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

GASING Method Training and Elementary Teachers’ Content Knowledge of Basic Arithmetic in West Manggarai, Indonesia

Yenni Natalina Buknoni ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
yennibuknoni26@upi.edu
Turmudi Turmudi
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Effy Mulyasari
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Eva Puspitasari ORCID
Indonesia University of Education ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study examined the effectiveness of GASING (Gampang, Asyik, dan Menyenangkan) method training on elementary school teachers’ content knowledge of basic arithmetic operations, namely addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, in West Manggarai Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia.

    Methodology: A pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design was employed. Fifty-five elementary school teachers in West Manggarai Regency participated in a 10-day (80-hour) GASING training program. A content knowledge test (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89) was administered as the measurement instrument. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Hake’s normalized gain (N-gain), and Cohen's d, processed with SPSS version 26.

    Main Findings: Teachers’ content knowledge improved substantially following training, with mean scores rising from 31.00 to 72.09 out of 100, more than double the pretest level. This gain was statistically significant (Wilcoxon Z = −6.441, p < 0.001) and represented a very large practical effect (Cohen's d = 2.94), indicating the improvement was not only reliable but also substantively meaningful. Normalized gain analysis (N-gain = 0.59, medium category) showed that 96.4% of teachers achieved moderate-to-high learning gains, suggesting the training was effective across nearly the entire cohort rather than only for a subset of participants.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study extends the existing GASING literature, unlike prior studies that centered on student learning outcomes or general teacher motivation, this study contributes targeted evidence on teacher professional development in basic arithmetic instruction, offering a replicable, low-resource training model applicable to similarly under-resourced regions in eastern Indonesia.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “GASING Method Training and Elementary Teachers’ Content Knowledge of Basic Arithmetic in West Manggarai, Indonesia”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 701–715, Jul. 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i3.3186.

