Developing an Excretory System Mastery Booklet to Improve Students’ Learning Outcomes

Authors

  • Luh Emy Kertiasi SMA Negeri Bali Mandara, Buleleng, Bali, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47239/5tmhxc16

Keywords:

mastery booklet, learning outcomes, excretory system

Abstract

Learning the excretory system requires students to connect anatomical terminology with physiological processes that are difficult to observe directly. This study developed an excretory system mastery booklet and described its feasibility, students’ learning outcomes, and students’ responses. The research and development procedure comprised five stages: information gathering, product planning, initial product development, a preliminary field trial, and revision following the trial. The six-page PDF booklet integrated anatomical exploration through coloring, a simple model of urine formation, and reflective journaling adapted from a Frayer-style organizer. Expert evaluation questionnaires, a student response questionnaire, and a knowledge test provided the data, which were analyzed descriptively. The reported mean feasibility ratings were 93.75% for content and 94% for media. The learning-outcome table included 30 students: five scored 75–83, twenty scored 84–92, and five scored 93–100. The source reported that all students met the school’s minimum mastery criterion. Student responses were reported as 82% very positive and 8% positive; the remaining 10% was not accounted for in the source table. Revisions replaced glitter with sand and simplified the instructions. The results support the booklet’s feasibility and show favorable achievement after its use. However, the absence of pretest data and a comparison group prevents a causal conclusion that the booklet improved achievement. Further trials should verify the response distribution, clarify the trial class, and evaluate learning gains and retention.

References

Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

Ainsworth, S. E., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Learning by drawing visual representations: Potential, purposes, and practical implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420979582

Alpizar, D., Adesope, O. O., & Wong, R. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of signaling principle in multimedia learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2095–2119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09748-7

Anders, M. E., Vuk, J., & Rhee, S. W. (2022). Interactive retrieval practice in renal physiology improves performance on customized National Board of Medical Examiners examination of medical students. Advances in Physiology Education, 46(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00118.2021

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

Brod, G. (2021). Generative learning: Which strategies for what age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295–1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9

Carpenter, S. K., Pan, S. C., & Butler, A. C. (2022). The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(9), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1

Castro-Alonso, J. C., de Koning, B. B., Fiorella, L., & Paas, F. (2021). Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor- and learner-managed cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1379–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9

Chang, H.-Y., & Binali, T. (2025). Scaffolding collaborative drawing-to-learn to support metacognitive regulation and model construction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34, 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-025-10206-3

Chen, S., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2025). Effect of generative artificial intelligence on university students’ learning outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 49, Article 100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100737

Cromley, J. G., Du, Y., & Dane, A. P. (2020). Drawing-to-learn: Does meta-analysis show differences between technology-based drawing and paper-and-pencil drawing? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6

Dechamps, T., & Skulmowski, A. (2025). The effective design of tasks involving learning by drawing: Current trends and methodological progress in research on drawing to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2), Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10026-2

Fiorella, L. (2023). Making sense of generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09769-7

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Kertiasi, L. E. . (2026). Developing an Excretory System Mastery Booklet to Improve Students’ Learning Outcomes. Jurnal Guru Dikmen Dan Diksus, 9(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.47239/5tmhxc16
1-10 of 86

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.