to the sea will help the formation of CaCO3 in the ocean?" It can be seen that the problem proposed is quite complex (PS: 6) because there are two focuses of the proposed problem, namely creative solutions to the acidification of seawater and confirmation of community myths in the application of the concept of chemical equilibrium.Although the signifier for the question words used is at level 5, the compound structure of the questions discusses the context relationships that are not discussed in the article with the participants' relevant thinking concepts (TL: 6).Participants only use a maximum of two types of chemical representations to explain chemical information (CU: 5).Because the question is a test of thinking results (marked by the clause "can we do it"), the assessment of the accuracy of chemical concepts is only up to the level of participants' ideas.The participant's idea was that acidification affects CaCO3 saturation and this is overcome by linking multidisciplinary solutions (such as policy, acid-base theory, biosynthesis, and sociocultural) that shape socioscientific issues.The context of "ammonia" used by the participants is an example to explain the use of the acid-base theory.Although it has the potential to add new problems, the main idea assessed is the application of acid-base theory in the preparation of these problems.

Input:
Chemical problems are questions that arise from the results of critical reasoning about the application of chemical equilibrium problems that are limited by other chemical and nonchemical concepts.

Process:
1) Find the topic of chemical equilibrium problems in chemistry articles.
2) Analyse problems on several chemical representations to find the source of the problem.
3) Comparing the knowledge/experience of readers to criticize the source of the problem.4) Provide alternative solutions based on chemical problem constraints.5) Assess the weakness of the solution and find further problems

Output:
Chronologically describes the initial state which contains the discrepancy between the article information, knowledge of chemical and nonchemical equilibrium, and the reader's experience of chemical problems and the final state in the form of questions regarding confirmation of solutions to problems based on several chemical representations.The excellent level in the previous taxonomy (Sawuwu, 2018) signified that participant posed a problem significantly in metacognitive level.This requires more detailed explanation of the metacognitive level context.From Figure 7, we find the difference between the excellent and outstanding level.The outstanding level can arrange a problem with initial and final states using chemical multirepresentation and combining the relevant concepts related to the context.

Participants based on the chemistry problem-posing skills
The categorisation of chemistry problemposing skills into seven levels is based on differences in input-process-output patterns in the chemistry problem-posing skills stages.Table 4 gives the information of participants' achievement in chemistry problem-posing skill.Based on the seven levels, there are four types of participants in the chemistry problem-posing.Poor (Figure 1), fair (Figure 2), and lower intermediate (Figure 3) levels were owned by participants with the main problem on all parameter scores less than 3.These participants (28,9%) misunderstood the problem terms and chemical concept limits required in the test, which is used to formulate the purpose of submitting a chemistry problem.Failure to formulate this goal indicates a weak participant in the planning strategy which is the first point of determination in chemistry problem-posing skills (Schraw, et al., 2012;Veenman, 2012;Whitebread & Cardenas, 2012).The handling of this type of participant is through increasing the participants' declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge because both are precursors of planning strategies that form the basis for participants to construct reading plans and design what and how to propose problems to be done (Sperling, et al., 2004;Eldar, et al., 2012;Favieri, 2013).

2) Participants with evaluation errors in chemistry problem-posing skills
The intermediate level (Figure 4) is owned by participants with problems with CC scores less than 3 and CU and PS scores less than 4.These participants (22,4%) have not been able to distinguish between chemical questions and problems in sentence structure and chemical understanding.This shows that participants have problems in the components of metacognitive knowledge on task and strategy variables (Whitebread & Cardenas, 2012;Eldar, et al., 2012;Pintrich, 2002;Goh, 2008).These two variables interfere with the participants' metacognitive knowledge (Flavel, 1979) especially on conditional knowledge (Pintrich, 2002) which will affect the evaluation strategy (the fourth point of determination of the chemistry problem-posing skills).
3) Participants with metacognitive imbalance in chemistry problem-posing skills The higher intermediate (Figure 5) and excellent (Figure 6) levels have reached 50% of the scores for each parameter, but there is no consistency between the parameters (the difference between the highest and lowest scores is more than one) which indicates an imbalance in the metacognitive components of the participants (39,5%).The imbalance of metacognitive components contributes to the quality of chemical problems (Veenman, 2012;Yilmaz-Tuzun & Topcu, 2010).The low TL indicates that participants are weak in metacognitive knowledge, which means that there is an error in their mindset (Krathwohl, 2002), performance (Pintrich, 2002), and understanding at the micro and macro levels of a material (Zohar & Dori, 2012).The low PS and CU indicate that participants lack in metacognitive strategies which means a lack of awareness and regulation of their cognitive strategies (Motague, 1997).The low CC indicates that participants have problems in metacognitive judgments, which means that there is no metacognitive knowledge control in metacognitive strategic execution (Ford & Yore, 2012).

