The Mediating Role of Strategic Competence Between Procedural Fluency and Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics

Mathematics learning becomes meaningful when students not only perform procedures accurately but also understand concepts and apply effective problem-solving strategies. This study examined the relationship between procedural fluency and conceptual understanding in mathematics learning, focusing on the mediating role of strategic competence among junior high school students in one of the basic education in Ozamiz City during the school year 2025–2026. A quantitative explanatory correlational design with mediation analysis was employed. The respondents consisted of 180 junior high school students, selected from a population of 337 through stratified random sampling, from a private non-sectarian educational institution in Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental, Philippines. Data were gathered using three researcher-made instruments: the Procedural Fluency Questionnaire (PFQ), Conceptual Understanding Questionnaire (CUQ), and Strategic Competence Questionnaire (SCQ). Mean and standard deviation, Spearman's rank-order correlation, stepwise multiple regression analysis, and general linear mediation analysis were used to analyze the data. Results showed that students demonstrated high levels of procedural fluency, strategic competence, and conceptual understanding. Significant positive relationships existed among students' procedural fluency, strategic competence, and conceptual understanding. Efficiency in problem solving, flexibility in applying procedures, appropriateness of procedures, problem representation, strategy formulation, evaluation, and justification were predictive of conceptual understanding. Strategic competence significantly mediated the relationship between procedural fluency and conceptual understanding, indicating a partial mediation effect. The findings highlight that students demonstrated high levels of procedural fluency, strategic competence, and conceptual understanding in mathematics, with significant positive relationships among these variables, where problem-solving efficiency and related skills predicted conceptual understanding, and strategic competence partially mediated the link between procedural fluency and conceptual understanding. Mathematics instructors may promote the balanced development of procedural accuracy, conceptual reasoning, and strategic problem-solving to support students' holistic mathematical proficiency.

conceptual understanding, mathematics learning, mediation analysis, procedural fluency

1. Amalia, L., Makmuri, M., & El Hakim, L. (2024). Learning design: To improve mathematical problem-solving skills using a contextual approach. JIIP-Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 7(3), 2353-2366. https://www.jiip.stkipyapisdompu.ac.id/jiip/index.php/JIIP/article/view/3455 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Andal, S. G. B., & Andrade, R. R. (2022). Exploring students’ procedural fluency and written adaptive reasoning skills in solving open-ended problems. International Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, 2(1), 1-25. https://www.neliti.com/publications/356453/exploring-students-procedural-fluency-and-written-adaptive-reasoning-skills-in-s [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Annurwanda, P., & Friantini, R. N. (2022). Mathematical induction proofing: Procedural fluency reviewed from the creative thinking level of mathematics students. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 9(1), 22-35. https://journal.lppmunindra.ac.id/index.php/Formatif/article/view/9907 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Applebaum, M. (2024). Enhancing critical thinking in pre-service mathematics teachers: Bridging procedural fluency and conceptual understanding. Математика плюс, 32(3), 58-66. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1276653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Arsyad, M., & Syakhrani, A. W. (2024). The efficiency of using visual learning media in improving the understanding of science concepts in elementary school students. Indonesian Journal of Education (INJOE), 4(1), 775-787. https://felifa.net/index.php/INJOE/article/view/234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press. https://tinyurl.com/39e5dbv5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Benedek, M., Beaty, R. E., Schacter, D. L., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023). The role of memory in creative ideation. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(4), 246-257. http://nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00158-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Biber, M. (2023). Constructing Mental Models: Mathematical Communication and Discourses in Conceptual Understanding. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(Özel Sayı), 271-305. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/neueefd/article/1341680?issue_id=80589 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brancaccio, A., De Chiusole, D., & Stefanutti, L. (2023). Algorithms for the adaptive assessment of procedural knowledge and skills. Behavior Research Methods, 55(7), 3929-3951. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01998-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Brod, G. (2021). Predicting as a learning strategy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(6), 1839-1847. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-021-01904-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bürgler, S., Hoyle, R. H., & Hennecke, M. (2021). Flexibility in using self-regulatory strategies to manage self-control conflicts: The role of metacognitive knowledge, strategy repertoire, and feedback monitoring. European Journal of Personality, 35(6), 861-880. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0890207021992907 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cabuquin, J., & Abocejo, F. (2024). Conceptual and procedural understanding in the division of algebraic fractions. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 12(1), 225-240. https://tinyurl.com/mwh5en57 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2021). Teachers’ conceptual understanding of fraction operations: results from a national sample of elementary school teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(3), 525-545. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10649-021-10033-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Corrêa, P. D., & Haslam, D. (2021). Mathematical Proficiency as the Basis for Assessment: A Literature Review and Its Potentialities. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 12(4), 3-20. https://tinyurl.com/5epn7n5h [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed., p. 337). Pearson Education, Inc. https://www.scribd.com/document/713796239/Creswell-2012-educational-research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Dingman, S., Teuscher, D., Olson, T. A., & Kasmer, L. A. (2021). Conceptualizing curricular reasoning: A framework for examining mathematics teachers’ curricular decisions. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 13(4), 267-286. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19477503.2021.1981742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Diputra, K. S., Agustika, G. N. S., Utami, I. A. M. I., Julianto, P., & Arifuddin, A. (2025). Investigating mathematical proficiency of elementary school students: A foundation for effective learning models. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(5), 314-323. Investigating mathematical proficiency of elementary school students: A foundation for effective learning models [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Dood, A. J., & Watts, F. M. (2022). Students’ strategies, struggles, and successes with mechanism problem solving in organic chemistry: a scoping review of the research literature. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(1), 53-68. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Elhilal, A. (2025). Digital conceptual mapping for enhancing mathematical concept formation and creative mathematical problem-solving through cognitive flexibility skills: a mixed methods study. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2494945.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2494945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Elvi, M. (2025). MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY: AN ANALYSIS OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS'ABILITY TO SOLVE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS. Jurnal Pendidikan Sang Surya, 11(1), 774-782. https://jurnal.umbulukumba.ac.id/index.php/jpss/article/view/449 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fielding, Jill, and Katie Makar. "Challenging conceptual understanding in a complex system: Supporting young students to address extended mathematical inquiry problems." Instructional Science 50.1 (2022): 35-61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-021-09564-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Go, M. C., Cris, M., & Go, J. (2023). Enhancing mathematical proficiency assessment: Insights from mathematics teachers. Science International, 35(6), 773-780. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary-Cris-Go/publication/375828757_ENHANCING_MATHEMATICAL_PROFICIENCY_ASSESSMENT_INSIGHTS_FROM_MATHEMATICS_TEACHERS/links/655e74163fa26f66f420954c/ENHANCING-MATHEMATICAL-PROFICIENCY-ASSESSMENT-INSIGHTS-FROM-MATHEMATICS-TEACHERS.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gradini, E., Noviani, J., & Ulya, K. (2025). Fostering higher-order thinking skills in mathematics education: strategies, challenges, and classroom practices. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu Dan Pembelajaran Matematika Dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 13(2), 135-163. https://ojspanel.undikma.ac.id/index.php/prismasains/article/view/15099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Haque, M. N. (2024). The role of multiple representations and attitudes in enhancing statistical and mathematical learning. Smart Internet of Things, 1(4), 298-312. https://www.siot.reapress.com/journal/article/view/52 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hariri, D. D., & Kania, N. (2025). Mapping Critical Thinking Skills through Newman’s Error Analysis in Secondary Students’ Problem-Solving. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 26(3), 1464-1478. https://jpmipa.fkip.unila.ac.id/index.php/jpmipa/article/view/782 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Hickendorff, M. (2022). Flexibility and adaptivity in arithmetic strategy use: What children know and what they show. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 367-381. https://jnc.psychopen.eu/index.php/jnc/article/view/7277 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Hong, W., Star, J. R., Liu, R. D., Jiang, R., & Fu, X. (2023). A systematic review of mathematical flexibility: Concepts, measurements, and related research. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 104. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-023-09825-2 https://tinyurl.com/y84hjhpx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hurrell, D. (2021). Conceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important to teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 46(2), 57-71. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.757709794375494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Karatas, S. (2022). The Impacts of Supporting Productive Struggle Teaching Practice on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Fluency, and Strategic Competence: The Case of Quadratic Functions (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10857-023-09590-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Keazer, L., & Phaiah, J. (2023). Analyzing prospective elementary teachers’ evidence of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 15(2), 135-148. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19477503.2022.2139112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Khaerunnisa, E., Aliyudin, A., Ruhiat, Y., & Santosa, C. A. H. F. (2025). PRODUCTIVE DISPOSITION DEVELOPMENT MODEL BASED ON CONCEPT UNDERSTANDING WITH MEDIATORS OF PROCEDURAL FLUENCY, STRATEGIC COMPETENCE, ADAPTIVE REASONING. AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 14(1). https://ojs.fkip.ummetro.ac.id/index.php/matematika/article/view/11442 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kholid, M. N., Imawati, A., Swastika, A., Maharani, S., & Pradana, L. N. (2021, February). How are Students’ Conceptual Understanding for Solving Mathematical Problem?. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1776, No. 1, p. 012018). IOP Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/39vx5zet [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press. https://tinyurl.com/8794628p [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kusuma, I. A., & Retnowati, E. (2021, March). Designs of faded-example to increase problem solving skills and procedural fluency in algebraic division. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1806, No. 1, p. 012109). IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Landreth, S. J., & Young, C. (2021). Developing fluency and comprehension with the secondary fluency routine. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(3), 252-262. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.2021.1910475 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Landreth, S. J., & Young, C. (2021). Developing fluency and comprehension with the secondary fluency routine. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(3), 252-262. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.2021.1910475 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Manandhar, N. K., Pant, B. P., & Dawadi, S. D. (2022). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of students of Nepal in algebra: A mixed method study. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), 1-10. https://tinyurl.com/4y28bby3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mohamed Elsayed, S. A. (2022). The effectiveness of learning mathematics according to the STEM approach in developing the mathematical proficiency of second graders of the intermediate school. Education Research International, 2022(1), 5206476. https://tinyurl.com/ymprwmk2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mutodi, P., & Mosimege, M. (2021). Learning mathematical symbolization: Conceptual challenges and instructional strategies in secondary schools. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 35, 1180-1199. https://www.scielo.br/j/bolema/a/nHVdpBMTykbcxB4MM7rPD8c/?format=html&lang=en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Naz, B., & Qayyum, A. (2025). Effectiveness of Problem-Solving as a Teaching Strategy in Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Critical Thinking in Mathematics Education. Research Journal for Social Affairs, 3(6), 693-702. https://rjsaonline.com/journals/index.php/rjsa/article/view/500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Ncube, M., & Luneta, K. (2025). Concept-based instruction: Improving learner performance in mathematics through conceptual understanding. Pythagoras-Journal of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, 46(1), 815. https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.4102/pythagoras.v46i1.815 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Nurtamam, M. E., & Jannah, A. N. (2025). A systematic qualitative review of teachers’ strategies in enhancing mathematical reasoning in elementary schools. Jurnal Obsesi: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 9(2), 553-562. https://tinyurl.com/mura6sjx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Öz, T., & Işık, A. (2024). Exploring mathematical reasoning skills of middle school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 53, 101612. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187124001500 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. Basic Books. https://tinyurl.com/ydr5tnxw [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Pratt, D. J. (2023). The impact of automaticity training in multiplication facts on problem solving ability (Doctoral dissertation, University of Otago). https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/esploro/outputs/doctoral/The-impact-of-automaticity-training-in/9926478241801891 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Prediger, S. (2022, February). Enhancing language for developing conceptual understanding: A research journey connecting different research approaches. In Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12). https://hal.science/hal-03756062/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Rif'at, M., Sudiansyah, S., & Imama, K. (2024). Role of visual abilities in mathematics learning: An analysis of conceptual representation. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 15(1), 87-97. https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/al-jabar/article/view/22406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Rivas, S. F., Saiz, C., & Ossa, C. (2022). Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in higher education. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 913219.https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913219/full?utm_source=chatgpt.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Rukshana, M. M. M., Gunavathi, M. S., & Prithiyangadevi, M. S. (2025). FROM PROCEDURES TO CONCEPTUAL INSIGHT: A REVIEW OF TEACHING STRATEGIES IN MATHEMATICS. Contemporary Techniques in Math Education, 3. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Dinesh-Kumar-2/publication/391369291_Contemporary_Techniques_in_Math_Education/links/68144683bfbe974b23c1b70d/Contemporary-Techniques-in-Math-Education.pdf#page=147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Santosa, Y. T., Kholid, M. N., Ishartono, N., Fitriyya, M., & Junaedi, I. (2025). Toward a Theoretical Model of Deep Mathematical Thinking: Integrating Deep Learning and Mathematical Reasoning Frameworks. Journal of Deep Learning, 109-126. https://journals2.ums.ac.id/jdl/article/view/11142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Sarumaha, Y. A., & Rizkianto, I. (2022). Promoting mathematical justification through realistic mathematics education classroom. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika (JUPITEK), 5(2), 83-94. https://tinyurl.com/3yejs9c8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Schulz, A. (2024). Assessing student teachers’ procedural fluency and strategic competence in operating and mathematizing with natural and rational numbers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27(6), 981–1008. https://tinyurl.com/7tccm79p [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Sharma, S. (2024). Enhancing inclusive learning environments: Strategies for curriculum adaptation and modification. Future of special education in India, 109, 121. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Geetanjali-Sharma-18/publication/380266832_978-93-5879-742-8_ebook_1/links/66332a4d06ea3d0b741f9b4c/978-93-5879-742-8-ebook-1.pdf#page=122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Sidhu, A., Bhalla, P., & Zafar, S. (2021). Mediating effect and review of its statistical measures. Empir Econ Lett, 20(4), 29-40. Mediating-Effect-and-Review-of-its-Statistical-Measures.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Singh, C., Maries, A., Heller, K., & Heller, P. (2023). Instructional strategies that foster effective problem-solving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05585. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05585 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Siregar, T. (2025). Integrating GeoGebra in mathematics education: Enhancing pedagogical practices among teachers and lecturers. Yerizon, Integrating GeoGebra in Mathematics Education: Enhancing Pedagogical Practices among Teachers and Lecturers (October 16, 2025). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5613052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Siregar, T. (2025). The effectiveness of the discovery learning model in enhancing students’ mathematical problem-solving skills. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202510.1549 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Skylark, W. J. (2021). More is easier? Testing the role of fluency in the more-credible effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 16(3), 638-686. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/more-is-easier-testing-the-role-of-fluency-in-the-morecredible-effect/0C28BC1EA5CE6F6DC3C8C3C4FD09BE99 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Sridhar, M. K., & Balamurugan, M. S. (2025). COGNITIVE GROWTH AND MATHEMATICAL COMPREHENSION: A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL THEORIES. Contemporary Techniques in Math Education. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/A-Dinesh-Kumar-2/publication/391369291_Contemporary_Techniques_in_Math_Education/links/68144683bfbe974b23c1b70d/Contemporary-Techniques-in-Math-Education.pdf#page=49 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Star, J. R., Tuomela, D., Joglar-Prieto, N., Hästö, P., Palkki, R., Abánades, M. Á., ... & Liu, R. D. (2022). Exploring students’ procedural flexibility in three countries. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 4. Öz, T., & Çiftci, Z. (2024). Mathematical Reasoning Activity: Compare, Generalize and Justify. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2), 291-323. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/balikesirnef/article/1506921 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Sümen, Ö. Ö. (2023). Reflective thinking in the problem-solving process: A model proposal. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 13(1), 6-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/suje/article/970213 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Supriadi, N., & Suherman, S. (2024). The role of learning anxiety and mathematical reasoning as predictor of promoting learning motivation: The mediating role of mathematical problem solving. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101497. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187118712400035X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Tañola, M. D., & Lomibao, L. S. (2024). Understanding How Students Learn Mathematics: A systematic literature review of contemporary learning strategies in Mathematics education post-2020. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 66-75. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marivic-Tanola/publication/387602695_Understanding_How_Students_Learn_Mathematics_A_Systematic_Literature_Review_of_Contemporary_Learning_Strategies_in_Mathematics_Education_Post-2020/links/67754cce117f340ec3ea7aa6/Understanding-How-Students-Learn-Mathematics-A-Systematic-Literature-Review-of-Contemporary-Learning-Strategies-in-Mathematics-Education-Post-2020.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Teng, L. S. (2022). Explicit strategy-based instruction in L2 writing contexts: A perspective of self-regulated learning and formative assessment. Assessing Writing, 53, 100645. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1075293522000411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Thoe, N. K., Jamaludin, J., Pang, Y. J., Choong, C., Lay, Y. F., Ong, E. T., ... & Chin, C. K. (2022). Developing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge/Skills of Lifelong Learners from Basic to Advance Learning: Exemplars, Challenges and Future Direction. Dinamika Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 14(1), 22-35. https://jurnalnasional.ump.ac.id/index.php/Dinamika/article/view/13164 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Torres-Peña, R. C., Peña-González, D., Lara-Orozco, J. L., Ariza, E. A., & Vergara, D. (2025). Enhancing numerical thinking through problem solving: A teaching experience for third-grade mathematics. Education Sciences, 15(6), 667. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/15/6/667 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Ukobizaba, F., Nizeyimana, G., & Mukuka, A. (2021). Assessment Strategies for Enhancing Students' Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills: A Review of Literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1289246 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Vale, I., & Barbosa, A. (2023). Active learning strategies for an effective mathematics teaching and learning. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 573-588. https://www.scimath.net/article/active-learning-strategies-for-an-effective-mathematics-teaching-and-learning-13135 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Vanderheyden, A. M., & Solomon, B. G. (2023). Valid outcomes for screening and progress monitoring: Fluency is superior to accuracy in curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology, 38(3), 160. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-72860-003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Verschaffel, L. (2024). Strategy flexibility in mathematics. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(1), 115–126. https://tinyurl.com/5c8b5m4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Vettriselvan, R., Rajesh, D., Subhashini, S., Gajalakshmi, K., & Sakthivel, R. (2025). Developing and applying PCK in diverse subjects: Best practices for mathematics, science, social sciences, and language arts. In Current trends and best practices of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (pp. 1-30). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/developing-and-applying-pck-in-diverse-subjects/369707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Yassin, A., & Mabanja, A. (2024, August). Integrating information processing theory with artificial intelligence for enhanced learning outcomes. In International conference on aplied social sciences in education (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-13). https://journal.upy.ac.id/index.php/icasse/article/view/6902 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Zhang, J., Andres, J. M. A. L., Hutt, S., Baker, R. S., Ocumpaugh, J., Nasiar, N., & Young, T. (2022). Using machine learning to detect SMART model cognitive operations in mathematical problem-solving process. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 14(3), 76-108. https://jedm.educationaldatamining.org/index.php/JEDM/article/view/610 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples