Dwi Risky Arifanti(1), Sitti Zuhaerah Thalhah(2), Mafidapuspadina Mafidapuspadina(3*), Muhammad Muzaini(4),

(1) Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palopo, Palopo, Indonesia
(2) Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palopo, Palopo, Indonesia
(3) Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Palopo, Palopo, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author


Nowadays, in order to produce minimum graduates with graduate competency standards abilities and have ability to think creatively at work, it is necessary to develop comprehensive, integrated and systematic learning competencies such as development of STEM-based LKPD teaching materials as learning system that leads student’s mindsets in solving problem, think logically, creatively, independently, mastering technology, and being able to apply it in works. This research aims to find out how the process and quality of LKPD development as STEM-based teaching materials to improve student’s creativity abilities. The type of research used is R&D which consists of Define, Design, Development, and Disseminate. The research subjects consisted of three expert validators and students. The object of research is STEM-based LKPD to improve student’s creativity abilities. Data collection techniques used in the form of product feasibility data, response data and student creativity ability data. The instruments used are LKPD validation questionnaires, student response questionnaires, and questionnaires for student’s creativity abilities. Data analysis techniques are feasibility data analysis, response data analysis, and description of creativity abilities. The results showed that the LKPD developed is a valid criterion and can be used with minor revisions based on the assessment conducted by the validator covering aspects of content, language, and presentation quality. The quality of LKPD development with the validation of several experts, including language and completion of instructions in mathematical creativity ability skills, demonstrates that all problems can be used and declared usable. As well as the ability of mathematical creativity is 10% at the level of very creative, 30% at the creative level, 45% at the level of quite creative, 12% at the level of less creative, and 0% at the level of uncreative.


Student’s Creativity Abilities; LKPD; STEM


Aldila, C., Abdurrahman, A., & Sesunan, F. (2017). Pengembangan LKPD Berbasis STEM Untuk Menumbuhkan Keterampilan Berpikir Kreatif Siswa. Jurnal Pembelajaran Fisika Universitas Lampung, 5(4).

Bowers, J. S., & Stephens, B. (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(4), 285–304.

Granberg, C. (2016). Discovering and addressing errors during mathematics problem-solving-A productive struggle? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 42, 33–48.

Haciomeroglu, E. S., Aspinwall, L., & Presmeg, N. C. (2010). Contrasting cases of calculus students’ understanding of derivative graphs. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 152–176.

Haciomeroglu, E. S., Chicken, E., & Dixon, J. K. (2013). Relationships between Gender, Cognitive Ability, Preference, and Calculus Performance. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(3), 175–189.

Hernández, A., Perdomo-Díaz, J., & Camacho-Machín, M. (2020). Mathematical understanding in problem solving with GeoGebra: a case study in initial teacher education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(2), 208–223.

Hollebrands, K. F., & Lee, H. S. (2020). Effective design of massive open online courses for mathematics teachers to support their professional learning. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52(5), 859–875.

Maher, C. A., Sigley, R., & Brunswick, N. (2014). Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education.

Mata-Pereira, J., & da Ponte, J. P. (2017). Enhancing students’ mathematical reasoning in the classroom: teacher actions facilitating generalization and justification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 169–186.

Misfeldt, M., & Zacho, L. (2016). Supporting primary-level mathematics teachers’ collaboration in designing and using technology-based scenarios. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2–3), 227–241.

Ogrodzka-Mazur, E., Szafrańska, A., Malach, J., & Chmura, M. (2017). The use of E-learning resources by academic teachers– A Polish-Czech comparative study. New Educational Review, 50(4), 169–185.

Okumuş, S., Lewis, L., Wiebe, E., & Hollebrands, K. (2016). Utility and usability as factors influencing teacher decisions about software integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6).

Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2013). Teaching with new technology: Four “early majority” teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(5), 323–347.

Ratnayake, I., Thomas, M., & Kensington-Miller, B. (2020). Professional development for digital technology task design by secondary mathematics teachers. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1423–1437.

Rocha, H. (2020). Using tasks to develop pre-service teachers’ knowledge for teaching mathematics with digital technology. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1381–1396.

Tabach, M., & Nachlieli, T. (2015). Classroom engagement towards using definitions for developing mathematical objects: the case of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90(2), 163–187.

Törner, G., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2014). Calculus in European classrooms: curriculum and teaching in different educational and cultural contexts. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(4), 549–560.

Voskoglou, M. (2008). Problem solving in mathematics education: Recent trends and development. In Scienze Matematiche (Vol. 1, Issue 18).

Yao, X. (2020). Unpacking learner’s growth in geometric understanding when solving problems in a dynamic geometry environment: Coordinating two frames. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 60(April), 100803.

Zambak, V. S., & Tyminski, A. M. (2020). Examining mathematical technological knowledge of pre-service middle grades teachers with Geometer’s Sketchpad in a geometry course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(2), 183–207.



  • There are currently no refbacks.