TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION, COMPETENCE, AND SCHOOL SUPPORT IN GASING MATHEMATICS IMPLEMENTATION IN KAIMANA: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v10i2.54341Keywords:
GASING Method, Mathematics Learning, Mixed-Methods, School Support, Teacher FactorsAbstract
This study aims to examine the key factors influencing the implementation of GASING mathematics, particularly teachers’ perception, attitude, competence, and school support, in a rural educational context. The study addresses the limited integration of these variables within a single analytical framework, especially in remote areas such as Kaimana. A mixed-methods approach was employed involving 14 teachers who have experience in implementing the GASING method. Quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation, while qualitative data were obtained through open-ended responses and analyzed using thematic analysis. The results indicate that all variables are categorized as high to very high, reflecting positive responses toward the GASING method. Correlation analysis shows that teacher competence has the strongest relationship with implementation (r = 0.62), followed by school support (r = 0.52), perception (r = 0.43), and attitude (r = 0.35). These findings highlight the central role of teacher competence in ensuring effective implementation. Qualitative findings further reveal that despite positive perceptions and attitudes, teachers still encounter challenges related to limited practical skills and inconsistent institutional support. This study offers a novel contribution by integrating multiple teacher-related and institutional factors within a mixed-methods framework in a remote context. The findings imply that strengthening teacher competence through continuous professional development, supported by consistent school policies and resources, is essential for optimizing the implementation of innovative mathematics learning approaches such as GASING.
Downloads
References
Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: a framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59(2), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5
Asad, M. M., Churi, P., Sherwani, F., & Hassan, R. B. (2025). Innovative pedagogical practices for higher education 4.0 : Solutions and demands of the modern classroom. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Basister, M. P., Petersson, J., & Baconguis, R. D. T. (2025). Educational innovations for an inclusive learning environment: insights from the teachers’ collaboration through lesson study. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1610749
Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & Van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In International handbook of teacher education: volume 1 (pp. 347–386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_9
Bingham, A. J. (2023). From Data Management to Actionable Findings: A Five-Phase Process of Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
Blömeke, S., Jentsch, A., Ross, N., Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2022). Opening up the black box: Teacher competence, instructional quality, and students’ learning progress. Learning and Instruction, 79, 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101600
Bosnjak, M., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
Brown, G. T. L., & Shulruf, B. (2023). Response Option Design in Surveys. In The SAGE Handbook of Survey Development and Application (pp. 120–132). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529617757.n9
Cheng, W., Vyas, R., Gopalakrishnan, R., Clay, E. R., & Singh, M. (2020). Exploring Correlation among Different Elements of Student Evaluation of Teaching. 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9273999
Costa, J. (2024). Mixed Methods in Educational Large-Scale Studies: Integrating Qualitative Perspectives into Secondary Data Analysis. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1347. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121347
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Daouk, Z., Bahous, R., & Bacha, N. N. (2016). Perceptions on the effectiveness of active learning strategies. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 8(3), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-05-2015-0037
DeMarrais, K. B., Roulston, K., & Copple, J. (2024). Qualitative research design and methods : an introduction. (1st ed.). Myers Education Press.
DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. (2023). Scale development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
Ehlert, M., Adloff, M., & Souvignier, E. (2025). It’s about time! Teachers’ perspectives on supportive and hindering contextual conditions for implementing innovations in schools. Education Inquiry, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2025.2454083
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Flick, U. (2018). Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716634
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Funk, R., Uhing, K., Williams, M., & Smith, W. M. (2022). The role of leadership in educational innovation: a comparison of two mathematics departments’ initiation, implementation, and sustainment of active learning. SN Social Sciences, 2(12), 258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00565-8
Furr, R. M. (2018). Psychometrics : an introduction. SAGE Publications.
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. (2025). Progress on theory of planned behavior research: advances in research synthesis and agenda for future research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 48(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-024-00545-8
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. (8th ed.). Cengage.
Hargreaves, Andy., & Shirley, Dennis. (2022). Well-being in schools: Three forces that will uplift your students in a volatile world. ASCD.
