<![CDATA[Purpose: This study describes and compares the error profiles of Field Dependent (FD) and Field Independent (FI) students solving PISA-based Change and Relationship problems using Newman’s Error Analysis (NEA).Method: A descriptive qualitative design was employed. All 26 students in class X.3 at MA Unggul Sabira IIBS Mojokerto completed the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). Four students, comprising two classified as FD and two as FI, were purposively selected based on their GEFT classification, willingness to be interviewed, and availability. Their responses to three PISA-based tasks and their clinical interview accounts were analysed using five NEA stages. Written responses and interviews were compared during the analysis.Findings: The FD participants had Transformation Errors in five of six student–item opportunities and Process Skill Errors in all six. The FI participants had Transformation Errors in four of six opportunities; one also had a Process Skill Error and two Encoding Errors. The cases differed in how difficulties developed during solutions: some earlier-stage difficulties were accompanied by later errors, while an initial representational difficulty could also be resolved.Significance: The findings show how NEA codes, read alongside students’ explanations, can identify where support may be needed in representing a problem, executing a procedure, or checking a final answer. These interpretations are limited to the four participants and three tasks examined.]]>
