EFFECTS OF 5E LEARNING CYCLE ON STUDENTS ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY AND

CHEMISTRY

PATRICK, O. AJAJA
Department of Science Education,
Delta State University,
Abraka Nigeria.
Phone Number: 08037230550
E-mail: Osawaruajaja@yahoo.com

URHIEVWEJIRE, OCHUKO ERAVWOKE

Department of Educational Psychology and Curriculum Studies,
Studies, University of Benin
Benin City Nigeria
Phone Number: 08033722774
E-mail: ejiroeravwoke@yahoo.com

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: teachers 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 students 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 post-test scores of
students in the learning cycle group increased over the period of experience; non-significant difference
in Post-test 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.

Introduction
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, 38). 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 good reason to explore 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 and Everett 2007). Continuing, Moyer et al (2007) noted that 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 and 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 and 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 programme developed by the Biological Science
Curriculum Study (Biological Science Curriculum Study, (1992)).
The learning cycle used in this study followed Bybees (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 Smiths work shown in Learning Cycle retrieved from
http//books.com/books? September 6, 2010. The description 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, pre-

assesses the students, helps students make connections, and informs students about where they are
heading.
Evaluations 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 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
6

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 in 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
7

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.
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 but 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 influence 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 and 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 Organiser 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 have 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?
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?

Research Hypothesis.
To further guide this study, the following hypothesis were stated and test ed 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.

10

Ho6: There is no significant difference in estimated retention between students taught with learning
cycle and those taught with lecture method.
METHODOLOGY.
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.
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.

11

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. This they achieved 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
12

KULC of one 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 0.71. 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.

13

(ii)

Treatment Proper
The treatment groups consisted of:
(a)

Experimental group (students taught with learning cycle teaching strategy); and

(b)

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, 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.
That 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 of the lessons
objectives. The students were reminded of what they already know that they need to apply in

14

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. These 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 teaches 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)

explain your answers to others;

(ii)

listen critically to one anothers explanations;

(iii)

questions one anothers explanations;

(iv)

listen to and try to comprehend explanations offered by the teacher;

(v)

refer to previous activities to guide your explanations; and

(vi)

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.

15

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.

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)

apply new definitions, explanations and skills in new but similar situations;

(ii)

use previous information to ask questions, propose solutions, make decisions and design
experiments;

(iii)

draw reasonable conclusions from evidence;

(iv)

record observation and explanations; and

(v)

check the understanding among peers.

In the evaluation of elaboration, the teachers asked exactly the kinds of question that come under
evaluation. The question types are shown under evaluation below.

Evaluation
These kinds of question were asked students by the teachers at the end of the lesson.
(i)

open-ended questions by using observations, evidence, and previously accepted

explanations;

(ii)

demonstrate an understanding of knowledge of the concept of skill;

(iii)

evaluate students own progress and knowledge; and

(iv)

related questions that would encourage future investigation.

At the end of every weeks 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
16

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 answers 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 42
biology and chemistry teachers in Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria. The
responses of the respondents were analyzed with simple percentage.
Results and Discussion.
Results
Table 1 Comparison of Proportions of biology and chemistry teachers on the knowledge that
learning cycle is an instructional method
Subject

No. that knew

% that knew

Biology
Chemistry
Total

23
19
42

7
5
12

30.43
26.31
28.60

17

No. that
know
16
14
30

dont% No. that did

not know
69.60
73.70
71.42

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 73.70 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

No. that use it % that use it

Biology
Chemistry
Total

23
19
42

0
0
0

0
0
0

No. that dont% No. that% that use

use it
dont use it lecture
method
23
100
23
19
100
19
42
100
42

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 Comparison of experiment and control groups on Pre-test, Post-test, follow-up test
scores and estimated retention (in %)
Test type/instructional method
(a) Pre-achievement test

Mean

SD

58

25.00

6.47

54

25.27

6.31

58

48.32

8.81

54

Lecture method
(c) Post achievement test scores of

41.49

9.01

33

46.92

12.41

25

49.91

10.98

58

42.86

6.34

Learning cycle

Lecture method
(b) Post-achievement test

Learning cycle

students in learning cycle

Male

Female
(d) Follow-up achievement test

18

Learning cycle


Lecture method
(e) Estimated retention

54

33.35

6.73

Learning cycle

58

88.72

6.27

Lecture method

54

80.37

6.47

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 0.27. 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 that lecture group by 3.83. 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 2.99. 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 9.51. 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 8.35. 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.
Table 4 t-test summary comparing Pre-test and Post-test scores of students taught with learning
cycle
Test
Pre-test
Post-test
Differences