Hasyim, M., Zain, Z. A., Darus, M. M., Imami, M. K. W., & Wahdah, N. (2026). Validity of the physic learning difficulties scale for secondary school students in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 10(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v10i1.38086
Hussey, I., Alsalti, T., Bosco, F., Elson, M., & Arslan, R. (2025). An Aberrant Abundance of Cronbach’s Alpha Values at .70. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241287123
Jia, Q., Martínez-Hernández, C., & Peña-Martínez, J. (2025). Mapping the integration of theory of planned behavior and self-determination theory in education: a scoping review on teachers’ behavioral intentions. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111529
Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197
Kankaraš, M., & Capecchi, S. (2025). Neither agree nor disagree: Use and misuse of the neutral response category in Likert-type scales. METRON, 83(1), 111–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40300-024-00276-5
Kawar, L. N., Dunbar, G. B., Aquino-Maneja, E. M., Flores, S. L., Squier, V. R., & Failla, K. R. (2024). Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and triangulation research simplified. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 55(7), 338–344. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20240328-03
Koh, G. A., Askell-Williams, H., & Barr, S. (2023). Sustaining school improvement initiatives: advice from educational leaders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 34(3), 298–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2190130
König, J., Hanke, P., Glutsch, N., Jäger-Biela, D., Pohl, T., Becker-Mrotzek, M., Schabmann, A., & Waschewski, T. (2022). Teachers’ professional knowledge for teaching early literacy: conceptualization, measurement, and validation. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 34(4), 483–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-022-09393-z
Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., Baucal, A., Poom-Valickis, K., & Lepp, L. (2024). What predicts instructional quality and commitments to teaching: self-efficacy, pedagogical knowledge or integration of the two? Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1287313
MacFarland, T. W., & Yates, J. M. . (2016). Introduction to nonparametric statistics for the biological sciences using R. Springer.
Mafa-Theledi, O. N. (2024). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and subject matter content knowledge: Is the framework still relevant in teaching of STEM. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(IV), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804061
Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2019). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge of physics instructors using the force concept inventory. 120002. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5110146
Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching. SAGE Publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2023). Mixed methods research: Research methods. Bloomsbury, Academic.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, Johnny. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mukti, T. S., & Noviafitri, K. S. (2024). The instructional and learning quality: The effect of four teacher competencies. INSANIA : Jurnal Pemikiran Alternatif Kependidikan, 29(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.24090/insania.v29i2.11590
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume III) : what school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing.
Papageorgiou, E., Wong, J., Liu, Q., Khalil, M., & Cabo, A. J. (2025). A systematic review on student engagement in undergraduate mathematics: Conceptualization, measurement, and learning outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 37(3), 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10046-y
Prenger, R., Tappel, A. P. M., Poortman, C. L., & Schildkamp, K. (2022). How can educational innovations become sustainable? A review of the empirical literature. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.970715
Puspitasari, M. (2025). Navigating classroom challenges and curriculum changes: A qualitative study of an English Teacher’s journey in the Indonesian education system. Power and Education, 17(3), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438241275799
Quintela Do Carmo, G., Vinuesa, V., Dembélé, M., & Ayotte-Beaudet, J.-P. (2024). Going beyond adaptation: an integrative review and ethical considerations of semi-structured interviews with elementary-aged children. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241247474
Roberts, L. (2023). Leading Schools and Sustaining Innovation: How to Think Big and Differently in Complex Systems. Routledge.
Sari, D. A., Kuswanto, C. W., Anhusadar, L., Purnama, S., & Ulfah, M. (2025). Exploring the influence of parental-teacher engagement in play-based mathematical learning on motor development and health outcomes in early childhood. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(3), 941–954. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i3.42381
Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001
Schreurs, B. G. M., Zee, M., Cornelissen, F., & de Jong, P. F. (2025). The role of transformational leadership and an experienced team in sustaining a technology enhanced learning intervention in schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432251375332
Sun, J. (2026). Successful school leadership and critical pathways to improve student learning. Encyclopedia, 6(4), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6040072
Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001
Wilfredo, B. B., Peter, P. S. C., & Romiro, G. B. (2024). Modelling the Interplay of K-12 Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices. American Journal of Educational Research, 12(11), 420–426. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-12-11-2
Zhou, Y., Zhou, Y., & Machtmes, K. (2024). Mixed methods integration strategies used in education: A systematic review. Methodological Innovations, 17(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991231217937
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Trigarcia Maleachi Randa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.











