Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences

Transcription

1 Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences Volume 7, Issue 3 (2012) Effects of 5E learning cycle on students achievement in biology and chemistry Patrick, O. Ajaja a *, Urhievwejire, Ochuko Eravwoke b a Department of Science Education, Delta State University, Abraka Nigeria b Department of Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies, Studies, University of Benin Benin City Nigeria Abstract The major purpose of this study was to determine the effects of learning cycle as an instructional strategy on biology and chemistry students achievement. To guide this study, six research hypotheses were stated and tested at 0.05 level of significance. The design of this study was 2x2x3x6 Pre-test Post-test non-equivalent control group quasi experimental design. These included two instructional groups (experimental and control groups), sex (male and female), repeated testing (Pre, Post and follow-up tests), and six weeks of experience. The samples of the study included six senior secondary schools, 112 science students, and 12 biology and chemistry teachers. The instruments used for this study were: teacher s questionnaire on knowledge and use of learning cycle (KULC); and Biology and Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT). The data collected were analyzed with simple percentage, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and student t-test statistics. The major findings of the study included that only 30.43% and 26.31% of biology and chemistry teachers have the knowledge that learning cycle is an instructional method; all the biology and chemistry teachers sampled have never used learning cycle as an instructional method; learning cycle had a significant effect on students achievement in biology and chemistry; students taught with learning cycle significantly achieved better in biology/chemistry Post-test than those taught with lecture method; the posttest scores of students in the learning cycle group increased over the period of experience; non-significant difference in Posttest scores between males and females taught with learning cycle; non-significant interaction effect between method and sex on achievement; and a significant higher retention of biology and chemistry knowledge by students taught with learning cycle than those taught with lecture method. It was concluded that the method seems an appropriate instructional model that could be used to solve the problems of science teaching and learning since it facilitates learning, retention and its effectiveness not being limited by sex. Keywords: 5E Learning, students, biology, chemistry, teachers; Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zehra Ozcinar, Assist. Prof. Dr. Çiğdem Hürsen 2012 Academic World Education & Research Center. All rights reserved. * ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Patrick, O. Ajaja, Department of Science Education, Delta State University, Abraka Nigeria. address: osawaruajaja@yahoo.com

2 1. Introduction 1.1. Background of the Study Over the years, research and curriculum development have shown that effective instruction is much more than the presentation of a concept, process, or skills. Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984). This definition implies that the curricula of school science subjects must be structured and sequenced, in particular how a session or a whole course may be taught to improve student learning. Gibbs (1988) noted that individuals differ in their preferred learning styles and recognizing this is the first stage in raising students awareness of the alternative approaches possible and helping them to become more flexible in meeting the varied demands of learning situations. Teachers also need to recognize their own learning styles as a basis for the development of effective teaching and learning strategies (Healey & Jenkins 2000). Learning may suffer where there is marked mismatch between the style of the learner and the approach of the teacher (Fielding, 1994). With the expansion of higher education in many countries and the increasing emphasis on access, diversity, retention rates and life-long learning, there is a good reason to explore the nature of different learning styles (Healey & Jenkins, 2000). For these reasons and particularly the fact that science students in Nigeria are not doing very well in biology and chemistry as measured by their grades in senior school certificate examinations informed the decision to carry out this study. Indeed given the increased recognition of learning cycle in literature of its efficacy in lesson delivery and students learning within the science education cycle, of recognizing and valuing gender and cultural diversity, the strategy is particularly relevant as it is rooted in a theory of learning that affirms all major aspects of active learning, usefully accounting for all arries of individual differences. Learning cycle if used as an instructional method for teaching biology and chemistry seems like a suitable alternative to lecture method which has dominated the teaching of science in Nigeria with the intention to improve students achievement. This widely accepted model of learning and teaching evolved over the past 40 years (Moyer, Hackett & Everett, 2007). Continuing, Moyer et al., (2007) who influenced by the work of Jean Piaget, Professor Robert Karplus, at the University of California-Berkeley, began looking at how he might apply cognitive development theory and discovery learning to instructional strategies in elementary science. Karplus and his colleague, J. Myron Atkin, with the support of the National Science Foundation, developed a three-phase Learning Cycle that served as the central teaching/learning strategy in the newly introduced Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Programme (Atkin & Karplus, 1962). The three Phases of that learning cycle included: Exploration, Invention and Discovery (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). Later, Karplus referred to them as exploration, concept introduction and concept application (Moyer et al., 2007). Although other terms have been used for the three original phases, the goals and pedagogy of the phases have remained similar (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). The Cycle has evolved through modifications to include additional Phases such as: engage, explore, elaborate, extend and apply and is used to frame single guided discovery lessons as well as extend experiences such as chapters and units (Barman & Kofar, 1989; Hackett & Moyer, 1991). A fifth phase, evaluation was incorporated into elementary science program developed by the Biological Science Curriculum Study (Biological Science Curriculum Study, 1992). 245

3 The learning cycle used in this study followed Bybee s (1997) five steps of Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaborating and Evaluation. As in any cycle there is really no end to the process. As elaboration ends, the engagement of the next learning cycle begins. Evaluation is not really the last stage. Evaluation occurs in all four stages of the learning cycle. The description of each phase of the learning cycle is hinged on Smith s work shown in Learning Cycle retrieved from http//books.com/books? September 6, The descriptions of the events that take place at each stage are shown below: A. Engagement: Engagement is a time when the teacher is on centre stage. The teacher poses the problem, preassesses the students, helps students make connections, and informs students about where they are heading. Evaluation s role in engagement revolves around the pre-assessment. Find out what the students already know about the topic at hand. The teacher could ask questions and have the students respond orally and/or in writing. B. Exploration: Now the students are at the centre of the action as they collect data to solve the problem. The teacher makes sure the students collect and organize their data in order to solve the problem. The students need to be active. The purpose of exploration is to have students collect data that they can use to solve the problem that was posed. In this portion of the learning cycle, the evaluation is primarily focused on process, i.e. on the students data collection, rather than the product of the students data collection. C. Explanation: In this phase of the process, students use the data they have collected to solve the problem and report what they did and try to figure out the answer to the problem that was presented. The teacher also introduces new vocabulary, phrases or sentences to label what the students have already figured out. Evaluation here focuses on the process the students are using - how well can students use the information they have collected, plus what they already knew to come up with new ideas? Using questions, the teacher can assess the students comprehension of the new vocabulary and new concepts. D. Elaboration: The teacher gives students new information that extends what they have been learning in the earlier parts of the learning cycle. At this stage, the teacher also poses problems that students solve by applying what they have learned. The problems include both examples and non-examples. The evaluation that occurs during elaboration is what teachers usually think of as evaluation. Sometimes teachers equate evaluation with the test at the end of the chapter. When teachers have the students do the application problems as part of elaboration, these application problems are the tests. Literature on learning cycle indicates that it rests on constructivism as its theoretical foundation; constructivism is a dynamic and interactive model of how humans learn (Bybee, 1997). A constructivist perspective assumes students must be actively involved in their learning and concepts are not 246

4 transmitted from teacher to student but constructed by the student (Nuhuglu & Yakin, 2006). Numerous studies have shown that learning cycle as a model of instruction is far superior to transmission models in which students are passive receivers of knowledge from their teacher (Bybee, 1997). For example Renner, Abraham and Birnie (1985) examined the effectiveness of altering the sequence involving engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation of the optimum sequence for achievement of concept knowledge. They found a significant improvement in concept knowledge. Lawson (1988) and Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien (1985) made important connections between research on student misconception and use of the learning cycle. Lawson suggests that use of the learning cycle provides opportunities for students to reveal prior knowledge (particularly their misconception) and opportunities to argue and debate their ideas. This process, he noted, can result in cognitive disequilibrium and the possibility of developing high levels of reasoning. Driver et al., (1985) in their work with elementary students, investigated methods of instruction designed to help children confront previously developed misconceptions by comparing them with new experiences. They placed great emphasis on providing opportunities for children to express what they already know their prior understanding (Moyer, Hackett & Everett, 2007). In general, learning cycle as an instructional model provides the active learning experiences recommended by the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996). As a curriculum framework, the learning cycle provides experiences from which learners construct meaning (Huhoglu & Yalcin, 2006). Huhoglu and Yalcin (2006) studied the effectiveness of learning cycle model to increase students achievement in the physics laboratory. The results of this study showed that learning cycle facilitated students to learn effectively and organize the knowledge in a meaningful way. It was also found to make the knowledge long lasting. Students became more capable to apply their knowledge in other areas outside the original context. Pulat (2009) studied the impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students mathematics achievement and attitude toward mathematics. The results showed that the students mathematics achievement improved after the instruction of 5E learning cycle. Hiccan (2008) in Pulat (2009) reported that the use of 5E learning cycle had statistically significant effect on conceptual and procedural knowledge. Studies by (Baser, 2008; Lee, 2003; Lord, 1999; Whilder & Shuttleworth, 2004) made similar findings. The study by Lee (2003) found that the students acquired knowledge about plants in daily life easier and understood the concepts better when taught with learning cycle. Literature on the effect of 5E learning cycle on attitude towards science indicated a general improvement on students attitude when taught with 5E learning cycle. However, researches which determined whether attitudinal gains were significant showed mixed reports. While some showed attitudinal gain to be significant, others found it not significant. Studies by (Lord, 1999; Whilder & Shuttleworth, 2004; Ceylan, 2008) found significant differences in attitude gains between the experimental and control groups in favour of the experimental group. For example, Lord (1999) compared the effects of 5E learning cycle instruction with the traditional instruction in environmental science. The participants were college undergraduates. It was found that while the control group students found the lessons boring, the experimental group students found them interesting and had a lot of fun. Again Whilder and Shuttleworth (2004) investigated the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle in the teaching of Cell Inquiry. It was reported that the high school students were motivated by the 5E cycle. 247

