Mathematical Competencies and Critical Thinking in Secondary Education: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review (2019–2025)

1. Introduction

In the face of 21st-century challenges such as digital transformation, labor market uncertainty, and increasing social complexity, secondary education is confronted with the pressing need to redefine the competencies students must develop. In this context, competence development must move beyond mere knowledge acquisition and focus instead on the ability to mobilize cognitive, emotional, and social resources to act critically, autonomously, and contextually (Zhu et al., 2021). Among these, mathematical competence and critical thinking stand out as essential capacities that strengthen academic performance, civic preparedness, and the ability to solve real-world problems (Pramasdyahsari et al., 2023; Pratiwi et al., 2025; Pereira-González et al., 2024).

According to the PISA framework, mathematical competence involves the formulation, use, and interpretation of mathematics across a variety of contexts, highlighting its functional and social dimensions (Beccuti, 2024). This competence goes beyond numerical operations; it encompasses complex cognitive skills such as logical reasoning, modeling, data interpretation, and evidence-based argumentation. Numerous studies have directly linked mathematical competence to academic achievement, problem-solving ability, and readiness to face novel situations (Alegre et al., 2019; Wahono et al., 2020).

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is defined as the ability to analyze, evaluate, and construct arguments in a reasoned, reflective, and context-sensitive manner (Rahmatika et al., 2024). Within the educational sphere, it enables students to question assumptions, make informed decisions, and transfer knowledge across diverse contexts. Although multiple theoretical approaches exist regarding its development, authors such as Pereira-González et al. (2024) agree on its transversal and situated nature, meaning it is closely tied to specific domains of knowledge such as mathematics.

However, the intersection between mathematical competence and critical thinking remains insufficiently explored from an integrative perspective. Despite their natural complementarity, both requiring logical reasoning, interpretation, and contextual analysis, they are often addressed separately in many curricula. This theoretical and practical disconnection is reflected in classrooms, where students struggle to apply mathematical concepts in real-life situations requiring critical judgment (Er, 2024; Li & Oon, 2024).

Recent literature highlights persistent barriers to the integration of these competencies in secondary education: rigid curricula, lack of teacher training in active methodologies, weak student research culture, and limited use of interactive technologies (Chacón-Cueva et al., 2023; Cruz et al., 2022; McLure et al., 2022). These limitations hinder pedagogical innovation and compromise the quality of learning during a crucial stage in adolescent cognitive development.

In response to this context, several educational paradigms, such as constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), and competency-based learning, converge in emphasizing the need to provide meaningful, collaborative, and contextually relevant experiences. Models such as Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Project-Based Learning (PjBL), and STEM education have proven effective in simultaneously fostering critical thinking and mathematical competence (Mayorga-Aguirre et al., 2024; Setyawati et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, despite increasing interest in this field, there remains fragmentation in the available empirical evidence. Few studies jointly examine both competencies, and even fewer systematically analyze the methodologies employed, their outcomes, and limitations. Therefore, this systematic review aims to critically examine the recent scientific literature on the integration of mathematical competence and critical thinking in secondary education, considering the impact of pedagogical strategies, identified barriers, and emerging trends.

The research questions guiding this review are:

2. Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 protocol guidelines (Page et al., 2021) with the aim of identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing empirical evidence on the integration of mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education.

2.4 Study selection process

The identification, screening, and inclusion process is illustrated in Figure 1, following the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram. A total of 1,457 records were initially identified across four databases: Scopus (n = 228), Web of Science (n = 408), Dialnet (n = 170), and SciELO (n = 651). All records were exported to Microsoft Excel, where duplicates (n = 91) and records outside the 2019–2024 publication window (n = 277) were removed, resulting in 1,089 studies for screening. During this phase, records were excluded due to language (n = 119), document type (n = 57), lack of access to full text (n = 213), non-relevant study population (n = 61), and misalignment with the topic (n = 532). This resulted in 107 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Of these, four could not be retrieved and 79 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, 24 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The review was conducted independently by two evaluators. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using Cohen’s kappa (κ = 0.83), indicating a high level of consistency. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, which strengthened transparency and minimized selection bias.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines.

