Nurlia Ginting1,2*Wuri Wuryandani1Sekar Purbarini Kawuryan1Ali Mustadi1
Fery Muhamad Firdaus1
Jonni Sitorus3,4*- 1Departemen Pendidikan Sekolah Dasar, Prodi S3 Pendidikan Dasar, Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
- 2Prodi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Quality Berastagi, Berastagi, Indonesia
- 3Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan, Penelitian dan Pengembangan Provinsi Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia
- 4Prodi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sari Mutiara, Medan, Indonesia
This research examines critical and cultural literacy skills among elementary students, along with influencing factors: gender, educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and information access. It involved 200 fifth- and sixth-grade students in Karo District, Indonesia, using narrative tests to measure four components of critical skills (information gathering, understanding, application, and productive thinking) and four aspects of cultural literacy (understanding, awareness, reflection, and evaluation), supplemented by validated questionnaires. Findings show students’ overall skills are moderate, with critical skills (mean = 72.20) slightly higher than cultural literacy (mean = 70.36). A significant gender gap was found, with males outperforming females in both critical skills (8.90-point gap) and cultural literacy (6.81-point gap), statistically confirmed (p = 0.000). Regression analysis indicates the four factors collectively and significantly influenced both skill sets (p = 0.000), accounting for 59.29% of variance in critical skills and 67.70% in cultural literacy. Educational environment most strongly influences critical skills (b = 0.268), while both educational environment (b = 0.237) and cultural openness (b = 0.227) are most dominant for cultural literacy. All factors showed significant individual influence per t-test results. These findings underscore the vital role of structured educational settings, cultural exposure, socio-cultural interaction, and information access in developing these competencies. The research highlights the need for gender-responsive pedagogy and comprehensive strategies addressing all four factors to enhance students’ skills in elementary education. The research’s uniqueness and strength lie in its single empirical model, which integrates critical and cultural literacy skills into one instrument. This model applies a culturally responsive framework through Karo rituals, folklore, and cultural preservation in reflective-critical learning.
1 Introduction
Critical skills are a process of analyzing problems, sorting relevant information, and developing strategies for solving them (Azizah and Alnashr, 2022; Ennis, 2015). A person can connect various data and draw logical conclusions (Kibtiyah, 2022) by questioning, analyzing, evaluating, and reflecting on information (Facione, 2011; BSKAP, 2023).
In the globalization era, critical skills protect students from hoaxes, teach them to filter information, understand concepts (rather than simply memorize them), argue logically, and make decisions based on evidence. For example, to preserve culture, critical students can analyze traditional rituals or find ways to preserve them and discuss the tolerance value to combat extremism.
Critical and cultural literacy skills are mutually reinforcing, cultivating students who are both intellectually competent and culturally sensitive. This synergy manifests in their combined functions, such as preventing misinterpretation through critical scrutiny while deepening understanding via cultural insight, assessing viewpoints critically while broadening them culturally, formulating solutions analytically while ensuring their empathetic relevance, and challenging assumptions logically while considering their wider social impact (Andita and Tirtoni, 2024; Lin et al., 2023; Shliakhovchuk, 2019).
Developing these competencies from primary school is crucial, as this stage represents the golden period for nurturing logical thinking, curiosity, empathy, and cultural appreciation. Early educational interventions are foundational for cultivating higher-order cognitive and socio-emotional skills that form the basis for lifelong learning and intercultural understanding (Durlak et al., 2011; OECD, 2018). However, fewer than 50% of primary students possess adequate critical skills (Kharisma, 2018; Mullis et al., 2020), and only a minority master all their components (Firmansyah and Saepuloh, 2022; Kuhn, 2018; Paul and Elder, 2019; Sihotang and Warmi, 2023; Yurinda and Hidayat, 2023). This gap stems from insufficient exposure to thought-provoking questions (Prasetyo and Kristin, 2020; Willingham, 2008). Compounding this issue, Indonesia faces significant literacy challenges (Mawadah et al., 2024; World Bank, 2019), which constrain cognitive development and moral growth (Alexander, 2008; Fayza et al., 2021).
As a novelty value, this research examines two aspects of the same issue, namely students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
2 Literature review
2.1 Critical skills
Critical skills are higher-order competencies for solving complex problems that encompass not only critical thinking (analyzing, evaluating, and reconstructing thoughts) but also creativity, communication, collaboration, and digital literacy (Pellegrino and Hilton, 2012). Critical skills have 4 components (Lin et al., 2023; Moseley et al., 2005). First, gathering the information. Students actively seek and select information from various sources such as textbooks, worksheets, scientific papers, or other sources. They not only collect data but also assess the credibility of sources, check the relevance of information, and connect new knowledge with their existing understanding. Learning experiences and daily life also serve as sources of information, allowing existing knowledge to be connected to the topic being studied (Casey et al., 2017; Monchaux et al., 2015). Second, building understanding, which involves comprehending issues thoroughly by considering various perspectives, combining information from multiple sources, and analyzing each complexity to arrive at the right solution (Baron et al., 2017; Ritchhart et al., 2011). Third, applying knowledge, which involves offering new insights into a particular subject (Andrews and Higson, 2008; Bamber et al., 2019; Caswell, 2017; Clarke and Lunt, 2014; Heaviside et al., 2018). In applying knowledge, there are often several possible solutions to a single problem. Therefore, students need to choose which idea is most appropriate to use (Butterworth and Thwaites, 2013). Fourth, productive thinking, which is the ability to critically evaluate solutions and methodologies used, assess appropriately, propose new hypotheses, and develop new skills (Wallace and Wray, 2016). Students need to evaluate the effectiveness of their solutions by considering their positive and negative impacts, then adjust their decisions if necessary (Heard et al., 2025).
2.2 Cultural literacy skills
Cultural literacy is the ability to understand, appreciate, and apply cultural values in the context of everyday life (Ball and Mete, 2019; Desyandri, 2018; Hardiansyah, 2017; Hicks and Hirsch, 1988; Maine et al., 2019; Maine, 2021; Ochoa et al., 2016; Ochoa et al., 2016; Pratiwi and Asyarotin, 2019). This ability not only encompasses an understanding of the diverse customs, values, beliefs, languages, arts, and lifestyles of a community but also enables individuals to connect these cultural elements to real-life situations (Segal, 2015). Thus, cultural literacy enables a person to interpret the implied meaning in cultural texts and situations and to apply it contextually and relevantly.
A person can be said to have good cultural literacy if she/he is able to understand the culture’s complexity, including its values, strengths, weaknesses, and development dynamics (Halbert and Chigeza, 2015). In addition, she/he must also be able to see culture from the culture owners’ perspective (Segal, 2015; Segal, 2015). This ability also includes the awareness to analyze various cultural elements, as well as concern for universal, internal, and external cultures and their relationship with language (Maine et al., 2019; Masita, 2021).
In this research, the concept of “cultural literacy” is developed as a contextual construct, not a universally applicable skill. This construct is operationalized through two main dimensions: in-depth knowledge of key narratives and symbol systems that frame Karo cultural identity and values and the individual’s critical capacity to reflect on, reinterpret, and articulate the meaning and relevance of these cultural elements within the dynamics of contemporary society.
Cultural literacy skills can be assessed through four main indicators (Andita and Tirtoni, 2024; Shliakhovchuk, 2019). First, cross-cultural awareness, which is the ability to critically recognize and understand other cultures. Second, local cultural awareness, which is the acceptance and appreciation of local wisdom as the basis for developing cultural literacy. Third, reflection and critical thinking, which is the ability to reflect on and analyze culture from various perspectives. Fourth, cultural evaluation, which is a systematic process of assessing, analyzing, and providing value judgments about various aspects of culture. This process is not intended to declare a culture “good” or “bad” in absolute terms but rather to understand its complexity, dynamics, impact, and sustainability in the face of changing times.
2.3 Factors influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills
The educational environment is an important foundation for developing cultural literacy, with critical skills at the core of understanding the diversity values (Haerul et al., 2024; Maimun et al., 2020; OECD, 2018; Sholikhah, 2022; UNESCO, 2020). This is implemented through curriculum that integrates culture, history, and the arts to train students to assess diversity analytically; the availability of diverse reading materials in libraries that encourage critical exploration of different cultural perspectives; activities such as cultural discussions, museum visits, or book clubs that train critical reflection on cultural practices; and the cooperation of the entire school community to create an environment that encourages critical analysis of cultural values, rather than mere memorization (Banks, 2020; Safitri and Ramadan, 2022).
Openness to other cultures helps shape cultural literacy through individuals’ ability to reflect on and critically analyze their cultural interactions. This includes direct interaction with other cultures through regional cultural/artistic events (Jackson, 2020; Sholikhah, 2022) or social media, as well as open-mindedness to accept differences and appreciate other perspectives, while constantly critically examining cultural biases. Openness to other cultures trains critical abilities and contributes to the creation of a social ecosystem of mutual respect and understanding (Deardorff, 2019; Yulianingsih et al., 2018).
Socio-cultural interaction shapes cultural perceptions through two main contexts: the role of the family as the initial foundation for instilling cultural values and encouraging critical analysis of these values from an early age (Nawir et al., 2025; Rogoff, 2020); and cross-cultural friendships that train critical skills in understanding different perspectives. Through these interactions, individuals not only receive cultural information but also develop the ability to critically evaluate and reflect on cultural values.
Openness to information access also influences critical and cultural literacy skills through the sources’ availability that needs to be critically examined, including social media as a means of cultural exploration that requires in-depth analysis of content, books and other reading materials that provide comprehensive cultural perspectives, and information technology that facilitates access to information but requires careful assessment of its credibility. The use of these physical and digital facilities directly strengthens individuals’ critical and cultural literacy skills (Nudiati, 2020; UNESCO, 2021).
2.4 Research questions
Q1: What are the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills?
Q2: Does gender have an influence on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills?
Q3: Do factors of the educational environment, openness to other cultures, socio-cultural interaction, and openness to information access simultaneously have an influence on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills?
The research goals are to describe the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills and to examine the influence of gender, educational environment, openness to other cultures, socio-cultural interaction, and openness to information access simultaneously on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
2.5 Hypothesis
1. Gender has an influence on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
2. The educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and information access simultaneously have an influence on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
3 Methods
3.1 Instruments
This instrument is explicitly designed to measure in-depth knowledge of contextual and specific Karo culture (e.g., folklore, values, local history) and reflective capacity and is not claimed to be a measure of general cultural literacy.
First, researchers designed 3 narrative story problems that emphasized Karo culture, its current conditions, and contemporary issues. Each problem was equipped with trigger questions specifically designed to measure students’ critical and cultural literacy skills by adapting the research location context in Karo Regency, where the population majority is from the Karo Tribe. Each problem was accompanied by steps for solving designed to guide students in developing both skills in an integrated manner, namely 4 critical skills aspects (information gathering, building understanding, applying knowledge in real contexts, and productive thinking) and 4 cultural literacy skills aspects (cultural understanding, cultural awareness, reflection and critical thinking, and cultural evaluation).
Each question is assessed based on 2 skill dimensions: critical and cultural literacy skills. Each dimension is divided into 4 assessment aspects, each with a maximum score of 10, resulting in a total maximum score of 40 for each question.
Critical skill aspects: a. information gathering, namely the ability to write and validate information from texts and identify the information needed to solve problems; b. building understanding, namely the ability to provide opinions regarding the culture’s relevance in the modern era, the urgency of its preservation, and the factors causing the culture to be abandoned; c. application of knowledge, namely the ability to formulate concrete solutions to overcome cultural problems faced; and d. productive thinking, namely the ability to correct the solution’s accuracy and validity and review solutions by considering various perspectives.
