Prior studies showed that both girls and boys typically use their metacognitive skills in learning. The aim of this study is to examine the aspects measuring the students’ mathematical achievement in Indonesia. By applying multilevel analysis to the Programme for International Student Assesment (PISA) 2018 data for Indonesia, this study showed that gender, index of economic social and cultural status (ESCS), metacognition, and learning time are student-level explanatory variables that influence the students’ mathematics achievement. The findings showed that Indonesia education policymakers should consider student gender, ESCS, student metacognition and learning time that can affect students’ mathematics achievement. ESCS, metacognition, and learning time had positive relationships with the mathematics achievement, while gender had a negative. Higher ESCS, higher metacognition and higher learning time suggested higher achievement in mathematics, where girls were more prevalent that boys. The interaction between the ESCS (student-level) and stratio (school-level) was significant effected to mathematics achievement. It determined that gender, ESCS, metacognition, learning time, and interaction between ESCS and stratio highlighted most of the variance in students’ mathematical achievement.

1.
F.
Giambona
and
M.
Porcu
, “
School size and students’ achievement. Empirical evidences from PISA survey data
”,
Socioecon. Plann. Sci.
64
,
66
(
2018
).
2.
OECD
, “
PISA Results in Focus
”,
OECD Publ.
32
(
2015
).
3.
OECD
, “
PISA 2018 insights and interpretations
”,
OECD Publ.
64
(
2019
).
4.
OECD
, “
Pisa 2021 Mathematics Framework(Draft
)”,
J. Chem. Inf. Model.
53
,
1689
(
1970
).
5.
K.
Stacey
, “
The PISA view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia
”,
J. Math. Educ.
2
,
95
(
2011
).
6.
OECD
, “
Assessment and Analytical Framework
”,
OECD Publ.
11
(
2019
).
7.
F.
Avvisati
,
A.
Echazarra
,
P.
Givord
, and
M.
Schwabe
, “
What 15-year-old students in Indonesia know and can do
”,
Program. Int. Student Assess. Result from PISA 2018
1
(
2018
).
8.
J.
Teodorović
, “
Student background factors influencing student achievement in Serbia
”,
Educ. Stud.
38
,
89
(
2012
).
9.
J.L.
Peugh
, “
A practical guide to multilevel modeling
”,
J. Sch. Psychol.
48
,
85
(
2010
).
10.
J.J.
Hox
,
M.
Moerbeek
, and
R.
Van De Schoot
,
Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications
(
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
,
2018
).
11.
A.
Karakolidis
,
V.
Pitsia
, and
A.
Emvalotis
, “
Examining students’ achievement in mathematics: A multilevel analysis of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 data for Greece
”,
Int. J. Educ. Res.
79
,
106
(
2016
).
12.
E.E.
Ketonen
and
R.
Hotulainen
, “
Development of low-stakes mathematics and literacy test scores during lower secondary school – A multilevel pattern-centered analysis of student and classroom differences
”,
Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
59
,
101793
(
2019
).
13.
Q.
Chen
, “
A Multilevel Analysis of Singaporean Students ’ Mathematics performance in PISA 2012
”,
17
(
2016
).
14.
T.
Milford
,
S.P.
Ross
, and
J.O.
Anderson
, “
An opportunity to better understand schooling: The growing presence of pisa in The AMERICAS
”,
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
8
,
453
(
2010
).
15.
C.
Sakellariou
, “
Private or public school advantage? Evidence from 40 countries using PISA 2012-Mathematics
”,
1
,
582
(
2017
).
16.
S.
Areepattamannil
, “
International Note: What factors are associated with reading, mathematics, and science literacy of Indian adolescents? A multilevel examination
”,
J. Adolesc.
37
,
367
(
2014
).
17.
K.
Eriksson
,
O.
Helenius
, and
A.
Ryve
, “
Using TIMSS items to evaluate the effectiveness of different instructional practices
”,
Instr. Sci.
47
,
1
(
2019
).
18.
OECD
, “
PISA for Development Assessment and Analytical Framework
”,
OECD Publ.
(
2017
).
19.
OECD
, “
Main Survey School Sampling Preparation Manual Overview
”,
Pisa 2018
(
2017
).
20.
OECD
, “
PISA 2015 Technical Report
”,
OECD Publ.
1
(
2017
).
21.
R.
Tarling
,
Statistical Modelling for Social Researchers
(
Statistical Modelling for Social Researchers
,
2009
).
22.
U.
Gromping
, “
Multilevel Modeling Using R
”,
J. Stat. Softw.
62
, (
2015
).
23.
J.
Pinheiro
,
D.
Bates
,
S.
DebRoy
, and
D.
Sarkar
, “
nlme: Fit and Compare Gaussian Linear and Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Models. (R. Package Version 3.1-104)
”, (
2020
).
24.
OECD
, “
How PISA results are reported: What is a PISA score?
”,
Program. Int. Student Assess. Result from PISA 2018
I
,
41
(
2019
).
25.
J.
Rabash
,
F.
Steele
,
W.J.
Browne
, and
H.
Goldstein
,
A User's Guide to MLwiN
(
England
:
Centered for Multilevel Modelling
,
2015
).
26.
M.
Muszyński
, “
Learning strategies and reading
”, (
2015
).
27.
T.W.
Bank
, “
Learning outcomes in Thailand: what can we learn from international assessments?
”,
Rep. No 64801-TH
(
2012
).
28.
C.
Özdemir
, “
Equity in the Turkish education system: A multilevel analysis of social background influences on the mathematics performance of 15-year-old students
”,
Eur. Educ. Res. J.
15
,
193
(
2016
).
29.
L.M.
Thien
,
I.G.N.
Darmawan
, and
M.Y.
Ong
, “
Affective characteristics and mathematics performance in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand: what can PISA 2012 data tell us?
”,
Large-Scale Assessments Educ.
3
, (
2015
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.