You are on page 1of 32

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

PATRICK, O. AJAJA Depar !e" #$ S%&e"%e E'(%a &#", De) a S a e U"&*er+& ,, A-ra.a / N&0er&a. P1#"e N(!-er2 34356753553 E8!a&)2 O+a9ar(a:a:a;,a1##.%#!

URHIEV<EJIRE, OCHUKO ERAV<OKE Depar !e" #$ E'(%a &#"a) P+,%1#)#0, a"' C(rr&%()(! S ('&e+, S ('&e+, U"&*er+& , #$ Be"&" Be"&" C& , / N&0er&a P1#"e N(!-er2 3435567766= E8!a&)2 e:&r#era*9#.e;,a1##.%#!

A-+ ra% . 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 2x2x x! "re#test "ost#test non#e$uivalent control group $uasi experimental design. These included two instructional groups %experimental and control groups&, sex %male and female&, repeated testing %"re, "ost and follow#up tests&, and six wee's of experience. The samples of the study included six senior secondary schools, 112 science students, and 12 biology and chemistry teachers. The instruments used for this study were( teacher)s $uestionnaire on 'nowledge and use of learning cycle %*+,-&. and /iology and -hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T&. The data collected were analy1ed with simple percentage, 0nalysis of -ovariance %02-340& and students t#test statistics. The major findings of the study included( that only 0.5 6 and 2!. 16 of biology and chemistry teachers have the 'nowledge 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 biology7chemistry "ost#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 "ost#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 'nowledge by students taught with learning cycle than those taught with lecture method. 8t 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.

I" r#'(% &#" Ba%.0r#("' #$ 1e S (', 3ver the years, research and curriculum development have shown that effective instruction is much more than the presentation of a concept, process, or s'ills. ,earning is the process whereby 'nowledge is created through transformation of experience %*olb, 19:5, :&. This definition implies that the curricula of school science subjects must be structured and se$uenced, in particular how a session or a whole course may be taught to improve student learning. ;ibbs %19::& noted that individuals differ in their preferred learning styles and recogni1ing 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 recogni1e their own learning styles as a basis for the development of effective teaching and learning strategies %<ealey, = >en'ins 2000&. ,earning may suffer where there is mar'ed mismatch between the style of the learner and the approach of the teacher %?ielding 1995&. @ith 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 %<ealey = >en'ins 2000&. ?or these reasons and particularly the fact that science students in 2igeria 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. 8ndeed given the increased recognition of learning cycle in literature of its efficacy in lesson delivery and students learning within the science education cycle, of recogni1ing 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. ,earning cycle if used as an instructional method for teaching biology and chemistry seems li'e a suitable alternative to lecture method which has dominated the teaching of science in 2igeria with the intention to improve students) achievement.

This widely accepted model of learning and teaching evolved over the past 50 years %Aoyer, <ac'ett and Bverett 200C&. -ontinuing, Aoyer et al %200C& noted that influenced by the wor' of >ean "iaget, "rofessor Dobert *arplus, at the +niversity of -alifornia#/er'eley, began loo'ing at how he might apply cognitive development theory and discovery learning to instructional strategies in elementary science. *arplus and his colleague, >. Ayron 0t'in, with the support of the 2ational Ecience ?oundation, developed a three#phase ,earning -ycle that served as the central teaching7learning strategy in the newly introduced Ecience -urriculum 8mprovement Etudy %E-8E& "rogramme %0t'in = *arplus 19!2&. The three "hases of that learning cycle included( Bxploration, 8nvention and Fiscovery %Trowbridge and /ybee 199!&. ,ater, *arplus referred to them as exploration, concept introduction and concept application %Aoyer et al 200C&. 0lthough other terms have been used for the three original phases, the goals and pedagogy of the phases have remained similar %Trowbridge and /ybee 199!&. The -ycle has evolved through modifications to include additional "hases 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 %/arman = *ofar, 19:9. <ac'ett = Aoyer 1991&. 0 fifth phase, evaluation was incorporated into elementary science programme developed by the /iological Ecience -urriculum Etudy %/iological Ecience -urriculum Etudy, %1992&&. The learning cycle used in this study followed /ybee)s %199C& five steps of Bngagement, Bxploration, Bxplanation, Blaborating and Bvaluation. 0s in any cycle there is really no end to the process. 0s elaboration ends, the engagement of the next learning cycle begins. Bvaluation is not really the last stage. Bvaluation occurs in all four stages of the learning cycle. The description of each phase of the learning cycle is hinged on Emith)s wor' shown in ,earning -ycle retrieved from http77boo's.com7boo'sG Eeptember !, 2010. The description of the events that ta'e place at each stage are shown below(

