GASING vs Deep Learning: Which Instructional Approach More Effectively Improves Primary Students’ Understanding of Whole Numbers?

Authors

  • Yudi Braja Putra Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Sardin Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
  • Al Jupri Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v13i3.20444

Keywords:

GASING approach, deep learning approach, mathematics learning outcomes, whole numbers

Abstract

This study analyzes the comparative effectiveness of the GASING (Easy, Engaging, and Enjoyable) approach and the Deep Learning approach in improving the mathematics learning outcomes of elementary school students regarding whole number content. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was employed with 18 students from two classes at a public elementary school in Siak Regency, Riau Province (Class A: Deep Learning, n = 9; Class B: GASING, n = 9). Data were collected using a 20-item validated multiple-choice achievement test (KR-20 = 0.78) and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative analysis included normalized N-Gain, paired-samples t-tests, the Mann-Whitney U test, and Cohen's d effect size. Results indicated that both approaches significantly improved learning outcomes. The Deep Learning approach yielded a medium N-Gain ($\langle g \rangle$ = 0.547, t = 6.874, p < 0.001), whereas the GASING approach yielded a high N-Gain ($\langle g \rangle$ = 0.827, t = 8.847, p < 0.001). Between-group comparison confirmed that the GASING approach was significantly more effective (U = 70.5, p = 0.009, Cohen's d = 1.57, indicating a very large effect). Interview data corroborated these findings, showing that Class B students demonstrated greater self-confidence and active engagement. Because whole number understanding serves as the foundation for subsequent mathematical concepts—such as arithmetic operations, fractions, and algebraic reasoning—mastering this content is critical for long-term mathematical development. Therefore, identifying instructional approaches like GASING that effectively support whole number mastery is essential for strengthening students’ readiness for advanced mathematical concepts.

References

Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012

APA. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Boaler, J. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2021). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 25(2), 97–140.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Evans, S. (2015). Mathematical brain development and early education: Evidence from neuroimaging studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(3), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00728

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin.

Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2022). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 915–945.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain scores. American Educational Research Association.

Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age.

Kemendikbudristek. (2023). Rapor pendidikan Indonesia tahun 2023. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia.

Kurniawan, H. (2018). Metode GASING dalam pembelajaran matematika di sekolah dasar. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika, 3(1), 118–126.

Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491

Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.

Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics. American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1514215

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

Nambiar, R., Tung, L., Doyle, A., & Osman, Z. (2021). Deep learning pedagogies and student academic achievement. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 1–30.

Nasution, A. K. P., & Surya, E. (2021). Penerapan metode GASING untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar matematika dan kepercayaan diri siswa sekolah dasar. Jurnal Suluh Pendidikan, 9(1), 73–84.

NCTM. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

Quinn, J., McEachen, J., Fullan, M., Gardner, M., & Drummy, M. (2019). Dive into deep learning: Tools for engagement. Corwin.

Rahmalia, D., & Safari, I. (2024). Peran pembelajaran matematika dasar dalam pengembangan kemampuan berpikir kritis dan pemecahan masalah siswa sekolah dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia, 9(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.26737/jpmi.v9i2.4812

Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.

Russo, J., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Livy, S., & Sullivan, P. (2021). Primary teacher attitudes towards productive struggle in mathematics in remote learning versus classroom-based settings. Education Sciences, 11(2), Article 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020035

Sawilowsky, S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 597–599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1257035100

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709

Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.

Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D (2nd ed.). Alfabeta.

Surya, Y. (2011). Matematika untuk semua. PT. Kandel.

Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2019). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson.

Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-12

How to Cite

Putra, Y. B., Sardin, & Al Jupri. (2026). GASING vs Deep Learning: Which Instructional Approach More Effectively Improves Primary Students’ Understanding of Whole Numbers?. Jurnal Paedagogy, 13(3), 1188–1199. https://doi.org/10.33394/jp.v13i3.20444

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026): July

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities tacitly or explicitly of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with Jurnal Paedagogy agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

Jurnal Paedagogy use a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.