Comparison of Indonesian and Singaporean Senior High School Mathematics Textbooks in Developing Students’ Computational Thinking Skills

Erkam Pramana, Dyana Wijayanti, Mochamad Abdul Basir

Abstract


This study is motivated by the importance of CT skills as a basic literacy for problem-solving amid technological and information disruption. However, the integration of CT in Indonesian education remains suboptimal, as reflected in Indonesia’s PISA scores, which are below the global average, while CT serves as a key framework in PISA 2022 alongside mathematical reasoning. One contributing factor is that mathematics questions and textbooks have not yet functioned as tools for thinking. In fact, textbooks serve as mediating variables in learning. This study employs a mixed-methods approach with an exploratory sequential design. Data were sourced from Indonesian and Singaporean high school mathematics textbooks with comparable learning outcomes. Analysis was conducted qualitatively and quantitatively using the chi-square test. The results showed a significant difference in the distribution of CT-based questions, where Singaporean textbooks more explicitly presented the four dimensions of CT, while Indonesian textbooks tended to be implicit. These findings underscore the importance of developing more exploratory and reflective textbooks to support 21st-century skills.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Auliya', R. N., & Widjajanti, D. B. (2023). Singaporean and Japanese mathematics textbooks: Character, structure, and content. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 12(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v12i2.3171.

Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan (BSKAP). (2022). Decree of the Head of BSKAP Number 008/H/K/2022 on Learning Outcomes for Early Childhood, Primary, and Secondary Education.

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918910.

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. AERA Proceedings. https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/new-frameworks-for-studying-and-assessing-the-development-of-computational-thinking/.

Chan, S.-W., Looi, C.-K., Ho, W.-K., Huang, W., Seow, P., Wu, L., & Kim, M. S. (2020). Computational thinking activities in number patterns: A study in a Singapore secondary school. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE) (pp. 171–176). https://library.apsce.net/index.php/ICCE/article/view/3915.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6.

Fauzi, A. L., Kusumah, Y. S., Nurlaelah, E., & Juandi, D. (2024). Computational thinking in mathematics education: A systematic literature review on its implementation and impact on students' learning. Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran, 10(2), 640–653. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v10i2.11140.

Fitrisyah, M. A., Hapizah, H., & Mulyono, B. (2025). Computational thinking ability of students in exponential material using problem-based learning. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 12(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v12i2.75787.

Gadanidis, G., Cendros, R., Floyd, L., & Namukasa, I. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 458–477. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173103/.

Isharyadi, R., & Juandi, D. (2023). A systematic literature review of computational thinking in mathematics education: Benefits and challenges. Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA, 13(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v13i1.15922.

Kaup, C. F., Pedersen, P. L., & Tvedebrink, T. (2023). Integrating computational thinking to enhance students' mathematical understanding. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202318531.

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781.

Kurohman, T., Setianingsih, R., & Wintarti, A. (2025). Analysis of students' computational thinking skills in solving mathematical problems based on the level of logico-mathematical intelligence. AIP Conference Proceedings, 3316(1), 110030. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0290251.

Li, H., & Li, N. (2018). Features and characteristics of Chinese New Century mathematics textbooks. In Y. Cao & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), The 21st century mathematics education in China (pp. 171–192). Springer-Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55781-5_9.

Manopo, & Lisarani, V. (2021). A comparative analysis of non-routine problems in mathematics textbooks of Indonesia and Singapore. EDUMATIKA: Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.32939/ejrpm.v4i1.750.

Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. (2016). Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture Number 8 of 2016 on Books Used by Educational Units.

Muhammad, I., Rusyid, H. K., Maharani, S., & Angraini, L. M. (2024). Computational thinking research in mathematics learning in the last decade: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(1), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3086.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

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

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

Pingel, F. (2010). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision (2nd ed.). UNESCO.

Rahmawati, A. P. (2024). Analysis and comparison of Indonesian and Singaporean elementary school mathematics textbooks in developing students' spatial reasoning [Undergraduate thesis, Yogyakarta State University].

Rahmawati, R. D., Sugiman, Wangid, M. N., & Purnomo, Y. W. (2024). Designing model of mathematics instruction based on computational thinking and mathematical thinking for elementary school students. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 16(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1427410.

Seow, P., Looi, C.-K., How, M.-L., Wadhwa, B., & Wu, L.-K. (2019). Educational policy and implementation of computational thinking and programming: Case study of Singapore. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2017 (Chapter 19, pp. 345–361). The Education University of Hong Kong. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7.

Setyaedhi, H. S. (2025). PISA model numeracy questions to improve student competence. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 14(1), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpiundiksha.v1411.84401.

Ummah, N. R. A., Sugeng, S., & Safrudiannur, S. (2024). Contextual study of practice problems in Indonesian, Malaysian, and Singaporean mathematics textbooks for junior high school on algebraic forms. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8(2), 1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v8i2.2241.

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.

Wijayanti, D. (2019). Analysing textbook treatment of similarity in plane geometry. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 24, 107–132. https://doi.org/10.4000/adsc.637.

Wijayanti, D., Lutfi, A., Wijaya, T. T., & Bah, O. (2025). Mapping research on Indonesia's government mathematics textbooks: Current insights and potential directions. Cogent Education, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2560052.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

Wing, J. M. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking What and why. *he Link Magazine, 6, 20–23. https://people.cs.vt.edu/~kafura/CS6604/Papers/CT-What-And-Why.pdf.

Ye, H., Liang, B., Ng, O. L., & Yang, X. (2023). Integration of computational thinking in K–12 mathematics education: A systematic review on CT-based mathematics instruction and student learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00396-w

Yusuf, M. (2017). Research methods: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Jakarta: Kencana.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.