A.

E"0a0e!e" 2 Bngagement is a time when the teacher is on centre stage. The teacher poses the problem, pre#

assesses the students, helps students ma'e connections, and informs students about where they are heading. Bvaluation)s role in engagement revolves around the pre#assessment. ?ind out what the students already 'now about the topic at hand. The teacher could as' $uestions and have the students respond orally and7or in writing. B. E>p)#ra &#"2 2ow the students are at the centre of the action as they collect data to solve the problem. The teacher ma'es sure the students collect and organi1e 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. 8n 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. E>p)a"a &#"2 8n 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. Bvaluation here focuses on the process the students are using # how well can students use the information they have collected, plus what they already 'new to come up with new ideasG +sing $uestions, the teacher can assess the students) comprehension of the new vocabulary and new concepts.

D.

E)a-#ra &#"2 The teacher gives students new information that extends what they have been learning in the

earlier parts of the learning cycle. 0t 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 thin' of as evaluation. Eometimes teachers e$uate evaluation with Hthe test at the end of the chapterI. @hen teachers have the students do the application problems as part of elaboration, these application problems are Hthe testsI. ,iterature on learning cycle indicates that it rests on constructivism as its theoretical foundation. constructivism is a dynamic and interactive model of how humans learn %/ybee 199C&. 0 constructivist perspective assumes students must be actively involved in their learning and concepts are not transmitted from teacher to student but constructed by the student %2uhuglu = Ja'in 200!&. 2umerous studies have shown that learning cycle as a model of instruction is far superior to transmission models in which students are passive receivers of 'nowledge from their teacher %/ybee 199C&. ?or example Denner, 0braham and /irnie %19:5& examined the effectiveness of altering Hthe se$uence involving engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation of the optimum se$uence for achievement of concept 'nowledge. They found a significant improvement in concept 'nowledge. ,awson %19::& and Friver, ;uesne and Tiberghien %19:5& made important connections between research on student misconception and use of the learning cycle. ,awson suggests that use of the learning cycle provides opportunities for students to reveal prior 'nowledge %particularly their misconception& and opportunities to argue and debate their ideas. This process he noted can result in cognitive dise$uilibrium and the possibility of developing high levels of reasoning. Friver et al %19:5& in their wor' 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 'now K their prior !

understanding %Aoyer, <ac'ett = Bverett 200C&. 8n general, learning cycle as an instructional model, provides the active learning experiences recommended by the 2ational Ecience Bducation Etandards %2ational Desearch -ouncil, 199!&. 0s a curriculum framewor', the learning cycle provides experiences from which learners construct meaning %<uhoglu = Jalcin 200!&. <uhoglu and Jalcin %200!& 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 organi1e the 'nowledge in a meaningful way. 8t was also found to ma'e the 'nowledge long lasting. Etudents became more capable to apply their 'nowledge in other areas outside the original context. "ulat %2009& studied the impact of 5B 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 5B learning cycle. <iccan %200:& in "ulat %2009& reported that the use of 5B learning cycle had statistically significant effect on conceptual and procedural 'nowledge. Etudies by %/aser, 200:. ,ee, 200 . ,ord, 1999. @hilder = Ehuttleworth, 2005& made similar findings. The study by ,ee %200 & found that the students ac$uired 'nowledge about plants in daily life easier and understood the concepts better K when taught with learning cycle. ,iterature on the effect of 5B learning cycle on attitude towards science indicated a general improvement in students attitude when taught with 5B learning cycle. <owever, researches which determined whether attitudinal gains were significant showed mixed reports. @hile some showed attitudinal gain to be significant, others found it not significant. Etudies by %,ord, 1999. @hilder = Ehuttleworth, 2005. -eylan, 200:& found significant differences in attitude gains between the experimental and control groups in favour of the experimental group. ?or example ,ord %1999& compared the effects of 5B learning cycle instruction with the traditional instruction in environmental science. The participants were college undergraduates. 8t was found that while the control group students found the lessons boring, the experimental group students found them interesting and had a C

