Development and Evaluation of Lumina7E Kit for Learners’ Conceptual Understanding of Light and Optics

This study addressed the "grade-level gap" in Grade 8 Science when the DepEd MATATAG Curriculum reallocated the topic Light and Optics concepts, from Grade 10, to a younger audience. The initial needs assessment with students and teachers indicated that traditional pedagogy for these abstract concepts often results in persistent learning challenges. The need assessment identified reflection and refraction as the most challenging for instructional intervention, with Grade 11 students explicitly requesting more hands-on experiments and practical demonstrations, a need that aligned with teachers’ reports on the challenge of teaching the topic due to a lack of functional optics kits. Using Modified Research and Development (R&D) by Borg and Gall (1983), this research developed and evaluated the Lumina7E Kit, a fabricated hands-on learning kit. The kit's instructional approach is anchored in Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), operationalized through the 7E Instructional Model, to facilitate conceptual change through concrete experience. The kit and accompanying instructional materials underwent rigorous expert validation, achieving a rating of "Excellent" in content (39) and “Very Satisfactory” in technical feasibility, safety, and instructional design (3.78). Pilot testing with Grade 8 learners (n = 73) demonstrated an improvement in conceptual understanding, evidenced by a medium normalized gain (g ≈ 0.40), indicating the intervention is preliminarily effective. The findings suggest that the Lumina7E Kit is a validated and effective tool for bridging the abstract-concrete gap and successfully addressing the learning challenges posed by the MATATAG curriculum shift.

7E framework, conceptual understanding, experiential learning

1. Anisah, F., Sulastri, N., & Syukri, M. (2020). The effectiveness of 7E learning cycle model to improve student motivation in work and energy topic. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1460(1), 012136. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bernardo, A. B. I., Cordel, M. O., Calleja, M. O., Teves, J. M. M., Yap, S. A., & Chua, U. C. (2023). Profiling low-proficiency science students in the Philippines using machine learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 192. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01705-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Canino, L. B. C., Malayao, S. O., Jr, & Sayson, N. L. B. (2024). Implementation of inquiry – based lesson on lights, mirrors and lenses in a gamified classroom. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(V), 2614–2624. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.805190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Choudhary, R. F. (2016). Effect of inquiry-based instruction on student’s attitude and academic achievement in physics. Science International (Lahore), 28(4), 91–94. https://www.sci-int.com/pdf/13123424641%20a%2091-94%20Farkhunda%20Rashid%20-Revised-refereed.--Paid.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Department of Education LRMDS Guidelines (2009). Framework for LRMDS Assessment and Evaluation. https://lrmds.deped.gov.ph/docs/LRMDSGuidelines [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dueñas, M. M., & Montero, J. M. (2025). Development and validation of self-learning kit in mathematics using bilingual instruction. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 14(3), 1396-1402. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.14.3.0863 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Foster, R. C. (2021). KR20 and KR21 for some nondichotomous data (It’s not just Cronbach’s Alpha). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(6), 1172–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164421992535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Galarosa, M. M., Maningas, O., Manaig, K. A., Maningas, R., & Yazon, A. D. (2024). Effectiveness of Quantom Kit as a Supplementary Learning Material in Enhancing the Academic Performance. Advanced Journal of STEM Education, 2(2), 42-60. https://doi.org/10.31098/ajosed.v2i2.2653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Heleta, S., & Bagus, T. (2020). Sustainable development goals and higher education: leaving many behind. Higher Education, 81(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00573-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Herrera, N. N. (2025). Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing the MATATAG Curriculum: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 6(2), 943-952. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.06.02.35 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jarantilla, E. L. (2008). Development of Laboratory Activity Manual for the Do-it-Yourself (DIY) Chemistry Equipment. Master’s Thesis. College of Education, MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kilag, O. K. T., Andrin, G. R., Abellanosa, C., Villaver, M. T., Jr, Uy, F. T., & Sasan, J. M. V. (2024). MATATAG Curriculum Rollout: Understanding Challenges for Effective Implementation. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11183037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kit, L., & Ayop, S. K. (2022). Experimental Kit on Image Formation by a Lens and Its Usability Perception among Pre-service Teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2309(1), 012090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2309/1/012090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mkrtychian, N., Blagovechtchenski, E., Kurmakaeva, D., Gnedykh, D., Kostromina, S., & Shtyrov, Y. (2019). Concrete vs. Abstract Semantics: From Mental Representations to Functional Brain Mapping. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00267 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Odell, V., Molthan-Hill, P., Martin, S., & Sterling, S. (2020). Transformative education to address all sustainable development goals. In Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals (pp. 905–916). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Putri, R. A. H., Widodo, A., & Rusyati, L. (2024). Diagnosis of Students’ Conception on Light and Optic Topics with Four-Tier Test. In Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research (pp. 177–190). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-283-5_18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sadera, J. R. N., Torres, R. Y. S., & Rogayan, D. V., Jr. (2020). Challenges encountered by Junior High school Students in Learning Science: Basis for Action Plan. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12A), 7405–7414. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sardinola, C. F. C., Malayao, S. O., Jr, Paylaga, G. J., Sayson, N. L. B., Arogancia, D. C., & Caparoso, J. K. V. (2025b). “Spectro-UNO”: Development and evaluation of card game material in learning light for Grade 8 students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, IX(III), 4537–4546. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.90300363 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sotério, C., & Blikstein, P. (2025). Lab-on-a-Book: A Paper-Based Chemistry Kit for Hands-on Science Learning in Under-Resourced Schools. Constructionism Conference Proceedings, 8, 405-412. https://doi.org/10.21240/constr/2025/105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Sürücü, L., & Maslakçi, A. (2020). Validity And Reliability In Quantitative Research. Business and Management Studies an International Journal, 8(3), 2694–2726.https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? (1st ed.). GEM Report. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Wahyuni, I., & Taqwa, M. (2022). Level of Students Conceptual Understanding and Resource Theory View: Geometric Optics. International Journal of Education and Teaching Zone, 1(2), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.57092/ijetz.v1i2.38 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wangchuk, D., Wangdi, D., Tshomo, S., & Zangmo, J. (2022). Exploring Students’ Perceived Difficulties of Learning Physics. Educational Innovation and Practice, 6. https://eip.sce.edu.bt/index.php/eip/article/view/57 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Zulkiffli, N. S., Fadzil, A. F. M., Noor, N. H. M., Johari, N. A., Othman, E. S., & Nazri, N. A. A. (2024). Exploring The Students’ Difficulties in Physics Subject among Secondary School Students During Learning in Class. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v14-i4/21199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Comparative Study on the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity of Common Materials
• Thickness Dependent Thermoelectric Properties of Pb0.4In0.6Se Thin Films Deposited by Physical Evaporation Technique
• Optimization of a Patch Antenna Using Genetic Algorithm
• Kinematic Constraints On Brown Dwarf Atmospheric Variability And Evidence For Bimodal Formation From Multi-Survey Analysis
• Reservoir Characterization through the Application of Petrophysical Evaluation of Well Logs of Animaux Field, Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria