Enhancing Mathematical Creativity Through a 21st-Century-Based Learning Model: A Mixed Methods Study
Abstract
The present study investigates the effectiveness of the 21st-Century-Based Mathematics Learning Model in enhancing junior high school students’ mathematical creativity on a large scale. A quasi-experimental design with a mixed-methods approach was employed, involving 369 students from 12 schools located in urban, suburban and rural areas of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The primary instrument was an open-ended mathematical creativity test designed to measure students’ fluency and flexibility in problem solving. Quantitative data were collected through pretests and posttests and analysed using descriptive statistics, pairedsamples t-tests, Kruskal–Wallis tests and effect size calculations (Cohen’s d and N-gain). Qualitative data were obtained through classroom observations and analysed using thematic analysis to explore patterns of originality in students’ creative thinking processes. The results indicate significant improvements in fluency and flexibility (Cohen’s d = 3.64; N-gain = 0.50), with significant differences based on school location, where urban students demonstrated higher performance. The qualitative findings reveal emerging patterns of originality in students’ questioning behaviours and mathematical communication. The 21st-Century-Based Mathematics Learning Model integrates structured learning syntax, a collaborative social system and reflective dialogue, all of which support 21st-century competencies. The present study provides empirical evidence of the model’s effectiveness across diverse contexts and offers methodological implications for the development of context-sensitive instructional innovations.
Downloads
References
Al Moray, N. A. (2024). The integration of 21st-century skills in grade eight mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 13(2), Article 271. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v13n2p271
Arifin, S., Zulkardi, Z., Putri, R. I. I., & Hartono, Y. (2021). On creativity through mathematization in solving non-routine problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.2.13885.313-330
Baharuddin, B., & Burhan, B. (2025). Urban and rural teacher perspectives on Indonesian educational reform: Challenges and policy implications. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2497142. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2497142
Ban Hassan Majeed, A., Hassan, A. K., & Hammadi, S. S. (2023). The effect of cognitive modeling in mathematics achievement and creative intelligence for high school students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(9), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i09.39413
Bernadez, E., & Montero, J. (2025). Enhancing student performance in mathematics through concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) approach. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 14(3), 887–895. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.14.3.0887
Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), 955–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2
Bicer, A. (2021). Multiple representations and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, Article 100960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100960
Bicer, A., Aleksani, H., Butler, C., Jackson, T., Smith, T. D., & Bostick, M. (2024). Mathematical creativity in upper elementary school mathematics curricula. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101462
Bingol, B., & Ozyaprak, M. (2025). Enhancing higher education: Differentiating the curriculum and instruction to mathematical creativity and motivation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(2), Article e70000. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70000
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2020). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (4th ed.). Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Cevikbas, M., Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the current discussion on mathematical modelling competencies: State-of-the-art developments in conceptualizing, measuring, and assessing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(2), 205–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10104-6
Cisnaulin, D., Ghosh, M., & Putra, A. (2025). The effect of the creative problem solving learning model assisted by Google Sites on creative thinking ability in geography learning. Future Space: Studies in Geo-Education, 2(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.69877/fssge.v2i1.56
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
De Nadai, M., Xu, Y., Letouzé, E., González, M. C., & Lepri, B. (2020). Socio-economic, built environment, and mobility conditions associated with crime: A study of multiple cities. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 13871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70808-2
Desi, D., Putra, H., & Hendriana, H. (2025). Enhancing mathematical understanding ability, creative thinking skills, and self-confidence through an open-ended approach on junior high school students. Journal of Innovative Mathematics Learning, 8(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.22460/jiml.v8i1.24788
Dilekçi, A., & Karatay, H. (2023). The effects of the 21st century skills curriculum on the development of students’ creative thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101229
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
Hamid, E., Isnarto, I., & Kharisudin, I. (2024). Creative thinking ability in mathematics problem solving in terms of self-regulated learning in learning creative problem solving model contextual approach. Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.31327/jme.v9i1.2158
Hu, L., & Wang, H. (2024). Unplugged activities in the elementary school mathematics classroom: The effects on students’ computational thinking and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101653
Jonsson, B., Mossegård, J., Lithner, J., & Karlsson Wirebring, L. (2022). Creative mathematical reasoning: Does need for cognition matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 797807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797807
Khalil, I., Charitas, R., & Prahmana, I. (2023). Mathematics learning orientation: Mathematical creative thinking ability or creative disposition? Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp253-276
Kholid, M., Mahmudah, M., Ishartono, N., Putra, F., & Forthmann, B. (2024). Classification of students’ creative thinking for non-routine mathematical problems. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2394738. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2394738
Kónya, E., & Kovács, Z. (2021). Management of problem solving in a classroom context. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.895
Kriewaldt, J., Robertson, L., & Ziebell, N. (2023). Creating the conditions for geographic conceptual development in post-primary students through collaborative guided inquiry. Education Sciences, 13(11), Article 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111098
Kwon, H., & Lee, Y. (2025). A meta-analysis of STEM project-based learning on creativity. STEM Education, 5(2), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025014
Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2020). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference? ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01114-z
Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (2017). Creativity and giftedness: Interdisciplinary perspectives from mathematics and beyond. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38840-3
Li, M. (2025). Exploring the digital divide in primary education: A comparative study of urban and rural mathematics teachers’ TPACK and attitudes towards technology integration in post-pandemic China. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 1913–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12890-x
Li, Q., & Kim, S. (2025). Meta-analysis of PMRI studies related to mathematical creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1400328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1400328
Linacre, J. M. (2017). A user’s guide to Winsteps: Rasch-model computer programs. Winsteps.com.