lot of fun. 0gain @hilder and Ehuttleworth %2005& investigated the effectiveness of 5B learning cycle in the teaching of H-ell 8n$uiryI. 8t was reported that the high school students were motivated by the 5B cycle. Etudy carried out by %*aynor, 200C& on the effect of 5B on attitude towards science indicted that although there were attitude gains by the experimental groups but the gains were not significant. *es'in %200:& in "ulat %2009&, compared the effectiveness of 5B learning cycle class to traditionally designed physics class on simple harmonic motion, simple pendulum concepts and attitudes toward physics on high school students. The obtained results showed that there was an increase in the scores of attitude toward physics. 8t was however. found that there was no statistically significant difference in gained scores of the attitude. ,iterature at our disposal on the effects of 5B learning cycle on retention, length of experience to be ac$uired before its effective use in instruction and test scores variation among students of different sexes are scanty and limited. <owever, some showed how learning cycle influence some of the variables. ?or example, studies by 0jaja %199:& and 2uhoglu and Jalcin %200!& found that learning cycle enhanced retention of Ecience 'nowledge. Epecially, 2uhoglu and Jalcin% 200!& stated that learning cycle achieves to ma'e 'nowledge long lasting. They further stated that students become more capable to apply their 'nowledge in other areas outside the original context. 3n the length of experience to be ac$uired before learning cycle as an instructional model can significantly affect students test scores in science, the study carried out by 0jaja %199:& threw more light on the issue. 0jaja %199:& compared the effectiveness of three instructional strategies %0usubelLs 0dvance organi1er, /runerLs Fiscovery approach and *arplusL invention lesson& in the teaching of secondary school biology. The data collected showed that the initial test scores of students in the 0dvance 3rgani1er class was higher than those in 8nvention and Fiscovery classes. /ut as the period of experience with the methods increased, students in the 8nvention class outscored all the students in

0dvance 3rganiser and Fiscovery classes. 8t should be noted that *arplus 8nvention lesson is a hybrid of 0usubelLs expository and /runerLs discovery approaches now called learning cycle. ,iterature on science education methods in 2igeria indicates that studies on learning cycle are scanty and scarce. This implies that there is a general poor 'nowledge 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 re$uires a very urgent fill in our 'nowledge of learning cycle and its use in science teaching. The purpose of this study therefore was to ma'e available and deepen science teacher educators) and secondary school science teachers) 'nowledge on the process of learning cycle and also to determine its effectiveness when used for teaching concepts in biology and chemistry. S a e!e" #$ Pr#-)e!. 3ver the years, the teaching of science and particularly /iology and -hemistry 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 %@0B-, 200C, 200: = 2009&. This development in a way indicates an instructional method failure and ineffectiveness. "ersonal interactions of researchers with biology and chemistry teachers showed a near empty 'nowledge 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 'nowledge of the procedures involved in its use and demonstrate its superiority over the current method used for teaching chemistry and biology in schoolsG Re+ear%1 ?(e+ &#"+. To guide this study, the following research $uestions were raised(

@hat proportion of science teachers have 'nowledge of learning cycle as an instructional methodG

@hat proportion of biology and chemistry teachers use learning cycle as an instructional methodG 8s there any effect of the use of learning cycle on students achievement in biology and chemistryG

8s there any difference in achievement test scores between biology and chemistry students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture methodG

8s there any difference in achievement test scores between males and females taught with learning cycleG

8s there any difference in retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture methodG

8s there any interaction effect between sex and method on achievementG

Re+ear%1 H,p# 1e+&+. To further guide this study, the following hypothesis were stated and test ed at 0.05 level of significance. H#@2 There is no significant effect of learning cycle on achievement. H#72 There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method. H#52 There is no significant difference in achievement test scores of students taught with learning cycle over period of experience. H#=2 There is no significant difference in achievement test scores between males and females taught with learning cycle. H#52 There is no significant interaction effect between method and sex on achievement.

