Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

A Systematic Review of Junior High School Mathematics Curriculum in Indonesia and Australia

Bayu Murti Suryonegoro ORCID
State University of Semarang ROR
Indonesia
bayusuryonegoromat25@students.unnes.ac.id
Wardono Wardono ORCID
State University of Semarang ROR
Indonesia
Stevanus Budi Waluya ORCID
State University of Semarang ROR
Indonesia
Mulyono Mulyono ORCID
State University of Semarang ROR
Indonesia
Ifan Badra Wijaya ORCID
State University of Semarang ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study analyzes the comparative mathematics curricula between Indonesia and Australia to uncover various aspects of the education systems. The focus is on the similarities and differences between the curricula, systematically examining them in terms of objectives, materials, methods, and assessment, particularly in mathematics.

    Methodology: This study used a library method with the main data sources coming from 58 articles, 44 books, and 10 official documents in a qualitative descriptive manner. The research data analysis used the Systematic Literature Review method through the following steps: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion based on keywords, titles, abstracts, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and referenced literature.

    Main Findings: The mathematics curriculum in Indonesia and Australia at the Junior High School level is almost the same with a few differences, namely the focus on the profile of Pancasila students and providing more specific mathematical knowledge and skills to support the development numeracy and direct further fields of study in mathematics and other disciplines, so that it can add other aspects or components that researchers have never studied regarding the comparison of the mathematics curriculum in Indonesia and Australia.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This analytical study of the comparative study of the Indonesian and Australian mathematics curriculum was conducted by citing various sources, namely articles, journals, official curriculum websites, books, and proceedings articles, thus providing a broader study of further studies on the development of the mathematics curriculum in Indonesia and Australia globally.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “A Systematic Review of Junior High School Mathematics Curriculum in Indonesia and Australia”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 291–305, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i1.2472.

    More Citation Formats

  • 214
    Abstract views
    151
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. T. Tanti, W. Utami, D. Deliza, and M. Jahanifar, “Investigation in vocation high school for attitude and motivation students in learning physics subject,” Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 479-490, 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452
    2. T. S. Finnanger, “Teachers as national curriculum makers: does involvement equal influence?,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 220–234, 2024, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2024.2307450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2307450
    3. A. Suresh Adagale, “Curriculum development in higher education,” Intern. ional J. Appl. Res., vol. 1, no. 11, pp. 602–605, 2015, [Online]. Available: www.allresearchjournal.com
    4. A. Pratycia, A. Dharma Putra, A. G. M. Salsabila, F. I. Adha, and A. Fuadin, “Analisis perbedaan kurikulum 2013 dengan kurikulum merdeka [Analysis of the differences between the 2013 curriculum and the independent curriculum],” J. Pendidik. Sains dan Komput., vol. 3, no. 01, pp. 58–64, 2023, doi: 10.47709/jpsk.v3i01.1974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47709/jpsk.v3i01.1974
    5. A. Yosepha, M. Ali, D. Wahyudin, and Rusman, “The role of multi-dimensional curriculum design in improving higher-order thinking skills,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 219–239, 2023, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.22.7.12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.7.12
    6. A. Saputra, “Curriculum concept at the level of education unit,” J. Ilm. Teunuleh Int. J. Soc. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51612/teunuleh.v2i3.60
    7. G. Coşkun Yaşar and B. Aslan, “Curriculum theory: a review study,” Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Derg., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 237–260, 2021, doi: 10.31704/ijocis.2021.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2021.012
    8. L. Wijngaards-de Meij and S. Merx, “Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible,” Int. J. Acad. Dev., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 219–231, 2018, doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2018.1462187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1462187
    9. M. Prensky, “The world needs a new curriculum,” Educ. Technol., pp. 3–15, 2015.
    10. J. M. Rogan, “How much curriculum change is appropriate? Defining a zone of feasible innovation,” Sci. Educ., vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 439–460, May 2007, doi: 10.1002/sce.20192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20192
    11. J. Choppin, A. Roth McDuffie, C. Drake, and J. Davis, “The role of instructional materials in the relationship between the official curriculum and the enacted curriculum,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 123–148, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2020.1855376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1855376
    12. I. M. Mulenga, “Conceptualization and definition of a curriculum,” J. Lexicogr. Terminol., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–23.
    13. R. Oliver et al., “Curriculum structure: principles and strategy,” Eur. J. Dent. Educ., vol. 12, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. 74–84, 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2007.00482.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2007.00482.x
    14. S. R. Goldman and J. W. Pellegrino, “Research on learning and instruction: implications for curriculum, instruction, and assessment,” Policy Insights from Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33–41, 2015, doi: 10.1177/2372732215601866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215601866
    15. W. Elliot, “Instructional and expressive educational objectives: their formulation and use in curriculum,” 1967.
    16. J. G. Vargas-Hernández and O. C. Vargas-González, “Strategies for meaningful learning in higher education,” J. Res. Instr., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 47–64, 2022, doi: 10.30862/jri.v2i1.41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30862/jri.v2i1.41
    17. J. M. Voogt, J. M. Pieters, and A. Handelzalts, “Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: effects, mechanisms, and conditions,” Educ. Res. Eval., vol. 22, no. 3–4, pp. 121–140, 2016, doi: 10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
    18. S. Rajurkar, K. D. Chavan, S. G. Kachewar, and P. A. Giri, “A review of significant aspects contributing to curriculum development,” Int. J. Res. Med. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 317, 2018, doi: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20185185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20185185
    19. A. Widyastuti, Merdeka belajar merdeka mengajar [Freedom to learn, freedom to teach]. Elex Media Komputindo, 2021.
    20. S. Hamdi and C. Triatna, “Kurikulum merdeka dalam perspektif pedagogik [Independent curriculum from a pedagogical perspective],” SAP (Susunan Artik. Pendidik., vol. 7, no. 1, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30998/sap.v7i1.13015
    21. S. Malikah, W. Winarti, F. Ayuningsih, M. R. Nugroho, S. Sumardi, and B. Murtiyasa, “Manajemen pembelajaran matematika pada kurikulum merdeka [Management of mathematics learning in the independent curriculum],” EDUKATIF J. ILMU Pendidik., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 5912–5918, 2022, doi: 10.31004/edukatif.v4i4.3549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v4i4.3549
    22. D. J. Shernoff, S. Sinha, D. M. Bressler, and L. Ginsburg, “Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
    23. A. Sithole, E. T. Chiyaka, P. McCarthy, D. M. Mupinga, B. K. Bucklein, and J. Kibirige, “Student Attraction, Persistence and Retention in STEM Programs: Successes and Continuing Challenges,” High. Educ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 46, 2017, doi: 10.5539/hes.v7n1p46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n1p46
    24. M. Jamil, T. Batool Bokhari, and J. Iqbal, “Incorporation of critical thinking skills development: a case of mathematics curriculum for grades I-XII,” J. Asian Dev. Stud., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 375–382, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.62345/jads.2024.13.1.32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.1.32
    25. B. Tanujaya, J. Mumu, and G. Margono, “The relationship between higher order thinking skills and academic performance of student in mathematics instruction,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 10, no. 11, p. 78, 2017, doi: 10.5539/ies.v10n11p78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n11p78
    26. OECD, PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework. in PISA. OECD, 2016. doi: 10.1787/9789264255425-en. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
    27. S. Hadi, TIMSS indonesia (trends in international mathematics and science study). Tasikmalaya: Prosiding Seminar Nasional and Call of Papers Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Matematika Universitas Siliwangi, 2019.
    28. B. Millot, “International rankings: universities vs. higher education systems,” Int. J. Educ. Dev., vol. 40, pp. 156–165, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.10.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.10.004
    29. R. Callingham, J. Watson, and G. Oates, “Learning progressions and the Australian curriculum mathematics: The case of statistics and probability,” Aust. J. Educ., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 329–342, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1177/00049441211036521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00049441211036521
    30. S. Bahri, Salut Muhidin, W. Warta, M. A. Rahman, and H. Hayaturrohman, “Comparative study of levels and curriculum in education systems of Indonesia and Australia,” J. Instr. Dev. Res., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 455–466, 2024, doi: 10.53621/jider.v4i6.421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53621/jider.v4i6.421
    31. S. P. Kawuryan, S. A. Sayuti, Aman, and S. I. A. Dwiningrum, “Teachers quality and educational equality achievements in indonesia,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 811–830, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14245a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14245a
    32. M. Michie, “Comparison of Indonesian curriculum 2013 with the Australian curriculum focusing on science,” J. Penelit. Pendidik., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 257–268, 2019.
