Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2459–2462

WCES–2011

Effects of the 5E learning model on students’ academic

achievements in movement and force issues
Sibel AçÕúOÕ a*, Sema Altun YalçÕn a, Ümit Turgut b
a
The Faculty of Education, Erzincan University, 24000 Erzincan, Turkey
b
The Faculty of Education, Atatürk University, 25000 Erzurum, Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of student guiding materials on student achievement, using the 5E
learning model. The materials were developed by the researcher, based on the “Movement and Force” unit’s objectives. Quasi-
experimental research design included 60 students (30 experimental, 30 control group). Control group students were given
experiment booklets, which were prepared for each experiment in accordance with the 5E learning model. To determine whether
any differences exist between the two groups’ academic achievements, Achievement Tests on Movement and Force Issues were
applied to the groups, both at the beginning and at the end of the semester as pre- and post-tests. Pre- and post-test results were
compared, using a t-test in SPSS packet program. Results showed a meaningful difference between groups in favor of the
experimental group (t58=5.06; p=.00 < .05).

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Physics education, concepts of movement and force, 5E learning model.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, we have seen rapid changes in science and technology, as well as in the living standards of
communities. Expectations of people have also increased. As life conditions have changed, peoples’ needs and
views of the world are also subject to change. The on-going need for education is obligatory, yet the idea that
changes is possible only through education has not kept pace (AçÕúOÕ, 2010). Nonetheless, new developments are
seen in every field, including some in education. Countries that do attempt to keep pace with the rapidly changing
world are updating their curricula in science education, from the earliest years of primary school to the highest
levels of education. There is much research in Europe and the USA to help students develop new attitudes to science
and to contribute to their achievement in the field, and there are similar studies in Turkey. Turkey’s science
education curriculum was revised in 2004 under new constructivist theories reshaped by the Ministry of National
Education in 2000. This curriculum was constructed within the scope of constructivist theory and has been applied
(Bozdo÷an and Altunçekiç, 2007).
According to Keser (2003), some of the models being used in the education-teaching process with different
transaction steps are based on constructivist learning theory. Examples are the generative model, which was
developed by Wittrock and Ayas and introduced in four phases, as well as the 5E and 7E Models, which examine

* Sibel AçÕúOÕ
E-mail address: sacisli26@hotmail.com

1877–0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.128
2460 Sema Altun Yalçın et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2459–2462

activities in five and seven different steps and use the phases of constructivist teaching by Driver and Oldham
(1986). One of the most useful of these recent models is the 5E Model, developed by Roger Bybee. Bybee is among
the innovators of BSCS (Biological Science Curriculum Study), which consists of five steps (Ergin, KanlÕ and
Ünsal, 2008).
Constructivism is the philosophy of learning that proposes learners need to build their own understanding of new
ideas. Much has been written about constructivism by leaders in the fields of learning theory and cognition. Scholars
such as Jean Piaget, Eleanor Duckworth, George Hein, and Howard Gardener have explored these ideas in depth.
BSCS, lead by Bybee, developed an instructional model for constructivism, called the "Five Es" (Akar, 2005). The
5E Learning Cycle involves learning something new, or attempting to understand something familiar in greater
depth. It is not a linear process. In trying to make sense of things, students use both their prior experience and the
first-hand knowledge gained from new Explorations (Newby, 2004). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model, or the 5Es,
consists of the following phases: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration, and Evaluation. Each phase
has a specific function and contributes to the teacher’s coherent instruction, as well as the learners’ formulation of a
better understanding of scientific and technological knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Bybee, 2006). The first phase,
Engagement, is used to motivate students by creating some mental disequilibrium or tapping into familiar real-life
situations. The interest generated leads students into the second phase, Exploration, in which they use direct
concrete experiences to make observations, collect data, test predictions, and refine hypotheses. This information
enables them to begin answering questions initiated in the Engagement phase. During the Exploration stage, the
teacher facilitates safe, guided or open inquiry experiences and questioning so students might uncover their
misconceptions about the concept. During the third phase, Explanation, the teacher uses students' observations and
data to create a scientific explanation for their results. At this time, appropriate scientific vocabulary is introduced
and is related to the students' experiences. The fourth phase, Elaboration, is designed to give students additional
problems, which allow them to apply their new knowledge, propose solutions, make decisions and/or draw
reasonable conclusions. This is often in the form of another inquiry activity or extension of the Exploration phase.
Finally, the fifth phase, Evaluation, is essential to determine if students obtained a scientifically correct
understanding of the concept and if they were able to generalize to other contexts. This may be done formally or
informally (Wilder and Shuttleworth, 2004).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of student guiding materials on student achievement,
using the 5E learning model. The materials were developed by the researcher, based on the “Movement and Force”
unit’s objectives.

2. Methodology

In this study, pre-test and post-test control group quasi experimental research design was used. Research was
conducted in the 2007-08 academic year, in the students’ first year of studying a General Physics Laboratory I
course (the “Course”) at the department of Science Teaching in KâzÕm Karabekir, Education Faculty, Atatürk
University. Lessons were given in both groups, with two different methods for 7 weeks. Experimental and control
groups were composed of a total of 60 students. Both the experimental and control groups consisted of 30 students,
assigned randomly. The experimental and control group participants were divided into seven groups of 4 or 5
students each. Traditional methods were used in the control group courses, while the 5E learning model was applied
to the experimental group courses. Experimental group students were given the student guiding materials which
were prepared in accordance with the 5E learning model. These student guiding materials were designed to make
students wonder, think, explore and search, to adapt their former knowledge within current contexts, and to test the
accuracy of their knowledge. The experimental group students were under the supervision of the teacher, and used
experiment reports; effects other than traditional methods were not made in the control group.
The instrument of data collection was a multiple choice Movement and Force Achievement Test (MFAT) with 16
items developed by the researchers by considering the related literature. The tests were applied to both experimental
and control group students before and after the experimental application. The data analysis obtained from the
application was done using an SPSS packet program. Scores were compared with each other using a t-test. All the
results were compared at the “0,05” level of significance. It was determined that the statistical reliability coefficient
of the test was 0.76, while the validity of the instrument was raised by the physics education experts’ opinions.
 Sema Altun Yalçın et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2459–2462 2461

