GASING-based deep learning and grade IV students’ multiplication concept mastery: A quasi-experimental comparison

Ana Kaprianie; Yunus Abidin; Dinie Anggraeni Dewi

doi:10.58524/3zdkh788

Authors

Ana Kaprianie Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Yunus Abidin Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Dinie Anggraeni Dewi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58524/3zdkh788

Keywords:

Conceptual Understanding, Elementary Mathematics, GASING Method, Guided Inquiry, Multiplication, Quasi-Experiment

Abstract

Background: Multiplication concept mastery requires connections among equal grouping, symbolic notation, and flexible calculation. The GASING method offers a three-stage sequence that may complement the mindful, meaningful, and joyful dimensions of Deep Learning in the Indonesian curriculum.

Aim: This study compared reported learning outcomes in GASING-based Deep Learning (GASING-DL) and inquiry-based Deep Learning (Inquiry-DL) for Grade IV students.

Methods: The source manuscript describes a four-week, nonequivalent pretest–posttest study at SDN 4 Kuala Kurun in January 2025 involving two intact classes reported as 32 students each. Multiplication concept mastery was assessed using eight constructed-response items scored from 0 to 4 (maximum 32). The original analysis plan included pretest-adjusted ANCOVA and gain-based comparisons.

Results: Reported descriptive scores rose from 10.81 to 25.30 in GASING-DL and from 12.28 to 19.39 in Inquiry-DL. The reported mean normalized gains were 0.683 and 0.353, respectively. Inferential outputs in the source record were not interpreted because their degrees of freedom and category counts conflict with the stated group sizes.

Conclusion: The available descriptive summaries favor GASING-DL within this classroom comparison, but the magnitude and statistical certainty of the between-group difference cannot be established reliably from the inconsistent inferential record. Replication and consistent participant-level analysis are needed before strong effectiveness claims can be made.

References

Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142.

Alderton, J., & Pratt, N. (2025). The construction of mathematical reasoning as a pedagogical object. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 120, 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-025-10420-1

Alibali, M. W., Matthews, P. G., Rodrigues, J., Meng, R., Vest, N. A., Jay, V., Menendez, D., Murray, J. O., Donovan, A. M., Anthony, L. E., & McNeil, N. M. (2024). A bird’s-eye view of research practices in mathematical cognition, learning, and instruction: Reimagining the status quo. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 248, 106056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106056

Baroody, A. J. (2006). Why children have difficulties mastering the basic number combinations and how to help them. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(1), 22–31.

Barroso, C., Ganley, C. M., McGraw, A. L., Geer, E. A., Hart, S. A., & Daucourt, M. C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 147(2), 134–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000307

Bruno, A., Polo-Blanco, I., Van Vaerenbergh, S., Fernández-Cobos, R., & González-López, M. J. (2024). Strategies for solving multiplicative problems using a conceptual model-based problem-solving approach: A case study with a student with autism spectrum disorder. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56, 1239–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01568-w

Bui, P., Pongsakdi, N., McMullen, J., Lehtinen, E., & Hannula-Sormunen, M. M. (2023). A systematic review of mindset interventions in mathematics classrooms: What works and what does not?. Educational Research Review, 40, 100554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100554

Donolato, E., Caviola, S., Masi, A., Lervåg, A., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2026). Attitudes and emotions in the context of mathematical learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. Educational Research Review, 52, 100815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100815

Dotan, D., & Zviran-Ginat, S. (2022). Elementary math in elementary school: The effect of interference on learning the multiplication table. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7, 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00451-0

Downton, A., Giumelli, K., McHugh, B., & Stenning, P. (2023). Impact of teachers’ professional learning on students’ learning of multiplicative thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35, 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00408-4

Ebner, S., MacDonald, M. K., Grekov, P., & Aspiranti, K. B. (2025). A meta-analytic review of the concrete-representational-abstract math approach. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 40(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/09388982241292299

English, L. D. (2023). Ways of thinking in STEM-based problem solving. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55, 1219–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01474-7

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Fishstrom, S., Wang, H.-H., Bhat, B. H., Daniel, J., Dille, J., Capin, P., & Vaughn, S. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions on academic achievement and academic anxiety outcomes in elementary school children. Journal of School Psychology, 92, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.011

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hankeln, C., & Prediger, S. (2025). Language is essential for avoiding surface translations: Associations of students’ spontaneous use of meaning-related phrases for explicating structures with conceptual understanding of multiplication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 120, 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-025-10414-z

Hattie, J., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj Science of Learning, 1, 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13

Huang, J., Cai, Y., Lv, Z., Huang, Y., & Zheng, X.-L. (2024). Toward self-regulated learning: Effects of different types of data-driven feedback on pupils’ mathematics word problem-solving performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1356852. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1356852

Hurrell, D. P. (2021). Conceptual knowledge OR procedural knowledge OR conceptual knowledge AND procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 57–71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1296887

Källberg, P. S., & Roos, H. (2025). Meaning(s) of a student perspective in mathematics education research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 119, 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-024-10374-w

Kemendikbud. (2022). Capaian pembelajaran mata pelajaran matematika pada kurikulum merdeka. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia.