5 Study carried out by (Kaynor, 2007) on the effect of 5E on attitude towards science indicted that although there were attitude gains by the experimental groups, the gains were not significant. Keskin (2008) in Pulat (2009) compared the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle class to traditionally designed physics class on simple harmonic motion, simple pendulum concepts and attitudes toward physics on high school students. The obtained results showed that there was an increase in the scores of attitude toward physics. It was, however, found that there was no statistically significant difference in gained scores of the attitude. Literature at our disposal on the effects of 5E learning cycle on retention, length of experience to be acquired before its effective use in instruction and test scores variation among students of different sexes are scanty and limited. However, some showed how learning cycle influences some of the variables. For example, studies by Ajaja (1998) and Nuhoglu and Yalcin (2006) found that learning cycle enhanced retention of Science knowledge. Specially, Nuhoglu and Yalcin ( 2006) stated that learning cycle achieves to make knowledge long lasting. They further stated that students become more capable to apply their knowledge in other areas outside the original context. On the length of experience to be acquired before learning cycle as an instructional model can significantly affect students test scores in science. The study carried out by Ajaja (1998) threw more light on the issue. Ajaja (1998) compared the effectiveness of three instructional strategies (Ausubel`s Advance organizer, Bruner`s Discovery approach & Karplus` invention lesson) in the teaching of secondary school biology. The data collected showed that the initial test scores of students in the Advance Organizer class was higher than those in Invention and Discovery classes. But as the period of experience with the methods increased, students in the Invention class outscored all the students in Advance Organizer and Discovery classes. It should be noted that Karplus Invention lesson is a hybrid of Ausubel`s expository and Bruner`s discovery approaches now called learning cycle. Literature on science education methods in Nigeria indicates that studies on learning cycle are scanty and scarce. This implies that there is a general poor knowledge of learning cycle procedure and its effectiveness in instructional delivery among science educators, researchers and science teachers. This has therefore created a wide gap which requires a very urgent fill in our knowledge of learning cycle and its use in science teaching. The purpose of this study therefore was to make available and deepen science teacher educators and secondary school science teachers knowledge on the process of learning cycle and also to determine its effectiveness when used for teaching concepts in biology and chemistry Statement of Problem Over the years, the teaching of science and particularly Biology and Chemistry has been based on lecture method. The results of students in these subject areas as measured by their grades in the senior school certificate examinations have not shown any significant improvement over the years (WAEC, 2007, 2008 & 2009). This development in a way indicates an instructional method failure and ineffectiveness. Personal interactions of researchers with biology and chemistry teachers showed a near empty knowledge of learning cycle and its application in teaching by teachers. The situation therefore calls for education of science teachers on the procedures of learning cycle and a demonstration of its effectiveness in science teaching and learning. The statement of the problem therefore is, will the application of learning cycle in the teaching of concepts in biology and chemistry improve science teachers knowledge of the procedures involved in its use and demonstrate its superiority over the current method used for teaching chemistry and biology in schools? 248

6 1.3. Research Questions To guide this study, the following research questions were raised: 1. What proportion of science teachers have knowledge of learning cycle as an instructional method? 2. What proportion of biology and chemistry teachers use learning cycle as an instructional method? 3. Is there any effect of the use of learning cycle on students achievement in biology and chemistry? 4. Is there any difference in achievement test scores between biology and chemistry students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method? 5. Is there any difference in achievement test scores between males and females taught with learning cycle? 6. Is there any difference in retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method? 7. Is there any interaction effect between sex and method on achievement? 1.4. Research Hypothesis To further guide this study, the following hypothesis were stated and tested at 0.05 level of significance. Ho1:There is no significant effect of learning cycle on achievement. Ho2:There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method. Ho3:There is no significant difference in achievement test scores of students taught with learning cycle over period of experience. Ho4:There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between males and females taught with learning cycle. Ho5:There is no significant interaction effect between method and sex on achievement. Ho6:There is no significant difference in estimated retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method. 2. Methodology 2.1. Design of the Study The study employed a 2x2x3x6 Pre-test Post-test nonequivalent control group quasi experimental design. This design consisted of two instructional groups (learning cycle group and lecture group), two sexes (male and female), repeated testing (Pre-test, Post-test and follow-up test) and six weeks of experience (Wks 1,2,3,4,5 & 6). The independent variable was exposure to learning cycle teaching strategy while the dependent variable was achievement test score. The intervening variables included sex and period of experience with the use of learning cycle. 249

