SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

9

H-Index

Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education

an Open Access Journal

Comparative Effectiveness of AIR (Auditory, Intellectually, Repetition) and Realistic Mathematics Education Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Ability

Sudadio Sudadio
Budi Utomo Private Senior High School
Indonesia
sudadio1@gmail.com
Dave Kalberg
QSI International School of Dili
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of the AIR (Auditory, Intellectually, Repetition) and Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approaches in improving students’ mathematical reasoning ability at the senior high school level.

    Methodology: This study employed a quantitative quasi-experimental method with a posttest-only design, using essay-based test instruments, interviews, observations, and documentation; data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Liliefors normality test, F-test homogeneity, and independent sample t-test with statistical calculation procedures.

    Main Findings: The results showed a significant difference between the two approaches, where the AIR approach produced higher mean scores than the RME approach in students’ mathematical reasoning ability. Statistical testing indicated tvalue > ttable, confirming that AIR is more effective in enhancing students’ reasoning skills compared to RME.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides a direct comparative analysis between AIR and RME approaches within a single quasi-experimental framework, focusing specifically on mathematical reasoning ability and offering empirical evidence to support instructional decision-making in mathematics education.

  • How to cite

    Comparative Effectiveness of AIR (Auditory, Intellectually, Repetition) and Realistic Mathematics Education Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Ability. (2026). Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education, 4(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijome.v4i1.3063

