Strategic Pedagogies through the Zone of Proximal Development in College Classrooms: A Holistic Approach to Developing Mathematical Literacy in the Philippine Higher Education

This study examined the effectiveness of the existing mathematics curriculum in enhancing students’ mathematical literacy and developed a framework for improving mathematics instruction in higher education. Using a mixed-methods research design, quantitative data were gathered from 270 students and 12 mathematics faculty members through validated survey instruments, while qualitative insights were obtained through interviews. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and t-tests were employed to analyze the quantitative data, whereas thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. Findings revealed that most students came from low- to middle-income families, with limited participation in mathematics-related extracurricular activities. Although innovative teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning, technology integration, student-centered learning, and differentiated instruction were perceived as seldom employed, students reported a high level of mathematical literacy. Both students and teachers perceived the curriculum as effective in promoting mathematical literacy. Significant positive relationships were found between curriculum effectiveness, teaching methods, and students’ mathematical literacy. Family income and extracurricular participation also influenced literacy development. Furthermore, significant differences existed between students’ and faculty members’ perceptions of mathematical literacy. Qualitative findings identified goals centered on conceptual understanding, confidence-building, teacher development, and equity, while challenges included mathematics anxiety, resource limitations, and contextual disconnects. In response, the study proposed the HOLISTIC Framework, grounded in the Zone of Proximal Development, integrating culturally responsive pedagogy, scaffolding, inquiry-based learning, technology integration, inclusivity, and continuous assessment to strengthen mathematical literacy among learners.

mathematical literacy, mathematics curriculum, teaching methods, Zone of Proximal Development

1. Agasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F., & Longobardi, S. (2021). What school factors are associated with the success of socio-economically disadvantaged students? An empirical investigation using PISA data. Social Indicators Research, 157(2), 749–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02668-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Zyoud, A. A. (2020). Alignment between faculty members and students' perceptions of teaching effectiveness in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13413a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Auliya, R. N., Sitthiworachart, J., Joy, M., & Ratanaolarn, T. (2026). Integrating problem-based learning and augmented reality for enhancing problem-solving and computational thinking skills. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 20(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2026.150380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bazeley, P. (2022). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beilock, S. L., & Willingham, D. T. (2021). Addressing math anxiety in the classroom: Strategies for educators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(3), 401–416. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bembenutty, H., Cleary, T. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Sequencing of metacognitive tasks: Influences on students' reading comprehension and test performance. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9095-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2021). Flipped learning: Maximizing face-to-face time in mathematics education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 123–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2020). Assessment for learning: Improving student outcomes in mathematics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(4), 401–419. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher expertise in mathematics instruction: A meta-analysis of the relationship between teacher education and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221089437 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Boaler, J. (2023). Fostering a growth mindset in mathematics education: Implications for mathematical literacy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(1), 19–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Boaler, J., & Selling, S. K. (2023). Collaborative learning in mathematics: Enhancing literacy through student-centered approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(1), 45–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Buehl, D. (2017). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. International Reading Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Çelik, H. C., & Gündoğdu, K. (2021). The effect of using different problem solving strategies on students' achievement and their perceptions toward mathematics. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.25 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2024). Peer instruction and collaborative learning in mathematics: Enhancing student understanding and engagement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(3), 301–318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Dageo-a, J. (2025). Limited access to ICT and interactive visualization tools and its impact on the math performance of intermediate pupils at Dangguinan Elementary School, Apayao. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 51(6), 538–552. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2025/v51i62016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Dahal, P. P. (2026). Effectiveness of technology-integrated instruction in improving mathematics achievement. THE ACADEMIA, 6(1), 95–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2022). Effective teacher professional development: New theory and practice in a post-pandemic world. Learning Policy Institute. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED620942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Andree, A. (2023). Teacher quality and professional development: Implications for student mathematical literacy. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(2), 141–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Daro, P., Moschkovich, J., & Hiebert, J. (2021). Real-world applications in mathematics education: Engaging students and enhancing literacy. Journal of Mathematics Education, 54(3), 215–230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Di Pietro, G., & Karpinski, Z. (2024). Teaching mathematics for success: A data-driven review and analysis of best practices (JRC Research Report No. JRC140539). Joint Research Centre, European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/8568262 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Digital applications in mathematics learning for secondary school students: A systematic literature review. (2026). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(1), Article em2768. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17760 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Drijvers, P., Thurm, D., Vandervieren, E., Klinger, M., Moons, F., van der Ree, H., ... & Doorman, M. (2021). Distance mathematics teaching in Flanders, Germany, and the Netherlands during COVID-19 lockdown. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10094-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2021). The effects of argument mapping-infused critical thinking instruction on reflective judgment performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, Article 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2022). Gender differences in mathematical literacy: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3), 215–230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Feldman, K. A. (2021). A meta-analysis of the empirical research on the relationship between student ratings of instruction and student achievement. Research in Higher Education, 62(3), 321–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-020-09614-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study