Submited : 01 Januari 2022
Revised : 01 Mei 2022
Accepted : 03 Juni 2022


Edumatica: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika
Volume 12 Nomor 02 Agustus 2022

Pengembangan Perangkat Pembelajaran Berbasis Model Learning Cycle 5E
untuk Memfasilitasi Perubahan Konseptual Siswa dalam Pembelajaran
Matematika

Ega Gradini
1
, Susanti
2

1
Pendidikan Matematika, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Takengon, Indonesia
2
Pendidkan Matematika, Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry, Indonesia
E-mail: [email protected]
1
, [email protected]
2


Abstrak
Artikel ini bertujuan mendeskripsikan hasil pengembangan perangkat pembelajaran berbasis
Learning Cycle 5E pada kriteria valid, praktis, dan efektif untuk memfasilitasi perubahan konseptual
siswa pada materi Statistik dan Penyajian Data. Model Four-D digunakan sebagai pendekatan
pengembangan penelitian ini. Kualitas produk diukur melalui validitas, kepraktisan, dan efektivitas
perangkat pembelajaran. Validitas perangkat diukur dari relevansi dan konsistensinya menggunakan
expert judgement. Praktikalitas perangkat diukur menggunakan kuesioner penilaian praktikalitas
kepada 5 orang guru Matematika dan 20 orang siswa kelas VIII. Efektifitas diukur melalui ujicoba
kelompok kecil dengan melibatkan 1 orang guru Matematika dan 28 orang siswa kelas VIII. Hasil
penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perangkat pembelajaran yang dikembangkan memenuhi kriteria
validitas, praktikalitas, dan efektivitas. Perangkat pembelajaran dinyatakan valid dengan skor validitas
untuk RPP adalah 0.89, lembar aktivitas siswa 0.86, buku guru 0.78, dan buku siswa 0.80. Perangkat
pembelajaran dinyatakan praktis dengan skor praktikalitas dimana respons guru adalah 80.31% dengan
kategori praktis, dan respons siswa adalah 79.19% dengan kategori praktis. Selanjutnya, perangkat
pembelajaran dinyatakan efektif dengan kriteria; rata-rata klasikal hasil belajar siswa mencapai 83.71,
tingkat ketuntasan belajar mencapai 82.14%, tingkat pengelolaan pembelajaran guru pada taraf baik,
dan keaktifan siswa mencapai 72.5%.
Kata Kunci: learning cycle 5E, pemahaman konsep, perubahan konseptual

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools to Facilitate Students’
Conceptual Changes in Mathematics Learning

Abstract
This article describes the results of developing Learning Cycle 5E teaching tools that are valid,
practical, and effective to facilitate students' conceptual changes in Statistics and Data Presentation
material. The Four-D model was used to develop this research. The quality of the product is measured
through the validity, practicality, and effectiveness of teaching tools. The device's validity is measured
by its relevance and consistency using expert judgment. The device's practicality was measured using
a practicality assessment questionnaire, distributed to 5 Mathematics teachers and 20 eighth-grader.
Effectiveness was measured through a small group trial involving 1 Mathematics teacher and 28
eighth-grader students. The results showed that the teaching tools developed met the validity,
practicality, and effectiveness criteria. Learning tools are declared valid, with the validity score for
lesson plans being 0.89, student worksheets being 0.86, teacher book being 0.78, and student book
being 0.80. Learning tools are declared practical with a practicality score where the teacher's
response is 80.31% in the practical category, and the student's response is 79.19% in the practical
category. Furthermore, teaching tools were declared effective with the criteria; the classical average
of student learning outcomes reached 83.71, the Learning Completeness Criteria reached 82.14%, the
level of teacher learning management was at a Good level, and student activity reached 72.5%.
Keywords: conceptual change; learning cycle; conceptual understanding

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 89
INTRODUCTION
Although the 2013 curriculum requires student-centered learning, teachers still dominate
mathematics learning. The common knowledge of teachers and the lack of access to teaching tools that
increase student learning activities are the leading causes of low student learning outcomes in
Mathematics. The dominance of teachers in learning Mathematics also hinders students from
constructing mathematical understanding through learning experiences. According to a maths teacher,
pupils learn mathematics solely through teacher explanations. Teachers struggle to provide
instructional activities, media, and tools that enable pupils to develop mathematical comprehension
(Aliyyah et al., 2020; E Gradini & Bahri, 2018; Leinhardt, 2019). It should be understood that students
do not learn mathematics like 'empty glasses' as in the traditional education perspective. Students'
knowledge is developed based on their previous experiences before school. The literature shows that
students come into the classroom with an adequate understanding of how and why things behave the
way they do (Posner et al., 1982; Resnick, 1983; Strike, 1983). In constructivism, it is believed that
students actively build knowledge based on the knowledge they already have as an individual (Amineh
& Asl, 2015; Bada & Olusegun, 2015; Cobern, 2012; Stapleton & Stefaniak, 2019; Wilson, 2012).
Therefore, as Ausubel emphasized (Ausubel, 1968; Stanley, 2015), what students already know has
the most significant influence on their learning. The teacher must ensure this and teach students
according to their knowledge. Even if prior knowledge is not necessarily true, this knowledge should
not be ignored.
Several constructivist-based modern approaches have been formulated to overcome and restore
students' alternative ideas. This approach accepts the broad premise that meaningful learning happens
when connections between new knowledge and prior knowledge are actively constructed. Learning is
described as the process of facilitating conceptual change by reducing pupils' misunderstandings. The
Learning Cycle model, also based on constructivist epistemology, facilitates conceptual change
(Boylan, 1988; Dixon, 2017; Laurillard, 2013). In the process, a modified model of the Learning Cycle
produces Learning Cycle 3E, 4E, 5E, and 7E models. The Learning Cycle approach was discovered to
enhance students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and misconceptions (Akar, 2005; Balta &
Sarac, 2016; Bybee, 2014; Jensen et al., 2015; Khashan, 2016; Konak et al., 2014; Tomkins & Ulus,
2016). The Learning Cycle 5E model is an instructional process that uses activities to enhance
student's knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and motivation. Furthermore, students are encouraged to
construct their learning techniques through the activities carried out throughout the phase.
Conceptual understanding of mathematics is indicated as the most severe difficulty for students
in learning mathematics, both at schools and in colleges (Firmansyah B & Gradini, 2018; Flake et al.,
2015; Ega Gradini, 2016; Larkin & Jorgensen, 2016; Oktoviani et al., 2019; Rahmi et al., 2020;
Schoenfeld, 2014; Skemp, 2012; Stigler et al., 2010). Therefore, designing teaching tools to facilitate
conceptual change in Mathematics learning is very important. The fundamental goals of facilitating
meaningful mathematics learning should be to facilitate conceptual development and correct mistakes.
One of the fundamental topics is Statistics and Data Presentation. Although many studies have been
conducted on students' understanding of concepts in Statistics and Data Presentation (Hadi & Kasum,
2015; I. W. E. Putra et al., 2014; Rahman, 2018), the availability of teaching tools to improve students'
conceptual understanding of these topics is still limited. This article describes the results of developing
teaching tools based on Learning Cycle 5E on valid, practical, and effective criteria to facilitate
students' conceptual changes in Statistics and Data Presentation material.
The term "conceptual change" was first introduced to demonstrate that the ideas incorporated in
scientific theories change their meaning when the theory (paradigm) changes (Vosniadou et al., 2015;
Vosniadou & Skopeliti, 2014). Conceptual change in learning is defined as a process of a substantial
revision of previous knowledge and acquisition of new concepts, usually under systematic learning
conditions (Vosniadou et al., 2015). Conceptual change in mathematics can be interpreted as revising
students' initial knowledge before learning mathematical concepts into new knowledge (Chow &
Treagust, 2013; Liljedahl, 2011; Sniadou, 2013; Vosniadou et al., 2015). Mathematics conceptual
change describe as a situation where students’ prior mathematical concepts is incompatible with new

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 90 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
conceptualization and disposed to make systematic errors or build misconceptions (Merenluoto &
Lehtinen, 2004).
Learning Cycle is a learning model that pays attention to students' prior knowledge and
then provides opportunities to build their understanding and knowledge of concepts (Duran et al.,
2011; Rodriguez et al., 2019). Initially, the 5E Learning Cycle model was applied to science learning
such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, because this model accommodates laboratory activities.
However, many educators are now applying this model in mathematics learning for various purposes.
For example, by integrating Learning Cycle 5E and mind mapping (Setiawan et al., 2017); to facilitate
mathematical problem-solving skills (Fitriana et al., 2019); measuring concept understanding (Pratiwi,
2016); measuring mathematical communication skills (Agustyaningrum, 2011); and student attitudes
(Sriyanti, 2021).
The 5E Learning Cycle Model, which consists of 5 phases; 1) Engagement, 2) Exploration,
3) Explanation, 4) Elaboration, 5) Evaluation, is believed to be able to improve students'
understanding of concepts in mathematics learning (Piyayodilokchai et al., 2013; F. Putra et al., 2018;
Tuna & Kacar, 2013). Engagement is defined as making connections from past experiences, exposing
misunderstandings, and reducing cognitive conflict. Exploration includes activities to develop
students' experiences by introducing and discussing new concepts, processes, and skills (Balci et al.,
2006). Students are asked to describe their exploration and engagement experiences using standard
terms in the explanation stage. Meanwhile, in the elaboration stage, students are involved in new
situations that require identical explanations. Learning Cycle 5E ends with an evaluation, where the
teacher observes and evaluates each student's knowledge and understanding.
This paper aims to describes the results of developing Learning Cycle 5E model-based teaching
tools that are valid, practical, and effective to facilitate students' conceptual changes in Statistics and
Data Presentation material. The developed teaching tools quality is measured in terms of its validity,
practicality/usability, and effectiveness. The mathematics learning was conducted by implementing
five phases of Learning Cycle 5E model. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to
teachers providing teaching tools that can facilitate students' conceptual changes in learning
Mathematics.

METHOD
The products developed in this research are Learning Cycle 5E -based Mathematics teaching
tools which consist of; 1) Lesson Plans, 2) Student worksheets, and 3) teaching materials on the topic
of Statistics and Data Presentation. The tool developed aims to facilitate students' conceptual changes
in Statistics and Data Presentation material. The Four-D model designed by Thiagarajan, Semmel, and
Semmel was used to develop this research. This model has four phases; (1) Define, (2) Design, (3)
Develop, and (4) Disseminate (Thiagarajan et al., 1974). The quality of the product developed is
measured through the validity, practicality, and effectiveness of teaching tools (Nieveen & Folmer,
2013). The validity of the developed teaching tools is measured by their relevance and consistency
using expert judgment (Gregory, 2011). Two experts carried out validation, namely mathematics
learning experts and assessment experts. The Expert Agreement Index for content validity analyzes the
number of objects from the two experts with the category of strong relevance of the item overall as
presented in Table 1, while the validity coefficients are presented in Formula 1 (Gregory, 2011).
Table 1. Assessment of Relevance Categories with Two Validators.
Expert Judgment
Validator 1
Weak Strong
Validator 2
Weak A B
Strong C D

The product has high validity if the validation coefficient is > 0.75, where
the expert judgment results are then calculated using the following formula.

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 91
Content validation coefficient =
D
(A+B+C+D)
(1)
The Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching tool is declared practical if the practicality score exceeds
75%. The device's practicality was measured using a practicality assessment questionnaire to 5
Mathematics teachers and 20 students. The teachers evaluate the practicality of lesson plans, students'
worksheets, and teacher's books, while students evaluate the students' books and worksheets. The
teacher's questionnaire on product practicality consists of 30 statement items with 4 rating scales. The
students’ questionnaire consists of 21 statement items with 4 rating scales.
The effectiveness was measured through a small group trial involving 1 Mathematics teacher
and 28 eighth grader of a junior high school. The teaching tools developed are declared effective if
they meet three of the following four effectiveness criteria (Lukito, 2018). The criteria are; 1) the
classical average of student learning outcomes exceeds the Minimum Learning Completeness Criteria
(KKM), (2) more than 70% of student activities at a Good level, (3) the level of teacher learning
management at a Good level, and (4) more than 75% students exceed the KKM.

RESULT AND FINDINGS
1. Learning Cycle 5E Teaching Tools (LC5ETT)
This research produces a conceptual change teaching tool based on Learning Cycle 5E
(LC5ETT) in mathematics, consisting of; 1) Lesson plans, 2) Student worksheets, and 3) teaching
materials on the topic of Statistics and Data Presentation, namely teachers' book and students' book.
The snapshot of the teaching tools is presented on figure 1.


























Figure 1. The snapshot of the developed product

The teaching tool is based on learning cycle 5E and conceptual change approach. Four-D
method (Thiagarajan et al., 1974) deploy to develop the LC5ETT in 4 phases; 1) Define, 2) Design, 3)
Develop, and 4) Disseminate. In the definition phase, we determined and defined the needs in the
Lesson Plan Students Worksheet
Teaching Material

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 92 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
Learning Cycle 5E model. The definition is conducted through front-end analysis, learner
analysis, task analysis, concept analysis, and specifying instructional objectives. LC5ETT is defined
on the learning objectives listed in table 2 regarding the results of front-end analysis, students’
analysis, assignments analysis, and concept analysis.
Table 2. Specification of Learning Objectives
Basic competencies Achievement Indicator
3.10 Analyze data based on data
distribution, mean value,
median, mode, and data
distribution to conclude,
make decisions, and make
predictions
3.10.1

Students can analyze data from the given data distribution.
3.10.2 Students can determine the mean of a data set.
3.10.3 Students can determine the median and mode of a data set.
4.10 Presenting and solving
problems related to data
distribution, mean, median,
mode, and data distribution
to conclude, make decisions,
and make predictions.
4.10.1 Students can analyze data based on the size of the
concentration and spread of data
4.10.2 Students can observe how to make decisions and make
predictions based on analysis and data
4.10.3 students can present learning outcomes about the size of
the concentration and distribution of data and how to make
decisions and predictions
4.10.4 Students can solve problems related to the size of the
concentration and distribution of data and make decisions
and predictions.

The next stage is the design phase. Wherein this phase, the framework selection, media
selection, format selection, and initial design are carried out. Furthermore, modifications and
development of the initial design results are carried out at the development phase. At this stage, the
development product's validity, practicality, and effectiveness are measured as described below.
a. The Validity of Learning Cycle 5E Teaching Tools (LC5ETT)
Two experts validated lesson plans, students’ worksheets, and teaching materials based on
Learning Cycle 5E model. The results of expert validation on each product are presented in the
following table.
Table 3. The Validity of The Teaching Tools
Teaching tools Validation Score Category
Lesson Plan 0.89 Valid
Students’ Worksheets 0.86 Valid
Teacher Book 0.78 Valid
Student Book 0.80 Valid

Aspects validated in the lesson plan are completeness of identity, time allocation, formulation of
indicators and learning objectives, learning materials, selection of learning approaches, learning
activities, selection of learning resources, and assessment techniques. The results of expert validation
indicate that the lesson plan based on Learning Cycle 5E is valid with a validation score of 0.89 and
indicates the lesson plan has high relevance to the indicators. Despite the lesson plan's high validation,
the two experts gave ideas for improvement, including; (1) reducing wordiness so that the lesson plans
may be understood more readily by the teacher, and (2) adjustments in the arrangement of the lesson
plans to a one-sheet format lesson plan. As a form of enhancement, the final version of the Learning
Cycle 5E-based lesson plan contained expert advice.
Aspects validated on the student activity sheet are the suitability of the material, the suitability
of the students’ worksheets with the didactic requirements, the conformity with the construction
requirements, and the conformity of the students’ worksheets with the technical requirements. Student
activities are ensured to follow the 5E phase of the Learning Cycle. The results of expert validation on
the student activity sheet show a validity score of 0.86 and indicate students’ worksheets has high
relevance to the indicator. There are suggestions for improvement from experts on student activity

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 93
sheets, namely; (1) the language used is more commutative, and (2) student activities at the
engagement stage need to be sharpened. The final version of the student activity sheet has been
revised according to the suggestions of the expert validators.
Teaching materials were validated on two products: teacher books and student books based on
Learning Cycle 5E model. Both products were validated on the feasibility aspects of construction,
illustration, language, material suitability, concept presentation, and mathematical problems according
to each phase of the 5E Learning Cycle. Based on the results of expert validation on the product, it
was found that the Learning Cycle 5E -based teaching tool had been validly implemented to facilitate
students' conceptual changes in Statistics and Data Presentation material. The results of expert
validation show that the score for teaching materials validation on the topic of Statistics and Data
Presentation based on Learning Cycle 5E is 0.78 for teacher books and 0.80 for student
books. Thus, Learning Cycle 5E -based teaching materials are valid for use in Statistics and Data
Presentation learning. Some suggestions for improvement given by expert validators include; (1) the
mathematical problems presented need to be adjusted to each stage of the 5E Learning Cycle, and (2)
the presentation of the material in the engagement phase needs to be strengthened. The final version of
Learning Cycle 5E based teaching materials has been improved according to the experts’ advice.
b. The practicality of the Learning Cycle 5E Teaching Tools (LC5ETT).
The practicality of teaching tools was measured by distributing practicality questionnaires for
each product to 5 Mathematics teachers. In addition, to determine the practicality of the students’
worksheets and books, questionnaires were distributed to 20 eighth grader. The results of practicality
measurements by teachers are presented in table 4, while the results of practicality measurements by
students are shown in table 5.
Table 4. Results of the Teachers Product Practicality Questionnaire
Teaching Tools Practicality Score Category
Lesson Plan 85.03% Very Practical
Students Worksheet 76.91% Practical
Teacher's Book 79.00% Practical
Average 80.31% Practical

Table 4 demonstrated the results of measuring the practicality of product development through
questionnaires distributed by teachers. The score of Lesson Plans practicalities of achieving Very
Practical category with a score of 85.03%, which indicates the level of usability this product is
Excellent. The practicality score on the student activity sheet is in the practical category with a score
of 76.91%, which indicates the usability of students’ worksheets in learning is good. Likewise, with
the quality of the teaching materials developed, the practicality level of teacher books is 79.00% in the
practical category. This score indicates that the usability of teaching materials based on Learning
Cycle 5E is good.
Table 5. Result of Students’ Product Practicality Questionnaire
Learning Media Practicality Score Category
Student Worksheets 78.03% Practical
Student Book 80.35% Practical
Average 79.19% Practical

Table 5 presents the results of the practicality questionnaire by students, which shows that the
practicality scores of students' worksheets and book are 78.03% and 80.35%, respectively. According
to the 8
th
grader, the two products are in the practical category, where the usability level of the product
is already good. This finding is in line with some studies that found worksheet and book is a good
facilitator of conceptual changes (Castro, 1998; Chen & Wang, 2016; Koparan & Güven, 2015;
Sungur et al., 2001).
c. Effectiveness of The Learning Cycle 5E Teaching Tools (LC5ETT)
The learning of Statistics and Presentation of Data is conducted using valid and practical
teaching tools. The learning is conducted for four meetings in 5E phases, namely 1) Engagement, 2)

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 94 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
Exploration, 3) Explanation, 4) Elaboration, and 5) Evaluation. A small group trial involving 1
Mathematics teacher and 28 students was conducted to measure the product's effectiveness. The
following are the observation of teacher deploying learning cycle 5E using developed products.
Table 6. Teacher ability in Implementing Learning Cycle 5E
Phase Score Category
Engagement 3.91 Excellent
Exploration 3.52 Excellent
Explanation 3.11 Good
Elaboration 3.04 Good
Evaluation 3.35 Good
Average 3.38 Good

In general, the ability of teachers to conduct the learning cycle 5E by deploying the product is
3.38, with a good category. This finding is in line with several studies which have found that
the Learning Cycle 5E model can improve teachers' classroom management skills (Akar, 2005; Balta
& Sarac, 2016; Goldston et al., 2010; Tomkins & Ulus, 2016). The following describes the results of
observing the teacher's ability to manage learning in five phases of the Learning Cycle.
In the engagement phase, the teacher's ability to teach using teaching tools is 3.91, with an
excellent category. In the engagement phase, the teacher accesses students' prior knowledge by asking
them to share their data presentation experiences. The teacher helps them engage in new concepts
through short activities that increase curiosity and acquire prior knowledge. In this phase, the teacher
connects past and present learning experiences. This research demonstrates that apperception is
accomplished through exposing prior notions and tracing students' reasoning. This finding is in line
with Balci, who found that the teacher discovered students' misconceptions in engagement phase
(Balci et al., 2006). After the teacher confirms the correctness of the students' initial concepts, the
teacher continues in the exploration phase.
In the exploration phase, the teacher's ability to teach using teaching tools is 3.52, with an
excellent category. In this phase, the teacher begins to facilitate students' conceptual changes.
Facilitation is performed by assigning the same activities to students in which concepts, processes, and
skills are identified. The teacher serves as a facilitator, assisting students in generating new ideas,
exploring issues and possibilities, designing, and conducting preliminary investigations. After the
'knowledge bridge' is formed, the teacher facilitates students' conceptual changes through the
explanation phase.
In the explanation phase, the teacher's ability to teach using Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching
tools is 3.11 with a good category. The teacher in this phase provides explanations that focus students'
attention on certain aspects. When explaining, the teacher pays attention to the experience and
involvement of students by providing opportunities to demonstrate conceptual understanding. Students
are directly introduced to a topic, technique, or skill by the teacher to demonstrate their grasp of the
concept. During this phase, the teacher helps students with a more profound knowledge after verifying
that no misconceptions exist. This point is critical to enter the elaboration phase.
The teacher stimulates and enhances students' conceptual understanding and skills throughout
the elaboration phase. Teachers' ability to conduct instruction by utilizing instructional tools based on
Learning Cycle 5E is 3.04, with a good category. Teachers provide new experiences related to data
presentation through problems experienced around students. Students have a deeper and broader
understanding as a result of new experiences. Students also gain additional knowledge and skills.
Furthermore, in the evaluation phase, the teacher's ability to teach using the teaching tools is
3.35 with a good category. In this phase, the teacher assesses students' understanding and ability to see
learning objectives. The results of the learning evaluation after using Learning Cycle 5E-based
teaching tools are presented in the table 7 and figure 1.

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 95
Table 7. Student Conceptual Change
Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation
Minimum Value 45 62.00
Maximum Value 79 95.00
Average Score 61.14 83.71
Mastery learning 7.14% 82.14%

The evaluation results show that the average conceptual understanding of students' after
using Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching tools is 83.71, with learning completeness reaching
82.14%. The performance of Learning Cycle 5E -based teaching tools is in line with research findings
which found that the Learning Cycle 5E model is adequate for instilling concepts (Akar, 2005; Priyadi
et al., 2021; F. Putra et al., 2018), and there is a significant effect and relationship between the
Learning Cycle 5E model and student academic achievement (Jack, 2017; Piyayodilokchai et al.,
2013; Tuna & Kacar, 2013). Meanwhile, students' activities were also observed during four meetings
learning in this phase, as presented in table 8.
Table 8. Student Activities During Learning
Meeting
Student Activity Level
Criteria
Not active
Active
Enough
Active Very active
Meeting 1 20.00% 15.00% 65.00% 0.00% 65% active
Meeting 2 15.00% 20.0% 10.00% 55.00% 65% active
Meeting 3 10.00% 10.00% 60.00% 20.00% 70% active
Meeting 4 10.00% 10.00% 70.00% 10.00% 80% active
Average 13.75% 13.75% 51.25% 21.25% 72.5% active

Student activities during learning tend to be active in every meeting. At the first and second
meetings, 65% of students were active, and at the third meeting, student activity increased to 65% and
80% at the fourth meeting. In general, it can be stated that students' activeness is 72.5%. Thus, based
on the criteria for measuring effectiveness, it is found that; (1) the average student learning outcomes
exceed the minimum criteria, which is 83.71, (2) more than 70% of student activities are at a Good
level, (3) the level of teacher ability in conducted teaching is at a Good level, and (4) more than 75%
of students exceed the Minimum Criteria Completeness. So that based on the effectiveness testing
criteria, Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching tools (LC5ETT) are effectively used to facilitate students'
conceptual changes. This finding is supported by numerous studies that found Learning Cycle 5E-
based teaching tools effects students’ conceptual change in understanding of Photosynthesis and
Respiration in Plants (Balci et al., 2006), Genetics (Yilmaz et al., 2011), State of Matter and Solubility
Concepts (Ceylan & Geban, 2009), and Number (Carey, 2000).
2. Students Conceptual Change Using Learning Cycle 5E Teaching Tools (LC5ETT)
LC5ETT is used to change students’ mathematics concepts by correcting and reducing students’
misconceptions. The indicators of conceptual change used are; 1) Scientific Knowledge, 2) Lack of
Knowledge, 3) Error, and 4) Misconception (Admoko et al., 2019) as shown at table 9.
Table 9. Conception Categories (Admoko et al., 2019)
Conception Categories Students Responses
Scientific Knowledge Correct response, scientific explanation, certainty
Lack of Knowledge Correct response, scientific explanation, uncertainty
Incorrect response, scientific explanation, uncertainty
Correct response, unscientific explanation, uncertainty
Incorrect response, unscientific explanation, uncertainty
Error Incorrect response, scientific explanation, certainty
Misconception Correct response, unscientific explanation, certainty
Incorrect response, unscientific explanation, certainty

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 96 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
This study found a misconception reduction in mathematics learning using LC5ETT. Hence, the
students’ concept of mathematics has changed. Students’ conceptual change after the implementation
of LS5ETT is presented in table 10.
Table 10. Students’ conception in every category
Concepts
Scientific’
Knowledge
Lack of
Knowledge
Error Misconception
Pre-
LC5ETT
Post
LC5ETT
Pre-
LC5ETT
Post
LC5ETT
Pre-
LC5ETT
Post
LC5ETT
Pre-
LC5ETT
Post
LC5ETT
Data 18.11 53.19 9.12 8.00 11.35 17.42 61.42 21.39
Data Presentation 20.04 64.9 8.30 5.40 27.76 0.70 43.90 29.00
Data Distribution 22.42 43.8 2.40 1.80 22.15 19.60 53.03 34.80
Mean, Median, and
Mode
21.90 51.2 8.90 5.00 11.99 13.80 57.21 30.00
Decision and
Prediction
11.19 41.00 2.41 2.00 43.12 36.95 43.28 20.05

Table 10 shows that a misconception dominates students' concepts. This finding aligns with a
study that found that most students' concepts are misconceptions (Admoko et al., 2019) and more
dominant than other concepts (Halim et al., 2021). Table 10 also presents the dynamic of students'
concepts, where the misconception decreases when the students' knowledge increases. This finding is
supported by numerous studies (Herrmann-Abell & DeBoer, 2011; Milenković et al., 2016; Rebich &
Gautier, 2005). Therefore, students construct mathematical concepts through cognitive conflicts which
occur in learning.

CONCLUSION
The teaching tools were developed to facilitate students' conceptual changes in Statistics and
Data Presentation materials. The teaching tools developed are lesson plans, students’ worksheets, and
teaching materials based on the Learning Cycle 5E model. Learning Cycle 5E -based teaching tools
are declared valid, with the validity score for lesson plans being 0.89, student activity sheets are 0.86,
teacher books are 0.78, and student books are 0.80. Learning Cycle 5E -based teaching tools are
declared practical with a practicality score where the teacher's response is 80.31% in the practical
category, and the student's response is 79.19% in the practical category. Furthermore, the teaching
tools were declared effective with the criteria; the classical average of student learning outcomes
reached 83.71, mastery learning reached 85%, teacher’s ability was at a Good level, and student
activity reached 72.5%. Thus, it can be concluded that Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching tools are
valid, practical, and effectively used to facilitate students' conceptual changes in Statistics and Data
Presentation material. The teaching tools also encourage students to construct mathematical concepts
through cognitive conflicts which occur in learning. Learning Cycle 5E-based teaching tools are
expected to be used by Mathematics teachers in the classroom. Although the research findings show
positive results, further trials on a larger group of students are needed for better results. Therefore, the
findings of this study can also be used by other researchers to develop it in other materials.

REFERENCES
Admoko, S., Yantidewi, M., & Oktafia, R. (2019). The implementation of guided discovery learning
using virtual lab simulation to reduce students’ misconception on mechanical wave. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1417(1), 12089.
Agustyaningrum, N. (2011). Implementasi model pembelajaran learning cycle 5E untuk meningkatkan
kemampuan komunikasi matematis siswa kelas IX B SMP Negeri 2 Sleman. Seminar Nasional
Matematika Dan Pendidikan Matematika, 377.

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 97
Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle model on students’ understanding of acid-base
concepts. Middle East Technical University.
Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. S.
(2020). The perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during the COVID-19
pandemic period: A case study in Indonesia. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 90–
109. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/388
Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of
Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9–16.
Ausubel, D. . (1968). Educational Psychology-a Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and
learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education , 5(6), 66–70.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000200
Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and
evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education, 34(3), 199–203.
Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A
Meta-Analysis Study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61–72.
Boylan, C. (1988). Enhancing learning in science. Research in Science & Technological Education,
6(2), 205–217.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary
implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.
Castro, C. S. (1998). Teaching probability for conceptual change la enseñanza de la probabilidad por
cambio conceptual. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35(3), 233–254.
Ceylan, E., & Geban, O. (2009). Facilitating conceptual change in understanding state of matter and
solubility concepts by using 5E learning cycle model. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 36(36).
Chen, Y. T., & Wang, J. H. (2016). Analyzing with Posner’s Conceptual Change Model and
Toulmin’s Model of Argumentative Demonstration in Senior High School Students’ Mathematic
Learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 457.
Chow, T.-C., & Treagust, D. (2013). An intervention study using cognitive conflict to foster
conceptual change. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 36(1), 44–
64.
Cobern, W. W. (2012). Contextual constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching
of science. In The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053409-9
Dixon, N. M. (2017). The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315554945
Duran, E., Duran, L., Haney, J., & Scheuermann, A. (2011). A learning cycle for all students. The

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 98 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
Science Teacher, 78(3), 56.
Firmansyah B, & Gradini, E. (2018). Pemahaman Matematis Siswa Dalam Pembelajaran Persamaan
Linear Satu Variabel Menggunakan ELPSA Framework. Numeracy, 5(2), 236–248.
Fitriana, N., Muhandaz, R., & Risnawati, R. (2019). Pengembangan Modul Matematika Berbasis
Learning Cycle 5E untuk Memfasilitasi Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa
Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP). JURING (Journal for Research in Mathematics Learning),
2(1), 21–31.
Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost:
The forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
41, 232–244.
Goldston, M. J., Day, J. B., Sundberg, C., & Dantzler, J. (2010). Psychometric analysis of a 5E
learning cycle lesson plan assessment instrument. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 8(4), 633–648.
Gradini, E, & Bahri, F. (2018). Developing mathematics teaching tool using ELPSA. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1088(1), 12049.
Gradini, Ega. (2016). Miskonsepsi Dalam Pembelajaran Matematika Sekolah Dasar Di Dataran Tinggi
Gayo. Jurnal Numecary, 3(2), 52–60.
Gregory, R. J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (7th editio).
Pearson.
Hadi, S., & Kasum, M. U. (2015). Pemahaman konsep matematika siswa SMP melalui penerapan
model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe memeriksa berpasangan (Pair Checks). Edu-Mat: Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika, 3(1).
Halim, A., Mahzum, E., Yacob, M., Irwandi, I., & Halim, L. (2021). The impact of narrative feedback,
e-learning modules and realistic video and the reduction of misconception. Education Sciences,
11(4), 158.
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Using distractor-driven standards-based multiple-
choice assessments and Rasch modeling to investigate hierarchies of chemistry misconceptions
and detect structural problems with individual items. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice, 12(2), 184–192.
Jack, G. U. (2017). The effect of learning cycle constructivist-based approach on students academic
achievement and attitude towards chemistry in secondary schools in north-eastern part of
Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(7), 456–466.
Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. D. d M. (2015). Improvements from a flipped classroom
may simply be the fruits of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.
Khashan, K. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using the 7E’s Learning Cycle Strategy on the Immediate
and Delayed Mathematics Achievement and the Longitudinal Impact of Learning among
Preparatory Year Students at King Saud University (KSU). Journal of Education and Practice,
7(36), 40–52.
Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle to
improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 72, 11–22.
Koparan, T., & Güven, B. (2015). The effect of project-based learning on students’ statistical literacy

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 99
levels for data representation. In International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology (Vol. 46, Issue 5, pp. 658 –686). Informa UK Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2014.995242
Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). ‘I hate maths: why do we need to do maths?’Using iPad video
diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in year 3 and year 6 students.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944.
Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and
technology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203125083
Leinhardt, G. (2019). On teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056998404700412
Liljedahl, P. (2011). The theory of conceptual change as a theory for changing conceptions. Nordic
Studies in Mathematics Education, 16(1–2), 101–124.
Lukito, A. (2018). Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Instructional Tools With Predict-Observe-
Explain Strategy on the Topic of Cuboid and Cube Volume. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, 947(1), 12052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012052
Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: towards a systemic
model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 519–534.
Milenković, D. D., Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D., & Horvat, S. (2016). Development of a three-tier
test as a valid diagnostic tool for identification of misconceptions related to carbohydrates.
Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1514–1520.
Nieveen, N., & Folmer, E. (2013). Formative Evaluation in Educational Design Research. In T. Plomp
& N. Nieveen (Eds.), Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development: SLO (pp. 152–169).
Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development: SLO.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ815766
Oktoviani, V., Widoyani, W. L., & Ferdianto, F. (2019). Analisis kemampuan pemahaman matematis
siswa SMP pada materi sistem persamaan linear dua variabel. Edumatica: Jurnal Pendidikan
Matematika, 9(1), 39–46.
Piyayodilokchai, H., Panjaburee, P., Laosinchai, P., Ketpichainarong, W., & Ruenwongsa, P. (2013).
A 5E learning cycle approach–based, multimedia-supplemented instructional unit for structured
query language. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 146–159.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific
conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
Pratiwi, D. D. (2016). Pembelajaran learning cycle 5E berbantuan geogebra terhadap kemampuan
pemahaman konsep matematis. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 7(2), 191–202.
Priyadi, R., Yuliana, I., & Kusairi, S. (2021). Using the 5E learning cycle with formative e-assessment
to enhancement students’ concept. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330(1), 50007.
Putra, F., Nur Kholifah, I. Y., Subali, B., & Rusilowati, A. (2018). 5E-learning cycle strategy:
Increasing conceptual understanding and learning motivation. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika
Al-Biruni, 7(2), 171.
Putra, I. W. E., Sadia, I. W., & Suastra, I. W. (2014). Pengaruh model pembelajaran perubahan
konseptual terhadap pemahaman konsep siswa ditinjau dari gaya kognitif. Jurnal Pendidikan

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Page 100 Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779
Dan Pembelajaran IPA Indonesia, 4(1).
Rahman, A. A. (2018). Penerapan pendekatan Realistic Mathematic Education (RME) pada materi
statistika untuk meningkatkan pemahaman konsep dan prestasi belajar siswa. GENTA MULIA:
Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 8(2).
Rahmi, R., Febriana, R., & Putri, G. E. (2020). Pengaruh Self-Efficacy terhadap Pemahaman Konsep
Matematika Siswa Pada Pembelajaran Model Discovery Learning. Edumatica: Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika, 10(01), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.24269/ed.v1i1.165
Rebich, S., & Gautier, C. (2005). Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change
in a mock summit course on global climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4),
355–365.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220(4596),
477–478.
Rodriguez, S., Allen, K., Harron, J., & Qadri, S. A. (2019). Making and the 5E learning cycle. The
Science Teacher, 86(5), 48–55.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). Mathematical problem solving. Elsevier.
Setiawan, I. W. P., Suartama, I. K., & Putri, D. A. W. M. (2017). Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran
Learning Cycle 5e Berbantuan Mind Mapping Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika. Mimbar
PGSD Undiksha, 5(2).
Skemp, R. R. (2012). The psychology of learning mathematics: Expanded American edition.
Routledge.
Sniadou, S. V. . (2013). Conceptual change research: An introduction. In International handbook of
research on conceptual change (pp. 13–20). Routledge.
Sriyanti, I. (2021). Sikap Siswa dalam Belajar Matematika Melalui Model Pembelajaran Learning
Cycle 5E. Pasundan Journal of Mathematics Education Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(1),
36–49.
Stanley, D. I. (2015). Ausubel ’ s Learning Theory : An Approach To Teaching Higher useful. The
High School Journal, 82(1), 35–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364708
Stapleton, L., & Stefaniak, J. (2019). Cognitive constructivism: Revisiting Jerome Bruner’s influence
on instructional design practices. TechTrends, 63(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-
0356-8
Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. J. (2010). What community college developmental
mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAMATYC Educator, 1(3), 4–16.
Strike, K. A. (1983). Misconceptions and conceptual change: Philosophical reflections on the research
program. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and
Mathematics, 1.
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts
accompanied by concept mapping to students’ understanding of the human circulatory system.
School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91–101.
Thiagarajan, S., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1974). Instructional Development for Training
Teachers of Exceptional Children: A Sourcebook. In iCenter for Innovation in Teaching the

Development of Learning Cycle 5E-Based Teaching Tools …
Print ISSN: 2088-2157, Online ISSN: 2580-0779 Page 101
Handicapped. Indiana University, Bllomington. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(76)90066-2
Tomkins, L., & Ulus, E. (2016). ‘Oh, was that “experiential learning”?!’Spaces, synergies and
surprises with Kolb’s learning cycle. Management Learning, 47(2), 158–178.
Tuna, A., & Kacar, A. (2013). The effect of 5E learning cycle model in teaching trigonometry on
students’ academic achievement and the permanence of their knowledge. International Journal
on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(1), 73–87.
Vosniadou, S., Pnevmatikos, D., Makris, N., Eikospentaki, K., Lepenioti, D., Chountala, A., &
Kyrianakis, G. (2015). Executive Functions and Conceptual Change in Science and Mathematics
Learning. CogSci.
Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence.
Science & Education, 23(7), 1427–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9640-3
Wilson, B. G. (2012). Constructivism in practical and historical context. In B. Reiser & J. Dempsey
(Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (Vol. 3, pp. 45–52). Pearson
Education Boston, MA.
Yilmaz, D., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2011). The comparative effects of prediction/discussion‐based
learning cycle, conceptual change text, and traditional instructions on student understanding of
genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 607–628.