    More Citation Formats

  • 55
    Abstract views
    27
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. M. R. Breixo, M. Isabel, and D. Ruíz, “Urban landscapes through the eyes of people with intellectual disability and down syndrome. The case of the city of Pontevedra (Spain),” Urban, Plan. Transp. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/21650020.2025.2486191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2025.2486191
    2. A. Alam and A. Mohanty, “Unveiling the complexities of ‘Abstract Algebra’ in University Mathematics Education (UME): Fostering ‘Conceptualization and Understanding’ through advanced pedagogical approaches,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2355400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2355400
    3. E. Saparbayeva, M. Abdualiyeva, Y. Torebek, A. Tursynbayev, and G. Takibayeva, “Transforming mathematics education in Kazakhstan: Evaluating the impact of innovative teaching methods on student outcomes in technical universities,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2461978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2461978
    4. E. Kristine, S. Hansen, M. Naalsund, E. Kristine, and S. Hansen, “Toward an analytical model for noticing interaction patterns in creative collaborative mathematical reasoning,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–19, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2025.2452222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2025.2452222
    5. U. Wathne and M. Carlsen, “Third grade students’ multimodal mathematical reasoning when collaboratively solving combinatorial problems in small groups,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 258–277, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2022.2099611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2022.2099611
    6. S. K. Boadu and E. Bonyah, “The role of philosophy of mathematics education in mathematics teacher education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2433832
    7. I. Anugraheni, A. Gufron, and Y. W. Purnomo, “The impact of realistic problem-based learning on mathematical connection abilities: Evidence from elementary schools in Indonesia,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2523078
    8. M. Nhiry, S. Abouhanifa, E. Mostapha, and E. Khouzai, The characterization of mathematical reasoning through an analysis of high school curricula and textbooks in Morocco, vol. 10, no. 1. Cogent, 2023. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2188797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2188797
    9. J. Olsson and C. Granberg, “Teacher-student interaction supporting students’ creative mathematical reasoning during problem solving using Scratch,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 278–305, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2022.2105567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2022.2105567
    10. A. Canogullari and F. Radmehr, “Task design principles in mathematics education: A literature review,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 615–647, 2026, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2025.2457365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2457365
    11. R. Smit et al., “Supporting primary students’ mathematical reasoning practice: The effects of formative feedback and the mediating role of self-efficacy,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 277–300, 2023, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2022.2062780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2062780
    12. M. Graven and H. Venkat, “SAARMSTE’s role in building and connecting early grade mathematics research: A review of SAARMSTE proceedings 2003-2022,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 255–272, 2023, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2023.2223376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2023.2223376
    13. T. Trinh, T. Phuong, N. N. Danh, T. Tuyet, T. Le, and T. Nguyen, “Research on the application of ICT in mathematics education: Bibliometric analysis of scientific bibliography from the Scopus database,” Cogent Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2084956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2084956
    14. S. Sekimoto, “Reading the air: Toward multisensory literacy for the Anthropocene,” Senses Soc., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 281–297, 2025, doi: 10.1080/17458927.2025.2586439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17458927.2025.2586439
    15. C. Olteanu and C. Olteanu, “Programming, mathematical reasoning and sense-making,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2046–2064, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2020.1858199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1858199
    16. M. Hickendorff, M. Van Zanten, and M. Hickendorff, “Opportunity to learn flexible and adaptive strategy use in current and past dutch mathematics textbooks,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–18, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2024.2435827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2024.2435827
    17. I. M. Christiansen and E. Erixon, “Opportunities to learn mathematics pedagogy and learning to teach mathematics in Swedish mathematics teacher education: A survey of student experiences,” Eur. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 159–177, 2024, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.2019216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.2019216
    18. M. Ballesteros-mejía and M. A. Madero, “Mapping visual-based methods: An interdisciplinary approach,” J. Vis. Lit., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 285–307, 2024, doi: 10.1080/1051144X.2024.2420304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1051144X.2024.2420304
    19. D. Wijayanti, A. Lutfi, T. T. Wijaya, and O. Bah, “Mapping research on Indonesia’s government mathematics textbooks: Current insights and potential directions,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2560052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2560052
    20. T. B. Takane and H. Venkat, “Intervening to improve additive relations mathematising in home language classrooms,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2025, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2025.2469468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2025.2469468
    21. E. De Waal, “Idealistic mathematics education: The institute for the development of mathematics education (IOWO) and dutch education reform, 1970 –1980,” J. Hist. Educ. Soc., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 89–112, 2026, doi: 10.1080/0046760X.2025.2553159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2025.2553159
    22. L. Anaya, F. Stafford, and G. Zamarro, “Gender gaps in math performance, perceived mathematical ability and college STEM education: The role of parental occupation,” Educ. Econ., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 113–128, 2022, doi: 10.1080/09645292.2021.1974344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.1974344
    23. P. Partanen, B. Jansson, and Ö. Sundin, “Fluid reasoning, working memory and planning ability in assessment of risk for mathematical difficulties,” Educ. Psychol. Pract., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 229–240, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02667363.2020.1736518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2020.1736518
    24. R. Di Fuccio, M. Ponticorvo, and M. A. Nadim, “Exploring the effect of digital and multisensory educational materials on retention in primary school using Tangible User Interfaces,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 2928–2938, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2024.2427277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2427277
    25. L. I. Putri, H. Retnawati, A. Jaedun, and A. Murfi, “Enhancing mathematical skills through multicontextual approaches: A meta-analysis of realistic mathematics, ethnomathematics, and technology integration,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2548648
    26. J. Zhu, Q. Liu, and W. Zhang, “Effect of approximate system training on mathematical ability,” Cogent Psychol., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2025, doi: 10.1080/23311908.2025.2496026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2025.2496026
    27. J. Visnovska et al., “Decolonising content narratives in mathematics and science education: The case of reinventing length measurement,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2025, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2024.2420469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2024.2420469
    28. J. Molho, P. Levitt, N. Dines, and A. Triandafyllidou, “Cultural policies in cities of the ‘global South’: A multi-scalar approach,” Int. J. Cult. Policy, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 711–721, 2020, doi: 10.1080/10286632.2020.1811256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1811256
    29. M. Braun et al., “Current digital consumer technology: Barriers, facilitators, and impact on participation for persons with intellectual disabilities – a scoping review,” Disabil. Rehabil., vol. 47, no. 21, pp. 5413–5434, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09638288.2025.2471567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2025.2471567
    30. F. J. A. Cívico et al., “Comparing open and closed number-based algorithms for enhancing mathematical competence and reasoning in primary education,” Res. Math., vol. 12, no. 01, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/27684830.2025.2529621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/27684830.2025.2529621
    31. M. Yang et al., “Augmented reality as a novel approach for addiction treatment: Development of a smoking cessation app,” Ann. Med., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 3096–3106, 2022, doi: 10.1080/07853890.2022.2140451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2140451
    32. M. P. Schroeder-strong, B. Schreiber, W. Bennett, B. Schreiber, and W. Bennett, “A methodology for projecting the return on investment of training technologies,” Mil. Psychol., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 125–136, 2024, doi: 10.1080/08995605.2022.2050164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2050164