Integration of the Gasing (Easy, Fun, and Enjoyable)  Method with the Philosophical Values of Science in Primary Education

Kadek Ashadi Putra; Jenuri Jenuri

doi:10.33648/ijoaser.v8i4.1141

Kadek Ashadi Putra Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
Jenuri Jenuri Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33648/ijoaser.v8i4.1141

Keywords: Islamic Education Values, Role of Islamic Boarding Schools, Quality Islamic Education

Abstract

The This study examines the GASING (Easy, Fun, and Enjoyable) method in mathematics education through the lens of the philosophy of science, which encompasses three fundamental dimensions: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. The research addresses four key questions: (1) What is the nature of mathematics learning through the GASING method from an ontological perspective? (2) How is the process of knowledge construction within the GASING method explained through an epistemological framework? (3) What axiological values are embedded in the implementation of the GASING method? and (4) How does the GASING approach align with the fundamental principles of the philosophy of science in the context of mathematics education? Drawing upon a literature review of 14 scientific articles, the findings reveal that the GASING method develops understanding progressively from concrete to abstract, forming a strong ontological foundation. It promotes active knowledge construction through meaningful learning experiences as an epistemological process, and it embodies key axiological values such as perseverance, collaboration, and enthusiasm for learning. Furthermore, GASING emerges as a pedagogical approach that holistically integrates ontological, epistemological, and axiological dimensions, thereby reflecting the principles of the philosophy of science. The study contributes to the field by positioning the GASING method not merely as a pedagogical strategy, but as a comprehensive scientific framework for mathematics learning. This integration underscores its potential to enhance conceptual understanding and character development in primary mathematics education.

References

Agustina, A. E., Dewi, R. S., & Sari, D. P. (2022). Systematic literature review of philosophy of science in the development of independent curriculum.Journal of Values Education, 15(2), 123–135.

Al Faruq, S., & Sukri, M. (2021). Principles of philosophy of science in phonology: A review of ontology, epistemology, and axiology.Linguistics Journal, 9(1), 45–60.

Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). University of Queensland Press.

Devi, M. Y., Desyandri, & Murni, I. (2022). Education and basic education: A study of ontology, epistemology, and axiology.Journal of Elementary Education, 9(2), 67–78.

Elfira, R., Yuliana, & Fauziah, N. (2021). Ontology, epistemology, and axiology in character education.Journal of Philosophy of Education, 18(1), 1–13.

Fatkhul, M. (2020). Modern philosophy: Ontological, epistemological, and axiological aspects.Journal of Philosophy, 21(2), 55–63.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Inayati, R., Wardarita, R., & Ayuningtyas, P. (2023). Education in a philosophical perspective.Journal of Philosophy and Education, 10(1), 20–30.

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x

Muqit, A., & Mighfar, S. (2022). Ontology, epistemology, and axiology of Islamic boarding school education in the modern era.Journal of Islamic Education, 11(1), 77–89.

Nurasa, A., Ramadhan, D., & Syarifudin, I. (2021). A critical review of the ontology of science from the perspective of modern science.Journal of Philosophy of Science, 9(1), 30–42.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pahmi, S., Yuliana, I., & Fikri, H. (2022). The role of philosophy of science in the professionalism of elementary school teachers.Journal of Teacher Education, 13(3), 101–112.

Paramida, E. Y. R., Putri, D. P., Romlah, & Anwar, S. A. B. (2023). Systems approach in philosophical review: Ontology, axiology, and epistemology.Journal of Educational Systems, 14(2), 89–98.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3060577

Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Charles Merrill.

Rousseff, E. T. (2006). Introduction to help teachers develop their competencies in teaching mathematics to improve CBSA. Tarsito.

Salim, A., Maulana, R., & Husni, M. (2020). The role of philosophy of science in promoting the development of science.Journal of Modern Philosophy, 12(1), 70–83.

Slavin, R. E. (2020). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (13th ed.). Pearson.

Surya, Y., & Putri, R. I. I. (2017).Mathematics learning strategy using the GASING method. PT Kandel.

Syafriadi, A., Ramli, & Nurhayati. (2021). Aspects of the ontology of science and its application in Islamic education management.Journal of Islamic Studies and Education, 14(1), 55–67.

Yusuf, T. K., Ramadhan, M. A., & Hermawan, I. (2021). Systematic literature review: Philosophy of science and modern knowledge.Journal of Science and Ethics, 17(2), 90–105.