Exploring Eigth-Grade Students’ Mathematical Literacy in PISA-Adapted Space and Shape Problem at Levels 3-5

Dwi Arisma Wahyudi; Sufyani Prabawanto; Al Jupri

doi:10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.20663

Authors

Dwi Arisma Wahyudi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Sufyani Prabawanto Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Al Jupri Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.20663

Keywords:

Mathematical literacy, PISA, Geometric representation, Problem solving, Formulating stage

Abstract

This study explores the mathematical literacy profiles of 30 eighth-grade students in Bandung Barat Regency, focusing on their abilities during the formulating stage of PISA-adapted geometry tasks across Levels 3, 4, and 5. Utilizing a qualitative descriptive-exploratory design, data were collected through a Mathematical Literacy Test (MLT) focusing on rectangular area and perimeter alongside task-based clinical interviews. Student responses were mapped using a specialized representational action coding scheme (R1–R7). The empirical findings reveal a critical negative trend: as task complexity escalates, successful mathematical formulation plummets, leaving over 80% of students trapped in either absolute cognitive paralysis or unscientific guessing at Levels 4 and 5. Specifically, non-response status (R7) reached 46.67% at Level 4 due to severe reading literacy barriers and working memory overload under dense linguistic contexts. Meanwhile, subjective intuition (R6) was the most dominant pattern, affecting 50% of the cohort at Level 5, driven by a profound epistemological fragmentation where real-world scenarios are treated as isolated from formal mathematics. Dysfunctional visual scaffolding (R4) and rigid procedural dependencies (R3) further stalled progression. These systemic failures at the upstream formulating stage ultimately blocked students from reaching the employing or interpreting phases.

References

Anselmo, G. A., Yarbrough, J. L., & Tran, V. V. N. (2021). To screen or not to screen: Criterion-related validity of math and reading curriculum-based measurement in relation to high-stakes math scores. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920950141

Barrouillet, P., Portrat, S., & Camos, V. (2011). On the law relating processing to storage in working memory. Psychological Review, 118(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022324

Berget, I. K. L. (2023). Identifying positioning and storylines about mathematical modelling in teacher–student dialogues in episodes from two upper secondary classrooms. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 42(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrac020

Bokhovkin, A., Ishimtsev, V., Bogomolov, E., Zorin, D., Artemov, A., Burnaev, E., & Dai, A. (2021). Towards part-based understanding of RGB-D scans. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7480–7490. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00740

Ekin, M., Krejtz, K., & Krejtz, I. (2025). Cognitive load and oculometrics in the educational scenarios: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/3725832

Gschwind, M., Brettel, H., & Rentschler, I. (2007). Prior knowledge and learning in 3D object recognition. In N. Osaka, I. Rentschler, & I. Biederman (Eds.), Object recognition, attention, and action (pp. 105–117). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-73019-4_8

Hamidah, I., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., & Pramuditya, S. A. (2025). Developing a mathematical literacy learning environment for students through educational game assistance. Mathematics Education Journal, 19(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.v19i1.pp141-162

Han, D., You, B.-J., Kim, Y. S., & Suh, I. H. (2005). A generic shape matching with anchoring of knowledge primitives of object ontology. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3656). https://doi.org/10.1007/11559573_59

Haryanti, M. D., Herman, T., & Prabawanto, S. (2019). Analysis of students’ error in solving mathematical word problems in geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042084

Hendriyanto, A., Suryadi, D., Juandi, D., Dahlan, J. A., Hidayat, R., Wardat, Y., Sahara, S., & Muhaimin, L. H. (2024). The didactic phenomenon: Deciphering students’ learning obstacles in set theory. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp517-544

Hu, Q., Guo, Y., Zhang, Z., & Ye, Q. (2026). High school students tend to pose what kinds of mathematical modeling problems and how they solve them in free situations: Evidence from modeling reports in China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 24(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-026-10671-1