    More Citation Formats

  • 41
    Abstract views
    15
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. [1] D. L. Ball, M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps, “Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?” J. Teach. Educ., vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 389–407, 2008, doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554.
    2. [2] H. C. Hill, M. Blunk, C. Charalambous, J. Lewis, G. C. Phelps, L. Sleep, and D. L. Ball, “Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study,” Cogn. Instr., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 430–511, 2008, doi: 10.1080/07370000802177235.
    3. [3] H. C. Hill, B. Rowan, and D. L. Ball, “Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 371–406, 2005, doi: 10.3102/00028312042002371.
    4. [4] OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en.
    5. [5] OECD, PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023, doi: 10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en.
    6. [6] A. Wijaya et al., “Exploring contributing factors to PISA 2022 mathematics achievement: Insights from Indonesian teachers,” Infinity: J. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.22460/infinity.v13i1.4598.
    7. [7] Kemdikbudristek, PISA 2022 dan Pemulihan Pembelajaran di Indonesia [PISA 2022 and Learning Recovery in Indonesia]. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi, 2023.
    8. [8] World Bank, Primary Education in Remote Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2019, doi: 10.1596/33113.
    9. [9] S. Fedi, Zaenuri, and I. Kharisudin, “Mathematical literacy in the socio-cultural life of the Manggarai community, East Nusa Tenggara,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 2614, no. 1, p. 040056, 2023, doi: 10.1063/5.0126635.
    10. [10] N. W. Utami, S. A. Sayuti, and Jailani, “Indigenous artifacts from remote areas, used to design a lesson plan for preservice math teachers regarding sustainable education,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 3, p. e06417, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06417.
    11. [11] E. Puspitasari, N. Wijiningsih, R. Susilana, and R. C. Johan, “Integrating systematic and adaptive curriculum implementation: A comparative model for inclusive 21st-century education,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 150–161, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i1.2254.
    12. [12] Y. Surya, Petunjuk Guru: Dasar-Dasar Pintar Berhitung GASING [Teacher's Guide: Smart Basics of Counting GASING]. Jakarta: PT. Kandel, 2011.
    13. [13] Y. Surya, Modul Pelatihan Matematika GASING SD Bagian 1 [GASING Elementary School Mathematics Training Module Part 1]. Jakarta: PT. Kandel, 2013.
    14. [14] R. C. I. Prahmana and P. Suwasti, “Local instruction theory on division in mathematics GASING,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–26, 2014, doi: 10.22342/jme.5.1.1445.17-26.
    15. [15] C. Huan, C. C. Meng, and M. Suseelan, “Mathematics learning from concrete to abstract (1968–2021): A bibliometric analysis,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 18, no. 8, p. em2137, 2022, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/12166.
    16. [16] J. H. Milton, M. M. Flores, A. J. Moore, J. L. J. Taylor, and M. E. Burton, “Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division,” Learn. Disabil. Q., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 32–45, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0731948718795477.
    17. [17] 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, 2013, doi: 10.1037/a0031084.
    18. [18] A. Armianti, I. Yani, K. Widuri, and Sulistiawati, “Pengaruh matematika GASING pada materi perkalian bilangan bulat terhadap hasil belajar peserta matrikulasi STKIP Surya [The influence of GASING mathematics on the material of multiplication of integers on the learning outcomes of STKIP Surya matriculation participants],” Kreano: J. Mat. Kreatif-Inovatif, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 74–81, 2016, doi: 10.15294/kreano.v7i1.5012.
    19. [19] H. Hendriana, R. C. I. Prahmana, and W. Hidayat, “The innovation of learning trajectory on multiplication operations for rural area students in Indonesia,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 397–408, 2019, doi: 10.22342/jme.10.3.9257.397-408.
    20. [20] L. F. Nuari, R. C. I. Prahmana, and I. Fatmawati, “Learning of division operation for mental retardations’ student through Math GASING,” J. Math. Educ., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 127–142, 2019, doi: 10.22342/jme.10.1.6913.127-142.
    21. [21] Z. Hayati, N. Satriani, N. Raharti, and Hijriati, “Gasing mathematics instruction for enhancing problem-solving skills in elementary school students,” Genderang Asa: J. Primary Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 25–36, 2024, doi: 10.47766/jga.v5i2.3484.
    22. [22] S. A. Arifin et al., “Description of gasing mathematics learning online on improving students’ cognitive learning outcomes,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 2886, p. 020005, 2023, doi: 10.1063/5.0176350.
    23. [23] S. Hunas, E. Puspitasari, R. W. A. Rozak, and N. Rusmana, “Effective drill-based arithmetic training for improving numeracy literacy: A quasi-experimental study with high N-gain among elementary students,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 556–567, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i2.2810.
    24. [24] N. Wijiningsih, E. Puspitasari, B. Setiawan, and M. Emilzoli, “Developing holistic gasing evaluation model to balance cognitive efficiency and affective resilience,” J. Eval. Educ., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 513–522, 2026, doi: 10.37251/jee.v7i2.2825.
    25. [25] D. C. Woods and Y. Copur-Gencturk, “Teacher learning through teaching practice: Development of pedagogical content knowledge,” J. Teach. Educ., 2024.
    26. [26] T. Fukaya, M. Fukuda, and M. Suzuki, “Relationship between mathematical pedagogical content knowledge, beliefs, and motivation of elementary school teachers,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, p. 1276439, 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1276439.
    27. [27] M. T. Tatto et al., Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, Practice, and Readiness to Teach Primary and Secondary Mathematics. Amsterdam: IEA, 2012.
    28. [28] B. Hassler, S. D’Angelo, H. Walker, and M. Marsden, “Synthesis of Reviews on Teacher Professional Development in Sub-Saharan Africa with a Focus on Mathematics,” Open Development and Education, 2019, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3497271.