3. Results and Discussion

In this part, the data were analyzed. Pre-test and post-test t-test results of the students in the experimental and
control groups for Movement and Force Achievement Test (MFAT) are shown Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Pre-test mean scores of the Experimental and Control Group

Test Group N Щ s sd t p

Control 30 7,43 0,97

MFAT 58 -0,13 0.89
Experimental 30 7,40 1,00

When Table 1 is examined, experimental and control group’s average point values are quite close to each other.
At the end of the t-test analysis for independent groups, according to calculated t value and meaningfulness level
(t(58)=-0,13; p>.05). That is to say, there is not a significant difference between the pre-test average point values of
experimental and control groups.

Table 2. Post-test mean scores of the experimental and control group

Test Group N Щ s sd t p

Control 30 9,70 1,08

MFAT 58 5,06 0.00
Experimental 30 11,13 1,10

When Table 2 is examined, experimental and control group’s average point values are quite different. At the end
of the t-test analysis for independent groups, a meaningful difference between the groups in favor of the
experimental group was detected according to the calculated t value and meaningfulness level (t (58)=5,06; p<.05).
According to Movement and Force Achievement Test post-test average point values, the experimental group was
more successful than traditional methods.
Averages of the pre-test points in both control and experimental groups are similar: the experimental group’s
MFAT average is 7,40 and the control group’s MFAT average is 7,43. There is not a meaningful difference between
the averages of pre-test scores of the groups, and students are considered equal in success in the topics of movement
and force when compared to the beginning of the study. The averages of the post-test points of experimental groups,
11,13 and control groups 9,70. The experimental group has a higher average in the scores than the control group.
Students in the experimental group are more successful than those in the control group. With reference to this, it can
be said that use of the 5E learning model, were more successful than the traditional methods. The positive effect of
5E learning model on students’ understanding was supported by previous studies in the literature. For example,
Boddy et al. (2003); Newby, 2004; Wilder and Shuttleworth, 2004; Evans, 2004; AçÕúOÕ et al. (2009); AçÕúOÕ (2010);
Altun YalçÕn et al. (2010).
As a result of the study, students could discover and learn the main concepts of the Course on their own by
questioning, searching, using primary knowledge, associating with everyday life, arranging testing apparatus, and
testing the experiment on their own. To sum up, this study showed that the 5E learning model is an effective
teaching method.

4. Recommendation
2462 Sema Altun Yalçın et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011) 2459–2462

students’ learning and to their interest in the course. Therefore, it is strongly advised that this constructivist 5E
learning model be applied to the other courses of physics and that materials be prepared in order to measure the
effectiveness of this model. It is also recommended that these models be applied in the courses which pre-service
teachers use not only in their daily life but also in their professional life to improve their top-level critical thinking
skills. Similar studies should be carried out for different science courses to investigate the effectiveness of the 5E
learning model.

References

AçÕúOÕ, S., Turgut, Ü., Altun YalçÕn, S. and Gürbüz, F. (2009). The influence of teaching based on 5e learning model on undergraduates’ skills of
scientific process and their attitudes towards physics laboratory in the electric topics. Bayburt University Education Faculty Journal, Vol: 4,
No: I-II, 80–92.
AçÕúOÕ, S. (2010). The examination of the influence of the materials generated in compliance with 5e learning model on physics laboratory
applications, Ph.D. Thesis, Atatürk University, Graduate School Of Natural And Applied Sciences, Erzurum.
Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5e learning cycle model on students’ understanding of acid-base concepts. MS Thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
Altun YalçÕn, S., AçÕúOÕ, S. and Turgut, Ü. (2010). The effect of five e instructional model on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards
physics laboratory and development of scientific process skills. Kastamonu Education Journal, Vol:18, No:1, 147–158.
Boddy, N., Watson K. and Aubusson P. (2003). A trial of the five e’s: a referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in
Science Education, 33, 27-42.
Bozdo÷an, A.E., ve Altunçekiç, A. (2007). The opinion of pre-service science teachers about the utility of 5e teaching model. Kastamonu
Education Journal, Vol:15 No:2
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A. & Landes, N. (2006). The bscs 5e instructional model: origins
and effectiveness. Office Of Science Education National Institutes Of Health. 1-80.
Ergin, ø., KanlÕ, U And Ünsal, Y. (2008). An example for the effect of 5e model on the academic success and attitude levels of students’:
“inclined projectile motion”. TÜFED-TUSED/ 5(3).
Evans, C. (2004). Learning with inquiring minds. The Science Teacher, 27–30.
Keser, Ö.F. (2003). Designing and implementing a constructivist learning environment for physics education. . PhD Thesis, Karadeniz Technical
University, Trabzon.
Newby, D.E. (2004). Using inquiry to connect young learners to science.
http://www.nationalcharterschols.org/uploads/pdf/resource20040617125804using%20Inguiry.pdf (18.05.2008).
Wilder, M., and Shuttleworth, P. (2004). Cell inquiry: a 5e learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 41(4), ProQuest Education Journals, pg.-37