Ikhsan, M., Rochaminah, S., & Mastura, A. (2024). Development of Geo-Math application by integrating Geo-Gebra applets to improve students’ spatial ability. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 12(3), 1129–1154. https://doi.org/10.26811/peuradeun.v12i3.1492

Jablonski, S. (2024). Challenges in geometric modelling: A comparison of students’ mathematization with real objects, photos, and 3D models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14321

Jupri, A., & Drijvers, P. (2016). Student difficulties in mathematizing word problems in algebra. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2481–2502. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1299a

Kappassova, S., Abylkassymova, A., Zhadyrayeva, L., & Tuyakov, Y. (2024). Methodological aspects of the development of functional literacy of schoolchildren in mathematics | Методичні аспекти розвитку функціональної грамотності школярів у процесі навчання математики. Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series Physics, 55, 2372–2382. https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/55.2024.237bu2

Ke, F., Dai, C.-P., West, L., Pan, Y., & Xu, J. (2024). Using mathematizing supports for applied problem solving in a game-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(2), 468–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231206990

Kemdikdasmen. (2025). Perkaban tentang Kerangka Asesmen TKA SD/MI dan SMP/MTs. Kementerian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.

Kemendikdasmen. (2025). Rapor Pendidikan Indonesia 2025.

Kiss, A. J., & Christ, T. J. (2019). Screening for math in early grades: Is reading enough? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418766410

Kotoka, L., & Kriek, J. (2022). Prediction of the correlation between problem-solving skills and conceptual reasoning in stoichiometry. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(4), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.615

Kusmayadi, T. A., Sahara, S., & Fitriana, L. (2022). Application of Newman errors analysis theory related to mathematical literacy problems: A case study of secondary students in class 11. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2566. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117183

Munsell, J., Zu, T., & Rebello, N. S. (2018). Validating a survey for self-reporting cognitive load. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2018.

Murni, S., Suryadi, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2025). Lower secondary students epistemological obstacle in solving mathematical literacy task: Focus on plane geometry. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 20(3), 49–56.

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en

Rahaju, E. B., Khabibah, S., Rosyidi, A. H., Prihartiwi, N. R., & Lestariningsih, L. (2026). Students’ critical reasoning on justifying properties of quadrilaterals. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2026294

Rahayu, G., Rosjanuardi, R., & Yulianti, K. (2023). Students’ learning obstacles in the understanding inverse function. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2734(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0156060

Rahayuningsih, S., Anggriani, A. E., Mardhatillah, Faizah, S., Yuniawatika, & Kamarudin, N. (2025). The relationship between cognitive flexibility and mathematical literacy: Insights from Indonesian elementary students. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 17(3), 367–381.

Ratnaningsih, N., & Hidayat, E. (2021). Error analysis and its causal factors in solving mathematical literacy problems in terms of habits of mind. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1764/1/012104

Rojas, E., & Benakli, N. (2020). Mathematical literacy and critical thinking. In Teaching college level disciplinary literacy strategies and practices in STEM and professional studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39804-0_8

Sagge, R. G. (2025). Beyond static textbook illustrations: Development of augmented reality-based materials (ARM) for geometry. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 15(8), 1687–1697. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.8.2370

Sevinc, S. (2025). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ challenges in their first attempt at posing geometry modelling problems. In International perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Part F744). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53533-8_16

Shin, M., Park, J., Lee, J. Y., & Meador, A. (2025). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. In Springer international handbooks of education (Part F910). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60258-0_6

Temel, H. (2026). Assessment of high school students’ formulating skills: A framework proposal. SAGE Open, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440261431848

Upu, H., Djadir, & Asyari, S. (2017). The fifth graders’ mathematisation process in solving contextual problems. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 15(2), 195–199.

Wardani, A. K., & Prabawanto, S. (2025). Students’ epistemological obstacle in solving mathematical literacy tasks: Focusing on ratio and proportion. AIP Conference Proceedings, 3333(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0290848