Comparing the Effect of Explicit Mathematics Instruction with Rigorous Mathematical Thinking Approach and 5E’s Instructional Model on Students’ Mathematics Achievement

Ralph Jay M. Magsalay^1, , Charita A. Luna¹ and Rosie G. Tan¹

¹University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Ralph Jay M. Magsalay, Charita A. Luna and Rosie G. Tan. Comparing the Effect of Explicit Mathematics Instruction with Rigorous Mathematical Thinking Approach and 5E’s Instructional Model on Students’ Mathematics Achievement. American Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 7(6):402-406. doi: 10.12691/education-7-6-5

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of explicit mathematics instruction with rigorous mathematical thinking (EMI-RMT) approach and 5E’s instructional model in mathematics achievement. It utilized the quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group research design to gather the data. The researchers made use of the teacher-made test with a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .74. Two intact classes of freshmen education students enrolled in the school year 2018-2019 at the University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City participated in this study. One section was taught using EMI-RMT approach in discussing the concept of the plane and spherical trigonometry while the other group was taught using the 5E’s instructional model. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with posttest as the dependent variable and pretest as the covariate, yielded F(1,60)=.068, p=.796, which is not significant at .05 level. This implies that the achievement of students taught with EMI-RMT is comparable with the achievement of students taught with 5E’s instructional model. Since many studies showed that 5E’s instructional model is effective, the researchers recommend that mathematics teachers may also employ the EMI-RMT approach in their classes to improve their students’ achievement in mathematics.

Keywords:
explicit mathematics instruction rigorous mathematical thinking mathematics achievement problem solving 5e learning model

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]	Archer, Anita L., and Charles A. Hughes. Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press, 2010.
[2]	Smith, Jean Louise M., Leilani Sáez, and Christian T. Doabler. “Using explicit and systematic instruction to support working memory.” TEACHING Exceptional Children 48, no. 6 (2016): 275-281.
[3]	Doabler, Christian T., and Hank Fien. “Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties.” Intervention in School and Clinic 48, no. 5 (2013): 276-285.
[4]	Mandel, Riva. “Mathematics Dis Course in Parent-Child Interaction and its Relation to Mathematical Thinking in Early Childhood.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 10, no. 2 (2011): 216.
[5]	Kostos, Kathleen, and Eui-kyung Shin. “Using math journals to enhance second graders’ communication of mathematical thinking.” Early Childhood Education Journal 38, no. 3 (2010): 223-231.
[6]	Cardak, Osman, Musa Dikmenli, and Ozge Saritas. “Effect of 5E instructional model in student success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic.” In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, vol. 9, no. 2. 2008.
[7]	Bybee, Rodger W. “The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications.” Science and Children 51, no. 8 (2014): 10-13.
[8]	Daşdemir, İkramettin. “The effect of the 5e ınstructional model enriched with cooperative learning and animations on seventh-grade students’ academic achievement and scientific attitudes.” International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 9, no. 1 (2017): 21.
[9]	Jun, Won Hee, Eun Ju Lee, Han Jong Park, Ae Kyung Chang, and Mi Ja Kim. “Use of the 5E learning cycle model combined with problem-based learning for a fundamentals of nursing course.” Journal of Nursing Education 52, no. 12 (2013): 681-689.
[10]	Keeley, Page. “Embedding Formative Assessment into the 5E Instructional Model.” Science and Children 55, no. 4 (2017): 28-31.
[11]	“What Inquiry-Based Science Instruction Requires.” (2015). [Online]. Available: https://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2015/08/what-inquiry-based-science-instruction.html. [Accessed: 01-Jun-2019].
[12]	Lopes-Rizzi, Gleides Alexsandra. “The Effects of Teaching Third Graders Self-Questioning Strategies Using Prompt Fading: A Pathway to Reading Comprehension.” PhD diss., The Ohio State University, 2016.
[13]	Moran, Amber Squire. The Effects of Comprehension Intervention on Mathematics Problem Solving for Students with Mathematics Disability. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2011.
[14]	Gillette, Natasha Marilyn. “Faculty-Student Interaction and the Educational Outcomes of Native American College Students: A Comparison of First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College Students.” (2014)
[15]	Hartman, Genevieve Louise. “Helping prospective teachers to understand children's mathematical thinking.” PhD diss., Teachers College, 2012.
[16]	Töman, Ufuk, Ali Riza Akdeniz, Sabiha Odabasi Çimer, and Fatih Gürbüz. “Extended Worksheet Developed According to 5E Model Based on Constructivist Learning Approach.” Online Submission 4, no. 4 (2013): 173-183.
[17]	Fazelian, Porandokht, and Saeed Soraghi. “The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and retention of sciences for middle class students.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010): 140-143.
[18]	Ergin, I. “Constructivist approach based 5E model and usability instructional physics.” Latin-American Journal of Physics Education 6, no. 1 (2012): 14-20.