N
58
58

Mean
25.31
48.32
23.0

SD
1.63
6.74

t-cal value
17.453

Table t-value P
1.671
0.05

Table 4 shows a significant difference in the paired sample test scores of pre and post of students in
learning cycle group (t = 17.453, 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
19

Sum
ofDf
squares

Mean square F

Between groups
Within groups
Total

2.3552
1
4999.544 110
5001.8992 111

2.3552
45.450

0.04232

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 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.
Table 6 ANCOVA summary table comparing post-achievement test scores of learning cycle and
lecture groups with Pre-test as covariate
Source
Groups
Pre-test
Error
Total
Corrected total

Sum
ofDf
squares
1416.073
1
1790.584
1
11289.415 109
240842.556 112
14342.456 111

Mean square F
1416.078
1790.584
103.573

13.663
17.288

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
combination
Test 1
Test 2
Test 1
Test 3
Test 1
Test 4
Test 1
Test 5
Test 1
Test 6
20

Mean

SD

t-cal

58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58

47.00
47.92
47.00
48.86
47.00
49.04
47.00
49.78
47.00
51.43

12.70
13.35
12.74
13.02
12.84
12.36
11.86
12.76
12.51
11.73

1.691

Table-t
1.671

1.71
2.36
2.69
3.74

P 0.05

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 4.43. 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
Pre-test
Sex
Error
Total
Corrected total

Sum
ofDf
squares
2321.312
1
153.424
1
5509.475
55
142759.861 58
7957.309
57

Mean square F
2321.312
153.424
100.172

23.173
1.532

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, 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
Pre-test
Groups
Sex
Group * Sex
Error
Total
Corrected total
21

Sum
ofDf
squares
1895.637
1
1539.548
1
0.049
1
285.484
1
11003.802 107
240842.556 112
14342.456 111

Mean square F
1895.637
1539.548
0.049
285.484
102.839

18.433
14.970
0.00
2.776

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
Learning cycle
Lecture

N
58
54

Mean
88.724
80.370

SD
6.27
6.47

t-cal
11.124

Table-t
1.982

P 0.05

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 = 11.124, 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 todays 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
22

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.
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 first hand 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
23

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
the skillful 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
7th 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. Hiccans 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
different 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.

24

This result may be explained with the fact that the use of the 5E learning cycle in the teaching
biology and chemistry made the understanding and internalization of the concepts taught easier. Pulat
(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 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.

25

The increase in test scores of students over the period of experience may be explained with the
fact that as the period of use 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 males 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. 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.

26

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 confirms the earlier findings of (Nuhoglu & Yalcin, 2006; Ajaja,
1998; Gurumurthy, 1995 & Ajewole, 1990). They all stated that students retained knowledge most
27

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.

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 are
passive. The demand of the National Science Education Standard in selection of science teaching
method include: proper understanding internalization and retention of knowledge of concepts taught
with the method.
The pattern of teacher-student interaction during learning cycle has implications for the
teaching and learning of science in schools. The major purpose of teacher-student interaction during
learning cycle is to promote critical thinking. The exchanges between the teacher and students in the
28

learning cycle classroom focus on guiding students to think for themselves. This implies that science
teachers must model their interactions to enforce collaboration with students, emphasizing proper and
adequate guidance to enable students learn on their own. This therefore means that the 5E learning
cycle model is designed to assist teachers in revealing students preconceptions and misconceptions
and providing the teacher the appropriate opportunity to remove the misconceptions to effect
conceptual change.
Further research into learning cycle could help science educators to understand the following
better:
(i)

What influences students conceptual change in learning cycle class; (ii) the influence of

learning cycle on students attitude towards science; and (iii) teachers sex differentials and use of
learning cycle as an instructional method.