The methodological quality assessment was conducted using an ad hoc matrix consisting of ten items, adapted from Khan et al. (2022) and Petticrew and Roberts (2008), designed to evaluate key aspects such as methodological clarity, internal consistency, and theoretical alignment (see Table 2). This matrix was specifically adjusted to accommodate quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies, in line with the exploratory and educational focus of this review. The results of this evaluation are available in open access on Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29635733.v1) in the Excel file entitled “Calidad de estudios” (Alvarez-Tinajero et al., 2025).

Table 2. Evaluation criteria.

No.	Question	Criterion
P1	Are the study objectives aligned with the development of mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education?	Yes/Partial/No
P2	Is the methodology used clear and understandable?	Yes/Partial/No
P3	Does the study population include secondary school students?	Yes/Partial/No
P4	Is the type of study clearly identified and justified?	Yes/Partial/No
P5	Does the study establish a well-defined purpose regarding the integration of mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education?	Yes/Partial/No
P6	Are standards or reference frameworks on the teaching of mathematical competencies and the development of critical thinking in secondary education identified?	Yes/Partial/No
P7	Does the study refer to pedagogical models, teaching approaches, or theories that support the integration of mathematical competencies and critical thinking?	Yes/Partial/No
P8	Are the key aspects to be considered in the teaching of mathematical competencies to strengthen critical thinking in secondary students established?	Yes/Partial/No
P9	Are data presented on the evaluation of strategies or teaching approaches used to develop mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education?	Yes/Partial/No
P10	Are the research questions formulated in the study aimed at providing clear answers and solutions to the issue of integrating mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education?	Yes/Partial/No

A minimum threshold of ≥7 out of 10 points was established to ensure acceptable methodological quality, while avoiding overly restrictive exclusion. While this cut-off is not universal, it has been used in previous educational reviews. Future studies are encouraged to complement this approach with sensitivity analyses and more graduated scoring systems to better capture methodological nuances. Table 2 presents the applied questions, the evaluation criteria, and the scoring scale used for selection: “yes” = 1 point, “partially” = 0.5 points, and “no” = 0 points.

To ensure methodological rigor while respecting the epistemological and disciplinary characteristics of educational research, the quality appraisal was guided by the AMSTAR 2 checklist (Shea et al., 2017). Although this instrument was originally developed for systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized health interventions, it was employed here as a methodological framework to ensure coherence and traceability in the evaluation process. A final quantitative rating was not produced; as certain indicators are not directly applicable to the educational field. The full document containing the selected AMSTAR 2 items is available in open access on Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30490835).

Table 3 summarizes the key characteristics of the 24 studies included in this systematic review. It presents information on the authors and publication year, article title, methodological approach, population/sample/studies analyzed, country of origin, and the quality score assigned according to the adapted evaluation matrix.

Table 3. Articles included in the review.

Authors (Year)	Title	Type of methodology/Study design	Population/ Sample/Studies analyzed	Country	Score
Chacón-Cueva et al. (2023)	Aprendizaje basado en problemas para desarrollar el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de secundaria – 2023	Quantitative, quasi-experimental design.	92 students (50 in the experimental group and 42 in the control group)	Peru	7
Sutama et al. (2022)	Collaborative mathematics learning management: Critical thinking skills in problem solving	Qualitative, descriptive ethnographic study.	34 participants (1 school principal, 3 mathematics teachers, and 30 students)	Indonesia	10
Llerena-Aguilar et al. (2023)	Metodologías innovadoras basadas en el aprendizaje basado en retos y problemas: una mirada a la mejora de la competencia lógico matemática	Applied research, mixed-methods approach (quantitative-qualitative).	200 students	Ecuador	9
Pinos-Vargas et al. (2024)	El Impacto del Aprendizaje Basado en Problemas (ABP) en el Desarrollo del Pensamiento Matemático Crítico en Estudiantes de Educación Básica	Theoretical–analytical review with constructivist perspective.	44 documents analyzed	Ecuador	8.5
Jiménez-Cortes & Vesga-Bravo (2022)	Fortalecimiento del pensamiento crítico en el aula de matemáticas: una experiencia en pandemia	Qualitative, participatory action research.	18 students	Colombia	10
Alvis-Puentes et al. (2019)	Los ambientes de aprendizaje reales como estrategia pedagógica para el desarrollo de competencias matemáticas en estudiantes de básica secundaria	Qualitative, interpretive approach (critical mathematics education).	Secondary school students (grade 9). The number of students is not specified.	Colombia	10
Castro-Valle et al. (2023)	Estrategia aprendizaje basado en proyectos para desarrollar el pensamiento crítico en estudiantes de secundaria	Quantitative, quasi-experimental design.	60 students	Peru	7.5
Hilario (2021)	Aprendizaje basado en proyectos mediados por Tic para desarrollar competencias matemáticas en estudiantes de secundaria	Quantitative, quasi-experimental design.	57 students (30 experimental group, 27 control)	Peru	10
Wahono et al. (2020)	Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes	Systematic review and meta-analysis.	54 studies selected from an initial sample of 4768 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Taiwan	7
Viro & Joutsenlahti (2020)	Learning mathematics by project work in secondary school	Quantitative, multiple-case quasi-experimental study.	117 students (59 in coordinate project, 58 in statistics project)	Finland	10
Val Fernández (2023)	Matemáticas con Fermat. Propuesta práctica para potenciar la toma de decisiones en las aulas de secundaria	Theoretical–practical proposal for educational innovation.	Secondary school students; the number of participants is not specified because it was not empirically applied.	Spain	8
Moreira et al. (2024)	Gamification for learning mathematics in secondary school: Most effective gamified strategies to motivate students and improve their performance in mathematics	Theoretical review of gamification in mathematics.	15 studies selected from an initial sample of 150 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Spain	7
Urdanivia et al. (2023)	Science and inquiry-based teaching and learning: a systematic review	Systematic review.	51 studies selected from an initial sample of 700 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Peru	7
Farfán-Pimentel et al. (2022)	Quizizz en el desarrollo de competencias matemáticas en estudiantes de secundaria: Una revisión teórica	Theoretical review.	168 studies analyzed	Peru	7
Curto et al. (2019)	Student Assessment of the Use of Kahoot in the Learning Process of Science and Mathematics	Quantitative, descriptive quasi-experimental design.	35 students	Spain	7
Del Cerro & Morales (2021)	Application in Augmented Reality for Learning Mathematical Functions: A Study for the Development of Spatial Intelligence in Secondary Education Students	Mixed-methods, quasi-experimental design.	48 students	Spain	9
Alegre et al. (2019)	Peer tutoring and mathematics in secondary education: literature review, effect sizes, moderators, and implications for practice	Systematic review and meta-analysis.	42 studies selected from an initial sample of 143 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Spain	7,5
Hillmayr et al. (2020)	The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis	Meta-analysis of empirical studies (2000–2019).	16 studies selected from an initial sample of 6572 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Germany	8
McLure et al. (2022)	What do integrated STEM projects look like in middle school and high school classrooms? A systematic literature review of empirical studies of iSTEM projects	Systematic review of empirical studies on integrated STEM projects.	35 studies selected from an initial sample of 221 articles, after quality and relevance screening	Australia	7
Saldarriaga-Cantos et al. (2024)	Desarrollo del pensamiento crítico en la ejecución de proyectos interdisciplinares basados en tecnologías de la información y comunicación	Mixed, descriptive-correlational, inductive-deductive design.	175 participants (165 students, 7 teachers, 2 principals, and 1 guidance counselor)	Ecuador	10
Cruz et al. (2022)	Project-Based Learning Methodology as a Promoter of Learning Math Concepts: A Scoping Review	Scoping review.	17 empirical studies	Portugal	7,5
Mayorga-Aguirre et al. (2024)	Educación STEM: Fomentando el Pensamiento Crítico y la Innovación en las Aulas	Mixed-methods approach (quantitative-qualitative).	60 participants (40 students and 20 teachers)	Ecuador	10
Maskur et al. (2022)	La comparación del enfoque STEM y el modelo de aprendizaje SSCS para la escuela secundaria basado en el plan de estudios K-13: el impacto en la capacidad de pensamiento creativo y crítico	Quantitative, quasi-experimental design.	125 secondary students (65 in Group I, 60 in Group II)	Indonesia	9
Ordóñez-Barberán & Sánchez-Godoy (2024)	Estrategias metacognitivas para la enseñanza de las matemáticas en educación secundaria	Qualitative, descriptive design.	45 documents analyzed	Ecuador	10

This synthesis supports the thematic categorization presented in the Results section and contextualizes the scope and relevance of each analyzed study.

3. Results

As detailed in Table 3 (Section 2, Methods), the 24 studies included in this systematic review exhibit significant diversity in their methodological designs, geographic contexts, and target populations. This heterogeneity provides the empirical foundation for the thematic analysis presented below, which is structured around the three research questions (RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3).

To enhance readability and ensure consistency in the interpretation of the results, all percentages reported in this section were rounded to the nearest whole number, following the guidelines of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.; American Psychological Association, 2020, §6.36), which recommends expressing percentage values with a level of precision appropriate to the size and nature of the dataset.

Interest in integrating mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education has shown steady growth between 2019 and 2025. Over the past three years (2022–2024), scientific output increased by 67%, with 2023 emerging as the most prolific year, accounting for six studies, 25% of the total. These data reflect a sustained upward trend in the field, responding to the educational imperative of fostering higher-order thinking skills in diverse school contexts.

In terms of geographic distribution, 50% of the studies were conducted in Latin America, particularly in Ecuador and Peru (five studies each) and Colombia (two studies). Europe accounts for 29% of the total, with research conducted in Spain (four studies), Portugal (one), Germany (one), and Finland (one). Asia contributes 13%, represented by two studies from Indonesia and one from Taiwan, while Oceania is represented by a single study (4%) conducted in Australia. The absence of studies from Africa and North America highlights a limitation in the global generalizability of the findings and reveals a geographic gap that future research could address.

From a methodological perspective (see Table 3), the analyzed studies display a wide range of approaches. Quantitative designs predominate, comprising nine studies (38%), mostly quasi-experimental or descriptive in nature, aimed at evaluating the effects of active learning methodologies or digital tools on mathematics learning (Chacón-Cueva et al., 2023; Castro-Valle et al., 2023; Hilario, 2021; Curto et al., 2019; Del Cerro & Morales, 2021; Maskur et al., 2022; Saldarriaga-Cantos et al., 2024; Viro & Joutsenlahti, 2020; Hillmayr et al., 2020).

Three studies (13%) applied a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses to gain a comprehensive understanding of the pedagogical impact of the implemented strategies (Del Cerro & Morales, 2021; Mayorga-Aguirre et al., 2024; Saldarriaga-Cantos et al., 2024).

Four studies (17%) employed qualitative methodologies, ethnographic, field-based, or participatory action research, focused on classroom experiences, teachers’ perspectives, and collaborative learning processes (Sutama et al., 2022; Jiménez-Cortés & Vesga-Bravo, 2022; Alvis-Puentes et al., 2019; Ordóñez-Barberán & Sánchez-Godoy, 2024).

Finally, eight studies (33%) correspond to systematic, theoretical, or exploratory reviews, including meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and documentary analyses that provide a broad overview of the state of the art and conceptual trends in the integration of mathematical competencies and critical thinking (Pinos-Vargas et al., 2024; Farfán-Pimentel et al., 2022; Moreira et al., 2024; Urdanivia et al., 2023; Alegre et al., 2019; McLure et al., 2022; Wahono et al., 2020; Val Fernández, 2023).

The most relevant results of this study are presented below, based on each of the research questions posed (RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3).

4. Discussion

This systematic review critically examined the integration of mathematical competence and critical thinking in secondary education, highlighting both the impact of pedagogical strategies and the contextual barriers affecting their implementation. The findings confirm that this integration is currently in a stage of consolidation, characterized by an increasing use of active methodologies mediated by technology. However, beyond validating the effectiveness of approaches such as Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Project-Based Learning (PjBL), STEM/STEAM, or gamification, this discussion seeks to understand why these strategies work, under what conditions they generate impact, and what their structural and contextual limitations are.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings reveal three common pedagogical mechanisms that explain the effectiveness of these strategies: the contextualization of knowledge through real problem-solving, technological and symbolic mediation, and guided and reflective collaboration. These principles, derived from constructivism (Piaget, 1972), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), and sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978), conceive learning as an active, situated, and transformative process. In line with this, studies such as those by Chacón-Cueva et al. (2023), Hilario (2021), and Sutama et al. (2022) demonstrate that PBL and PjBL foster logical reasoning, argumentation, and metacognition when implemented in flexible environments with reflective guidance. Comparable findings were reported by Soia et al. (2024), who showed that project-based learning fosters both critical thinking and teamwork skills among future mathematics and computer-science teachers, supporting the collaborative and reflective principles identified in this review. Similarly, Li and Oon (2024) and Khalil et al. (2023) show that critical thinking emerges when learning encourages dialogue, autonomy, and the co-construction of knowledge.

Some studies, however, warn of significant limitations. Trisnani et al. (2024) and Moreira et al. (2024) report that in contexts characterized by rigid curricula or limited teacher training, PBL implementation can devolve into a sequence of activities lacking reflective depth. This finding aligns with Le (2024), who notes that active methodologies may fail if not supported by coherent institutional structures. Furthermore, the lack of explicit theoretical alignment between empirical designs and epistemological frameworks remains a cross-cutting weakness. This disconnect, also identified by Sánchez-García and Reyes-de-Cózar (2025) and Van der Zanden et al. (2020), limits the replicability and transferability of findings and underscores the need for more robust methodological models that integrate instructional design, psychometric evaluation, and longitudinal analysis.

The STEM/STEAM approach has emerged as an integrative strategy that combines logical reasoning, creativity, and problem-solving in interdisciplinary contexts (Mayorga-Aguirre et al., 2024; Maskur et al., 2022; Pratiwi et al., 2025). Recent quasi-experimental evidence also shows that STEM-based learning produces significantly higher gains in mathematical critical thinking compared to conventional instruction, reinforcing its value as an integrative pedagogical model (Pratiwi et al., 2025). This result is consistent with the findings of Margot and Kettler (2019), who argue that STEM facilitates the transfer of mathematical knowledge to real-world contexts. Brandsæter and Berge (2025) further extend this perspective by demonstrating that programming-based activities effectively strengthen mathematical competence through computational reasoning, highlighting the potential of digital environments to promote mathematical fluency and problem-solving. However, the review reveals significant contrasts across regions and institutional levels. While Yohannes et al. (2024) and Er (2024) report sustained improvements in cognitive transfer and motivation, Suherman et al. (2022) and Kalinin and Toropova (2024) warn that gender gaps, limited curricular interdisciplinarity, and unequal teacher preparation condition the outcomes. These differences confirm that the effectiveness of STEM is context-dependent: its benefits do not derive solely from the pedagogical model itself but also from the institutional conditions that support it, as observed by Hillmayr et al. (2020) and Duma et al. (2024).

Findings related to technological mediation represent another central axis in the integration of competencies. Digital tools such as Kahoot, Quizizz, GeoGebra, and augmented reality function as symbolic mediators that promote immediate feedback, active participation, and self-regulated learning (Curto et al., 2019; Del Cerro & Morales, 2021). Nevertheless, several studies caution that the instrumental use of these technologies does not necessarily guarantee deep learning. Nurdin et al. (2023) found that PBL environments supported by Google Sites significantly enhanced students’ mathematical critical thinking, confirming that digital scaffolding amplifies the reflective and metacognitive components of active learning. Nashrullah et al. (2023) and Saldarriaga-Cantos et al. (2024) similarly noted that teachers’ digital competence and structured pedagogical design are essential to transforming technology from a motivational tool into a medium for higher-order reasoning. This divergence aligns with McLure et al. (2022), who recommend a reflective and situated use of technological tools that integrates authentic assessment and collaborative learning criteria.