10

H#A2 There is no significant difference in estimated retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method. METHODOLOGY. De+&0" #$ 1e S (',. The study employed a 2x2x x! "re#test "ost#test none$uivalent control group $uasi experimental design. This design consisted of two instructional groups %learning cycle group and lecture group&, two sexes %male and female&, repeated testing %"re#test, "ost#test and follow#up test& and six wee's of experience %@'s 1,2, ,5,5=!&. The independent variable was exposure to learning cycle teaching strategy while the dependent variable was achievement test score. The intervening variables included sex and period of experience with the use of learning cycle. P#p()a &#" a"' Sa!p)e+ #$ 1e S (', The populations of study consisted of 19 senior secondary schools in Bthiope Bast ,ocal ;overnment 0rea of Felta Etate, 2igeria, 1500 science students, and 52 biology and chemistry teachers. ?rom these populations, ! senior secondary schools, ! intact EE 88 science classes and 12 biology and chemistry %! chemistry, and ! 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 ! sampled classes was 112. 3f the ! 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&. Eix experienced graduate % biology and chemistry& teachers taught the experimental group while chemistry& teachers taught the control group. To

another six experienced graduates % biology and

control for teacher effect, the teachers were matched with $ualification and years of experience in biology K chemistry teaching. 0ll the science teachers used for the study had C years of teaching experience and were all trained teachers.

11

I"+ r(!e" +. Three main instruments were used for the study. They included( %i& Two six#wee' instructional units, one for biology and the other for chemistry. %ii& Teacher $uestionnaire on 'nowledge and use of learning cycle %*+,-& and %iii& /iology and

-hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T&. The six#wee' instructional unit for biology covered contents in the following topics( flower structure, pollination of flower, fruits and vegetables, fruit and seeds disposal, s'eleton and its plan and comparing s'eletons. ?or chemistry, the six wee' instructional unit covered contents in( <ydrogen, 3xygen and -hlorine. The teacher $uestionnaire called 'nowledge and use of learning cycle %*+,-& was structured on a four point ,i'ert scale of. Etrongly 0gree %E0&, 0gree %0&, Fisagree %F& and Etrongly Fisagree %EF&. *+,- consisted of items that centered on 'nowledge, use and problems associated with learning cycle as an instructional method. The /iology and -hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T& consisted of 100 test items in two sections. section 0 for biology and section / for chemistry. 0ll the test items were drawn from the contents in the six#wee' instructional units for biology and chemistry. The validities of the *+,- $uestionnaire and /-0T were determined by a "anel of 5 judges which consisted of( one Ecience educator, one biology teacher, one chemistry teacher and one measurement and evaluation expert. ?or the *+,- $uestionnaire, the judges determined if the content of the $uestionnaire will generate data to answer research $uestions 1 and 2. They finally confirmed the ability of the instrument to generate data to answer the $uestions. ?or the /iology and -hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T& 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. Deliability of the *+,- 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