29

References.
Ababio, O.Y. (2008). New School Chemistry for senior secondary schools. Onitsha: Africana First
Publishers Ltd.
Ajaja, O.P. (1998). An evaluation of differential effectiveness of Ausubel, Bruner and Karplus methods
of teaching biology in Nigerian secondary schools. Ph.D Thesis of University of Benin.
Ajewole, G.A. (1990). Effects of guided discovery and expository instructional methods on students
transfer of learning. Journal of STAN, 26 (2): 59 66.
Atkins, J.M. & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29 (5): 45.
Balci, S. (2005). Improving 8th grade students understanding of photosynthesis and respiration in
plants by using 5E learning cycle and conceptual change text. Unpublished Masters Thesis of
Middle East Technical University.
Barman, C.; & Kotar, M. (1989). The learning cycle. Science and Children, 29 (2): 30 32.
Baser, E.T. (2008). Cited in Pulat, S, (2009). Impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students
mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle East Technical
University.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science London: Continuum.
Borich, G. G.D. (2004). Effective teaching method, fifth edition. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall.
BSCS (1992). Science for life and living. Dubugue, IA: Kendall/hunt.
Bybee, R.W. (1997). In Learning
http//books.google.com/books?

cycle

(2010)

Retrieved

September

6,

2010

from

Cakiroglu, J. (2006). The effect of learning cycle approach on students achievement in science.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 22: 61 73.
Campbell, M.A. (2000). The effects of the 5E learning cycle on students understanding of force and
motion concepts. M.Sc Thesis, University of Central Florida.
Cardak, O.; Dikmenli, M. & Santas, O. (2008), Effects of 5E instructional model on students success
in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. Asia-Pacific, Forum on Science Learning and
Teaching, 9 (2): 1 -11.
Ceylan, E. (2008). Effects of 5E learning cycle model on understanding of state of matter and
solubility concept. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis of Middle East University.
Demircioglu, G.; Ozmen, H.; & Demircioglu, H. (2004). In Pulat (2009) Impact of 5E learning cycle
on sixth grade students mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis
of Middle East Technical University.

30

Driver, R.; Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Childrens ideas in Science. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Fielding, M; (1994). Valuing difference in teachers and learners: Building on Kolbs learning styles to
develop a language of teaching and learning. The Curriculum Journal, 5 (3): 393-417.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. London; Further
Education Unit.
Gurumurthy, C; & Gangoli, S.G. (1995). A study of the effectiveness of guided open ended approach
to physics experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 17 (2): 233 241.
Hackett, J.K.; & Moyer, R.H. (1991). Science in your world. New York: Macmillan.
Healey, M. & Jenkings, A. (2000). Learning cycle and learning styles: Kolbs experimental learning
theory and its implications in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99: 185
195.
Hiccan, B. (2008). In Pulat, S. (2009). Impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students
mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle East Technical
University.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, G.B.; & Raven, P.H. (1998). Biology: Principles and exploration. Boston: Holt, Rineheart
and Winston.
Kaynar, D. (2007). The effect of 5E learning cycle approach on sixth grade students understanding of
cell concept, attitude toward science and scientific epistemological beliefs. Unpublished M.Sc
Thesis of Middle East Technical University.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experimental learning experience as the source of learning and development.
Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Lawson, A. (1988). A better way to teach biology. The American Biology Teacher, 50 (5): 266 278.
Learning
Cycle
(2010).
Smiths
http//books.google.om/books?

work.

Retrieved

September

6,

2010

from

Lee, C.A. (2003). A learning cycle inquiry into plant nutrition. The American Biology Teacher, 65 (2):
136 144.
Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental
science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (3): 22 28.
Markow, P.G. & Lonning, R.A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories:
Students Perception and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35 (9):
1016 1029.

31

Moyer, R.H.; Hackett, J.K., & Everett, S.A. (2007). Teaching science as investigation: Modeling
inquiry through learning cycle lessons. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Nuhoglu, H. & Yalcin, N. (2006). The effectiveness of the learning cycle model to increase students
achievement in the physics laboratory. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3 (2): 28 30.
Pulat, S. (2009). Impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students mathematics achievement and
attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle East Technical University.
Renner, J.; Abraham, M; & Birnie, H. (1988). The necessity of each phase of the learning cycle in
teaching high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25 (1): 39 58.
Thorndike, R.L.; & Hagen, E.P. (1997). Measurement and evaluation. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Trowbridge, L.W. & Bybee, R.W. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for
developing scientific literacy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge M.A.: Harvard University Press.
WAEC (2007). Chief examiners report. Lagos: WAEC Press Ltd.
WAEC (2008). Chief examiners report. Lagos: WAEC Press Ltd.
WAEC (2009). Chief examiners report. Lagos: WAEC Press Ltd.
Wilder, M. & Shuttleworth, P. (2004). Cell inquiry: A 5E learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 41
(1): 25 31.
Wiseman, D.C. (1999). Research strategies for education: New York: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

32