The activity of solving the problem is as a basic activity for humans (Hudojo, 2003) [
The students with FD and FI have different thinking in solving mathematical problems. Ngilawajan (2013) [
There are differences in the thinking processes of male and female students in solving problems. Aini (2017) [
In solving analytical geometry problems online and circle materials, the students make conceptual errors, miscalculation, strategic errors and systematic errors (Imswatama & Muhassanah, 2016) [
Metacognition has an essential role for students in solving the problem (Anggo, 2011) [
Male and female high school students have been able to carry out the metacognition process in solving geometry problems (Suhandono, 2017) [
Analytical geometry is a mathematical subject that deals with symbols and algebraic methods used to represent and solve problems in geometry (Bix & D’Souza, 2016) [
Anderson (2002) [
Ismail (2018) [
Male students with FI and FD may have similarities and differences in the metacognition profile. After knowing the description of FI and FD students' metacognitive profile, it is expected to provide useful information for lecturers and students, i.e., the lecturers can integrate the process of metacognition by paying attention to the students’ different cognitive styles, and male students can correct existing deficiencies from the process of metacognition. In this case, they can solve the problem of analytic geometry correctly. By knowing the shortcomings that exist in the metacognition process, the students are expected to try improving them.
The main problems explored in this study are: (1) students still have difficulties in solving the problem of analytic geometry (Imswatama & Muhassanah, 2016; Subita & Kholid, 2017) [
Participants in this study were two male undergraduate students with FI and FD cognitive styles who enrolled in the course of analytic geometry. Participants were selected based on purposive sampling technique. The subjects were coded as LFI for male students with FI and LFD for male students with FD. Male students with FI and FD cognitive styles do not have a different process of metacognition (Suhandono, 2017) [
The data were collected directly by the researchers themselves as the main instrument. The instrument to determine students' cognitive style was a psychiatric test developed by Witkin and Moore (1974) [
The supporting instrument used in this study was a written test of problemsolving in analytic geometry topic in the form of the essay. Problemsolving tests consisted of two stages: problemsolving test I and problemsolving test II. The reason for choosing these two stages was to obtain valid research data by comparing the results of problemsolving I test on the first data collection and the results of problemsolving test II on the second data collection. Each problemsolving test consisted of 1 question about identical or isomorphic analytic geometry. In this study, data checking was carried out to obtain the level of trust (credibility) of data through time triangulation (Sugiyono, 2012) [
Before the test instrument was used to get research data, the test instrument was validated to three validators. The three validators have stated that problemsolving test instruments problems I and 2 are valid regarding material, construction, and language. Concerning the topic on the question it was assessed to have been studied by students, and the answer key had been arranged correctly. Regarding construction, the subject matter is formulated briefly and clearly, and the subject matter is free from statements that can lead to multiple interpretations. In terms of language, the items use communicative language. The following is a problemsolving test I that has been validated.
The following is a problemsolving test II that had been validated.
Data collection technique in this study used think aloud. The students expressed their byideas using verbal or spoken sentences in the process of solving the problem of analytic geometry so that the data obtained were verbal and written words. The data collected were then analyzed by selecting and identifying data.
The metacognition profile observed in this study refers to the five metacognition components presented by Anderson (2002) [
The process of data analysis in this study was carried out based on the Miles and Huberman (2007) [
Here are the results of the work of the LFI participant in answering the problemsolving test 1 and 2.




1 

The LFI participant reads the question silently (not read verbally). The LFI participant do not write down the elements that are known and asked about the problem but mentions them orally by looking back at the question 
The LFD participant reads the question silently (not read verbally). The LFD participant does not write down the elements that are known and asked about the problem but mentions them orally by looking back at the question. 
2 

The TLFI participant does not interpret the known elements into the image in Cartesian coordinates, but only draws a small portion of the components needed to solve the problem. Then the participant of LFI relates the elements that are obtained by concepts and formulas related to problemsolving. The LFIA participant determines a strategy for solving problems after identifying the elements that are known and relating them to concepts and formulas related to problemsolving. The strategy he chose was not written directly but was immediately implemented in systematic steps to get the intended results. 
The LFD participant interprets known elements into the image in cartesian coordinates, then connects concepts and formulas related to problemsolving. The LFD participant determines a strategy for solving problems after interpreting known elements into the image in cartesian coordinates and connecting concepts and formulas related to problemsolving. The strategy he chose was not written directly but was immediately implemented in systematic steps to get the intended results. 
3 

The LFI participant implements strategies chosen in systematic steps to obtain the intended results. The LFI participant monitors the implementation of its strategy in solving problems by realizing that there are strategies that are less effective or unnecessary and check the truth of the allegations that arise in the problemsolving process. 
The LFD participant implements strategies chosen in systematic steps to obtain the intended results. The LFD participant monitors the implementation of its strategy in solving problems by looking back at the answers and not realizing that there are strategies that are less effective or do not need to be done. 
4  L 
The LFI participant uses a variety of strategies to solve problems. The LFI participant uses a different strategy and compares whether the results obtained are the same or not. Also, at this stage, the LFI participant also checks whether the results obtained to meet the criteria used to solve the problem. 
The LFD participant uses a variety of strategies to solve problems with many questions. The LFD participant uses a variety of strategies, although with a number of questions and compares whether the results have been equal or not. 
The findings of this study (
This study found that there are similarities in the metacognition profile between the male student who has FI cognitive style and the male student who has an FD cognitive style. FI male students and FD male students read questions silently and do not write down the elements that are known and what are asked, but mention them verbally. It is because, at the stage of understanding the problem, the male student reads the questions silently then mentions problems with his language (Chusna, 2015) [
At the stage of devising the plan, there are differences in metacognition profiles, that is, a male student with FI cognitive style does not draw the elements that are known in full, only a small part is considered necessary. This can be seen in
At the stage of carrying out the plan of a male student with FI cognitive style monitors the implementation of its strategy in solving problems by realizing that there are strategies that are less effective or unnecessary to do and checks the truth of the allegations that arise in the problemsolving process. FI male student realizes that in problemsolving test questions he does not need to calculate the length of AB and AC, because B and C are in a circle, so ABC triangle is isosceles. Meanwhile, a male student with the FD cognitive style monitors the implementation of its strategy in solving problems by looking back at the answers and does not realize that there are strategies that are less effective or do not need to be done. In solving problem 2, FD male students find out BD line equations which are not required in determining the high line equations that are asked. It is because FI individuals have a better focus than FD individual on the chosen strategy (Witkin & Moore, 1974) [
At the stage of looking back, a male student with FI cognitive style uses a varied strategy and checks whether the results obtained to meet the criteria used to solve the problem. In answering the problem 1 FI male student uses the initial strategy by looking for equations that go through two points. Whereas in other strategies, FI male student uses a method of finding line equations that are known by one point and its gradient. On problemsolving 2, after finding the altitude line equation that is asked, the FI male student tests whether point D is included in the line and whether the line is perpendicular to the side of the base. Whereas, a male student with FD cognitive style uses a variety of strategies to solve the problem although with some questions. It is because FI individuals are better able to provide problemsolving strategies by utilizing information obtained and less dependent on strategies that are already available (Witkin & Moore, 1974) [
The difference in the metacognition profile between FI male student and FI male student in this study is also due to the cognitive style that has a significant effect on students' mathematical problemsolving abilities (Murtafiah & Amin, 2018) [
Students who have a FI cognitive style have a higher level of ability at SOLO's taxonomy level regarding solving mathematical problems than students who have a cognitive style of FD (Ahmar, Rahman, & Mulbar, 2017) [
The findings in this study contribute to the understanding that FI and FD male students' have a different and similar metacognitive profile when solving mathematical problems. It implies that for mathematics educators, the strategy of presenting problemsolving activity in mathematics teaching should consider the similarity and the difference of students’ metacognition profile. We consider two subjects as the limitation in this study. Thus, further research needs to include female students as the subjects so that their metacognitive profile can be compared to male students by reviewing cognitive styles.
In solving mathematical problems which refer to Polya (1973) [
.
The researcher expressed his gratitude to the Directorate of Research and Community Service, Directorate General of Research and Development Strengthening of the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education which has funded the implementation of this research.
The author declare that no competing interests exist.