*+,- of one of the 12 biology7chemistry teachers used. This was followed by pooling together the responses of the 12 respondents and applying inter rater reliability formula. The -orrelation -oefficient of 0.C was found and thus the instrument adjudged as being reliable. The reliability of the /iology#-hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T& was determined by administering the test instrument to thirty % 0& students of 8me#obi Eenior Eecondary Echool, 0gbor offering biology and chemistry. These students were not part of the study. 0pplying *uder#Dichardson %*D#20& in the analysis of the test scores, the reliability of the instrument was found to be 0.C1. This confirmed the instrument as being reliable based on the established standard %>ohnson = -hristensen, 2000. @iseman, 1999. Thorndi'e, 199C. /orich 2005& that any instrument with a reliability index of 0.C and above is adjudged as being reliable. Trea !e" Pr#%e'(re. %i& Tra&"&"0 #$ I"+ r(% #r+. The biology and chemistry teachers used for teaching the experimental group were trained on the s'ills 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. 3n the second day, the teachers were trained using the training manuals developed by the researchers. one for chemistry and the other for biology. 0t this point the teachers were divided into two. biology teachers being under the guidance of the biology researcher while the chemistry teachers came under the guidance of the chemistry researcher. The teacher training manual specifically defined the stages involved in learning cycle format and the specific roles teachers and students play in each stage. The third and fourth days were spent on practice and generation of ideas on how to apply learning cycle in the teaching of the selected concepts. The training came to an end when the researchers were convinced that the biology and chemistry teachers can apply the strategy in teaching.

%ii&

Trea !e" Pr#per The treatment groups consisted of( %a %b Bxperimental group %students taught with learning cycle teaching strategy&. and -ontrol group %students taught with lecture method&.

0 wee' before the commencement of treatment, all the biology and chemistry teachers received extracts which contained the contents in the six#wee' instructional units for biology and chemistry. The extracts for biology contents were ta'en from /iology( "rinciple and Bxploration by >honson and Daven %199:&, while those for chemistry were ta'en from 2ew Echool -hemistry by 0babio %200:&. The biology and chemistry teachers in the experiment group also received well prepared lesson notes on the six#wee' 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 Bngagement, Bxploration, Bxplanation, Bxtension and Bvaluation 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 e$uivalence of the groups before treatment. This involved the use of 100 items /iology#-hemistry 0chievement Test %/-0T&. 3n treatment, for the control group, each and all the contents in the six#wee' 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. 8n the experimental classroom where learning cycle was used for instruction the teachers performed the following activities applying Trowbridge and /ybee %199!& format at the various stages( . E"0a0e!e" . That teachers posed problems to get the students attention. This was followed by pre#assessing students prior 'nowledge on the topics. They went ahead to inform students of the lessons objectives. The students were reminded of what they already 'now that they need to apply in 15

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 as'ed specific $uestions on the topics at hand to determine their prior 'nowledge. These the students answered orally. . E>p)#ra &#" The purpose of exploration is to have students collect data that they can use to solve the problems that were posed. The teachers specifically as'ed the students to do the following( %i& Thin' 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 as'ed themselves the following $uestions in their minds( %i& <ow well are the data being collected by studentsG %ii& 0re the procedures being carried out correctlyG %iii& <ow are the collected data being recordedG %iv& 8s it orderlyG . E>p)a"a &#" The teachers engaged the students in discussion and as'ed them to do the following at the explanation stage( %i %ii %iii %iv %v %vi explain your answers to others. listen critically to one another)s explanations. $uestions one another)s explanations. listen to and try to comprehend explanations offered by the teacher. refer to previous activities to guide your explanations. and use recorded observations in explanation. The teachers at this stage introduced new vocabulary, phrases, or sentences to label what the students have already found out K and guide them to arrive at correct conclusions.

15

To evaluate explanation, the teachers as'ed the students $uestions on the process of data collection and use of the data in explanation and arriving at conclusions. The teachers also as'ed students $uestions on the introduced terms to determine their comprehension. . E)a-#ra &#" The teachers gave students new information that extended what they have been learning in the earlier parts of the learning cycle. The $uestions raised at this level enabled the students to do the following( %i %ii apply new definitions, explanations and s'ills in new but similar situations. use previous information to as' $uestions, propose solutions, ma'e decisions and design experiments. %iii %iv %v draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. record observation and explanations. and chec' the understanding among peers.

8n the evaluation of elaboration, the teachers as'ed exactly the 'inds of $uestion that come under evaluation. The $uestion types are shown under evaluation below. . E*a)(a &#" These 'inds of $uestion were as'ed students by the teachers at the end of the lesson. %i open#ended $uestions by using observations, evidence, and previously accepted explanations. %ii %iii %iv demonstrate an understanding of 'nowledge of the concept of s'ill. evaluate students own progress and 'nowledge. and related $uestions that would encourage future investigation.

