Advertisement

PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A 5E LEARNING CYCLE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

  • M. Jenice GoldstonEmail author
  • Jeanelle Bland Day
  • Cheryl Sundberg
  • John Dantzler
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe the procedures and the analysis of an instrument designed to measure preservice teachers’ ability to develop appropriate 5E learning cycle lesson plans. The 5E inquiry lesson plan (ILP) rubric is comprised of 12 items with a scoring range of zero to four points per item. Content validity was determined through the expertise of a panel of five science educators. Sixty six preservice teachers enrolled in elementary science methods at three universities prepared lesson plans, which were scored by their instructors using the ILP rubric. Using a Pearson two-tailed correlation, inter-rater reliability was established at a value of 0.83. An exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of construct validity, with three factors. The factors included (1) explore, (2) engage/explain/elaborate, and (3) evaluate. In addition, a secondary analysis revealed the means and standard deviations of the students' performance on each of the phases of the 5E that include: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. The engage item held the highest mean rating, and the evaluation items had the lowest mean ratings. Examination of the instrument's structure in light of the 5E phases is discussed and provides directions for future revisions and research.

Key words

assessment science inquiry lesson planning 5E learning cycle model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkin, J., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? Science Teacher, 29.Google Scholar
  2. Barman, C. R. (1992). An evaluation of the use of a technique designed to assist prospective elementary teachers use of the learning cycle with science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barman, C. R. (1993). The learning cycle: a basic tool for teachers, too. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 11(4), 7–11.Google Scholar
  4. Barman, C., & Shedd, J. (1992). Program designed to introduce K-6 teachers to the learning cycle teaching approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleicher, R. (2009). Variable Relationships among Different Science Learners in Elementary Science-Methods Courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2). 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodzin, A. & Beerer, K. (2003). Promoting Inquiry base science instruction: the validation of the Science Teacher Inquiry Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15, 11. Retrieved on line at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Promoting+inquiry-based+science+instruction%3a+the+validation+of+the...-a0108967578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  8. Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2008). Ten brain/mind learning principles in action: Developing executive functions of the human brain. Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cavalla, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. (2001). Students' science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer, W., & Lopez,V. (2001). Simulations in the learning cycle: A case study involvingExploring the Nardoo.” Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Computing Conference, Chicago. IL.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E Model. The Science Teacher, 70(6) 56–59.Google Scholar
  14. Glasson, G. & Lilik, R. (1993). Reinterpreting the learning cycle from a social constructivist perspective: A qualitative study of teachers’s beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning and teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jinkins, D. (2002). Impact of the implementation of the teaching/learning cycle on teacher decision-making and emergent readers. Reading Psychology, 22(4), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karplus, R. (1979). Teaching for the development of reasoning. In A. Lawson (Ed.), 1980 AETS Yearbook: The Psychology of Teaching for Thinking and Creativity. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.Google Scholar
  18. Karplus, R., & Thier, H. (1967). A New Look at Elementary School Science, New Trends in Curriculum and Instruction Series. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  19. Karplus, R., Collea, F,,Fuller, R., Paldy, L., & Renner, J. (1975). Workshop in physics teaching and the development of reasoning. Presented for the American Association of Physics Teachers.Google Scholar
  20. Karplus, R., Lawson, A., Wollman, W., Appel, M., Bernoff, R., Howe, A., Rusch, J.J., & Sullivan, F. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning: A workshop. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California.Google Scholar
  21. Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  22. Lawson, A., Abraham, M., & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. NARST Monograph, Number One, National Association of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  23. Lederman, N., Wade, P. & Bell, R. (1998) Asssessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies. pp. 331–350. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Lovoie, D. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science learning cycle on high school student's process skills and conceptual understanding of biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1127–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maier, S. J. & Marek, E. A. (2006). The learning cycle: A re-introduction. The Physics Teacher, 44(2), 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marek, E. (Summer, 2008). ASTE invited article: Why the learning cycle? Journal of Elementary Science Education.Google Scholar
  27. Marek, E., & Methven, S. (1992). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marek, E., Eubanks, C. & Gallaher, T. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marek, E., Laubach, T. A., & Pederson, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers’ understandings of theory based science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, (14), 147–159.Google Scholar
  30. Marek, E., Maier, S. & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munsheno, B. & Lawson, A. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Odom, A. & Kelly, P. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Odom, A., & Settlage, J. J. (1996). Teachers’ understandings of the learning cycle as assessed with a two-tier test. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ru Wang, J. & Wen Lin, S. (2008). Examining reflective thinking: A study of changes in methods students' conceptions and understandings of inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Settlage, J. J. (2000). Understanding the Learning Cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tabachnick, B. G & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Usin Multivariate Statistics(5 th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Trowbridge, L., & Bybee, R. (1996). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (6th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs: Merrill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jenice Goldston
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeanelle Bland Day
    • 2
  • Cheryl Sundberg
    • 3
  • John Dantzler
    • 4
  1. 1.The University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Eastern Connecticut State UniversityWilliamaticUSA
  3. 3.Louisiana TechRustonUSA
  4. 4.The University of Alabama-BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations