The effectiveness of the integrated GASING method combining contextual teaching and learning on elementary school students’ mathematical communication skills: a quasi-experimental study

Lentera Negeri October 21, 2026 Volume 7, Number 1 3 authors

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GASING method combined with the Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) approach on elementary students' mathematical communication skills relative to conventional instruction. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with nonequivalent groups was used, involving 128 fourth-grade students: an experimental group (n = 55; SD Kristen Baik classes 4A-4B and SD Inpres Kemiri) taught with GASING-CTL, and a control group (n = 73; SD Inpres Kartika classes 4A-4B and SD YPPGI Sentani) receiving conventional instruction. Pretest scores did not differ significantly between groups (p = .891), confirming baseline equivalence. Both groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest (experimental: t = -20.19, p < .001, d = 2.72; control: t = -16.47, p < .001, d = 1.93), with higher posttest means in the experimental group (M = 73.59, SD = 8.85) than the control group (M = 67.39, SD = 8.99). Because the control group's normalized gain (N-Gain) departed from normality (Shapiro-Wilk p < .001), a Mann-Whitney U test was applied and showed a significant between-group difference favoring the experimental group (U = 2582.00, Z = 2.77, p = .006, r = .244), although the independent t-test on raw gain scores was not significant (t = 1.55, p = .123). Mean N-Gain fell in the "medium" category for both groups (.63 and .53, respectively), yet the experimental group showed a larger share of "high" gains (32.7% vs. 16.4%) and no "low" gains, versus 11.0% in the control group. These results suggest GASING-CTL yields more consistent and proportionally larger learning gains, supporting its potential as a contextual strategy for enhancing mathematical communication skills, though the non-significant raw gain difference warrants cautious interpretation.

Authors

  1. Indry Wenno

    Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

  2. Dede Margo Irianto

    Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

  3. Ai Sutini

    Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Keywords

GASING methodContextual Teaching and LearningMathematical communication skillsQuasi-experimental designElementary school mathematics

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA., instrumen, prosedur, dan analisis data.)
  2. Amidi, A., Rahman, S., & Abdullah, M. (2025). The conditional effects of contextual teaching and learning on mathematical literacy: The moderating role of self-confidence among elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15(2), 234-251.
  3. Angrist, N., Bergman, P., & Matsheng, M. (2022). Experimental evidence on learning using low-tech when school is out. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01381-z Nature
  4. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Dewianti, T. I., & Jusra, H. (2023). Problem-based learning models assisted by interactive worksheets on mathematical communication skills in Grade V elementary school. Numerical: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.25217/numerical.v7i2.3959
  7. Fatkurochman, O., Rohmah, W. N., & Setyaningsih, I. (2024). The effect of contextual teaching and learning on students' critical thinking skills and mathematical learning outcomes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2890(1), 12-24.
  8. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, G. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Pearson.
  9. Gesiradja, M. C., Sudiapermanа, E., Mamonto, F., Lutfiansyah, D. Y., Shantini, Y., & Sebastian, E. J. V. (2026). Effectiveness of GASING method in improving elementary students' basic arithmetic ability: West Java, Indonesia and Philippines. Jurnal Math-UMB.EDU, 13(3), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.36085/math-umb.edu.v13i3.10360
  10. Hake, R. J. (1999). Analyzing dynamic balance in introductory physics: Grades and N-gain. arXiv preprint physics/9906069.
  11. Haslam, N., & McGarty, S. (2003). Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). Sage.
  12. Hayati, Z., Satriani, N., Raharti, N., & Hijriati. (2024). Gasing mathematics instruction for enhancing problem-solving skills in elementary school students. Genderang Asa: Journal of Primary Education, 5(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.47766/jga.v5i2.3484
  13. Hidayati, P. S., & Wati, T. L. (2021). The relationship of mathematical communication ability to learning outcomes of Grade IV students in elementary school. Academia Open, 4. https://doi.org/10.21070/acopen.4.2021.1534
  14. Johnson, E. B. (2002). Contextual teaching and learning: Making the connection between school and life. Corwin Press.
  15. Kong, S.-C., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2023). Monitoring cognitive development through the assessment of computational thinking practices: A longitudinal intervention on primary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107749
  16. Kusuma, I. W., & Sulistiawati, E. (2014). The effectiveness of GASING method in improving multiplication mastery of fifth-grade students. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8(2), 145-158.
  17. Kusuma, I. W., Sulistiawati, E., & Hartono, Y. (2018). The effectiveness of GASING method on elementary students' mathematics learning outcomes: A quantitative experimental study. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 12(3), 287-302.
  18. Lestari, K. E., Yudhoonata, M., & Brahmadatta, R. (2021). Contextual teaching and learning approach to improve mathematical literacy and critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 891-908.
  19. Levene, H. (1977). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, & W. A. Halden (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278–294). Stanford University Press.
  20. 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.
  21. Maulida, S. A., Isrokatun, I., & Julia, J. (2024). Pengaruh pembelajaran kooperatif TGT dengan metode GASING terhadap pemahaman konsep matematis perkalian dua angka di SD. SJME (Supremum Journal of Mathematics Education), 8(1), 101–113.https://doi.org/10.35706/sjme.v8i1.10789
  22. Miksza, P., Shaw, J. T., Richerme, L. K., Hash, P. M., & Hodges, D. A. (2023). Music education research: An introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197639757.003.0014
  23. Mullis, J. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
  24. Na’im, Z. N., & Mukhlis, M. (2024). Exploration of students’ mathematical communication abilities. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 11(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v11i1.66639
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  26. Novianti, N., & Wayudi, M. (2024). Improving elementary school students' mathematical communication and self-efficacy through realistic mathematics learning assisted by Canva media. Daya Matematis: Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Matematika, 12(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.26858/jdm.v12i3.66382
  27. Nur, M. A. (2024). Meta analisis pengaruh model pembelajaran Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) terhadap hasil belajar matematika siswa sekolah dasar. Kognitif: Jurnal Riset HOTS Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.51574/kognitif.v4i1.1409
  28. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  29. Prahmana, R. C. I., & Suwasti, L. (2014). The effectiveness of GASING method in teaching division concepts to rural elementary students. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Indonesia, 3(1), 23-34.
  30. Putra, Y. P., Ocsis, B., Saputra, W., & Fauzi, R. A. (2025). Kajian studi literatur: Perspektif budaya dan pendidikan di Indonesia. Jurnal Pedagogik Indonesia: Yayasan Lembaga Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Ksatria Siliwangi, 3(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.67025/jpi.v3i2.60
  31. Rafiki, R., Herlambang, Y. T., Hendrawan, B., Sutini, A., Putra, Y. P., & Wahid, R. (2025). Acceptability of the “Dasunse” website-based learning media with the Merdeka Learning Pathway in elementary schools across West Java. Journal of Future Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.67025/journaloffutureeducation.v3i1.51
  32. Rahmah, Z. A., & Ermawati, I. R. (2021). Pengaruh model pembelajaran Contextual Teaching and Learning terhadap hasil belajar matematika siswa sekolah dasar. Jurnal Basicedu, 6(1), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v6i1.1916
  33. Roheni, R. (2024). Implementation of Contextual Teaching and Learning approach to improve mathematical understanding ability of Grade II elementary school students. Jurnal Jembatan Efektivitas Ilmu Dan Akhlak Ahlussunah Wal Jama’ah, 5(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.52188/jeas.v5i2.845
  34. Rosyidah, U., & Efendi, N. (2021). Analysis of mathematical connection ability with contextual learning model simple fractions for Grade III elementary school. Indonesian Journal of Education Methods Development, 14, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21070/ijemd.v14i.592
  35. Salmaini, S., Hidayati, A., Agusti, F. A., Sartono, S., & Syafriafdi, N. (2024). Enhancing elementary mathematics education: The impact of ICT-assisted contextual learning models on learning outcomes, cognitive development, and student engagement. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Sekolah Dasar, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.24036/jippsd.v8i2.130334
  36. Saputra, E. E. (2022). Penggunaan model pembelajaran kontekstual untuk meningkatkan kemampuan komunikasi matematis siswa sekolah dasar. Journal Sultra Elementary School, 3(1), 255–264.
  37. https://doi.org/10.64690/jses.v3i1.358
  38. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.
  39. Sugiyono. (2024). Metode penelitian pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D (Edisi 24). Alfabeta.
  40. Yuliyanto, A., et al. (2024). GASING method to improve basic calculation of multiplication in mathematics for third-grade elementary school. Jurnal Pembangunan Pendidikan: Fondasi dan Aplikasi, 11(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.21831/jppfa.v11i1.66128
  41. Zhang, L., Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2024). Enhancing mathematical problem posing competence: A meta-analysis of intervention studies. International Journal of STEM Education, 11, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00507-1