Enhancing Students’ Mathematical Creative Thinking through Problem-Based Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2020–2025)

Ahyani Mirah Liani; Asmaun

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v4i04.2506

Ahyani Mirah Liani Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
Asmaun Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v4i04.2506

Keywords: Keywords: Problem-Based Learning; Mathematical Creative Thinking; Creativity Indicators; STEM Integration; Digital Learning; Inquiry-Based Learning.

Abstract

This study presents a systematic literature review of research published between 2020 and 2025 examining the effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in enhancing students’ mathematical creative thinking. The review synthesizes findings from peer-reviewed journal articles that investigated PBL within various educational contexts, including its integration with STEM frameworks, digital learning platforms, and the Indonesian Merdeka Curriculum. Data were collected through document analysis and literature tracing, followed by thematic synthesis to identify convergent findings across studies. The analysis reveals that PBL significantly improves key indicators of mathematical creative thinking—fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration—by engaging students in authentic, inquiry-driven problem-solving processes. Studies integrating PBL with digital tools such as GeoGebra and Google Classroom reported additional gains in originality and elaboration, demonstrating the benefits of technologically enriched, student-centered learning environments. STEM-based PBL further supported conceptual exploration and interdisciplinary reasoning. Beyond cognitive outcomes, the reviewed literature highlights improvements in students’ motivation, collaboration, and self-efficacy, which serve as affective foundations for creativity. Overall, the findings position PBL as a transformative pedagogical model aligned with 21st-century learning demands, offering strong potential for fostering creative, autonomous, and critical mathematical thinkers. Future research is recommended to explore long-term impacts and AI-supported PBL innovations.

References

Adelstein, D. (2013). The Connected Educator: Learning and Leading in a Digital Age by Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach and Lani Ritter Hall. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(1), 73–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.757065
Albert, S., & Steve, W. (2013). New Informal Ways of Learning: Or Are We Formalising the Informal?”. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal (RUSC), 10(1), 286–293.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Survey, B. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Modern Healthcare, January 2011. https://doi.org/10.1049/el.2012.2018
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21–23.
Biele, G., Rieskamp, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). Computational models for the combination of advice and individual learning. Cognitive Science, 33(2), 206–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01010.x
Bossche, P. V. D., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283–301.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, M. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2013). Novel words highlight actors’ underlying intentions for 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 426–431.
Couros, A. (2009). Open, connected, social: Implications for educational design. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 232–239.
Daniel, S. J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(3), 18.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked information landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675–685.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
Fadillah, M., Pratiwi, R., & Novitasari, A. (2023). The effectiveness of hybrid PBL on students’ mathematics creative thinking. Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 112–125.
Fusaro, M., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Toddlers detect and use social cues to evaluate testimony. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 514–522.
Garcia, E., Brown, M., & Elbeltagi, I. (2012). The changing roles of staff and students within a connectivist educational blog model. European Conference on E-Learning, 11(3), 253–262.
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A., Manczak, E. M., & Graham, S. A. (2013). Children’s sensitivity to knowledge expressed in pedagogical and non‐pedagogical contexts. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 491–504.
Gillis, R. L., & Nilsen, E. S. (2013). Children’s use of information quality to establish speaker preferences. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 480–490.
Goldie, J. G. S. (2016). Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age? Medical Teacher, 38(10), 1064–1069.
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1085–1108.
Heyes, C. (2012). What’s social about social learning? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 193–202.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.*
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1–13.*
Kropf, D. C. (2013). Connectivism: 21st century’s new learning theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(2), 13–24.*
Kusaeri, A., & Syamsuri, I. (2023). Enhancing students’ mathematical creativity through PBL-STEM learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(4), 55–68.*
Kushnir, T., Vredenburgh, C., & Schneider, L. A. (2013). Distinguishing causal and word knowledge in children’s selective information seeking. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 446–453.
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in the classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 93–106.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
Putri, R., & Hasanah, N. (2024). Digital PBL using GeoGebra to enhance students’ originality and elaboration. Journal of Mathematics Education Innovation, 8(1), 45–57.*
Rahmadani, N., & Surya, E. (2023). The effect of PBL on students’ mathematical creative thinking in secondary schools. Journal of Mathematics Teaching Research, 11(2), 77–89.*
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Charles Merrill.
Rukhmana, D. (2022). The effectiveness of PBL in improving students’ mathematical creative thinking. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 16(1), 12–25.*
Siswono, T. Y. E. (2019). Kreativitas matematis siswa: Teori dan pengukuran. Universitas Negeri Surabaya Press.
Vistara, D., Lestari, P., & Hidayat, R. (2022). PBL-STEM and its effect on students’ mathematical flexibility. Journal of STEM Education Research, 5(2), 88–102.*
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2008). From social interaction to higher psychological processes. Human Development, 51(1), 66–79.*
Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.*
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. (2009). Openness, dynamic specialization, and the future of higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), 2–16.*