Kemendikbud. (2024). Panduan implementasi pendekatan deep learning dalam pembelajaran kurikulum merdeka. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia.

Lenz, K., Obersteiner, A., & Wittmann, G. (2024). Who benefits most from language-responsive learning materials in mathematics? Investigating differential effects in heterogeneous classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 116, 185–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-024-10321-9

Levenson, E. S., Barkai, R., Mahamid, A., & Levy, S. (2024). Creating equal groups from n items: Mathematical creativity in kindergarten. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 116, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-024-10322-8

Maj-Tatsis, B., & Tatsis, K. (2026). Exploring the use of a colouring task to elicit young students’ mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 122, 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-025-10459-0

Monteleone, C., Miller, J., & Warren, E. (2023). Conceptualising critical mathematical thinking in young students. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35, 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-023-00445-1

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.

Nordby, S. K., Mifsud, L., & Bjerke, A. H. (2024). Computational thinking in primary mathematics classroom activities. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1414081. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1414081

Ponte, R., Viseu, F., Neto, T. B., & Aires, A. P. (2023). Revisiting manipulatives in the learning of geometric figures. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1217680. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1217680

Purnomo, Y. W., Pasri, Aziz, T. A., Shahrill, M., & Prananto, I. W. (2022). Students’ failure to understand fraction multiplication as part of a quantity. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(4), 681–702. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1379854

Reuter, D., & Reinhold, F. (2026). Investigating the complexity of pattern recognition in primary students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 121, 229–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-025-10464-3

Roan, E., Kularajan, S., & Czocher, J. A. (2025). Reconsidering task classification systems for situations that can be modelled with multiplication. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 57, 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01657-4

Robson, D. A., Johnstone, S. J., Putwain, D. W., & Howard, S. (2023). Test anxiety in primary school children: A 20-year systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 98, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.02.003

Ruiz, C., Kohnen, S., von Hagen, A., Kwok, F. Y., & Bull, R. (2024). Which domain-specific skills at the beginning of formal schooling predict later mathematical achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 42, 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100583

Schulz, A. (2024). How do multiplicative and relational thinking contribute to multidigit division?. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 45, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-024-00247-3

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Skene, K., O’Farrelly, C. M., Byrne, E. M., Kirby, N., Stevens, E. C., & Ramchandani, P. G. (2022). Can guidance during play enhance children’s learning and development in educational contexts? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Development, 93(4), 1162–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13730

Sterner, H. (2025). Using graphical representations to develop students’ correspondence relationships and covariational thinking in pattern generalizations in primary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23, 1573–1597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10520-z

Sun, J., Xie, S., Li, J.-B., Li, J., & Mu, F. (2026). Early mathematics interventions in pre-primary education: A three-level meta-analysis of intentional teaching and exploratory play approaches. Educational Research Review, 52, 100830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100830

Surya, Y. (2018). Matematika GASING: Gampang, asyik, menyenangkan. Yohanes Surya Foundation.

Tang, E., & Wong, T. T.-Y. (2026). Potential underlying mechanisms of spatial-mathematical associations among primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 261, 106369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2025.106369

Tytler, R., Prain, V., Kirk, M., Mulligan, J., Nielsen, C., Speldewinde, C., White, P., & Xu, L. (2023). Characterising a representation construction pedagogy for integrating science and mathematics in the primary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1153–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10284-4

Ufer, S., Kaiser, A., Niklas, F., & Gabler, L. (2024). I have three more than you, you have three less than me? Levels of flexibility in dealing with additive situations. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1340322. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1340322

Valenta, A., Rø, K., & Klock, S. I. (2024). A framework for reasoning in school mathematics: Analyzing the development of mathematical claims. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 116, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-024-10309-5

Vessonen, T., Hellstrand, H., Kurkela, M., Aunio, P., & Laine, A. (2025). The effectiveness of mathematical word problem-solving interventions among elementary schoolers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 132, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102642

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., & SciPy 1.0 Contributors. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

Višňovská, J., & Cortina, J. L. (2025). Curriculum and mathematical coherence: Exploring the tensions in teaching and learning number. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 57, 1051–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01706-y

Zeng, H., Feng, J., & Dai, M. (2026). A structured five-step collaborative inquiry approach to mathematical reasoning in elementary school: Effects and implementation evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1813634. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1813634

Zwanch, K., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2021). Releasing the conceptual spring to construct multiplicative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09999-4