Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Effective Drill-Based Arithmetic Training for Improving Numeracy Literacy: A Quasi-Experimental Study With High N-Gain among Elementary Students

Safiru Hunas ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
safiruhunas79@upi.edu
Eva Puspitasari ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Rama Wijaya Abdul Rozak ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Nandang Rusmana ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of a drill-based arithmetic training program in improving elementary students' numeracy literacy.

    Methodology: This quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest study involved 32 fourth-grade students selected through a total sampling approach. A 20-item arithmetic essay test was used as the instrument (CVR = 0.89; Cronbach's Alpha = 0.856). The intervention comprised 8 sessions (90 minutes each) integrating drill and practice, concrete manipulative media, scaffolding, peer tutoring, and corrective feedback. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test (α = 0.05) and Hake's N-Gain.

    Main Findings: Pretest scores were extremely low (M = 15.31), with 0% achieving KKM (Minimum Completion Criteria). Post-intervention scores rose to M = 82.03, a gain of 66.72 points (435.71%), with 84.4% of students achieving KKM. The Wilcoxon test confirmed a highly significant improvement (p = 0.000001), and N-Gain yielded a mean of 0.7964 (high category). Effectiveness is attributed to the integration of drill-and-practice (behavioristic theory), concrete manipulatives (Piaget), peer tutoring within the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky), and gradual scaffolding. The N-Gain exceeded prior studies. Limitations include the absence of a control group and a small sample size, restricting generalizability.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This is the first study to examine an integrated, multi-component program that addresses all four arithmetic operations simultaneously in Eastern Indonesia (Buton Regency), demonstrating that multi-component designs yield superior N-Gain outcomes and offering a replicable framework for teachers addressing low numeracy literacy.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Effective Drill-Based Arithmetic Training for Improving Numeracy Literacy: A Quasi-Experimental Study With High N-Gain among Elementary Students”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 556–567, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i2.2810.

