IJRISS Logo

Mathematical Reasoning and Critical Thinking using Data-Science-Infused Assessment of Grade 10 Students

Authors

Noriel M. Britania

Carlos Hilado Memorial State University Talisay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines (Philippines)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100800931

Subject Category: Mathematics Education

Volume/Issue: 10/8 | Page No: 13554-13609

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-09-04

Accepted: 2026-09-09

Published: 2026-09-21

Abstract

Mathematical reasoning and critical thinking are fundamental skills in authentic mathematical contexts. This descriptive- correlational study determined the mathematical reasoning and critical thinking of 395 out of 1,050 randomly selected Grade 10 students using G*power from a selected public secondary school in the northern part of Negros Occidental during the School Year 2025–2026. A 40-item researcher-developed, validated, and reliability-tested instrument was used to gather data. Descriptive statistics, One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Tukey's HSD, Spearman’s rank-order correlation, and simple linear regression were employed. Findings revealed low proficient levels of mathematical reasoning and critical thinking. However, students with low socio¬economic status, moderate access to digital resources, and average and below-average academic performance obtained not proficient levels of critical thinking. Significant differences were found in mathematical reasoning according to socio-economic status between high and low groups and academic performance between high and average groups. Significant strong positive relationship existed between mathematical reasoning and critical thinking in which mathematical reasoning significantly predicted students' critical thinking. The findings support existing literature on persistent challenges in higher-order thinking and emphasize the value of data-science-infused assessments. Accordingly, Project MRiCT was developed as an instructional intervention to strengthen students' mathematical reasoning and critical thinking.

Keywords

Mathematical Reasoning; Critical Thinking; Data-Science-Infused Assessment; Grade 10 Students; Mathematics Education; Higher-Order Thinking Skills; Socio-Economic Status; Academic Performance; Digital Resources; Project MRiCT.

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Albert, J. R. G., Briones, R. M., & Rivera, J. P. R. (2024). Wealth creation for expanding the middle class in the Philippines (PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2024-10). Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.62986/dp2024.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. American Psychological Association. (2023). Socioeconomic status. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/socioeconomic-status [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Andrade, R. R., Fortes, E. C., & Mabilangan, R. A. (2020). Problem solving heuristics and mathematical abilities of heterogeneous students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11), 5114–5126. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081111 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Aridor, K., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Statistical modeling to promote students' aggregate reasoning with sample and sampling. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 50(7), 1165–1181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0994-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Armstrong, P. (2020). Bloom's taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bargagliotti, A., Franklin, C., Arnold, P., Gould, R., Johnson, S., Perez, L., & Spangler, D. A. (2020). Pre-K–12 guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education II (GAISE II): A framework for statistics and data science education. American Statistical Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ben-Zvi, D., Gravemeijer, K., & Ainley, J. (2018). Design of statistics learning environments. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 473–502). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brookhart, S. M. (2018). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom (2nd ed.). ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brookhart, S. M. (2019). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. De Las Peñas, M. L. A. N., Loyola, M. L., Sarmiento, J. F., Tolentino, M. A. C., & Verzosa, D. M. B. (2020). Designing mobile apps to promote numeracy and statistical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 25th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 167–182). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. De Las Peñas, M. L. A. N., Verzosa, D. M. B., Aberin, M. A. Q., Garciano, A., Sarmiento, J. F., & Tolentino, M. A. C. (2021). Designing performance tasks in mathematics using technological tools. In Proceedings of the 26th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Department of Education. (2026). DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2026: Revised Guidelines on Classroom Assessment, Grading System, and Awards and Recognition for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-015-s-2026-revised-guidelines-on-classroom-assessment-grading-system-and-awards-and-recognition-for-the-k-to-12-basic-education-program/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Department of Education. (2022). DepEd Order No. 24, s. 2022: Adoption of the Basic Education Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. (Enclosure showing the Bureau of Education Assessment Mean Percentage Score proficiency descriptors). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Department of Education. (2026). Revised guidelines on classroom assessment, grading system, and awards and recognition for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (Department Order No. 15, s. 2026). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Engel, J., Biehler, R., Frischemeier, D., Podworny, S., Schiller, A., & Martignon, L. (2020). Data science in school mathematics: Introducing a first data cycle. Statistics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v19i1.178 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of Type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Gittens, C. A. (2020). What the data tell us about human reasoning. In D. Fasko Jr. & F. Fair (Eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment (pp. 272–297). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004444591_016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Fisher, A. (2020). Critical thinking: An introduction (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Franklin, C., & Bargagliotti, A. (2020). Introducing GAISE II: A guideline for precollege statistics and data science education. Harvard Data Science Review, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.246107bb [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Goos, M., Geiger, V., & Dole, S. (2019). Conceptualizing and enacting mathematical reasoning in the middle years. In Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 181–205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4269-5_8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Herbert, S., Vale, C., White, P., & Bragg, L. A. (2022). Engagement with a formative assessment rubric: A case of mathematical reasoning. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, Article 101899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101899 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (8th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Keith, T. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kim, H.-Y. (2019). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Post-hoc analysis after ANOVA. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 44(1), e5. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2019.44.e5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mislevy, R. J. (2018). Sociocognitive foundations of educational measurement. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (ETS Research Report RR-03-16). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01908.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1(1), 3–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15366359MEA0101_02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Data science for undergraduates: Opportunities and options. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018). Catalyzing change in high school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B., Lithner, J., Qwillbard, T., Holm, L., & Liljekvist, Y. (2021). The effect of creative mathematical reasoning on students' conceptual knowledge, transfer, and retention. Frontiers in Education, 5, 590786. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.590786 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD learning compass 2030. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, financial literacy and creative thinking. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Viking Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2023). Income and expenditure estimates from the 2021 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES). https://psa.gov.ph/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Santos-Trigo, M., & Reyes-Martínez, I. (2019). High school prospective teachers' problem-solving reasoning that involves the coordinated use of digital technologies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(2), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1489003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763–1768. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2024). Miseducation: The failed system of Philippine education—EDCOM II-year one report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Second Congressional Commission on Education. (2025). Fixing the foundations: A matter of national survival—EDCOM II-year two report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Stemler, S. E., Matthews, M. S., Tsai, J., & Kindelberger, C. (2022). Measurement matters: An introduction to measurement in the social sciences. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Verzosa, D. M. B. (2020). Pre-service elementary teachers' reasoning in introducing multidigit subtraction. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(6), 876–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1647573 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Verzosa, D. M. B., & Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2019). Prospects and challenges in implementing a new mathematics curriculum in the Philippines. In C. P. Vistro-Yu & T. L. Toh (Eds.), School mathematics curricula: Asian perspectives and glimpses of reform (pp. 207–226). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6312-2_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles