SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

9

H-Index

Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education

an Open Access Journal

Development of a Didactical Design Based on Research and Development for Teaching Cones and Cylinders to Improve Junior High School Students’ Conceptual Understanding

Nurul Husna
Sri UCSI School
Indonesia
Nurhasanah Nurhasanah
Budi Utomo Private Senior High School
Indonesia
nurhasanah@gmail.com
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to develop a didactical design based on Research and Development to improve junior high school students’ conceptual understanding of cones and cylinders by addressing their learning obstacles through structured instructional materials.

    Methodology: This study employed a Research and Development approach adapted from Borg and Gall and Sugiyono models. The research involved eighth-grade students, using interviews, observation sheets, validation instruments, and questionnaires. Data were analyzed using descriptive qualitative and quantitative methods with Likert scale scoring. Expert validation involved mathematics education lecturers and teachers. Small-scale and large-scale trials were conducted to evaluate the developed module’s feasibility and effectiveness in mathematics learning on cones and cylinders.

    Main Findings: The developed didactical design module showed significant improvement after expert validation and revision. The results indicated very good criteria in content quality, language clarity, and media design. Student responses in small-scale and large-scale trials reached 90–94%, categorized as very good. The module effectively reduced learning obstacles and improved students’ conceptual understanding of cones and cylinders. The findings confirm that the instructional material is valid, practical, and effective for classroom implementation.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study develops a didactical design module integrating learning obstacle analysis specifically for cones and cylinders using an R&D approach. The innovation lies in its structured adaptation of students’ cognitive difficulties into instructional design. It contributes a context-specific mathematics learning module that enhances conceptual understanding and provides a practical model for developing geometry-based teaching materials.

  • How to cite

    Development of a Didactical Design Based on Research and Development for Teaching Cones and Cylinders to Improve Junior High School Students’ Conceptual Understanding. (2026). Interval: Indonesian Journal of Mathematical Education, 4(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijome.v4i1.3211

    More Citation Formats

  • 51
    Abstract views
    42
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. J. Hu et al., “Intelligent generative design: A transfer learning-enhanced bidirectional mapping framework for customised parametric structural design,” Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/17452759.2025.2510001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2025.2510001
    2. Y. Lyu, Y. Zhang, Z. Gong, X. Kang, W. Yao, and Y. Pei, “A novel hybrid neural network of fluid-structure interaction prediction for two cylinders in tandem arrangement,” Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. , vol. 19, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1080/19942060.2025.2513663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2025.2513663
    3. B. Liu and Y. P. Xin, “The effects of conceptual model-based problem-solving on mathematics performance of at-risk students,” J. Educ. Res., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–19, 2026, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2025.2607034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2025.2607034
    4. R. Maulana, M. Helms-Lorenz, and X. Feng, “The value of assessing the generic teaching quality of norwegian secondary education lessons: International comparative analysis of learning and teaching as a measure of effective teaching behavior,” Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 348–367, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09243453.2025.2527742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2025.2527742
    5. P. Kaneza, J. B. Nkurunziza, I. Twagilimana, T. Mapulanga, and A. Bwalya, “Analysis of conceptual understanding of solutions and titration among Rwandan secondary school students,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2315834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2315834
    6. Ö. F. Ağırsoy, F. Monteleone, M. Triggianese, and F. Berlingieri, “Thick mapping mobility: A design-driven research for the architecture of interchanges,” CoDesign, vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–19, 2026, doi: 10.1080/15710882.2026.2636189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2026.2636189
    7. A. Eriksson, D. Olsson, and N. Gericke, “Teaching for photosynthesis literacy: An education design research study,” J. Biol. Educ., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 171–188, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00219266.2025.2467764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2025.2467764
    8. L. Frizziero, C. Leon-Cardenas, M. Freddi, A. Grassoni, and A. Liverani, “Augmented reality applied to design for disassembly assessment for a volumetric pump with rotating cylinder,” Prod. Manuf. Res., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2023, doi: 10.1080/21693277.2023.2199815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2023.2199815
    9. U. Riegel and M. Rothgangel, “Beyond fragmentation in subject didactics and curriculum studies: Consensus and contention in research designs,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 620–635, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2562531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.2562531
    10. T. Hoffmann, “Teach the crisis: Arguments for teaching the cartoon crisis in primary school,” J. Beliefs Values, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 198–207, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13617672.2024.2309435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2024.2309435
    11. D. Schmitz and B. Becker, “Chatbot-Mediated Learning For Caregiving Relatives of People With Dementia: Empirical Findings and Didactical Implications For Mulitprofessional Health Care,” J. Multidiscip. Healthc., vol. 17, pp. 219–228, 2024, doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S424790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S424790
    12. M. Jamshidian and P. Jamshidian, “Unraveling the mystery of equality in the null hypothesis: How using inequality enhances conceptual understanding of hypothesis testing for our introductory students,” J. Stat. Data Sci. Educ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–11, 2026, doi: 10.1080/26939169.2025.2610942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2025.2610942
    13. J. Balukovic, J. Sliško, and D. Doz, “Conceptual understanding of gravity: Comparison of effects of active learning and traditional learning,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 1470, no. 1138, pp. 1–34, 2025, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2025.2571616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2025.2571616
    14. J. B. Ndagijimana et al., “Contributions of geogebra software within the socio-cultural proximity on enhancing students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2436296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2436296
    15. A. K. Sandal and A. K. Sperle, “Students’ perspective on feedback in mathematics in high school,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2343523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2343523
    16. A. Jain, N. Gupta, M. Z. U. Haq, and V. Vijay Kumar, “Creep behavior of composite cylinders: Effects of thermal gradients, reinforcement, and residual stress,” Heat Treat. Surf. Eng., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/25787616.2025.2549607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25787616.2025.2549607
    17. Y. Dahl, O. A. Alsos, S. M. Bjørnå, I. Medalen, and D. Svanæs, “Site-specific design for and with the body: Transforming a public space into a place for s ocial gameplay,” Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 5001–5021, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2543993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2543993
    18. L. Chaula, G. Lawrent, and I. Freddie Warioba Iramba, “School heads’ clinical supervision practices in tanzania: Implications for teachers’ professional competency development,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2362551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2362551
    19. S. K. Srivastava and G. Scott, “Effect of hybrid teaching approaches on students’ learning and engagement with key geographic information science content knowledge,” J. Geogr. High. Educ., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 133–151, 2025, doi: 10.1080/03098265.2025.2563343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2025.2563343
    20. P. Sierra Suazo, K. Andia, and C. Barria Navarro, “Reflective portfolio: An experience of knowledge confrontation in the progressive internships of undergraduate students of a special teaching education program in chile,” Reflective Pract., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 714–727, 2025, doi: 10.1080/14623943.2025.2494324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2025.2494324
    21. F. Gurmu, C. Tuge, and A. B. Hunde, “Effects of geogebra-assisted instructional methods on students’ conceptual understanding of geometry,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379745
    22. G. Brighi, “Interdisciplinarity in translation studies: A didactic model for research positioning,” Perspect. Stud. Transl. Theory Pract., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 596–614, 2025, doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2024.2316727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2024.2316727
    23. J. N. Twahirwa and C. Ntivuguruzwa, “Enhancing teachers’ and students’ conceptual understanding of physics through smart classrooms and comprehensive assessment management information system,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2365108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2365108
    24. A. I. Säfström and J. Lithner, “Promoting validity of design principles for teaching through educational design research,” Math. Think. Learn., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–20, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10986065.2025.2595712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2025.2595712
    25. M. Yimam and A. Dagnew Kelkay, “Evaluation of the effects of discourse-based mathematics instruction on eleventh grade students’ conceptual and procedural understanding of probability and statistics,” Cogent Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2022, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2021.2007742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2007742
    26. F. Hamel and A. Karakhanyan, “Potential flows away from stagnation in infinite cylinders,” Commun. Partial Differ. Equations, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 650–665, 2025, doi: 10.1080/03605302.2025.2477990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2025.2477990
    27. J. Jäder and H. Johansson, “Exploring students’ conceptual understanding through mathematical problem solving: Students’ use of and shift between different representations of rational numbers,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 4802, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2025.2456840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2025.2456840
    28. S. Brommesson, A. Jönsson, I. Lundegård, and E. Einarsson, “Facting or acting in sustainable development teaching? Science studies teachers’ didactical choices in swedish upper-secondary schools,” Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1275–1294, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2025.2471996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2025.2471996
    29. H. J. Vollmer and M. Rothgangel, “General subject didactics development–theoretical insights–empirical results,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 527–544, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2518392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.2518392
    30. F. Franco-Martínez et al., “Hybrid design and prototyping of metamaterials and metasurfaces,” Virtual Phys. Prototyp., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1031–1046, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17452759.2022.2101009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2022.2101009
    31. E. K. Hovik and K. Nolan, “Pre-service teachers’ understandings of exploratory task design in mathematics: From GeoGebra task design to the 8th grade student,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2421088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2421088
    32. R. W. Liu, X. D. Xia, Q. Q. Wang, Y. F. Mo, and R. Q. Huang, “Improving conceptual clarity in high school biology: Evaluating the 5C method’s effectiveness among Chinese students,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, p., 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2562348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2562348
    33. D. Basyal and B. R. Mainali, “Mathematics textbook: Motivation, experiences, and didactical aspect from authors’ perspectives,” Res. Math. Educ., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 323–341, 2023, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2022.2086608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2086608
    34. F. S. Mensah, “Modelling mathematics teaching with instructional technology in resource-constrained settings: An analysis of didactic structuring through the anthropological theory of the didactics,” African J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 417–434, 2025, doi: 10.1080/18117295.2025.2588528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2025.2588528
    35. T. Janík, J. Slavík, T. Češková, P. Najvar, E. Minaříková, and M. Jáč, “On content transformation in the classroom: Transdisciplinary perspectives on subject didactic research using didactic case studies,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 570–596, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2025.2492600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2025.2492600