7 2.2. Population and Samples of the Study The populations of study consisted of 19 senior secondary schools in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria, 1500 science students, and 42 biology and chemistry teachers. From these populations, 6 senior secondary schools, 6 intact SS II science classes and 12 biology and chemistry (6 chemistry and 6 biology) teachers were randomly selected. The schools reflected 2 single sex boys, 2 single sex girls and 2 mixed schools. The total number of biology and chemistry students in the 6 sampled classes was 112. Of the 6 schools, three of them were used as the experimental group (where learning cycle was used) while the remaining three served as the control group (where lecture method was used). Six experienced graduate (3 biology and 3 chemistry) teachers taught the experimental group while another six experienced graduates (3 biology and 3 chemistry) teachers taught the control group. To control for teacher effect, the teachers were matched with qualification and years of experience in biology chemistry teaching. All the science teachers used for the study had 7 years of teaching experience and were all trained teachers Instruments Three main instruments were used for the study. They included: (i) Two six-week instructional units, one for biology and the other for chemistry; (ii)teacher questionnaire on knowledge and use of learning cycle (KULC) and (iii) Biology and Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT). The six-week instructional unit for biology covered contents in the following topics: flower structure, pollination of flower, fruits and vegetables, fruit and seeds disposal, skeleton and its plan and comparing skeletons. For chemistry, the six week instructional unit covered contents in: Hydrogen, Oxygen and Chlorine. The teacher questionnaire called knowledge and use of learning cycle (KULC) was structured on a four point Likert scale of; Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD). KULC consisted of items that centered on knowledge, use and problems associated with learning cycle as an instructional method. The Biology and Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT) consisted of 100 test items in two sections; section A for biology and section B for chemistry. All the test items were drawn from the contents in the six-week instructional units for biology and chemistry. The validities of the KULC questionnaire and BCAT were determined by a Panel of 4 judges which consisted of: one Science educator, one biology teacher, one chemistry teacher and one measurement and evaluation expert. For the KULC questionnaire, the judges determined if the content of the questionnaire will generate data to answer research questions 1 and 2. They finally confirmed the ability of the instrument to generate data to answer the questions. For the Biology and Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT) the judges only determined the content validity of the instrument. They achieved this by relating the test items with the contents of the instructional units. Reliability of the KULC was determined by adopting the inter rater reliability approach. This involved first the determination of the correlation coefficient of the first and second responses to KULC of one 250

8 of the 12 biology/chemistry teachers used. This was followed by pooling together the responses of the 12 respondents and applying inter rater reliability formula. The Correlation Coefficient of 0.73 was found and thus the instrument adjudged as being reliable. The reliability of the Biology-Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT) was determined by administering the test instrument to thirty (30) students of Ime-obi Senior Secondary School, Agbor offering biology and chemistry. These students were not part of the study. Applying Kuder-Richardson (KR-20) in the analysis of the test scores, the reliability of the instrument was found to be This confirmed the instrument as being reliable based on the established standard (Johnson & Christensen, 2000; Wiseman, 1999; Thorndike, 1997; Borich, 2004) that any instrument with a reliability index of 0.7 and above is adjudged as being reliable Treatment Procedure (i)training of Instructors The biology and chemistry teachers used for teaching the experimental group were trained on the skills of using learning cycle for teaching for four days and lasting for two hours per day. The first day was spent on discussing the theory of learning cycle with emphasis on its origin, modifications of the original plan, and how it is used in instruction. On the second day, the teachers were trained using the training manuals developed by the researchers; one for chemistry and the other for biology. At this point the teachers were divided into two; biology teachers being under the guidance of the biology researcher while the chemistry teachers came under the guidance of the chemistry researcher. The teacher training manual specifically defined the stages involved in learning cycle format and the specific roles teachers and students play in each stage. The third and fourth days were spent on practice and generation of ideas on how to apply learning cycle in the teaching of the selected concepts. The training came to an end when the researchers were convinced that the biology and chemistry teachers can apply the strategy in teaching. (ii)treatment Proper The treatment groups consisted of: (a) (b) Experimental group (students taught with learning cycle teaching strategy); and Control group (students taught with lecture method) A week before the commencement of treatment, all the biology and chemistry teachers received extracts which contained the contents in the six-week instructional units for biology and chemistry. The extracts for biology contents were taken from Biology: Principle and Exploration by Jhonson and Raven (1998), while those for chemistry were taken from New School Chemistry by Ababio (2008). The biology and chemistry teachers in the experiment group also received well prepared lesson notes on the six-week instructional units from the researchers. This was done to ensure that instructional presentation followed the learning cycle format. The lesson notes specified both the teachers and students activities at the Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Extension and Evaluation stages of the learning cycle. Two days before the commencement of instruction, both the experimental and control groups were pre-tested. This was done to determine the equivalence of the groups before treatment. This involved the use of 100 items Biology-Chemistry Achievement Test (BCAT). On treatment, for the control group, 251

9 each and all the contents in the six-week instructional unit for biology and chemistry were presented to the students using lecture method. The teachers presented the content materials to the students in their final forms. In the experimental classroom where learning cycle was used for instruction the teachers performed the following activities applying Trowbridge and Bybee (1996) format at the various stages: Engagement The teachers posed problems to get the students attention. This was followed by pre-assessing students prior knowledge on the topics. They went ahead to inform students about the lessons objectives. The students were reminded of what they already know that they need to apply in learning the topics at hand. The teachers finally posed problems for students to explore in the next phase of the learning cycle. This formed the point from where the next lesson begins. To evaluate engagement, the teachers asked specific questions on the topics at hand to determine their prior knowledge. The students answered orally. Exploration The purpose of exploration is to have students collect data that they can use to solve the problems that were posed. The teachers specifically asked the students to do the following: (i)think freely but within the objectives of the lesson; (ii) test predictions and hypotheses; (iii) form new predictions and hypotheses; (iv) try alternatives and discuss them with others; (v) record your observations and ideas; and (vi) suspend judgment. To evaluate exploration, the teachers asked themselves the following questions in their minds: (i) How well are the data being collected by students? (ii) Are the procedures being carried out correctly? (iii) How are the collected data being recorded? (iv)is it orderly? Explanation The teachers engaged the students in discussion and asked them to do the following at the explanation stage: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) explain your answers to others; listen critically to one another s explanations; questions one other s explanations; listen to and try to comprehend explanations offered by the teacher; refer to previous activities to guide your explanations; and use recorded observations in explanation. The teachers at this stage introduced new vocabulary, phrases, or sentences to label what the students have already found out and guide them to arrive at correct conclusions. To evaluate explanation, the teachers asked the students questions on the process of data collection and use of the data in explanation and arriving at conclusions. The teachers also asked students questions on the introduced terms to determine their comprehension. 252

10 Elaboration The teachers gave students new information that extended what they have been learning in the earlier parts of the learning cycle. The questions raised at this level enabled the students to do the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) apply new definitions, explanations and skills in new but similar situations; use previous information to ask questions, propose solutions, make decisions and design experiments; draw reasonable conclusions from evidence; record observation and explanations; and check the understanding among peers. In the evaluation of elaboration, the teachers asked exactly the kinds of questions that come under evaluation. The question types are shown under evaluation below. Evaluation These kinds of questions were asked students by the teachers at the end of the lesson. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) open-ended questions by using observations, evidence, and previously accepted explanations; demonstrate an understanding of knowledge of the concept of skill; evaluate students own progress and knowledge; and related questions that would encourage future investigation. At the end of every week s instruction a post-achievement test of 18 items (9 biology and 9 chemistry) was administered to both the experimental and control groups. The students test scores were averaged at the end of the six weeks of instruction to present a single test score. Two equivalent forms (identical questions and different response order) of each test were constructed to avoid the possibility that the students in the experimental group would benefit from talking with students in the control group. This agreed with the recommendation of Markow and Lenning (1998). They noted that the intent of alternative test forms was to discourage intentional cheating by sharing answer keys. At the end of six weeks after posts test, a delayed post-test with the 100 items Biology-Chemistry achievement test was administered to both the experimental and control groups to determine the effect of learning cycle when used as an instructional strategy on retention of biology/chemistry knowledge. Two statistics were used for the analysis of the collected data. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test for significant differences between achievement test score means for the control and the experimental groups. For paired samples, t-test was used to test for significant difference between students pre-instructional and post-instructional test scores and between post test scores and estimated retention. The data on science teachers knowledge of learning cycle as an instructional strategy and its use in teaching biology and chemistry were collected with teachers knowledge and Use of Learning Cycle (KULC) questionnaire. The researchers personally administered the questionnaire among the

11 biology and chemistry teachers in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria. The responses of the respondents were analyzed with simple percentage. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Results Table 1 Comparison of Proportions of biology and chemistry teachers on the knowledge that learning cycle is an instructional method Subject N No. that knew % that knew No. that don t know % No. that did not know Biology Chemistry Total Table 1 shows that of the 23 biology teachers who responded to the questionnaire, 30.43% indicated that they have the knowledge that learning cycle is a teaching method while 69.60% indicated that they did not know learning cycle to be a teaching method. For the chemistry teachers, 26.31% of them agreed that they knew that learning cycle is a teaching method while did not know that it is a teaching method. Table 2 Comparison of proportions of biology and chemistry teachers who use learning cycle as an instructional method Subject N No. that use it % that use it No. that don t use it % No. that don t use it % that use lecture method Biology Chemistry Total Table 2 shows that none of the biology and chemistry teachers in Ethiope East Local Government Area make use of learning cycle as an instructional method. Of all the 23 biology and 19 chemistry teachers sampled, none of them used learning cycle as an instructional method. Table 3 shows that on pre-test scores, the learning cycle and lecture method groups were similar. The difference in test scores between the groups was by The table did not, however, show whether the difference was significant. On post achievement test scores, the table shows that the learning cycle group scored more marks than lecture group by The table again did not show if the difference was significant. On post achievement test scores of male and female students in learning cycle group, the table shows that the female students scored more marks than the males by Again the table did not show if the difference was significant. On follow-up achievement test score, the learning cycle group scored more marks than the lecture group by The table did not again show if the difference was significant. On estimated retention, the learning cycle group retained more knowledge than the lecture group by The table also did not show if the difference could be adjudged as either significant or not. The test scores were subjected to higher statistical treatments as reported in tables below. 254

12 Table 3 Comparison of experiment and control groups on Pre-test, Post-test, follow-up test scores and estimated retention (in %) Test type/instructional method N Mean SD (a) Pre-achievement test Learning cycle Lecture method (b) Post-achievement test Learning cycle Lecture method (c) Post achievement test scores of students in learning cycle Male Female (d) Follow-up achievement test Learning cycle Lecture method (e) Estimated retention Learning cycle Lecture method Table 4 t-test summary comparing Pre-test and Post-test scores of students taught with learning cycle Test N Mean SD t-cal value Table t-value P Pre-test Post-test Differences 23.0 Table 4 shows a significant difference in the paired sample test scores of pre and post of students in learning cycle group (t = , P<0.05). With this result, Ho:1 was rejected because there was a significant effect of learning cycle on achievement. Table 5 ANOVA summary table comparing pre-achievement test scores of learning cycle and lecture groups Source Sum of Df Mean square F squares Between groups Within groups Total Table 5 shows a non-significant difference in pre-test scores between students in learning cycle and control groups. This result proved the equivalence of the subjects in the two groups before treatment. This therefore means that any difference found after treatment is as the result of the treatment. ANCOVA was found to be appropriate to compare the Post achievement test scores of the experimental and control groups. The ANCOVA summary table is shown in table 6 below. 255

13 Table 6 ANCOVA summary table comparing post-achievement test scores of learning cycle and lecture groups with Pre-test as covariate Source Sum of Df Mean square F squares Groups Pre-test Error Total Corrected total Table 6 shows a significant difference in Post achievement test scores between the students in learning cycle group and those in lecture group (13.663, P<0.05). With this result, Ho:2 was rejected because there was a significant difference in the Post achievement test scores. Table 7 t-test analysis comparing mean of test scores: 1vs2, 1vs3, 1vs4, 1vs5 and 1vs6 of students in learning cycle group Test N Mean SD t-cal Table-t P 0.05 combination Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Table 7 shows a gradual and steady increase in mean test scores of students in learning cycle classroom over period of experience. Between week 1 and week 6, the mean test score of students in learning cycle classroom, increased by The t-test analysis of paired samples: tests 1vs2, 1vs3, 1vs4, 1vs5 and 1vs6 indicated significant differences. With this result, Ho:3 was rejected because there was a significant increase in students test scores over period of experience. Table 8 ANCOVA summary table on Post-achievement test score comparing male and female biology/chemistry students taught with learning cycle with Pre-test as covariate Source Sum of Df Mean square F squares Pre-test Sex Error Total Corrected total A non-significant difference was found in the Post achievement test scores between male and female students in the learning cycle classroom (1.532, P>0.05) as shown in table 8. With this result, 256

14 Ho:4 was retained because there was really no significant difference in Post achievement test scores between male and female students taught with learning cycle. Table 9 ANCOVA summary table of interaction effect between method and sex on post achievement Source Sum of Df Mean square F squares Pre-test Groups Sex Group * Sex Error Total Corrected total Shown in table 9, a non-significant interaction effect was found between method and sex on achievement (2.776, P>0.05). With this result, Ho:5 was therefore retained because the method of instruction and sex did not interact to influence students test scores. Table 10 t-test analysis comparing estimated retention in percentage between students in learning cycle and lecture classrooms Group N Mean SD t-cal Table-t P 0.05 Learning cycle Lecture Shown in table 10, a significant difference was found in estimated retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method (t = , P<0.05). With this result, Ho:6 was therefore rejected because there was a significant difference in estimated retention expressed in percentage between students in learning cycle and lecture classrooms. The students in learning cycle classroom significantly retained more knowledge of the concepts taught than those taught with lecture method Discussion Our experiences in the teaching of secondary school science, has indicated the need for a different kind of method as a substitute for the ones used now. This is hinged on the persistent poor performances of students in school science subjects (WAEC, 2007, 2008 & 2009). It is our desire to make students to experience inquiring-based science as recommended in the National Curriculum for Senior Secondary Schools through an approach that integrates science content and pedagogy in a manner consistent with inquiring. Many of today s methods adopted for teaching science in our schools are best suited for teaching liberal arts and social science subjects, not for subjects that teach inquiry by having student experience inquiring. Modeling science teaching through learning cycle lessons, suggest active participation of students in teaching learning process which results in the creation of knowledge by students themselves. The science teacher who uses this method merely acts as a facilitator rather than a dispenser of knowledge. The significance of this study apart from the fact that learning cycle stimulates student curiosity which resulted in their active processing of information by themselves was the successful use of a teaching method that was based on knowledge organization process of the mind to teach biology and chemistry. 257

15 The use of learning cycle in the study served several purposes to the teachers who participated in the study. The first was that teachers used the method through firsthand experience. Second, they learnt science content that supports their need to understand the science concepts that they will teach (Moyer et al., 2007). Third, they experienced inquiry based science teaching which will guide them in future when teaching science. The survey of biology and chemistry teachers to determine the percentage of the teachers who use learning cycle as an instructional method gave a nil response as shown in table 2. None of the biology and chemistry teachers examined indicated that they use learning cycle for teaching their students. This situation may be explained with the fact that only few biology and chemistry teachers have the knowledge that learning cycle is an instructional method for teaching science. For example, table 1 shows that 69.60% biology and 73.30% chemistry teachers sampled lack knowledge of the use of learning cycle as an instructional method in the teaching of science. The non-use of the method in the sampled schools may be attributed to lack of detailed knowledge of the procedure for its use in instruction by those who claimed that they knew it as an instructional method. The teachers who knew about it may not have been taught how to use it and so could not use it for teaching. Moyer et al., (2007) noted that people tend to teach in the same way that they were taught. The comparison of Pre-test and Post-test scores of students taught with learning cycle indicated a significant difference. This means that the method had a significant effect on students achievement in biology and chemistry. This result may be explained with the active participation of students at every stage of the instructional model. This, therefore, means that the difference between the Pre-test and Post-test scores was not due to chance but as a result of treatment. The treatment that gave the result may have been due to intervention of the teachers at each stage of the learning cycle model with intention of elevating the level of students thinking and learning. This agrees with the finding of Vygotsky (1978) that learning is facilitated by social interaction with more sophisticated individuals that provide guidance during the learning process. From the work of Vygotsky, it can be deduced that guidance provided by the biology and chemistry teachers during instruction may have influenced the conceptual understanding of the students which resulted in their better achievement. This also agrees with the finding of Hiccan (2008). In her study she examined the influence of 5E learning cycle on the 7 th grade students achievement in linear equation with one variable. She found that in the 5E learning cycle group, the pre and post achievement scores were significantly different. Hiccan s work also revealed that 5E learning cycle had a statistically significant effect on conceptual and procedural knowledge. One other finding of this study indicated a statistically significant difference in achievement test scores between students taught with learning cycle and the control group (students taught with lecture method). This finding is consistent with the findings of (Baser, 2008; Nuhoglu & Yalcin, 2006; Cakiroglu, 2006; Caradak, Dikmenli & Saritas, 2008; Whilder & Shuttleworth, 2004; Lee, 2003; Balci, 2005; Lord, 1999). Specifically Cardak, Dikmenli and Saritas (2008) investigated the effect of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students achievement studying the circulatory system unit. While the experimental and control groups were the same at first, after implementation, there was an important difference in favour of the experimental group. Again Demircioglu, Ozmen and Demircioglu (2004) used 5E learning cycle instructional model to teach the topic Factors Affecting the Solubility Equilibrium in Lycee-2 chemistry curriculum. It was found that the experimental group students scored significantly higher achievement test marks than the control group. This result may be explained with the fact that the use of the 5E learning cycle in the teaching of biology and chemistry made the understanding and internalization of the concepts taught easier. Pulat 258

16 (2009) stated that in the activities based on the 5E learning cycle sequence, the teacher created interest and curiosity to draw the students attention and to excite them in the phase of engagement; provided opportunities for students to make them discover the topic and create a situation of need to know setting the phase for explanation phase. Continuing, Pulat (2009) noted that the teacher encouraged students to examine the presented situations further in the topic in elaboration phase, and the teacher observed the students to evaluate their knowledge and skill in the phase of evaluation. In this way, the students were engaged in more meaningful and permanent learning. This indeed may have produced the result. Another major finding of this study was the significant difference in Post-test scores as period of experience in the use of the method increased. Table 7 showed a steady and consistent increase in Post-test scores averaged weekly of students in learning cycle classroom. Students t-test comparison of test scores of test 1 and tests 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 indicated significant differences in Post test scores between test 1 and tests 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The noticed significant difference among the weekly averaged Post-test scores of weeks 1 6 are in consistent with the findings of Ajaja (1998) and Campbell (2000). Ajaja (1998) determined the effects of Advance Organizer, Discovery and Invention methods of teaching biology on students achievement. One of the findings of the study was that the achievement test scores of the students taught with invention method increased as the period of experience with the method increased. Campbell (2000) investigated the fifth grade students understanding of force and motion concepts through the use of the 5E learning cycle. Students participated in investigations about force and motion concepts weekly for a period of 14 weeks. Findings showed that students knowledge about force and motion concepts increased over the period of study. The increase in test scores of students over the period of experience may be explained with the fact that as the period of the use of the method increased, students acquired more skills and competences required for the use of the method to cause learning. This may have been responsible for the steady and consistent increase in students Post test scores over period of experience. This increase will, however, stabilize at a climax when all the skills necessary for its use have been mastered and internalized by the students. This explanation agrees with the findings of (Egelston, 1972 ; Lahnston, 1973) discussed by Ajaja (1998) that the initial low scores of students in the invention class was due to the unfamiliarity and difficulty of the learning task. For a difficult task, if the rule is overlearned and adequately revised at subsequent times the initial setback experienced by students will have disappeared over a period of few weeks. The study found a non-significant difference in Post test scores between male and female students taught with learning cycle. This means that the students in the learning cycle classroom benefited in about the same margin irrespective of their sexes. This perhaps may be the reason why no significant difference was found in achievement test scores between the male and female students on the use of learning cycle. By definition, if one group changes in a similar amount as another group, there will be no significant difference between them. What matters most in learning cycle is role expectation and responsibilities of both teachers and students at every stage of the model. The success of a learning cycle activity depends on proper guidance of students by the teacher specifying role expectation and responsibilities and modeling them where necessary at every stage of the model. These, the teachers that taught the learning cycle group of male and female students did by explaining the following: the assignment given, the objectives to be achieved, the stages of learning cycle, individual student accountability, peer-group cooperation, criteria for success and specific levels of success expected. 259

17 Once the students began work, the teachers acted as facilitators providing guidance and detailed explanations to students when answers they provided were not very correct. The finding of non-significant difference in Post-test scores between male and female biology and chemistry students contradicts earlier studies on influence of sex on science achievement. For example, Bennett (2003) in her study found that female students out score the male students in all school sciences except the physical sciences. The issue of under achievement of male students in school science subjects is now a very serious problem in science education seeking for solution. The adoption of learning cycle as a strategy for teaching all school science considering its potential to influence all sexes equally may provide the solution to the problem of underachievement found among male students. Although non-significant interaction effect was found between method and sex on achievement, but table 3 indicates that female students in learning cycle group scored more marks than the males. The difference between the two sets of scores was not wide enough to give a significant difference. The non-significant interaction between method and sex on achievement as found in the study meant that the combination of the effects of learning cycle and sex of students did not influence students achievement in biology and chemistry. This type of result may be explained with two reasons. The first reason is that since the comparison of the pre-test scores of the male and female students in learning cycle group indicated that they were equivalent before treatment, it will be difficult to establish a significant difference in the post-test scores when the conditions in learning cycle classrooms were the same for all sexes. The second reason is that it may be that the teachers who taught the learning cycle group taught very well that all the students understood what was required of them their sexes notwithstanding. All students actively participated in all the phases of the learning cycle. The finding of higher retention of biology and chemistry knowledge by students taught with learning cycle than those taught with lecture method can be likened to the findings of other researchers in the past. The findings therefore confirm the earlier findings of (Nuhoglu & Yalcin, 2006; Ajaja, 1998; Gurumurthy, 1995; Ajewole, 1990). They all stated that students retained knowledge most when they are taught with methods which involved them actively. Ajaja (1998) while explaining the high level of retention found among the invention group like what is found in the learning cycle group now, argued that it may be a product of the little guide offered by the teacher and the active involvement of the students in learning. The lower retention scores of students taught with lecture method may be due to the relatively passive roles of the students during instruction. This explanation is confirmed by the fact that prior knowledge is the main determinant of student achievement in science. 4. Conclusion The results of this study show that the learning cycle model as described in this study is an educational model that can be used to resolve the major problems in teaching scientific knowledge. With the strong empirical support for it and the fact that it facilitates students to learn effectively and organize knowledge in a meaningful way, its ability to make knowledge acquired to be long lasting and not discriminating of sex makes it a suitable alternative among other instructional methods for teaching biology and chemistry in secondary schools. We must however, be careful not to over generalize the findings of this study since the method has the potential of making the completion of content materials listed for a given period to last for a very long time considering the number of stages involved. What the method does say is that contents taught with learning cycle have the potential of being better understood, internalized and retained than when taught with methods where students 260