    33. L. Lidiawati, L. Heliawati, and I. D. Pursitasari, “The effectiveness of contextual research-based teaching materials on students’ learning independence and concept mastery,” JPI (Jurnal Pendidik. Indones., vol. 10, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v10i4.34244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v10i4.34244
    34. M. Gaither, The wiley handbook of home education. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118926895
    35. M. Vasuki, M. Celestin, and A. Dinesh Kumar, “Curriculum design in mathematics: a review of effective frameworks and models,” J. Eng. Sci. Res. Appl., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2395–1613.
    36. C. Mccluskey, J. Mulligan, and M. Mitchelmore, “The role of reasoning in the Australian curriculum: mathematics,” Math. Educ. Res. Gr. Australas., 2016.
    37. H. Forgasz, G. Leder, and J. Hall, “Numeracy across the curriculum in Australian schools: teacher education students’ and practicing teachers’ views and understandings of numeracy,” Numeracy, vol. 10, no. 2, 2017, doi: 10.5038/1936-4660.10.2.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.10.2.2
    38. O. V. Rogach, E. V. Frolova, and T. M. Ryabova, “Modern school role in human potential development,” Eur. J. Contemp. Educ., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 804–812, 2018, doi: 10.13187/ejced.2018.4.804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.74181
    39. F. Bahadır and M. Tuncer, “Determining the standards of teaching and learning process as a component of curriculum,” Int. J. Progress. Educ., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 34–52, 2020, doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.3
    40. J. Polman, L. Hornstra, and M. Volman, “The meaning of meaningful learning in mathematics in upper-primary education,” Learn. Environ. Res., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 469–486, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10984-020-09337-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09337-8
    41. S. N. B. Tambunan and K. L. Yang, “Indonesian mathematics teachers’ conceptions on values of the relationship between mathematics and STEM education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2107303
    42. A. Minarni, E. E. Napitupulu, and R. Husein, “Mathematical understanding and representation ability of public junior high school in north Sumatra,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.1.2816.43-56
    43. T. S. Sumartini and N. Priatna, “Identify student mathematical understanding ability through direct learning model,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2018. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1132/1/012043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1132/1/012043
    44. R. Handican, E. Y. P. Nasution, A. Ananda, N. Gistituati, and R. Rusdinal, “Understanding the duality of mathematics education paradigms: a comparative review of learning methods in Indonesia and Japan,” Mathline J. Mat. dan Pendidik. Mat., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 921–936, 2023, doi: 10.31943/mathline.v8i3.473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31943/mathline.v8i3.473
    45. M. Zayyadi, and D. Kurniati, “Mathematics reasoning and proving of students in generalizing the pattern,” 2018. [Online]. Available: www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJET
    46. S. I. Hasanah, C. F. Tafrilyanto, and Y. Aini, “Mathematical reasoning: The characteristics of students’ mathematical abilities in problem solving,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Institute of Physics Publishing, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1188/1/012057
    47. E. Yayuk, Purwanto, A. R. As’Ari, and Subanji, “Primary school students’ creative thinking skills in mathematics problem solving,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1281–1295, 2020, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1281
    48. M. A. Al-Mutawah, R. Thomas, A. Eid, E. Y. Mahmoud, and M. J. Fateel, “Conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge and problem-solving skills in mathematics: High school graduates work analysis and standpoints,” Int. J. Educ. Pract., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 258–273, 2019, doi: 10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.258.273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.258.273
    49. M. Matthee and M. Turpin, “Teaching critical Thinking, Problem solving and design thinking: preparing IS students for the future,” J. Inf. Syst. Educ., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 242–252, 2019.
    50. I. Fitrianto and A. M. Hidayat, “Critical reasoning skills: designing an education curriculum revelant to social and economic needs,” Int. J. Post Axial Futur. Teach. Learn., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 245–258, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59944/postaxial.v2i4.393
    51. J. Anderson, R. Tytler, and G. Williams, “Supporting curriculum innovation in integrated STEM for secondary teachers in Australia,” Res. Integr. STEM Educ., pp. 1–30, 2022, doi: 10.1163/27726673-00101001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/27726673-00101001
    52. M. Mariamah, R. Ratnah, H. Katimah, A. Rahman, and A. Haris, “Analysis of students’ perceptions of mathematics subjects: case studies in elementary schools,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing Ltd, Jun. 2021. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1933/1/012074
    53. N. P. Roblin, C. Schunn, and S. McKenney, “What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes?,” Sci. Educ., vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 260–282, 2018, doi: 10.1002/sce.21328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21328
    54. J. Nafi’ah, D. J. Faruq, and S. Mutmainah, “Karakteristik pembelajaran pada kurikulum merdeka belajar di madrasah ibtidaiyah [Characteristics of learning in the independent learning curriculum in elementary madrasas],” J. Auladuna, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://journal.mahesacenter.org/index.php/ppd/index.
    55. H. Semilarski, R. Soobard, and M. Rannikmäe, “Promoting students’ perceived self-efficacy towards 21st century skills through everyday life-related scenarios,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 10, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11100570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100570
    56. J. Rudolph, S. Tan, and S. Tan, “War of the chatbots: Bard, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Ernie and beyond. The new AI gold rush and its impact on higher education,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 364–389, 2023, doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.23
    57. M. Niss and T. Højgaard, “Mathematical competencies revisited,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 9–28, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09903-9
    58. P. Kovacs, E. Kuruczleki, K. Kazar, L. Liptak, and T. Racz, “Modern teaching methods in action in statistical classes,” Stat. J. IAOS, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 899–919, 2021, doi: 10.3233/SJI-210843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-210843
    59. W. Mendoza, G. M. Ramírez, C. González, and F. Moreira, “Assessment of curriculum design by learning outcomes (LO),” Educ. Sci., vol. 12, no. 8, 2022, doi: 10.3390/educsci12080541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080541
    60. S. A. Widodo, “Selection of learning media mathematics for junior school students,” TOJET Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol., vol. 17, no. 1, 2018.
    61. S. B. Taştan et al., “The impacts of teacher’s efficacy and motivation on student’s academic achievement in science education among secondary and high school students,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2353–2366, 2018, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/89579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89579
    62. B. Csapó and G. Molnár, “Online diagnostic assessment in support of personalized teaching and learning: The eDia system,” Front. Psychol., vol. 10, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01522
    63. Y. W. Lee, “Diagnosing diagnostic language assessment,” Lang. Test., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 299–316, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0265532214565387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214565387
    64. T. Fan, J. Song, and Z. Guan, “Integrating diagnostic assessment into curriculum: a theoretical framework and teaching practices,” Lang. Test. Asia, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40468-020-00117-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00117-y
    65. H. Daka, L. Mulenga-Hagane, M. Mukalula-Kalumbi, and S. Lisulo, “Making summative assessment effective,” Eur. Mod. Stud. J., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 224–237, 2021.
    66. I. Y. C. Menéndez, M. A. C. Napa, M. L. M. Moreira, and G. G. V. Zambrano, “The importance of formative assessment in the learning teaching process,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 238–249, 2019, doi: 10.29332/ijssh.v3n2.322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v3n2.322
    67. J. van der Steen, T. van Schilt-Mol, C. van der Vleuten, and D. Joosten-ten Brinke, “Supporting teachers in improving formative decision-making: design principles for formative assessment plans,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, 2022, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.925352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.925352
    68. B. C. Agbata et al., “Everyday uses of mathematics and the roles of a mathematics teacher,” Sci. World J., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 819–827, 2024, doi: 10.4314/swj.v19i3.29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/swj.v19i3.29
    69. L. D. English, “Ways of thinking in STEM-based problem solving,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1219–1230, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11858-023-01474-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01474-7
    70. M. A. Pratama, “Mathematical critical thinking ability and students’ confidence in mathematical literacy,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing Ltd, 2020. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1663/1/012028
    71. S. Sachdeva and P.-O. Eggen, “Learners’ critical thinking about learning mathematics,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 16, no. 3, p. em0644, 2021, doi: 10.29333/iejme/11003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11003