0t the end of every wee')s instruction a post#achievement test of 1: 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 wee's of instruction to present a single test score. Two e$uivalent 1!

forms %identical $uestions and different response order& of each test were constructed to avoid the possibility that the students in the experimental group would benefit from tal'ing with students in the control group. This agreed with the recommendation of Aar'ow and ,enning %199:&. They noted that the intent of alternative test forms was to discourage intentional cheating by sharing answers 'eys. 0t the end of six wee's after posts test, a delayed post#test with the 100 items /iology#-hemistry 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 biology7chemistry 'nowledge. Two statistics were used for the analysis of the collected data. 0nalysis of -ovariance %02-340& was used to test for significant differences between achievement test score means for the control and the experimental groups. ?or 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 'nowledge of learning cycle as an instructional strategy and its use in teaching biology and chemistry were collected with teachers 'nowledge and +se of ,earning -ycle %*+,-& $uestionnaire. The researchers personally administered the $uestionnaire among the 52 biology and chemistry teachers in Bthiope Bast ,ocal ;overnment 0rea of Felta Etate, 2igeria. The responses of the respondents were analy1ed with simple percentage. Re+() + a"' D&+%(++&#". Re+() + Ta-)e @ C#!par&+#" #$ Pr#p#r &#"+ #$ -&#)#0, a"' %1e!&+ r, ea%1er+ #" 1e ."#9)e'0e 1a )ear"&"0 %,%)e &+ a" &"+ r(% &#"a) !e 1#' S(-:e% /iology -hemistry Total N 2 19 52 N#. 1a ."e9 C 5 12 B 1a ."e9 0.5 2!. 1 2:.!0 N#. 1a ."#9 1! 15 0 '#" B N#. 1a '&' "# ."#9 !9.!0 C .C0 C1.52

1C

Table 1 shows that of the 2 biology teachers who responded to the $uestionnaire, 0.5 6 indicated that they have the 'nowledge that learning cycle is a teaching method while !9.!06 indicated that they did not 'now learning cycle to be a teaching method. ?or the chemistry teachers, 2!. 16 of them agreed that they 'new that learning cycle is a teaching method while C .C0 did not 'now that it is a teaching method. Ta-)e 7 C#!par&+#" #$ pr#p#r &#"+ #$ -&#)#0, a"' %1e!&+ r, ea%1er+ 91# (+e )ear"&"0 %,%)e a+ a" &"+ r(% &#"a) !e 1#' S(-:e% /iology -hemistry Total N 2 19 52 N#. 1a (+e B 1a (+e & & 0 0 0 0 0 0 N#. 1a '#" (+e & 2 19 52 B N#. 1a '#" (+e & 100 100 100 B 1a (+e )e% (re !e 1#' 2 19 52

Table 2 shows that none of the biology and chemistry teachers in Bthiope Bast ,ocal ;overnment 0rea ma'e use of learning cycle as an instructional method. 3f all the 2 biology and 19 chemistry teachers sampled, none of them used learning cycle as an instructional method. Ta-)e 5 C#!par&+#" #$ e>per&!e" a"' %#" r#) 0r#(p+ #" Pre8 e+ , P#+ 8 e+ , $#))#98(p e+ +%#re+ a"' e+ &!a e' re e" &#" C&" BD Te+ ,peE&"+ r(% &#"a) !e 1#' %a& "re#achievement test . ,earning cycle . ,ecture method %b& "ost#achievement test . ,earning cycle N 5: 55 5: Mea" 25.00 25.2C 5:. 2 51.59 SD !.5C !. 1 :.:1 9.01

. ,ecture method 55 %c& "ost achievement test scores of students in learning cycle . Aale 25 5: 55

5!.92 59.91 52.:! . 5

12.51 10.9: !. 5 !.C

. ?emale %d& ?ollow#up achievement test . . 1: ,earning cycle ,ecture method

%e& Bstimated retention . . Table ,earning cycle ,ecture method 5: 55 ::.C2 :0. C !.2C !.5C

