Effectiveness of 3E, 5E and Conventional Approaches of Teaching on Students’ Achievement in High School Biology

Comfort Korkor Sam¹, Kofi Acheaw Owusu^2, and Christian Anthony-Krueger²

¹Tamale Girls’ Senior High School, Tamale, Ghana

²Department of Science Education, University of Cape Coast

Cite this paper:
Comfort Korkor Sam, Kofi Acheaw Owusu and Christian Anthony-Krueger. Effectiveness of 3E, 5E and Conventional Approaches of Teaching on Students’ Achievement in High School Biology. American Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 6(1):76-82. doi: 10.12691/education-6-1-12

Abstract

The study sought to identify the effectiveness of 3E, 5E learning cycle and the conventional approaches in teaching a Biology lesson. The mixed method approach was used for this study. Three science classes in three Senior High Schools were randomly selected. For the quantitative aspect, a pre-test-post-test non-equivalent quasi-experimental design with two experimental groups was used. The qualitative part constituted an interview to find out students’ views with regards to the 3E and 5E teaching approaches. The students in the experimental groups were instructed through 3E and 5E learning cycle whilst those in the control group were instructed on the same concept through conventional approach. ANCOVA and independent t-test were used to analyse the data. The results of the study showed that the experimental groups performed better on the post-test as compared to the control group. The results also revealed that the learning cycle approach was more effective in teaching the biology concepts than the conventional approach. The 3E learning cycle was found to be more effective for improving the performance of low achievers. The students exposed to the 3E and 5E approaches showed positive attitudes towards learning cycle when they were interviewed. Teachers should be encouraged to learn and use the learning cycle approach in the teaching and learning process of Biology concepts.

Keywords:
learning cycle conventional approach 3E approach 5E approach cell division

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Tebabal, A., & Kahssay, G, “The Effects of Student-Centered Approach in Improving Students' Graphical Interpretation Skills and Conceptual Understanding of Kinematical Motion”, Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 5(2), 2011.
[2]	Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L, Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2010.
[3]	Bhardwaj, B. K., & Pal, S, “Data Mining: A prediction for performance improvement using classification”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1201. 3418, 2012.
[4]	Ajewole, G. A, “Effects of discovery and expository instructional methods on the attitude of students to biology”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(5), 401-409, 1991.
[5]	Rogus, J. F, “Promoting self-discipline: A comprehensive approach”, Theory into Practice, 24(4): 70, 1985.
[6]	Webb, N. M, “Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups", Review of Educational Research, 52(3): 70-72, 1982.
[7]	Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. J, “Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72, 1993.
[8]	Dhindsa, H.S., Makarimi-Kasim & Anderson, O.R, “Constructivist-visual mind map teaching approach and the quality of students’ cognitive structures”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 186-200, 2011.
[9]	Simpson, G, “Learner characteristics, learning environments, and constructivist epistemologies”, Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(2), 22-24, 2001.
[10]	Moreno, R, Educational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Danvers, 2010.
[11]	Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD), Teaching Syllabus for Biology, Ministry of Education, Accra, 2010.
[12]	Hassard, J, The art of teaching science: inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school, Oxford university press, New York, 2005.
[13]	Barman, C, The learning cycle revisited: A modification of an effective teaching model. Monograph 6, Council for Elementary Science International, Washington, DC, 1997.
[14]	Bybee, R.W., and Landes, N.M, “Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study”, The American Biology Teacher, 52 (2), 92-98, 1990.
[15]	Eisenkraft, A, “Expanding the 5E model”, The Science Teacher, 70, 56- 59, 2003.
[16]	Ergin, İ., Kanlı, U. & Ünsal, Y, “An Example for the Effect of 5E Model on the Academic Success and Attitude Levels of Students: Inclined Projectile Motion”, Turkish Science Education-TUSED, 5(3), 47-59, 2008.
[17]	Marek. E. A, “Why the learning cycle?”, Journal of Elementary Science education, 20(3), 63-69, 2008.
[18]	Bybee, R. W, “The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century Skills”, A commissioned paper prepared for a workshop on exploring the intersection of science education and the development of 21st century skills, 2009.Available www.bscs.org. [Accessed May 9th, 2017].
[19]	Duran, L. B., & Duran, E, “The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for inquiry-based science teaching”, The Science Education Review, 3(2), 49-58, 2004.
[20]	Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications, BSCS, 2006. [E-Document] Available: www.bscs.org [Accessed May 9th, 2017].
[21]	Berrett, D, “Harvard conference seeks to jolt university teaching”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58, 24, 2012.
[22]	Roblyer, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A, Integrating educational technology into teaching, Upper Saddle River, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1997.
[23]	Bybee, R. W., & Van Scotter, P, “Reinventing the Science Curriculum”, Educational Leadership, 64(4), 43-47, 2007.
[24]	Bulbul, Y, “Effects of learning cycle model accompanied with computer animations on understanding of diffusion and osmosis concepts” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2010.
[25]	Milne, C., & Otieno, T, “Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy”, Science Education, 91(4), 523-553, 2007.
[26]	Stamp, N., & O'brien, T, “GK-12 partnership: A model to advance change in science education”, BioScience, 55(1), 70-77, 2005.
[27]	Ates, S, “The effectiveness of the learning‐cycle method on teaching DC circuits to prospective female and male science teachers”, Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 213-227, 2005.
[28]	Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C, “Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools”, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(3), 199-203, 2006.
[29]	Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M., & Marek, E. A, “Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability”, International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549, 2001.
[30]	Odom, A.L. and Kelly, P.V, “Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students”, Science Education, 85 (6), 615-635, 2001.
[31]	Balci, S, “The effects of 5E learning cycle model based on constructivist theory on the academic success of students in biology education” (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, 2009.
[32]	Cakiroglu, J, “The effect of learning cycle approach on students’ achievement in Science”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 22, 61-73, 2006.
[33]	Saunders, W., & Shepardson, D, “A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 39-51, 1987.
[34]	Bryant, R. J., & Marek, E. A, “They Like Lab-Centered Science”, Science Teacher, 54(8), 42-45, 1987.
[35]	Metin, M., Coskun, K., Birisci, S., & Yilmaz, G. K, “Opinions of prospective teachers about utilizing the 5E instructional model”, Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B, 3, 411-422, 2011.
[36]	Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J, “The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation”, Journal of research in science teaching, 47(3), 276-301, 2010.
[37]	Ajaja, O.P, “Which strategy best suits biology teaching? Lecturing, concept mapping, cooperative learning or learning cycle?” Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1), 1-37, 2013.
[38]	Covill, A. E, “College students’ perceptions of the traditional lecture method”, College Student Journal, 45(1), 92-102, 2011.
[39]	Owusu, K. A., Monney, K. A., Appiah, J. Y., & Wilmot, E. M, “Effects of computer-assisted instruction on performance of senior high school biology students in Ghana”, Computers & Education, 55(2), 904-910, 2010.
[40]	Ajaja, O.P, Teaching methods across disciplines, Bomn Prints, Ibadan, 2009.
[41]	Lord, T. R., “A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science”, The Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (3), 22-28, 1999.
[42]	Mecit, O, The effect of 7E learning cycle model on the improvement of fifth grade students’ critical thinking skills. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 2006.
[43]	Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L, Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2011.
[44]	Liu, W. & Shi, J, “An analysis of language teaching approaches and methods- effectiveness and weakness”, US-China Education Review, 4(1), 69-71, 2007.