Cultural literacy skill aspects: a. cultural understanding, namely the ability to demonstrate knowledge about the culture in question; b. cultural awareness, namely the ability to explain how to accept and appreciate a culture; c. reflection and critical thinking, namely the ability to reflect on actions that have been and will be taken to preserve culture; and d. cultural evaluation, namely the ability to analyze the social and cultural impacts of proposed solutions.
Second, developing a questionnaire instrument containing 12 statements to measure the existing conditions of determinant factors suspected of influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills. The statement distribution is arranged into 4 factor dimensions, namely: 1. educational environment (5 statements): measuring the extent to which the school environment stimulates critical analysis of culture through the integration of cultural content in the curriculum, the availability of diverse reading sources in the school library, the implementation of culture-based extracurricular activities (such as museum visits), and the effectiveness of teachers in facilitating critical discussions about cultural values; 2. Openness to other cultures (2 statements): assessing students’ capacity to construct and convey arguments to individuals from different cultures and to critically evaluate and appreciate other cultural perspectives, not just accepting them; 3. Socio-cultural interaction (2 statements): evaluating the frequency and quality of exchanges of perspectives that stimulate critical thinking in interactions with parents/family and with peers from different cultural backgrounds; 4. Openness to information access (3 statements): analyzing the role of social media, literary sources, and communication technology not only as sources of information but also as a means to practice skills in critiquing sources, verifying the cultural information validity, and analyzing it from various perspectives.
The questionnaire instrument uses a modified Likert scale with four answer choices that have been adjusted to the statement context. The score for each answer is determined ordinally from 0 to 3. For frequency statements, the scale used is never (score 0); rarely (1 time/week) (score 1); often (2–4 times/week) (score 2); and very often (>4 times/week) (score 3). Specifically for statement number 2 regarding the book quantity, the scale used is none (score 0); 1–5 books (score 1); 6–10 books (score 2); and > 10 books (score 3).
Third, testing the characteristics of the research instrument, which includes normality, validity, and reliability tests. Testing was conducted at a significance level (α) of 5% with a total of 200 respondents (N). The research instrument consisted of two parts: narrative story questions (n1 = 3) and questionnaire statements (n2 = 12). Data normality testing was carried out using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, reliability testing using the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient, and item validity testing using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation.
The test results for 3 narrative story questions (n1) are: (1) Normality: the test statistic value (D) (0.094) < the D-table (0.096); (2) Reliability: the Cronbach’s α coefficient value (0.701, high category) > 0.600; and (3) Validity: the correlation value of each question item (r1 = 0.633; r2 = 0.772; r3 = 0.811) was greater than the r-table value (0.138). The test results for 12 questionnaire statements (n2) are: (1) Normality: the test statistic value (D) (0.090) < the D-table (0.096); (2) Reliability: the Cronbach’s α coefficient value (0.781, high category) > 0.600; (3) Validity: all item correlation values (r1 to r12) ranged from 0.507 to 0.801 and were all greater than the r-table (0.138).
Based on the test results above, the data from both research instruments (narrative story questions and questionnaires) were normally distributed, reliable, and valid.
3.2 Sample and population
The population is all students in grades V and VI with an age range of 11–13 years in 5 state elementary schools and 5 private elementary schools in Karo District, Sumatera Utara Province, with a randomly selected sample size of 120 female and 80 male students. Overall, there were 200 students.
3.3 Data analysis
First, researchers calculated the average score of students’ critical and cultural literacy skills using the formula (total score obtained from 3 questions/3). The average score was then converted into a value on a scale of 0–100 using the formula (average score/40) x 100, where the comparative figure of 40 is the highest score for each question. Based on this conversion, students’ ability levels were categorized into five levels (Sitorus et al., 2019), namely very low (0–54), low (>54–64), moderate (>64–79), high (>79–89), and very high (>89–100).
Second, researchers also calculated the average scores for 4 factors suspected of influencing critical and cultural literacy skills: educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and information access openness. The average score for each factor was calculated by dividing the total score obtained by respondents by the statement number in that factor: 1. educational environment (total score of 5 statements/5); openness to other cultures (total score of 2 statements/2); socio-cultural interaction (total score of 2 statements/2); and openness to information access (total score of 3 statements/3). Then, the average score for each factor was converted to a scale of 0–100 using the formula (average score/3) × 100, where 3 is the highest score for each statement.
Third, a statistical test was carried out by t-test to examine gender influences on the critical and cultural literacy skills and a multiple linear regression analysis to see the influence between the four factors and critical skills and cultural literacy skills. The confidence level was 95%, with a significance level of 5%. If the t-test is higher than the t-table or significance F is < 0.05, then there is a significant influence between each of the independent and dependent variables. If the t-test is less than the t-table or significance F is higher than 0.05, then there is no influence between each of the independent and dependent variables.
4 Results
4.1 The students’ critical and cultural literacy skills
Table 1 presents the distribution of student competencies, showing critical skills at very low (<54): 14.79%, low (54–64): 8.13%, moderate (64–79): 39.58%, high (79–89): 23.13%, and very high (>89): 14.38%, while cultural literacy skills are distributed as very low: 9.79%, low: 17.71%, moderate: 41.25%, high: 23.33%, and very high: 7.92%.
Table 1. Students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
Generally, the average of students’ critical skills (mean = 72.20) is greater than the average of their cultural literacy skills (mean = 70.36), with a range difference of 1.84. The average of male students’ critical skills (mean = 77.54) is much greater than the female one (mean = 68.64), with a range difference of 8.90, and the average of male students’ cultural skills (mean = 74.45) is much greater than the female one (mean = 67.64), with a range difference of 6.81.
The percentage of male students who have critical skills in the category of high and above (high + very high), namely as much as 52.50%, is greater than that of female ones, namely as much as 22.50%. The percentage of male students who have cultural literacy skills in the category of high and above (high + very high), namely as much as 47.50%, is greater than that of female ones, namely as much as 15.00%.
4.2 The influence of gender on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills
Table 2 reveals that gender is a significant factor in influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills, as evidenced by a 2-tailed significance value of 0.000, which is well below the critical threshold of 0.05.
Table 2. The influence of gender on the students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
4.3 Factors influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills
Before conducting the linear regression analysis, a multicollinearity test was performed on the four independent variables. The results, presented as Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and tolerance values, were as follows: educational environment (X1): 1.620 (tolerance = 0.621), openness to culture (X2): 1.702 (0.587), socio-cultural interaction (X3): 1.625 (0.615), and access to information (X4): 1.635 (0.612). All VIF values were well below 5 and all tolerance values were above 0.10, confirming the absence of serious multicollinearity issues.
Based on Table 3, it can be explained that 4 independent variables simultaneously influence students’ critical skills and cultural literacy skills, with a significant F value for both abilities of 0.000, which is smaller than 0.05. For critical skills, the educational environment factor has the strongest influence (coefficient = 0.268), followed by access to information (0.217), openness to culture (0.209), and socio-cultural interaction (0.176). Meanwhile, for cultural literacy skills, the educational environment (0.237) and openness to culture (0.227) are the most dominant factors, followed by access to information (0.195) and socio-cultural interaction (0.116). The regression model’s constant is 15.428 for critical skills and 19.715 for cultural literacy skills, indicating the baseline level of each skill when all factors are considered zero.
Table 3. Factors influencing students’ critical skills and cultural literacy skills (using a multiple linear regression).
Based on the analysis, regression models were obtained to predict student abilities. The model for critical skills (Y1) is represented by the equation Y1 = 15.428 + 0.268X1 + 0.209X2 + 0.176X3 + 0.217X4, while for cultural literacy skills (Y2) it is Y2 = 19.715 + 0.237X1 + 0.227X2 + 0.116X3 + 0.195X4, where X1 to X4, respectively represent educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and access to information.
The coefficient of determination (R2) for the regression model of critical skills is 0.5929, and for cultural literacy skills, it is 0.6770. These values indicate that the four independent variables (educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and access to information) explain 59.29% of the variation in critical skills and 67.70% of the variation in cultural literacy skills. The remainder, 40.71 and 32.30%, respectively, is explained by other factors not included in this research.
To analyze the partial influence of each variable, a t-test was conducted. The results in Table 4 show that all variables have a significant influence on students’ critical and cultural literacy skills. This is indicated by the t-statistic for each variable, which ranges from 2.769 to 5.327, being greater than the t-critical value (1.966).
Table 4. Factors influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills (using a t-test).
Table 5. Relationship between critical and cultural literacy skills.
5 Discussion
First, a significant gender disparity was found in students’ critical and cultural literacy skills, with male students demonstrating a statistically higher average score than female students (Oda and Abdul Khadim, 2018). This finding aligns with previous research that has consistently identified gender as a significant predictor (Prastyo, 2020; Setiawan et al., 2024; Zhao et al., 2024) and revealed a clear disparity pattern in the mastery of these specific competencies (Liu and Pásztor, 2022; Liu et al., 2019). Furthermore, it corroborates the assertion that gender exerts a considerable influence on students’ comprehension of cultural issues (Toti, 2024), which consequently impacts academic success, specifically in critical and cultural literacy skills (Koç, 2016; Wardani et al., 2018).
The observed superiority of male students in critical and cultural literacy skills is believed to stem from inherent biases in classroom learning. Male students often dominate classroom discussions, granting them more frequent practice in argumentation (Aguillon et al., 2020). Additionally, pedagogical approaches that emphasize competitive debate tend to favor them (Deiglmayr et al., 2019), while collaborative learning patterns more common among female students are less accommodated.
Furthermore, open-ended, project-based assessments often reward assertive styles of expression, which are more prevalent among male students (Oakhill and Petrides, 2007). The analysis of public discourse in cultural literacy also aligns more closely with the typical social experiences of male students (Banks and Banks, 2019). In terms of teacher interaction, educators tend to engage more frequently with male students on academic content, providing them with more complex cognitive feedback (OECD, 2015).
The disparity in critical and cultural literacy skills found in this research is most likely attributable not to innate biological determinism, but to a complex interaction of teaching practices, assessment formats, or classroom dynamics. Therefore, inclusive learning approaches such as portfolio assessment, structured discussions, and diverse cultural materials are needed to minimize gender bias and support the equitable development of all students’ competencies.
Second, several factors develop students’ critical and cultural skills: the learning environment, cultural openness, social interactions, and information access. A supportive, inclusive classroom that encourages idea exploration helps students think analytically and reflect on their learning (Ennis, 2011; Facione, 2015). Promoting dialogue about cultures and critical reflection on cultural experiences improves their ability to evaluate and appreciate diversity. Connecting learning to local cultural values directly enhances cultural understanding (Prihatiningsih et al., 2025), showing a well-designed environment is crucial for fostering both critical thinking and cultural awareness.
Cultural openness enables effective understanding and interaction with other cultures. Experiencing diversity helps students develop empathy, tolerance, and the ability to see from different viewpoints (Byram, 2008; Deardorff, 2006). This openness also enhances critical thinking by allowing students to analyze problems from multiple perspectives for a deeper understanding (Peng, 2024). Recent research confirms that students open to other cultures possess greater empathy and stronger thinking skills, particularly in diverse settings (Peña-Acuña et al., 2025). Furthermore, skills like interacting with diverse individuals and learning about cultures through media directly improve multicultural understanding (Haikuo, 2025).
Learning through social and cultural interaction is essential for internalizing knowledge and developing critical thinking (Vygotsky, 1978). Neuroscience confirms our brains are wired for social learning, making this both educationally valuable and biologically fundamental (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019). Meaningful interactions with diverse peers help students understand social dynamics and values, aligning with effective learning through observation, discussion, and reflection (Bandura, 1977). These interactions help challenge assumptions and examine stereotypes, developing cultural understanding vital for transformative social-emotional learning (Jagers et al., 2019). Such engagement forms the core of cultural literacy frameworks using social discourse to explore cultural topics (Muhammad, 2020). Classrooms promoting collaboration among diverse students significantly strengthen critical thinking (Hu and Shu, 2025), while interactive environments develop these skills through observation, interpretation, evaluation, and reflection (Song et al., 2024).
Broad information access fundamentally supports students’ critical thinking and cultural literacy development. When students can access diverse sources, they gain opportunities to explore various perspectives, compare different viewpoints, and filter reliable information, strengthening information literacy as an essential component of cultural literacy (Hobbs, 2010). Digital literacy has become equally vital, enabling students to distinguish credible information and use it ethically (Livingstone, 2004). Integrating digital literacy through project-based learning and verification methods significantly enhances critical thinking capacities while reducing vulnerability to misinformation (Sonni et al., 2025; Syakhrani, 2025).
These four factors have been proven to have a significant simultaneous influence on students’ critical and cultural literacy skills. Experiences from the school environment, family, and social interactions significantly impact the understanding of culturally based reading materials (Koda, 2007; Shiotsu and Weir, 2007), while also facilitating the overall learning process (Koda, 2005).
6 Conclusion
First, students’ overall skill levels are generally moderate, with critical skills slightly stronger than cultural literacy skills. However, a significant portion of students still score in the low to very low range in both areas.
Second, a substantial gender gap is evident. Male students significantly outperform female students in both critical and cultural literacy skills, with differences of nearly 9 points and 7 points, respectively. This disparity is further underscored by the fact that more than twice as many male students achieved “high” or “very high” skill levels compared to their female peers.
Third, gender is a statistically significant factor influencing students’ critical and cultural literacy skills.
Fourth, four key factors: educational environment, cultural openness, socio-cultural interaction, and access to information, each have a significant impact, both individually and collectively, on students’ critical and cultural literacy skills. The educational environment has the strongest influence on critical skills, while both the educational environment and cultural openness emerge as the most dominant factors for cultural literacy skills. Together, these four factors explain approximately 59% of the variance in critical skills and 68% in cultural literacy skills among students.
7 Implication and contribution
The research novelty lies in its in-depth understanding of the manifestations of critical and cultural literacy skills in one rich Karo cultural context. To illustrate, this research reveals the relationship between critical and cultural literacy skills within that specific context, including its challenges and preservation efforts.
The main contribution of this research is the development of a locally responsive assessment model for critical and cultural literacy skills, demonstrating that valid evaluation must be embedded in a community’s specific cultural narratives, values, and practices. The implication is that the teachers can use this model in classrooms but require professional development to implement it effectively. For example, it highlights the need for training programs that equip teachers to identify key cultural narratives, design authentic assessments based on them, and interpret results to inform instruction.
8 Limitations
1. This research is inherently limited by its culturally specific measurement tool, which is deeply rooted in the Karo context. Therefore, direct generalization to other cultures should be approached with caution. Future research should develop parallel instruments in other cultural settings to distinguish between context-specific and universal aspects of cultural literacy.
2. This research is cross-sectional in design, which limits causal inference. While regression indicates significant associations between the four factors and the two students’ skills, longitudinal or experimental research in future time is needed to confirm causality and examine how these factors shape competencies over time.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board team of Universitas Quality Berastagi: (1) Fauzul Azhimah as Committee Chair; (2) Julius Boy NB Barus as Secretary; and (3) Frida Dian Handini, Aser Paul Nainggolan, & Jenita Anjani Sembiring as Members. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
NG: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Conceptualization, Resources. WW: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Methodology, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Validation. SK: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Validation. AM: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation. FF: Investigation, Resources, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Validation. JS: Validation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Resources.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., and Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sci Educ. 19:ar12. doi: 10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048
Andita, S. B., and Tirtoni, F. (2024). Analysis of cultural literacy learning based on local wisdom to strengthen the profile of Pancasila students. J Paedagogy J Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan 11, 102–112. doi: 10.33394/jp.v11i1.9616
Andrews, J., and Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. High. Educ. Europe 33, 411–422. doi: 10.1080/03797720802522627
Azizah, L., and Alnashr, M. S. (2022). Pengembangan bahan ajar tematik berbasis kearifan lokal guna meningkatkan hasil belajar kognitif siswa [Development of thematic teaching materials based on local wisdom to improve students’ cognitive learning outcomes]. Dawuh Guru: Jurnal Pendidikan MI/SD 2, 1–12. doi: 10.35878/guru.v2i1.340 Indonesian.
Ball, M., and Mete, F. (2019). Cultural literacy in mother tongue education: An action research. Qual. Res. Educ. 8, 215–244. doi: 10.17583/qre.2019.4186
Bamber, V., Choudhary, C. J., Hislop, J., and Lane, J. (2019). Postgraduate taught students and preparedness for master’s level study: Polishing the facets of the master’s diamond. J. Further High. Educ. 43, 236–250. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1359502
Banks, J. A. (2020). Diversity, Transformative Knowledge, and Civic Education: Selected Essays, 1st Edn. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9781003018360
Banks, J. A., and Banks, C. A. M. (2019). Multicultural Education: ISSUES and Perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Baron, J. S., Specht, A., Garnier, E., Bishop, P., Campbell, C. A., Davis, F. W., et al. (2017). Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure. Bioscience 67, 750–759. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix053
BSKAP. (2023). Keputusan Kepala Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 033/H/KR/2023 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Keputusan Kepala Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 008/H/KR/2022 tentang Capaian Pembelajaran pada Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar, dan Jenjang Pendidikan Menengah pada Kurikulum Merdeka. Jakarta.
