Meta-analysis study: How effective is a project-based learning model on students' mathematical problem-solving abilities?
Abstract
Over the past few years, many experimental investigations on the model of project-based learning (PjBL) have affected the mathematical capacity of pupils to solve issues. However, neither the second nor the literature review analysed the combined results of this research. This meta-analysis is aimed at examining and describing the PjBL model's effectiveness in improved student solving mathematical issues in Indonesia. Twelve studies were analysed 2014 to 2021 using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software. The effectiveness of the PjBL model was found to be 1.284 times greater than that of conventional learning models in terms of students' mathematical problem-solving abilities. Additional analysis in the form of study characteristics obtained to bolster the study's findings indicates significant differences at the level of education and publication sources. The application of the PjBL model efficient for mathematical problem-solving abilities when mathematics teachers apply to learn to secondary school students. In addition, researchers should publish their research in the form of articles in reputable journals to improve the quality of their research, the decline in the number of publications over the past three years has allowed many academics to conduct research, the most effective and recommended research sampling technique is the random sampling technique.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Yunita et al. (2022) found that mathematical content moderates the effects of PBL on students' mathematical problem-solving abilities.
“Yunita et al. (2022) found that mathematical content moderates the effects of PBL on students’ mathematical problem-solving abilities.”
From Can project-based learning improve students’ mathematics learning outcomes: a three-level meta-analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Yunita et al., 2022
Cites
Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654315627366 · Cited by 967 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention
Poston, J. M., & Hanson, W. E. (2010) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0018679 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Modern Meta-Analysis: Review and Update of Methodologies
Cleophas, T. J., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55895-0 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, C., Zhang, W., & Cheng, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1868415
- Authors
- Yunita, Y., Juandi, D., Hasanah, A., & Suparman
- Affiliations
- Indonesia University of Education (ID)
- Corresponding author
- Yunita, Yunita
- Venue
- AIP Conference Proceedings
- Publisher
- AIP Publishing
- Published
- 2022
- Volume
- 2597
- Pages
- 070024
- ISSN
- 0094-243X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4313271116
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 3.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- AIP conference proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › STEM Education
- Keywords
- project-based learning, mathematical problem solving ability, mathematics education, high school students, conventional learning comparison, teaching method effectiveness, Indonesian mathematics education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review