Mathematical Literacy with Technology- Assisted Scaffolding in Indonesia: Camper and Quitter Students in Solving PISA Problems

Background/purpose. This research aims to describe the mathematical literacy of camper and quitter students using technology-assisted scaffolding when solving PISA problems. The Indonesian government has attempted various ways to improve students' mathematical literacy. However, mathematical literacy scores remain low. Mathematical literacy refers to the ability to use and apply mathematical knowledge in a relevant context.

Materials/methods. The subjects of this research were selected using a purposive sampling, taking into account communication skills. Three eighth-grade students from SMP Negeri 2 Jombang Regency served as the research subjects: one was categorized as a camper, and the other as a quitter. The data were collected through a questionnaire and a task-based interview on the space and shape mathematics literacy level-four subject matter. The data were analyzed using Miles and Huberman’s conceptual framework, which comprises data reduction, presentation, and conclusion.

Results. The results of this research are as follows: (1) subjects in the camper category met four indicators in completing the initial mathematical literacy test: communication, mathematizing, reasoning, argumentation, and devising strategies for solving problems; and (2) quitter subjects only met one mathematical literacy indicator, namely mathematizing. The alternative scaffolding provided for the campers and quitters included Environmental Provisions, Explaining, Reviewing, Restructuring, and Developing Conceptual Thinking.

Conclusion. The implementation of technology-assisted scaffolding has strong potential to improve conceptual understanding, problem-solving skills, and critical thinking through the gradual support facilitated by digital platforms. While camper students met all four mathematical literacy indicators, quitter students demonstrated proficiency only in the mathematics indicator. Nonetheless, their conceptual understanding improved through the gradual support provided by digital platforms.

Keywords: Mathematical literacy, scaffolding, technology, adversity quotient, PISA

References

Bonilla-Priego, M. J., Fernández-Giordano, M., & Pacheco-Olivares, M. R. (2024). Evaluating the success of a learning management system for supplemental learning in accounting. Accounting Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2024.2424269

Cahyono, A. N., Arifudin, R., Aditya, R. I., Maulana, B. S., & Lavicza, Z. (2025). An exploratory study on STEM education through math trails with digital technology to promote mathematical literacy. STEM Education, 5(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025003

Çakıroğlu, Ü., Güler, M., Dündar, M., & Coşkun, F. (2024). Virtual reality in realistic mathematics education to develop mathematical literacy skills. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4661–4673. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2219960

Cavus, N., Omonayajo, B., & Mutizwa, M. R. (2022). Technology acceptance model and learning management systems: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(23), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i23.36223

Chen, Y.-C., & Hou, H.-T. (2025). Design of a digital gamified learning activity for relationship education with conceptual scaffolding and reflective scaffolding. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(1), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00849-y

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage publications.

Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G.-J., Chen, M.-R. A., & Liang, J.-C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3

Deng, W., Shen, X., Hao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2025). Designing integrated STEM curriculum to enhance STEM literacy among middle school students: Insights from Chinese context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 35(1), 1785-1804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-09962-5

Divayana, D. G. H., Suyasa, P. W. A., & Widiartini, N. K. (2021). An innovative model as evaluation model for information technology-based learning at ICT vocational schools. Heliyon, 7(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06347

Fauzan, A., Harisman, Y., Boriboon, G., Syaputra, H., & Hafizatunnisa, H. (2025). Enhancing mathematical literacy: A comparative study of mathematics learning curricula in Thailand and Indonesia. Infinity Journal, 14(3), 753–780. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v14i3.p753-780

Goos, M., & O’Sullivan, K. (2023). The evolution and uptake of numeracy and mathematical literacy as drivers for curriculum reform. In Mathematics curriculum reforms around the world: The 24th ICMI Study (pp. 345–357). Springer International Publishing Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13548-4_21

Govender, I. (2025). Digital literacy and STEM skills–what is the connection? A systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 8(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-025-09879-x

Gustiningsi, T., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, Z., & Hapizah, H. (2023). Developing a PISA-like mathematical problem: Using traditional food context. IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application), 6(3), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v6i3.20200

Iqbal, H. M. N., Parra-Saldivar, R., Zavala-Yoe, R., & Ramirez-Mendoza, R. A. (2020). Smart educational tools and learning management systems: Supportive framework. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 14(4), 1179–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00695-4

Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (2024). Models of teaching. Inggris: Routledge.

Kerimbayev, N., Adamova, K., Shadiev, R., & Altinay, Z. (2025). Intelligent educational technologies in individual learning: A systematic literature review. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00360-3

Kintoko, K., Waluya, S. B., Junaedi, I., & Dewi, N. R. (2024). Teachers’ perceptions of critical thinking and mathematical literacy in main school PISA 2022 regional survey Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 2346–2353. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2479

Komarudin, K., Suherman, S., & Vidákovich, T. (2024). The RMS teaching model with brainstorming technique and student digital literacy as predictors of mathematical literacy. Heliyon, 10(13), 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33877

König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A.-K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100453

Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

Masduki, M., Kholid, M. N., & Khotimah, R. P. (2020). Exploring students’ problem-solving ability and response towards metacognitive strategy in mathematics learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3698–3703. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080849

Muhtarom, M., Pratiwi, A. D., & Murtianto, Y. H. (2021). Profile of prospective teachers’ mathematical communication ability reviewed from adversity quotient. Infinity Journal, 10(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v10i1.p93-108

Munadi, S., & Febriyanti, W. D. R. (2020). Design and validation of mathematical literacy instruments for assessment for learning in Indonesia. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 865–875. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.865

Mutia, Kartono, Dwijanto, & Wijayanti, K. (2023). Students’ mathematical creative thinking obstacle and scaffolding in solving derivative problems. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(17), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i17.6540

Nur, A. S., Kartono, K., Zaenuri, Z., & Rochmad, R. (2022). The lateral thinking processes in solving mathematical word problems reviewed at adversity quotient and reflective cognitive style. Infinity Journal, 11(2), 223. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v11i2.p223-236

OECD. (2019). An OECD learning framework 2030. In The future of education and labor (pp. 23–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_3

PISA, O. (2023). PISA 2022: Assessment and analytical framework. Paris: PISA. OECD Publishing Paris.

Putri, R. I. I., & Zulkardi, Z. (2020). Designing pisa-like mathematics task using asian games context. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.1.9786.135-144

Reeve, J. (2024). Understanding motivation and emotion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Risdiyanti, I., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2024). Mathematical literacy learning environment for inclusive education teachers: A framework. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(3), 1003–1026. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i3.pp1003-1026

Rodríguez, C. A., Valderrama, S., Vargas, D., Eliseo, M. A., Fracchia, C. C., & Roa, K. (2023). Quizzes via augmented reality on learning management system: A case study of moodle. The Journal of Educators Online, 20(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2023.20.1.5

Santi, D. P. D., Waluya, S. B., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., & Cahyono, A. N. (2024). The numerical skills and scaffolding forms: The diagnosis of junior high school students. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 45(3), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2024.45.3.27

Santrock, J. W. (2011). Educational psychology. Columbus: McGraw-Hill.

Schweingruber, H., Pearson, G., & Honey, M. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.

Setiasih, O., Setiawardani, W., Hidayat, A. N., Djoehaeni, H., Robayanti, D., & RASILAH, M. S. (2024). Development of a design learning management system (LMS) to improve student skills: case study in a science learning media development course. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 19(4), 1389–1400.

Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Zahid, H. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3691–3716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9

Song, D., & Kim, D. (2021). Effects of self-regulation scaffolding on online participation and learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1767525

Stoltz, P. G. (2000). Adversity quotient. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Sujatha, S., & Vinayakan, K. (2022). Mathematical literacy for the future: a review of emerging curriculum and instructional trends. International Journal of Applied and Advanced Scientific Research, 7(2), 65–71.

Sutarni, S., Sutama, S., Prayitno, H. J., Sutopo, A., & Laksmiwati, P. A. (2024). The development of realistic mathematics education-based student worksheets to enhance higher-order thinking skills and mathematical ability. Infinity Journal, 13(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i2.p285-300

Tang, K., & Williams, P. J. (2019). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education, 7(3), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3162

Trimurtini, Waluya, B., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Kharisudin, I., Rochmad, Susilo, B. E., & Nugraheni, N. (2023). The analysis of mathematical literacy in terms of geometric thinking of PGSD students. The 8th International Conference On Mathematics, Science And Education 2021, 2614(1), 040099. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0126455

Tveitnes, M. S., Helgevold, N., & Moen, V. (2025). Bridging the gap between theory and practice? Working with digital problem-based cases to strengthen student teachers as research-literate. Discover Education, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00651-y

Upadhyay, A., Chandel, N. S., Singh, K. P., Chakraborty, S. K., Nandede, B. M., Kumar, M., Subeesh, A., Upendar, K., Salem, A., & Elbeltagi, A. (2025). Deep learning and computer vision in plant disease detection: a comprehensive review of techniques, models, and trends in precision agriculture. Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(3), 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-11100-x

Weyers, J., König, J., Scheiner, T., Santagata, R., & Kaiser, G. (2024). Teacher noticing in mathematics education: a review of recent developments. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01527-x

Yu, J., Kim, H., Zheng, X., Li, Z., & Zhu, X. (2024). Effects of scaffolding and inner speech on learning motivation, flexible thinking and academic achievement in the technology-enhanced learning environment. Learning and Motivation, 86, 101982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.101982

Zulkardi, Z., & Putri, R. I. I. (2020). Supporting mathematics teachers to develop jumping task using pisa framework (JUMPISA). Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 14(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.14.2.12115.199-210

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!