Butterworth, J., and Thwaites, G. (2013). Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, doi: 10.21832/9781847690807
Casey, D., Clark, L., and Hayes, S. (2017). Study Skills for Master’s Level Students, Revised Edition: A Reflective Approach for Health and Social Care. London: Royal College of General Practitioners.
Caswell, C. A. (2017). Design and facilitation of problem-based learning in graduate teacher education: An MA TESOL case. Interdisciplinary J. Problem-Based Learn. 11, doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1623
Clarke, G., and Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the Ph. D.: How is it interpreted by examiners? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 39, 803–820. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.870970
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 10, 241–266. doi: 10.1177/1028315306287002
Deardorff, D. K. (2019). Manual for Developing Intercultural Competencies: Story Circles, 1st Edn. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9780429244612
Deiglmayr, A., Stern, E., and Schubert, R. (2019). Beliefs in “brilliance” and belonging uncertainty in male and female STEM students. Front. Psychol. 10:1114. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01114
Desyandri (2018). Nilai-nilai kearifan lokal untuk menumbuhkembangkan literasi budaya di sekolah dasar [Local wisdom values to develop cultural literacy in elementary schools]. J Sekolah Dasar Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan 27, 1–9. doi: 10.17977/um009v27i12018p001 Indonesian.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 82, 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Ennis, R. (2011). Critical thinking. Inquiry Crit. Thinking Across Disciplines 26, 4–18. doi: 10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
Ennis, R. H. (2015). “Critical thinking: A streamlined conception,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education, eds M. Davies and R. Barnett (New York), 31–47. doi: 10.1057/9781137378057_2
Facione, P. (2015). Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it Counts. California: Insight Assessment.
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it Counts. Hermosa Beach, CA: Insight Assessment.
Falimu Lamadang, K. P., Tampani, Y., Masita, E., Irianto, S., Khartiono, L. D., et al. (2023). Literasi Budaya [Cultural Literacy]. Magelang: PT. Adikarya Pratama Globalindo. Indonesian.
Fayza, A. A., Nugraha, D. M., and Supriyono. (2021). Pengaruh literasi terhadap perkembangan pembelajaran PKN [The influence of literacy on the development of PKN learning]. Harmony J Pembelajaran IPS dan PKN 6, 57–65. doi: 10.15294/harmony.v6i1.46506
Firmansyah, D., and Saepuloh, D. (2022). Teori pembelajaran sosial: Pendekatan kognitif dan perilaku [Social learning theory: Cognitive and behavioral approaches]. J Ilmiah Pendidikan Holistik 1, 297–324. doi: 10.55927/jiph.v1i3.2317 Indonesian.
Haerul Jariah, N., and Yusrina. (2024). Pembinaan literasi keluarga sebagai upaya pemberdayaan masyarakat di Kelurahan Kasturian Kota Ternate [Family literacy development as an effort to empower the community in Kasturian Village, Ternate City]. Tolis Mengabdi J Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat 2, 25–31. doi: 10.56630/tm.v2i2.743 Indonesian.
Haikuo, L. (2025). Exploring the impact of cultural intelligence on multicultural literacy in university students: a serial mediation model of cultural exposure and cross-cultural communication skills. Front. Psychol. 16:1661899. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661899
Halbert, K., and Chigeza, P. (2015). Navigating discourses of cultural literacy in teacher education. Australian J. Teach. Educ. 40, 165–168. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2015v40n11.9
Hardiansyah (2017). Literasi budaya dan kewarganegaraan [Cultural Literacy and Citizenship]. Jakarta: Kemendikbud. Malay.
Heard, J., Scoular, C., Duckworth, D., Ramalingam, D., and Teo, I. (2025). Critical Thinking: Skill Development Framework, 2nd Edn. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research, doi: 10.37517/978-1-74286-752-6
Heaviside, H. J., Manley, A. J., and Hudson, J. (2018). Bridging the gap between education and employment: A case study of problem-based learning implementation in Postgraduate Sport and Exercise Psychology. High. Educ. Pedagogies 3, 463–477. doi: 10.1080/23752696.2018.1462095
Hicks, D., and Hirsch, E. D. (1988). Review of cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. J. Educ. 170, 119–125.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Hu, Y., and Shu, J. (2025). The effect of drama education on enhancing critical thinking through collaboration and communication. Educ. Sci. 15:565. doi: 10.3390/educsci15050565
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., and Christina Krone, C. (2019). The brain basis for Integrated Social, Emotional, and Academic Development: How Emotions and Social Relationships Drive Learning. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Jackson, J. (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 2nd Edn. Milton Park: Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9781003036210
Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., and Williams, B. (2019). Transformative sosial and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educ. Psychol. 54, 162–184. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032
Kharisma, E. N. (2018). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kritis matematis siswa SMK pada materi barisan dan deret [Analysis of critical mathematical thinking skills of vocational school students on sequences and series material]. JRPM 3, 62–75. doi: 10.15642/jrpm.2018.3.1.62-75 Indonesian.
Kibtiyah, A. M. (2022). Pengembangan komik digital berbasis Flipbook untuk siswa kelas V Sekolah Dasar di Kecamatan Pati Kabupaten Pati [Development of Flipbook-based digital comics for fifth grade elementary school students in Pati District, Pati Regency]. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan 8, 57–65. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7133944 Indonesian.
Koç, D. K. (2016). The role of gender in reading comprehension: An analysis of college-level EFL students’ comprehension of different genres. Int. Online J. Educ. Teach. 3, 218–227.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights Into Second Language Reading: A Cross-Linguistic Approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524841
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Lang. Learn. 57, 1–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00411.x
Kuhn, D. A. (2018). Role for reasoning in a dialogic approach to critical thinking. Topoi 37, 121–128. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9373-4
Lin, M., Liu, L. Y. J., and Pham, T. N. (2023). Towards developing a critical learning skills framework for master’s students: Evidence from a UK university. Thinking Skills Creativity 48, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101267
Liu, N.-Y., Hsu, W.-Y., Hung, C.-A., Wu, P.-L., and Pai, H.-C. (2019). The effect of gender role orientation on student nurses’ caring behaviour and critical thinking. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 89, 18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.005
Liu, Y., and Pásztor, A. (2022). Effects of problem-based learning instructional intervention on critical thinking in higher education: A meta-analysis. Think. Skills Creativity 45:101069. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101069
Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. Commun. Rev. 7, 3–14. doi: 10.1080/10714420490280152
Maimun, M., Sanusi, S., Rusli, Y., and Muthia, H. (2020). Internalisasi nilai-nilai karakter kebangsaan melalui literasi budaya dan kewarganegaraan di Sekolah Menengah Atas (SMA) Kota Banda Aceh [Internalization of national character values through cultural and civic literacy in Senior High Schools (SMA) in Banda Aceh City]. CIVICUS: Pendidikan-Penelitian-Pengabdian Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan 8, 8–15. doi: 10.31764/civicus.v8i1.1789 Indonesian.
Maine, F. (2021). “Dialogue for intercultural understanding: Placing cultural literacy at the heart of learning,” in Journal of Intercultural Studies, ed. M. Veikki (Milton Park: Taylor Francis), doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-71778-0
Maine, F., Cook, V., and Lähdesmäki, T. (2019). Reconceptualizing cultural literacy as a dialogic practice. London Rev. Educ. 17, 383–392. doi: 10.18546/LRE.17.3.12
Masita, E. (2021). Multikulturalisme dan interkulturalisme dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia. ISoLEC Proc. Digit. Transformation Lang. Educ. Cult. Challenges Opportunities 5, 240–246. doi: 10.1080/14708477.2013.770867
Mawadah, A. N., Kusumaningsih, W., and Paryuni. (2024). Pengaruh model PBL terhadap kemampuan literasi siswa pada materi keberagaman budaya Indonesia [The influence of the PBL model on students’ literacy skills on the material on Indonesian cultural diversity]. Metta: Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin Ilmu 3, 2537–2544. Indonesian.
Monchaux, S., Amadieu, F., Chevalier, A., and Mariné, C. (2015). Query strategies during information searching: Effects of prior domain knowledge and complexity of the information problems to be solved. Information Process. Manag. 51, 557–569. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2015.05.004
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Miller, J., et al. (2005). Frameworks for Thinking: A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating Genius: An Equity Framework for Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy. New York, NY:: Scholastic.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., and Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS.
Nawir, M., Ramadhani, F., Nurasmi, R., and Khotimah, S. (2025). Gerakan literasi budaya dalam keluarga sebagai dasar pembentukan identitas bangsa pada siswa Sekolah Dasar [Cultural literacy movement in the family as a basis for forming national identity in elementary school students]. J Ilmiah Profesi Pendidikan 10, 1123–1131. doi: 10.29303/jipp.v10i2.3371 Indonesian.
Nudiati, D. (2020). Literasi sebagai kecakapan hidup abad 21 pada mahasiswa. Indonesian J. Learn. Educ. Counseling 3, 34–40. doi: 10.31960/ijolec.v3i1.561
Oakhill, J. V., and Petrides, A. (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys’ and girls’ reading comprehension. Br. J. Psychol. 98, 223–235. doi: 10.1348/000712606X117649
Ochoa, G. G., McDonald, S., and Monk, N. (2016). Embedding cultural literacy in higher education: A new approach. Intercult. Educ. 27, 546–559. doi: 10.1080/14675986.2016.1241551
Oda, I., and Abdul Khadim. (2018). Dinamika gender dan pembangunan di Indonesia [Gender Dynamics and Development in INDONESIA]. Jakarta: Pustaka Ilmu. Indonesian.
OECD (2015). The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills Education 2030: The Future We Want. E2030 Position Paper. Paris: OECD.