The reviewed studies identify a recurring set of structural barriers: rigid curricula, insufficient teacher training, weak student research culture, and the absence of instruments for assessing higher-order skills (Castro-Valle et al., 2023; Cruz et al., 2022; Kintoko et al., 2024). These limitations do not operate independently but interact, creating a “funnel effect” (Nicholus et al., 2023) in which methodological innovations are diluted by inflexible institutional structures or memorization-based assessments. Accordingly, PBL and PjBL tend to fail in environments with rigid timetables and limited curricular autonomy, while the lack of authentic assessment obscures progress in critical and logical reasoning.

Another critical finding is the prevalence of publication bias: most of the reviewed studies report positive effects, while mixed or null results are rare (Moreira et al., 2024; Le, 2024). This pattern, also highlighted by Hillmayr et al. (2020) and McLure et al. (2022), underscores the need to promote more transparent research practices, including sensitivity analyses, open data, and cross-context replication. Encouraging longitudinal and multicultural studies would help prevent the overestimation of effectiveness and yield a more nuanced understanding of the mediating factors that influence success.

Based on the evidence analyzed, three key practical implications can be identified. The first concerns strengthening initial and continuing teacher training focused on critical reflection, formative assessment, and the pedagogical use of interactive technologies (Hillmayr et al., 2020; Duma et al., 2024). The second highlights the need to design flexible, interdisciplinary curricula that integrate mathematics with other domains to foster cognitive transfer, creativity, methodological experimentation, and authentic assessment (Er, 2024). The third relates to implementing institutional policies for educational innovation that ensure technological infrastructure, pedagogical support, and context-sensitive evaluation systems to apply these strategies equitably and sustainably (Peralta et al., 2025; Melo-López et al., 2025; Jaramillo-Mediavilla et al., 2024). These recommendations, consistent with the proposals of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2023) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2022), aim to transcend the academic sphere and inform public policy and teacher development initiatives.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this review. The geographic concentration of studies in Latin America and Southern Europe introduces a contextual bias that restricts the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed in underrepresented regions, such as Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East, to compare outcomes and advance toward a global understanding of the phenomenon. Future studies should prioritize intercultural and collaborative approaches supported by validated psychometric models to strengthen comparability and sustainability.

Overall, this review provides a critical synthesis that integrates pedagogical, technological, and structural evidence concerning critical mathematical education, contributing to the construction of an educational action framework grounded in recent empirical evidence. Its impact will depend on the ability of educational systems to generate structural, policy, and training conditions that ensure its sustainable and equitable implementation.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrates that the integration of mathematical competencies and critical thinking in secondary education is still in a stage of conceptual consolidation rather than full pedagogical maturity. The analysis of 24 studies (2019–2025) reveals that while active methodologies, such as PBL, PjBL, STEM/STEAM, and gamification, consistently produce positive cognitive and motivational outcomes, their success depends strongly on contextual variables such as institutional support, teacher expertise, and curriculum flexibility.

The main contribution of this review lies not in reaffirming the effectiveness of these strategies, but in identifying the underlying mechanisms and systemic conditions that enable their impact: authentic problem-solving and contextualization of learning; guided collaboration that cultivates metacognitive reflection; and technological mediation that promotes autonomy and formative assessment. These principles form the basis of an emerging integrative pedagogical framework linking critical reasoning, creativity, and digital fluency in mathematics education.

At the same time, this synthesis exposes persistent structural inequities: most successful interventions occur in well-resourced schools with high teacher autonomy. Thus, replicability in less favorable contexts remains uncertain. For policymakers and practitioners, this review highlights the need to move beyond isolated innovations and toward systemic reform, strengthening teacher professional learning communities, investing in digital infrastructure, and embedding authentic assessment of reasoning and argumentation in curricula.

Ultimately, the integration of mathematical and critical thinking competencies should be viewed not as a set of discrete strategies, but as a transformative capacity of educational systems to generate equitable and evidence-informed environments where students learn to think mathematically and critically about real-world challenges.