Ma, J., & Liu, S. (2022). Effects of culture on the balance between mathematics achievement and subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 894774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894774
Mariani, D., Mustaji, M., & Dewi, U. (2025). Literature study: The effect of the problem-basedlearning model assisted by the flipped classroom on mathematical creative thinking ability. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 6(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.59141/japendi.v6i1.6668
Marwa, M., Nurfaisal, N., Muliardi, M., Awal, R., Putri, A. Y., Irawan, H., Kadir, R. A., & Ramli, F. (2024). Assessment of students’ 4C skills in research article writing projects for publication. E3S Web of Conferences, 593, Article 04003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202459304003
Meier, M. A., Gross, F., Vogel, S. E., & Grabner, R. H. (2023). Mathematical expertise: The role of domain-specific knowledge for memory and creativity. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 12500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39309-w
Milin Šipuš, Ž., Bašić, M., Doorman, M., Špalj, E., & Antoliš, S. (2021). MERIA – Conflict lines: Experience with two innovative teaching materials. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.987
Mohammadpour, E., & Yon, H. (2024). Mathematics achievement at rural and urban secondary schools: A trends analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-024-00511-2
Nadjet, H., Chahrazed, K., Khenioui, A., & Salah, A. (2024). Mind maps: How to improve critical learning and creative thinking using geographic maps. Studies in Engineering and Exact Sciences, 5(2), Article e11838. https://doi.org/10.54021/seesv5n2-699
Nieveen, N. (2010). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 89–102). SLO.
Niu, J., Xu, H., & Yu, J. (2025). Identifying multilevel factors on student mathematics performance for Singapore, Korea, Finland, and Denmark in PISA 2022: Considering individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 151. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04466-y
Nurkaeti, N., Turmudi, Karso, Pratiwi, V., Aryanto, S., & Gumala, Y. (2020). Enhancement of mathematical creative thinking ability through an open-ended approach based on metacognitive strategies. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(3), Article 032030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032030
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 98. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/54ac7020-en
Papadopoulos, I., Patsiala, N., Baumanns, L., & Rott, B. (2021). Multiple approaches to problem posing: Theoretical considerations regarding its definition, conceptualisation, and implementation. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(3), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.878
Perla, L., Vinci, V., & Agrati, L. S. (2024). The Italian way to the Europeanisation of teacher education: An analysis of reforms and the ongoing experience of digital transformation. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 14(2), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1714
Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (Vol. 1, pp. 11–50). SLO.
Rahman, Z., Muttaqin, A., & Putri, R. (2025). The effect of the STEM-PJBL model on students’ creative thinking skills. Indonesian Science Education Research, 7(1), 1–6.https://doi.org/10.24114/iser.v7i1.68034
Ritter, S., Gu, X., Crijns, M., & Biekens, P. (2020). Fostering students’ creative thinking skills bymeans of a one-year creativity training program. PLoS ONE, 15(3), Article e0229773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229773
Schoevers, E. M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Kattou, M. (2019). Mathematical creativity: A combination of domain‐general creative and domain‐specific mathematical skills. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.361
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 29(3), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-997-0003-x
Sitorus, J., & Masrayati, M. (2016). Students’ creative thinking process stages: Implementation of realistic mathematics education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.09.007
Sureeyatanapas, P., Panitanarak, U., Kraisriwattana, J., Sarootyanapat, P., & O’Connell, D. (2024). The analysis of marking reliability through the approach of gauge repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R) study: A case of English-speaking test. Language Testing in Asia, 14(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00271-z
Susanta, A., Susanto, E., Rusnilawati, Sumardi, H., & Ali, S. R. B. (2025). Literacy skills through the use of digital STEAM-inquiry learning modules: A comparative study of urban and rural elementary schools in Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(4), Article em2615. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16170
Tampa, A., Ikram, M., & Firdaus, A. M. (2024). Development of a 21st century based mathematics learning model: A validity study on the investigation-construction stages. Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.12973/jmste.1.1.31
Tanudjaya, C. P., & Doorman, M. (2020). Examining higher order thinking in Indonesian lower secondary mathematics classrooms. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.11000.277-300
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. SAGE Publications.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Scholastic Testing
Service.
Triana, S., Utaya, S., & Soekamto, H. (2024). Geographical creative thinking ability (GCTA) of students in the diamond panning Cempaka area, Banjarbaru. TEM Journal, 13(3), 2350–2364. https://doi.org/10.18421/tem133-62
Wang, H., Zhang, S., Li, X., & Gu, B. (2024). The embodied effect in the comprehension of Chinese action-verb metaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 53(4), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10094-5
Wessels, H. (2014). Levels of mathematical creativity in model-eliciting activities. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(9), 22–40.
Winasis, A., Rejeki, A., & Cahyono, A. (2025). Challenge-based learning assisted by virtual reality STEAM trails at a cultural heritage museum to promote mathematical creative thinking skills. Jurnal Elemen, 11(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i3.29778
Yaniawati, P., Kariadinata, R., Sari, N., Pramiarsih, E., & Mariani, M. (2020). Integration of e-learning for mathematics on resource-based learning: Increasing mathematical creative thinking and selfconfidence. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(6), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i06.11915
Yayuk, E., Purwanto, P., As’ari, A., & Subanji, S. (2020). Primary school students’ creative thinking skills in mathematics problem solving. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1281–1295. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1281
Zhang, Y., Yang, W., Li, B., Liu, M., Wang, S., Chen, L., & Rodriguez, M. (2025). Convergence of primary education development in urban and rural China: Empirical analysis of historical trends and future projections. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 475. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04752-9
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
