Efektivitas Model Learning Cycle dalam Meningkatkan Literasi Sains Peserta Didik SMA: Sistematic Literature Review
Abstract
Scientific literacy is essential for developing students’ ability to interpret scientific evidence, explain natural phenomena, and make informed decisions. However, empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of the 9E Learning Cycle in enhancing scientific literacy remains limited. This study aimed to systematically synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of the 9E Learning Cycle, supported by findings from the 5E and 7E models. A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Of 162 identified records, 10 articles published between 2018 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed through narrative and thematic synthesis. The findings comprised five studies on 5E, three on 7E, and two on 9E, indicating generally positive scientific literacy outcomes. Specifically, the 9E studies reported N-gain values ranging from 0.59 to 0.70, suggesting improvements in scientific explanation, evidence interpretation, and conceptual understanding. Nevertheless, both studies integrated Islamic values, limiting conclusions about the independent effectiveness of the 9E model. These findings highlight the potential of the 9E Learning Cycle and imply that biology educators should integrate structured inquiry, formative feedback, and digital information evaluation while further comparative research establishes its distinct instructional contributions.
References
1
G. Roy, S. Sikder, and L. Danaia, “Adopting scientific literacy in early years from empirical studies on formal education: a systematic review of the literature,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 26, May 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00547-1
2
D. L. Morris, “Rethinking Science Education Practices: Shifting from Investigation-Centric to Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Instruction,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 73, Jan. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010073
3
M. Ploj Virtič, “Teaching science & technology: components of scientific literacy and insight into the steps of research,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1916–1931, Aug. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2105414
4
Novita Oktaviani and Ulinnuha Nur Faizah, “The Effect of Science Literacy Skills to Contextual Thinking Skills on Science Literacy-Based Learning,” INSECTA Integr. Sci. Educ. Teach. Act. J., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–10, May 2024. https://doi.org/10.21154/insecta.v5i1.8852
5
L. Valladares, “Scientific Literacy and Social Transformation,” Sci. Educ., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 557–587, Jun. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2
6
B. Bramastia and S. Rahayu, “Study of Science Learning Based on Scientific Literacy in Improving Critical Thinking: A Scoping Review,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 499–510, Aug. 2023. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i8.5667
7
OECD, “An OECD Learning Framework 2030,” pp. 23–35, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26068-2_3
8
OECD, PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en
9
OECD, OECD Skills Outlook 2025, OECD Skills Outlook. OECD Publishing, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1787/26163cd3-en
10
OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I), PISA. OECD Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
11
OECD, “PISA 2022 Results (Volume I and II): Country Notes—Indonesia,” OECD Publishing, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/indonesia_c2e1ae0e-en.html
12
OECD, PISA 2025 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA. OECD Publishing, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1787/86c36975-en
13
L. Amorim, C. Santos, and K. Timmis, “Prioritising Microbiology in Secondary Education Addresses Emerging Scientific-Social-Educational Challenges and Competency Needs,” Microb. Biotechnol., vol. 18, no. 9, Sep. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.70224
14
A. Hartono, E. Djulia, H. Hasruddin, and U. N. A. D. Jayanti, “Biology Students’ Science Literacy Level on Genetic Concepts,” J. Pendidik. IPA Indones., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 146–152, Mar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v12i1.39941
15
G. Guerrero and J. Sjöström, “Critical scientific and environmental literacies: a systematic and critical review,” Stud. Sci. Educ., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 41–87, Jan. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2024.2344988
16
N. Bidayati Haka, B. Satiyo Putri, N. Hidayah, and I. Rakhmawati, “Cultivating Scientific Literacy and Self-confidence through an Islamic-Oriented 9E Learning Cycle in Biology Education,” Biosf. J. Tadris Biol., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 183–199, Dec. 2025. https://doi.org/10.24042/biosfer.v16i2.28760
17
A. Muliana, A. W. Jufri, and S. Bahri, “The Effect of Learning Cycle 5E Model on the Scientific Literacy of 10th Grade Students,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 6662–6668, Sep. 2024. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i9.8415
18
E. Suryawati, M. Natalina, N. Nadia, and D. Deswati, “The Implementation of 5E Learning Cycle Model on the Topic ‘Structure and Function of Plants’ to Improve the Scientific Literacy of the Second Year Students of a Junior High School in Pekanbaru,” Int. J. Educ. Best Pract., vol. 2, no. 2, p. 26, 2018. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijebp.v2n2.p26-33
19
R. W. Bybee et al., “The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications,” BSCS, pp. 1–19, 2006.
20
A. Eisenkraft, “Expanding the 5E Model,” Science, vol. 70, pp. 56–59, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1650239
21
P. Kaur and A. Gakhar, “9E model and e-learning methodologies for the optimisation of teaching and learning,” Proc. 2014 IEEE Int. Conf. MOOCs, Innov. Technol. Educ. (IEEE MITE), pp. 342–347, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2014.7020300
22
R. Oktafiani, B. S. Putri, and A. D. Kesumawardani, “The Contribution of the Islamic-Integrated 9E Learning Cycle Model to Students’ Scientific Literacy,” ISEJ Indones. Sci. Educ. J., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 45–52, Oct. 2025. https://doi.org/10.62159/isej.v6i3.2074
23
Parno, M. K. Putri, N. Munfaridah, Khusaini, N. Fitri, and M. Ali, “Exploration of students’ scientific literacy in work and energy through STEM-based 7E learning cycle with formative assessment,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 2684, no. 1, p. 012004, Jan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2684/1/012004
24
B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, and S. L. B., “Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—A systematic literature review,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 51, no. 1, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009
25
M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
26
H. Snyder, “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 104, pp. 333–339, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
27
I. M. Salma, S. A. Hariani, and P. Pujiastuti, “Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle (5E) Berbasis STEM terhadap Literasi Sains dan Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas X,” DWIJA CENDEKIA J. Ris. Pedagog., vol. 6, no. 2, p. 197, Aug. 2022. https://doi.org/10.20961/jdc.v6i2.61600
28
F. Larasati and N. Shofiyah, “Learning Cycle 5E Model and Junior High School Students’ Scientific Literacy,” Indones. J. Educ. Methods Dev., vol. 20, no. 4, Aug. 2025. https://doi.org/10.21070/ijemd.v20i4.916
29
Y. Batubara, M. Marjanah, and S. R. Mahyuny, “Peningkatan Literasi Sains Melalui Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle (5E) Berbasis STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) di SMAN 3 Langsa,” J. Ilm. Profesi Pendidik., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1032–1037, Apr. 2025. https://doi.org/10.29303/jipp.v10i2.3210
30
I. M. H. Sugiman, K. Suma, and R. Sujanem, “Pengaruh Model Pembelajaran Learning Cycle 7E Terhadap Literasi Sains Peserta Didik Di Kelas X SMAN Tahun Pelajaran 2018/2019,” J. Pendidik. Fis. Undiksha, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 97–105, 2019.
31
M. N. N. D. Wahab, Wasis, and Yuliani, “The Effectiveness of Scientific Literacy Based Learning Device to Improve Junior High School Students Scientific Literacy,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 6405–6414, Sep. 2024. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i9.8573
32
J. R. Polanin, M. Austin, J. A. Taylor, R. R. Steingut, M. A. Rodgers, and R. Williams, “Effects of the 5E Instructional Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” AERA Open, vol. 10, Jan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
33
S. Eroğlu and O. Bektaş, “The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science,” Learn. Individ. Differ., vol. 98, p. 102181, Aug. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102181
34
F. Riffert, G. Hagenauer, J. Kriegseisen, and A. Strahl, “On the Impact of Learning Cycle Teaching on Austrian High School Students’ Emotions, Academic Self-Concept, Engagement, and Achievement,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1481–1499, Dec. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09918-w
35
J. Kang, “Interrelationship Between Inquiry-Based Learning and Instructional Quality in Predicting Science Literacy,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 339–355, Feb. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09946-6
36
F. Chen, Y. Zhang, and G. Chen, “Exploring the effects of technology-supported collaborative inquiry and students’ ICT competency on scientific literacy and subject knowledge in rural science classrooms,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 18705–18732, Aug. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13512-w
37
J.-H. Lin, S. C. Yang, and J.-Y. Lin, “Fostering ecosystem understanding: The synergistic impact of inquiry-based instruction and information literacy,” Comput. Educ., vol. 220, p. 105125, Oct. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105125
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Veni Pangestu, Suci Wulan Pawhestri, Ahmad Mughofar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Article Information
Published
2026-09-18