    29. [29] M. Tamur, “Evaluation of the results of professional development of mathematics teachers in East Nusa Tenggara Province,” Plusminus: J. Pendidikan Matematika, vol. 5, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.30870/plusminus.v5i1.2378.
    30. [30] B. Tanujaya, R. C. I. Prahmana, and J. Mumu, “Mathematics instruction, problems, challenges and opportunities: A case study in Manokwari Regency, Indonesia,” World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 287–291, 2017.
    31. [31] Y. Dwiyono and H. K. Tasik, “Analisis kesulitan belajar operasi hitung perkalian matematika siswa kelas IV SD Negeri 019 Samarinda Ulu [Analysis of learning difficulties in mathematical multiplication operations of fourth grade students at SD Negeri 019 Samarinda Ulu],” J. Ilmu Pendidikan LPPM Kalimantan Timur, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 175–190, 2021.
    32. [32] A. Rahmatin and I. Marzuki, “Analisis kesulitan belajar siswa pada materi operasi hitung campuran bilangan cacah kelas 3 sekolah dasar [Analysis of students' learning difficulties in the material on mixed arithmetic operations for whole numbers in grade 3 of elementary school],” EDUSAINTEK: J. Pendidikan, Sains Dan Teknologi, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 786–799, 2022, doi: 10.47668/edusaintek.v9i3.573.
    33. [33] M. M. Kennedy, “How does professional development improve teaching?” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 945–980, 2016, doi: 10.3102/0034654315626800.
    34. [34] L. M. Desimone, “Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures,” Educ. Researcher, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 181–200, 2009, doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140.
    35. [35] L. M. Desimone, “A primer on effective professional development,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 68–71, 2011, doi: 10.1177/003172171109200616.
    36. [36] L. Darling-Hammond, M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner, Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017, doi: 10.54300/122.311.
    37. [37] M. S. Garet, A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon, “What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 915–945, 2001, doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915.
    38. [38] D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
    39. [39] World Bank, The Promise of Education in Indonesia. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2019, doi: 10.1596/34807.
    40. [40] J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
    41. [41] G. W. Corder and D. I. Foreman, Nonparametric Statistics: A Step-by-Step Approach, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014.
    42. [42] 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, 1998, doi: 10.1119/1.18809.
    43. [43] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
    44. [44] L. G. Portney and M. P. Watkins, Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2009.
    45. [45] Y. Sitabkhan, A. Alikova, N. Toktogulova, A. Zholdoshbekova, W. Ralaingita, and J. Stern, Understanding Primary School Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching. RTI Press, 2024, doi: 10.3768/rtipress.2024.rr.0052.2409.
    46. [46] I. Atawolo and A. Hartoyo, “Professional development for Indonesian elementary school teachers: Increased competency and sustainable teacher development programs,” F1000Research, vol. 13, p. 1375, 2024, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.154567.1.
    47. [47] T. Rowland, F. Turner, A. Thwaites, and P. Huckstep, Developing Primary Mathematics Teaching: Reflecting on Practice with the Knowledge Quartet. London: SAGE, 2009.
    48. [48] Y. Li, R. E. Howe, W. J. Lewis, and J. J. Madden, Eds., Developing Mathematical Proficiency for Elementary Instruction. Cham: Springer, 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-68956-8.
    49. [49] J. Dogbey, “Supporting elementary school teachers enhance their mathematics instruction through invented strategies and classroom discourse,” J. Teach. Educ., 2025, doi: 10.1177/27527263251318090.
    50. [50] B. Avalos, “Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 10–20, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.
    51. [51] 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.
    52. [52] T. Kleickmann et al., “Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education,” J. Teach. Educ., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 90–106, 2013, doi: 10.1177/0022487112461343.
    53. [53] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
    54. [54] K. M. Zee and H. M. Koomen, “Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 981–1015, 2016, doi: 10.3102/0034654316660243.
    55. [55] B. Fauth, J. Decristan, A. T. Decker, G. Büttner, I. Hardy, E. Klieme, and M. Kunter, “The effects of teacher competence on student outcomes in elementary science education: The mediating role of teaching quality,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 86, p. 102882, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882.
    56. [56] E. A. Hanushek, M. Piopiunik, and S. Wiederhold, “The value of smarter teachers: International evidence on teacher cognitive skills and student performance,” J. Human Resources, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 857–899, 2019, doi: 10.3368/jhr.54.4.0317.8619R1.
    57. [57] Z. Arifin, D. Kurniawan, Rusman, and E. Puspitasari, “Evaluating the impact of STEAM-integrative curriculum on character maturity and 21st-century skills: A quasi-experimental study,” Sci. Cult., vol. 12, no. 2.1, pp. 7660–7666, 2026, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12212026593.
    58. [58] B. Rowan, R. Correnti, and R. J. Miller, “What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement,” Teach. Coll. Rec., vol. 104, no. 8, pp. 1525–1567, 2002.
    59. [59] J. Dietrichson et al., “Targeted school-based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in grades K–6: A systematic review,” Campbell Syst. Rev., vol. 17, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1002/cl2.1152.
    60. [60] I. M. Christiansen and E.-L. Erixon, “Pedagogical content knowledge in prospective elementary teachers’ descriptions of teaching and learning of fractions,” Scand. J. Educ. Res., 2024, doi: 10.1080/00313831.2024.2362928.
    61. [61] D. Kurniawan, Rusman, Z. Arifin, E. Puspitasari, Y. A. Sufyan, and A. K. Suhadha, “The predictive role of curriculum construction and soft skills proficiency in enhancing student work-readiness for Industry 5.0,” Sci. Cult., vol. 12, no. 2.1, pp. 7667–7672, 2026, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12212026594.

Categories