4) Participants with metacognitive balance in chemistry problem-posing skills
The very high/outstanding level (Figure 7) shows that participants (9,2%) have been able to balance all metacognitive components in compiling chemistry problems which are indicated by parameter scores in the range of 5-6.Because metacognition is a process (Biggs, 1988), it can be said that participants with a high level of chemistry problem-posing skills also have good processing skills.
From this current study, a modification of signifiers of the taxonomy is proposed as shown in Table 5.This modification will help one to use the taxonomy and analyse the level of metacognition in chemistry problemposing.These simpler signifiers will accelerate one in assessing the chemistry problem rather than use the four parameters of the taxonomy, even though it is not detailed in revealing the chemical understanding and concept accuracy.Based on the four types of participants in the chemistry problem-posing, the suggestions are also proposed to improve the skill for each level.Train the conditional knowledge to evaluate the process

Lower intermediate
The in-context chemical understanding is required posed an out-context chemistry question regarding their curiosity or reflection of the text Train the declarative and procedural knowledge to make a systematic plan to read and arrange the chemistry problem

Fair
The understanding about the problem components is required a paraphrase of information

Poor
The task understanding is required a repetition of information Thus, the chemistry problem-posing skill is primarily formed by the ability to plan the process of getting the problem, to evaluate the feasibility of the chemistry problem, and to manage the chemistry multirepresentation composing the problem.By improving the specific ability, students will be able to reach the higher level in metacognition: planning the process through introducing composition of initial and final state of chemistry problems, evaluating the problem through applying conditional and strategic knowledge, and improving chemistry understanding in using multiple chemical representation from phenomenological, symbolic, and microscopic level.

Conclusion
Chemistry problem-posing patterns found in this current study show the flow of the formulation of each problem.The input aspect for the formulation determines the process and the output result.The higher the level, the more complex and multiperspective determinations used for arranging a chemistry problem.The poor, fair, and low intermediate levels have planning problems and are unable to pose a simple chemical problem.The intermediate level had difficulty evaluating the chemistry problem, so that the problem posed were only an incomplete final state or a well-structured problem.The higher intermediate and excellent level had optional problem in strategic, knowledge, or judgement metacognitively, but they can produce a better chemistry problem with an initial state, final state, and operator.The outstanding level can produce a complex illstructured chemistry problem that indicates a balance in strategy, knowledge, and metacognitive judgment.
the 2017/2018 academic year and are selected according to the following criteria: (a) the time span between having completed the topic of chemical equilibrium with the shortest test time to avoid random errors, and (b) students taking the test voluntarily to avoid the type of reader who was driven by obligation test (obligated reader).A total of 181 students from the Department of Chemistry Education (Chemical Sciences and Chemistry Education Study Program) FMIPA UNY for the academic year 2017/2018 (from Chemistry Education [CE] and Pure Chemistry [PC] programmes) matches the criteria (a), but only 110 students who could meet criteria (a) and (b).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Pattern of the poor level in the chemistry problem-posing activity.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Pattern of the fair level in the chemistry problem-posing activity.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Pattern of the lower intermediate level in the chemistry problem-posing activity

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Pattern of the intermediate level in the chemistry problem-posing activity.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Pattern of the higher intermediate level in the chemistry problem-posing activity.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Pattern of the excellent level in the chemistry problem-posing activity.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Pattern of the outstanding level in the chemistry problem-posing activity

Table 1 .
Characteristics of The Chemical Article.

Table 2 .
Parameters in The Taxonomy of Chemistry Problem-posing Skill.

Table 3 .
Classification of The Chemical Problem-posing Skill.
Type C: "Indeed, if you look at Indonesia as a country that has wide waters, wide seas.But the citizens themselves do not / less attention to the Indonesian sea.And it is undeniable that the whole world must emit large amounts of CO2.Then, to overcome this, what should be done?"

Table 4 .
Participants' Achievement in Chemical Problem-posing Skill.

Table 5 .
Signified Update of The Chemical Problem-posing Skill.