Effectiveness of 5e-model of Instruction for Scientific Achievement
An Exploration of Age, Cognitive Domain and Ability Level of Students with Hearing Impairment
Abstract
Abstract Views: 152
This study was designed to investigate the effects of 5E Instructions on scientific achievement of students with hearing impairment. Further, it intended to explore the effectiveness of 5E Model with respect to gender, cognitive domain and ability levels of the students. For this purpose, a set of instructions were developed on the basis of 5E Model and a scientific achievement test based on three levels of cognitive domain was constructed. The results of control group and experimental group were analyzed to assess the effectiveness with respect to gender, cognitive domain and ability levels of the students. It was concluded that experimental group significantly performed better
in the post-test on the basis of scores in cognitive domain and ability level.
Downloads
References
Alber, S. R.-M., Sawyer, M. R., & Miller, H. L. (2015). Teaching science to young children with special needs. In Kathy Cabe Trundle, & Saçkes Mesut (Eds.). Research in early childhood science education (pp. 299–324). London: Springer.
Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5e learning cycle model on students understanding of acid-base concepts (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12605747/index.pdf
Akerson, V., & Flanigan, J. (2000). Preparing pre-service teachers to use an interdisciplinary approach to science and language arts instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 345–362.
Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45–51.
Atwood, R. K., & Oldham, B. R. (1985). Teachers' perceptions of mainstreaming in an inquiry oriented elementary science program. Science Education, 69(5), 619–624. DOI: 10.1002/sce.3730690504
Bennington, A. (2004). Science and pre-school children with special educational needs: Aspects of home based teaching sessions. British Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 191–198. DOI: 10.1111/j.0952-3383.2004.00354.x
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1997). BSCS biology: A human approach (1st ed.). Dubuque, IA: Author.
Bloom, J. W. (2006). Creating a classroom community of young scientists. New York: Routledge Press.
Boddy, N., Waston, K., & Aubsson, P. (2003). A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 27–42. Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ r03926m2812212j7/fulltext.pdf
Bolajoko O. (2007). Global burden of childhood hearing impairment and disease control priorities for developing countries. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60602-3
Brigham, F. J., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 223–232.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning science and science of learning: Science educators essay collection. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P., Carlson, J.-P., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Retrieved from: http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138 783c2852572c9004f5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf
Cardak, O., Dikmenli, M., & Saritas, O. (2008). Effect of 5E instructional model in student success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, (9)2. Retrieved from: http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v9_issue2/cardak/
Carreno, B. (2004). Facilitating with “Eeeee’s”. Strides: Toward A Land Ethic, 9(1).
Curran, J. R., & Clark, S. (2003, May). Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. Proceedings of the seventh conference on Natural language learning at HLT-NAACL, 4, 164–167.
Donohue, D., & Borman, J. (2014). The challenges of realizing inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–14.
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essential of Educational Measurement.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Einsenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. The Science teacher, 70(6), 56–59.
Retrieved from: http://www.its-about-time.com/iat/5e.pdf
Engelbrecht, P., Oswald, M., & Forlin, C. (2006). Promoting the implementation of inclusive education in primary schools in South Africa. British Journal of Special Education, 33(3), 121–129.
Evans, C. (2004). Learning with inquiry minds: Students are introduced to the unit on gas laws and properties of gases using the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 71(1), 4.
Fraser, W. J., & Maguvhe, M. O. (2008). Teaching life sciences to blind and visually impaired learners. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 84–89.
Friedl, A. E., & Koontz, T. Y. (2005). Teaching science to children: An inquiry approach (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Company.
Hammerman, E. (2006). Becoming a better science teacher: 8 steps to high quality instruction and student achievement. London: Sage publications.
Hirca, N., Çalik, M., & Seven, S. (2011). Effects of guide materials based on 5E model on students’ conceptual change and their attitudes towards physics: A case for ‘work, power and energy unit.’ Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 153–
Retrieved from: http://www.tused.org/internet/tused/archive/v8/i1/ text/tusedv8i1a8.pdf
Hiroyuki S. (2000). Perspectives of education for children with visual impairment and deaf blindness in Japan. Retrieved from: http://deafblindinternational.org
/Docs/Review%20Archive/Perspective%20of%20Education.pdf
Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2014). Teaching deaf learners: Psychological and developmental foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). The demands of learning science concepts: Issues of theory and practice. In S. Amos & R. Boohan (Eds.). Teaching science in secondary schools. London: Routledge.
Li, D., & Zhang, J. (2009). Chinese deaf adolescents free recall of taxonomic, slot< filler, and thematic categories. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(4), 355– 366.
Linn, M. C., & Thier, H. D. (1975). The effect of experiential science on development of logical thinking in children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(1), 49–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660120108
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Boon, R., & Carter, K. B. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 130–137.
Mayer, C. (2007). What really matters in the early literacy development of deaf children? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(4), 411–431.
McCay V. (2005). Fifty years of research on the intelligence of deaf and hard-of- hearing children: A review of literature and discussion of implications. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 225–231.
McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493–510.
McGrath, A. L., & Hughes, M. T. (2017). Students with learning disabilities in inquiry- based science classrooms: A cross-case analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 31–42. DOI: 10.2307/1510390.
Metz, S. (2014). Science for all. The Science Teacher, 81(4), 6.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35.
Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor environmental education on pre-service teachers' attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9–15.
Noureen, A., & Aziz, R. (2000). A study of interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the institutions of hearing impaired children (Master’s thesis). Lahore: University of the Punjab.
Osborne, R. J. & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. London: Heinemann.
Ozsevgeç, T. (2006). Determining effectiveness of student guiding material based on the 5E model in ‘‘force and motion’’ unit. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 24–27. Retrieved from: http://www.tused.org/internet/tused/archive/V3/ i2/text/tusedv3i2s3.pdf
Qi, S., & Mitchell, R. E. (2012). Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: Past, present, and future. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(1), 1–18.
Ramirez, M., Peek, C.-A. & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Disability and risk of school related injury. BMJ, 10(1), 21–26. DOI: 10.1136/ip.2003.002865
Rammers H. H., Gage, N. L., & Rummel, J. I. (1967).A practical introduction to measurement and evaluation (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Universal Book Stall.
Saka, A., Cerrah, L., Akdeniz, A. R., & Ayas, A. (2006). A cross-age study of the understanding of three genetic concepts: How do they image the gene, DNA and chromosome? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 192–202.
Schoeneberger, M., & Russell, T. (1986). Elementary science as a little added frill: A report of two case studies. Science Education, 70(5), 519–538.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre< service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., & Turnbull, H. R. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131–143.
Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Assessing students learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338–352. Retrieved from: https://www.msu.edu/course/te/407/snapshot.afs/FS05Sec3/te802/files/ForceMo tion.pdf
Wilsin, C., Taylor, J., Kowalski, S., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning and argumentation: A randomized control trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(3), 276–301. Retrieved from: http://www.bscs.org/pdf/ BSCS_SREE_5E_presentation.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
UER follows an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed Copyright and Author Consent Form.
Copyright (c) The Authors