    More Citation Formats

  • 132
    Abstract views
    59
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en
    2. P. Aunio, J. Heiskari, J. Van Luit, and M. Vuorio, “The development of early numeracy skills in kindergarten in low-, average- and high-performance groups,” J. Early Child. Res., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 407–422, 2021. doi: 10.1177/1476718X211037853
    3. J. A. Van de Walle, K. S. Karp, and J. M. Bay-Williams, Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally, 10th ed. New York: Pearson, 2019. ISBN: 9780134802084
    4. B. Y. Ching and T. Nunes, “The importance of additive reasoning in children’s mathematical achievement: A longitudinal study,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 1345–1360, 2021. doi: 10.1037/edu0000662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000662
    5. R. E. Reys, M. M. Lindquist, D. V. Lambdin, and N. L. Smith, Helping Children Learn Mathematics, 11th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2020. ISBN: 9781119508038
    6. X. Zhang, B. Räsänen, J. Koponen, K. Aunola, M. Lerkkanen, and J. Nurmi, “Early cognitive precursors of children’s mathematics learning disability and persistent low achievement: A 5-year longitudinal study,” Child Dev., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 134–149, 2023. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13848 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13848
    7. OECD, PISA 2022 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
    8. Kemendikbudristek, Laporan Hasil Asesmen Nasional 2023 [2023 National Assessment Results Report]. Jakarta: Pusat Asesmen Pendidikan, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://pusmendik.kemdikbud.go.id/an/
    9. D. C. Geary, M. K. Hoard, L. Nugent, and C. O. Bailey, “Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge,” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. e0243655, 2020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243655 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243655
    10. D. H. Clements and J. Sarama, Learning and Teaching Early Math: The Learning Trajectories Approach, 3rd ed.. New York: Routledge, 2020. doi: 10.4324/9781003083528 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003083528
    11. D. H. Clements and J. Sarama, “Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to know the world mathematically,” Am. J. Play, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 313–337, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.museumofplay.org/app/uploads/2022/01/1-3-article-building-blocks-cognitive-building-blocks.pdf
    12. K. J. Carbonneau, S. C. Marley, and J. P. Selig, “A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 380–400, 2019. doi: 10.1037/a0031084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
    13. N. C. Jordan, D. Glutting, C. Dyson, B. Hassinger-Das, and C. Irwin, “Building kindergartners’ number sense: A randomized controlled study,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 647–660, 2019. doi: 10.1037/a0029018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029018
    14. A. Dowker, A. Sarkar, and C. Y. Looi, “Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years?,” Front. Psychol., vol. 7, no. 508, pp. 1–16, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508
    15. T. Berkowitz, M. W. Schaeffer, E. A. Maloney, L. Peterson, C. Gregor, S. C. Levine, and S. L. Beilock, “Math at home adds up to achievement in school,” Science, vol. 350, no. 6257, pp. 196–198, 2020. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7427
    16. M. Burns, About Teaching Mathematics: A K–8 Resource, 4th ed. Sausalito: Math Solutions, 2007.
    17. L. S. Fuchs, D. C. Geary, D. L. Compton, P. M. Fuchs, C. L. Hamlett, and A. M. Bryant, “The contributions of numerosity and domain-general abilities to school readiness,” Child Dev., vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 1520–1533, 2021. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01489.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01489.x
    18. S. R. Powell, T. E. Doabler, K. Eveleigh, S. Shrestha, and K. Hoyt, “An analysis of the mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities from 2010 to 2020,” Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 195–209, 2020. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12233
    19. R. Rosenshine and R. Stevens, “Teaching functions in instructional programs,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 507–543, 2017. doi: 10.3102/00028312043003507
    20. J. Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Number. London: Routledge, 2020. doi: 10.4324/9781315006222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315006222
    21. J. S. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. ISBN: 9780674898011
    22. S. Susilowati and H. Retnawati, “Pelatihan intensif operasi hitung untuk meningkatkan kemampuan numerasi siswa SD [Intensive training in arithmetic operations to improve elementary school students' numeracy skills],” J. Pendidik. Mat., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 145–158, 2021. doi: 10.21831/jpm.v12i2.38745
    23. R. Handayani, “Efektivitas media manipulatif dalam pembelajaran perkalian dan pembagian siswa kelas IV [The effectiveness of manipulative media in learning multiplication and division for fourth grade students],” Prima Magistra: J. Ilmiah Kependidikan, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 156–165, 2020. doi: 10.37478/jpm.v1i2.607
    24. A. Wijaya, I. K. Suryawan, and N. M. S. Dewi, “Program remedial berbasis drill and practice untuk operasi hitung dasar [Drill and practice based remedial program for basic arithmetic operations],” J. Ilmiah Pendidik. Citra Bakti, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 12–24, 2022. doi: 10.38048/jipcb.v9i1.683
    25. R. Gersten, N. C. Jordan, and J. R. Flojo, “Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties,” J. Learn. Disabil., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 293–304, 2021. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380040301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380040301
    26. J. Hodgen, D. Küchemann, M. Brown, and R. Coe, “Using formative assessment to improve learning in mathematics,” Oxford Rev. Educ., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 318–334, 2023. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2022.2143551
    27. National Research Council, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington: National Academy Press, 2019. doi: 10.17226/9822 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
    28. M. Schneider, B. Rittle-Johnson, and J. R. Star, “Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1525–1538, 2021. doi: 10.1037/a0024997 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997
    29. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2023. ISBN: 9781071817940
    30. S. B. Nolen and T. L. Ward, “Sociocultural and situative approaches to studying motivation,” in Handbook of Motivation at School, K. R. Wentzel and D. B. Miele, Eds. New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 425–448. ISBN: 9781138015647 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-7423(08)15013-0
    31. Kemendikbudristek, Kurikulum Merdeka: Capaian Pembelajaran Matematika SD/MI [Independent Curriculum: Mathematics Learning Outcomes in Elementary Schools]. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum dan Perbukuan, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://kurikulum.kemdikbud.go.id/
    32. R. M. Furr, Psychometrics: An Introduction, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2021.
    33. J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81–112, 2023. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
    34. V. Shute, “Focus on formative feedback,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 153–189, 2020. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
    35. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 6th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2024.
    36. R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 2018. doi: 10.1119/1.18809 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
    37. B. Rittle-Johnson, M. Schneider, and J. R. Star, “Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 587–597, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
    38. E. A. Gunderson, D. Park, E. A. Maloney, S. L. Beilock, and S. C. Levine, “Reciprocal relations among motivational frameworks, math anxiety, and math achievement in early elementary school,” J. Cogn. Dev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 21–46, 2018. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2017.1421538 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2017.1421538
    39. C. S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Updated Edition). New York: Random House, 2016. ISBN: 9780345472328
    40. A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215, 2023. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
    41. J. C. Codding, R. E. Burns, and G. Lukito, “Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis,” Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 36–47, 2021. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
    42. H. P. Ginsburg and S. Y. Seo, “What is developmentally appropriate in early childhood mathematics education? Lessons from new research,” in Engaging Young Children in Mathematics, D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A. M. DiBiase, Eds. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2020, pp. 91–104.
    43. B. F. Skinner, The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. ISBN: 9780390832405
    44. E. L. Thorndike, The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1913.
    45. J. Piaget and B. Inhelder, The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books, 2019. doi: 10.1037/10756-000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10756-000
    46. L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
    47. D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Minneapolis: Interaction Book Company, 2009.
    48. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 3rd ed.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2021. doi: 10.1017/9781316941355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355
    49. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, and F. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 261–292, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
    50. C. A. Tomlinson, The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, 2nd ed. Alexandria: ASCD, 2014.
    51. D. L. Kirkpatrick and J. D. Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006.
    52. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston: NCTM, 2014.
    53. M. K. Stein, M. S. Smith, M. A. Henningsen, and E. A. Silver, Implementing Standards-Based Mathematics Instruction: A Casebook for Professional Development, 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.
    54. K. R. Wentzel and D. B. Miele, Eds., Handbook of Motivation at School, 3rd ed.. New York: Routledge, 2023. doi: 10.4324/9781003265696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003265696
    55. S. Graham, A. Bellert, J. Thomas, and L. Pegg, “QuickSmart: A basic academic skills intervention for middle school students with learning difficulties,” J. Learn. Disabil., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 410–419, 2023. doi: 10.1177/00222194070400050401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400050401
    56. Y. Yuniarti, R. R. Sukardi, M. Laeni, and I. Mujahidah, “Evaluating mathematical representation competence among primary students: Insights from diagnostic assessment and instructional implications,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 662–672, 2025. doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i3.1740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i3.1740
    57. B. M. Suryonegoro, W. Wardono, S. B. Waluya, and M. Mulyono, “Meta analysis: Analysis of students’ mathematical critical thinking ability and numeracy literacy capabilities,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 89–101, 2025. doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i1.1305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i1.1305
    58. R. H. Muslimah, S. Suwarto, and A. Prasetyo, “A study of students’ mathematical concept understanding ability: Learning anxiety and its implications for elementary mathematics instruction,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 417–427, 2025. doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i2.1482