A Comparative Analysis of Mathematics Learning Strategies: Indonesia vs. China in Enhancing Students' Critical  Thinking Skills

Golda Novatrasio Sauduran; Raymundus J Simarmata; Agus Simanjuntak; Herotius Gulo; Eki Bu’ulolo; Colenfo Simorangkir

doi:10.64276/ams.v1i4.106

Authors

Golda Novatrasio Sauduran Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Raymundus J Simarmata Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1728-7841
Agus Simanjuntak Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Herotius Gulo Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Eki Bu’ulolo Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Colenfo Simorangkir Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64276/ams.v1i4.106

Keywords:

Mathematics Learning Strategies, Critical Thinking, Indonesian Education, Chinese Education, PISA, Educational Comparison, Variation Theory

Abstract

This study aims to analyze in depth and compare mathematics learning strategies implemented in Indonesia and China in an effort to improve students' critical thinking skills at the junior high school level. This study uses a mixed-method approach in the form of a comparative study where all data is sourced from literature (secondary data), without collecting primary data directly from students, teachers, or schools. Specifically, the research design applies a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on the PRISMA 2020 protocol guidelines for 32 scientific articles indexed by Scopus, Web of Science, and SINTA published between 2015 and 2025. This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis that covers philosophical, pedagogical, curricular, and learning outcome dimensions. Quantitative data from the 2015, 2018, and 2022 editions of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) are used as comparative indicators of higher-level mathematics achievement. The analysis shows that China (BSJZ: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang) consistently leads the PISA rankings with a score of 591 (2022) compared to Indonesia's score of 366 (2022), reflecting a gap of 225 points. This difference is not solely caused by classroom learning strategies, but rather by the broader educational ecosystem encompassing teacher quality, academic culture, curriculum coherence, and educational technology investment. Key findings indicate that Indonesia prioritizes constructivist approaches (PBL, PMRI, Discovery Learning) that yield excellence in contextual creativity, while China implements Variation Theory and Concept-Based Instruction that yield deeper mastery of mathematical concepts and higher international standard scores. Recommendations are directed at developing a hybrid model that integrates the strengths of both systems

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2015). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson Education.

Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2022. Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. Springer.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2022). Effective teacher professional development (Updated ed.). Learning Policy Institute.

Dong, Y., Sun, L., & Zhang, H. (2023). AI-enhanced adaptive learning systems and critical thinking development in middle school mathematics: A quasi-experimental study in China. Computers & Education, 194, 104710.

Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 31–47). Palgrave Macmillan.

Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts (2015 update). Insight Assessment.

Hadi, S. (2022). Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Indonesia: Teori, pengembangan, dan implementasinya (Ed. ke-3). Rajawali Pers.

Hidayat, A. F., & Iksan, Z. H. (2021). The effect of realistic mathematics education on students' conceptual understanding and mathematical thinking in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 17–30.

Huang, R., & Li, Y. (Eds.). (2023). Teaching and learning mathematics through variation: Confucian heritage meets Western theories.

Huang, R., Ye, L., & Prince, K. (2022). Professional development of mathematics teachers in East Asia: Teacher learning through classroom research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 54(3), 641–656.

Kemendikbudristek. (2022). Panduan pembelajaran dan asesmen: Pendidikan anak usia dini, pendidikan dasar, dan pendidikan menengah (Kurikulum Merdeka). Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2016). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.

Leung, F. K. S. (2021). Mathematics education in East Asia and the West: Does culture matter? In F. Leung, K. Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions (pp. 21–46). Springer.

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & van de Grift, W. (2022). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring student perceptions of teaching quality in Indonesian secondary education. International Journal of Educational Research,

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What school life means for students' lives. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning during – and from – disruption. OECD Publishing.

Pratiwi, I., Silalahi, D. F., & Yusuf, M. (2022). Analisis kemampuan peserta didik Indonesia dalam menjawab soal matematika tipe PISA: Studi nasional berbasis data AKM 2021. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(3), 287–306.

Schmidt, W. H., Blömeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2019). Curriculum coherence and student achievement: Cross-national evidence from PISA and TIMSS. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 537–556.

Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., Zulkardi, & Hoogland, K. (2021). The role of contexts and models in supporting students' mathematical reasoning in Realistic Mathematics Education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(6), 1321–1336.

Stacey, K. (2015). The PISA view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(2), 95–126.

Sun, X., Niss, M., & Peng, A. (Eds.). (2022). Mathematics curriculum reforms around the world: The 24th ICMI Study. Springer.

Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16.

Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2015). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: Using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.

Widodo, S. A., Darhim, & Ikhwanudin, T. (2020). Exploring mathematics problem-solving process: A case of TIMSS's number problems and Indonesian junior high school students. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 447–462.

Wijaya, A., Elmaini, & Doorman, M. (2021). A learning trajectory for probability: A case of game-based learning. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–16.

World Economic Forum. (2023). Future of jobs report 2023. WEF.

Zheng, L., Bhagat, K. K., Zhen, Y., & Zhang, X. (2020). The effectiveness of the flipped classroom on students' learning achievement and learning motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 1–15.

State Council of China. (2021). Opinions on further reducing homework burden and off-campus training burden for students in compulsory education stage [Guanyu jinyibu jianqing yiwujiaoyua xuesheng zuoye fudan he xiaowai peixun fudan de yijian]. General Office of CPC Central Committee.