Paul, R., and Elder, L. (2019). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pellegrino, J. W., and Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Research Council of the National Academes. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Peña-Acuña, B., Toscano-Fuentes, C. M., and Flor-Arasil, P. (2025). Cultural openness and desire to learn in relation to ethnocultural empathy among university students in multilingual contexts. Front. Psychol. 16:1463349. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1463349
Peng, Y. (2024). Enhancing cross-cultural well-being: a mixed methods study on critical thinking, cultural intelligence, and eudaimonic well-being in arts students’ cultural identity development. Front. Psychol. 15:1425929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1425929
Prasetyo, F., and Kristin, F. (2020). Pengaruh model pembelajaran problem based learning dan model pembelajaran discovery learning terhadap kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa kelas 5 SD [The influence of problem-based learning and discovery learning models on critical thinking skills of 5th grade elementary school students]. Didaktika Tauhidi J Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar 7, 13–27. doi: 10.30997/dt.v7i1.2645
Prastyo, D. (2020). Prespektif gender dalam penentuan pengurus kelas di sekolah dasar [Gender perspective in determining class administrators in elementary schools]. Edustream J Pendidikan Dasar 4, 59–63. doi: 10.26740/eds.v4n1.p59-63
Pratiwi, A., and Asyarotin, E. N. K. (2019). Implementasi literasi budaya dan kewargaan sebagai solusi disinformasi pada generasi millennial di Indonesia [Implementation of cultural and civic literacy as a solution to disinformation among the millennial generation in Indonesia]. J Kajian Informasi Perpustakaan 7, 65–80. doi: 10.24198/jkip.v7i1.20066
Prihatiningsih, Maryani, E., Supriatna, N., Sopandi, W., and Sujana, A. (2025). Enhancing cultural literacy: an analysis of primary school students’ knowledge on regional culture topics. J Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar 9, 390–399. doi: 10.23887/jisd.v9i2.91844
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., and Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Safitri, S., and Ramadan, Z. H. (2022). Implementasi literasi budaya dan kewargaan di sekolah dasar. Mimbar Ilmu 27, 109–116. doi: 10.23887/mi.v27i1.45034
Setiawan, D., Yanto, A., and Nurhalimah, S. (2024). Gender differences in critical thinking through RADEC, problem-based learning, and direct instruction learning models. Elementaria Educ. J. 7, 3072–3082. doi: 10.31949/jee.v7i3.10292
Shiotsu, T., and Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing 24, 99–128. doi: 10.1177/0265532207071513
Shliakhovchuk, E. (2019). After cultural literacy: New models of intercultural competency for life and work in a VUCA world. Educ. Rev. 73, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1566211
Sholikhah, N. (2022). Literasi budaya dan kewargaan pada pembelajaran abad 21 [Cultural and civic literacy in 21st century learning]. Koloni J Multidisiplin Ilmu 1, 721–727. doi: 10.31004/koloni.v1i4.415
Sihotang, M. E., and Warmi, A. (2023). Analisis kemampuan berpikir kritis matematis siswa SMP pada materi sistem persamaan linear dua variabel. Didact. Math. 5, 282–294. doi: 10.31949/dm.v5i2.5907
Sitorus, J., Anas, N., and Waruhu, E. (2019). Creative thinking ability and cognitive knowledge: Big Five personality. Res. Eval. Educ. 5, 85–94. doi: 10.21831/reid.v5i2.22848
Song, Y., Roohr, K. C., and Kirova, D. (2024). Exploring approaches for developing and evaluating workplace critical thinking skills. Thinking Skills Creativity 51:101460. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101460
Sonni, A. F., Mau, M., Akbar, M., and Putri, V. C. C. (2025). AI and digital literacy: Impact on information resilience in Indonesian society. J. Media 6:100. doi: 10.3390/journalmedia6030100
Sutarmi, K., and Suarjana, I. M. (2017). Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Siswa Menggunakan Metode Problem Solving dalam Pembelajaran [Improving student learning outcomes using problem solving methods in learning]. J Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar 1, 75–82. doi: 10.23887/jisd.v1i2.10141
Syakhrani, A. W. (2025). Implementation of the 2025 project-based and digital literacy curriculum: Opportunities, challenges, and its impact on student adaptability in the global era. J. Educ. 5, 472–482.
Tabrani, R. (2008). Cara Pembelajaran Matematika Seri I [Mathematics Learning Methods Series I]. Semarang: PT Bengawan Ilmu.
Toll, C. A. (2017). A problem-solving model for literacy coaching practice. Read. Teach. 70, 413–421. doi: 10.1002/trtr.1532
Toti, U. S. (2024). The impact of gender-specific cultural knowledge and English proficiency on the reading comprehension of Saudi EFL undergraduates. Register J. 17, 383–403. doi: 10.18326/rgt.v17i2.383-403
UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report: Inclusion and Education, All Means. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (2021). Media and Information Literacy Curriculum for Educators and Learners. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, M., and Wray, A. (2016). Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates. Los Angeles: Sage.
Wardani, W., Astina, I. K., and Susilo, S. (2018). Pengaruh gender terhadap kemampuan berfikir kritis siswa SMA program IPS pada mata pelajaran geografi [The influence of gender on the critical thinking skills of high school students majoring in social studies in geography subjects]. J. Pendidikan Teori Penelitian dan Pengembangan 3, 1530–1534. doi: 10.17977/jptpp.v3i12.11786
Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 109, 21–32. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
World Bank (2019). The Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Learning More, Growing Faster. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
Yulianingsih, W., Lestari, G. D., and Rahma, R. A. (2018). Parenting education dalam literasi budaya dan kewargaan [Parenting education in cultural and civic literacy]. Prosiding Semin. Nasional Temu Kolegial J. PLS Se-Indonesia 2, 55–58.
Yurinda, E. F., and Hidayat, A. (2023). Meningkatkan aktivitas, keterampilan berpikir kritis dan hasil belajar pada pembelajaran PPKn menggunakan model bingka [Improving activities, critical thinking skills and learning outcomes in PPKn learning using the frame model]. J Kiprah Pendidikan 2, 184–193. doi: 10.33578/kpd.v2i2.194
Keywords: critical skill, cultural literacy, culture openness, educational environment, influence, information access, socio-cultural interaction
Citation: Ginting N, Wuryandani W, Kawuryan SP, Mustadi A, Firdaus FM and Sitorus J (2026) Factors influencing students’ critical skills and cultural literacy skills: including the factors of educational environment, culture openness, socio-cultural interactions, and information access. Front. Educ. 11:1723815. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1723815
Received: 13 October 2025; Revised: 10 January 2026; Accepted: 13 January 2026;
Published: 09 February 2026.
Edited by:
Marta Moskal, University of Glasgow, United KingdomReviewed by:
Fatima Zahra Sahli, Ibn Tofail University, MoroccoLilik Wahyuni, Brawijaya University Hospital, Indonesia
Copyright © 2026 Ginting, Wuryandani, Kawuryan, Mustadi, Firdaus and Sitorus. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jonni Sitorus, c2l0b3J1c19qb25uaUB5YWhvby5jby5pZA==; Nurlia Ginting, bnVybGlhZ2ludGluZy4yMDI0QHN0dWRlbnQudW55LmFjLmlk