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 0.2C. The table did not however show whether the difference was significant. 3n post achievement test scores, the table shows that the learning cycle group scored more mar's that lecture group by .: . The table again did not show if the difference was significant. 3n post achievement test scores of male and female students in learning cycle group, the table shows that the female students scored more mar's than the males by 2.99. 0gain the table did not show if the difference was significant. 3n follow#up achievement test score, the learning cycle group scored more mar's than the lecture group by 9.51. The table did not again show if the difference was significant. 3n estimated retention, the learning cycle group retained more 'nowledge than the lecture group by :. 5. 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. Ta-)e = 8 e+ +(!!ar, %#!par&"0 Pre8 e+ a"' P#+ 8 e+ +%#re+ #$ + ('e" + a(01 9& 1 )ear"&"0 %,%)e Te+ "re#test "ost#test Fifferences N 5: 5: Mea" 25. 1 5:. 2 2 .0 SD 1.! !.C5 8%a) *a)(e 1C.55 Ta-)e *a)(e 1.!C1 8 P 0.05

Table 5 shows a significant difference in the paired sample test scores of pre and post of students in learning cycle group %t M 1C.55 , "N0.05&. @ith this result, <o(1 was rejected because there was a significant effect of learning cycle on achievement. Ta-)e 5 ANOVA +(!!ar, a-)e %#!par&"0 pre8a%1&e*e!e" )e% (re 0r#(p+ S#(r%e S(! #$ D$ +F(are+ Mea" +F(are F e+ +%#re+ #$ )ear"&"0 %,%)e a"'

19

/etween groups @ithin groups Total

2. 552 5999.555 5001.:99 2

1 110 111

2. 552 55.550

0.052 2

Table 5 shows a non#significant difference in pre#test scores between students in learning cycle and control groups. This result proved the e$uivalence of the subjects in the two groups before treatment. This therefore means that any difference found after treatment is as result of the treatment. 02-340 was found to be appropriate to compare the "ost achievement test scores of the experimental and control groups. The 02-340 summary table is shown in table ! below. Ta-)e A ANCOVA +(!!ar, a-)e %#!par&"0 p#+ 8a%1&e*e!e" e+ +%#re+ #$ )ear"&"0 %,%)e a"' )e% (re 0r#(p+ 9& 1 Pre8 e+ a+ %#*ar&a e S#(r%e ;roups "re#test Brror Total -orrected total Table ! shows a significant difference in "ost achievement test scores between the students in learning cycle group and those in lecture group %1 .!! , "N0.05&. @ith this result, <o(2 was rejected because there was a significant difference in the "ost achievement test scores. Ta-)e 6 8 e+ a"a),+&+ %#!par&"0 !ea" #$ e+ +%#re+2 @*+7, @*+5, @*+=, @*+5 a"' @*+A #$ + ('e" + &" )ear"&"0 %,%)e 0r#(p Te+ %#!-&"a &#" Test 1 20 N 5: Mea" 5C.00 SD 12.C0 8%a) 1.!91 Ta-)e8 P 3.35 S(! #$ +F(are+ 151!.0C 1C90.5:5 112:9.515 250:52.55 ! 15 52.55! D$ 1 1 109 112 111 Mea" +F(are 151!.0C: 1C90.5:5 10 .5C F 1 .!! 1C.2::

Test 2 Test 1 Test Test 1 Test 5 Test 1 Test 5 Test 1 Test !

5: 5: 5: 5: 5: 5: 5: 5: 5:

5C.92 5C.00 5:.:! 5C.00 59.05 5C.00 59.C: 5C.00 51.5

1 . 5 12.C5 1 .02 12.:5 12. ! 11.:! 12.C! 12.51 11.C

1.!C1 1.C1 2. ! 2.!9 .C5

Table C shows a gradual and steady increase in mean test scores of students in learning cycle classroom over period of experience. /etween wee' 1 and wee' !, the mean test score of students in learning cycle classroom, increased by 5.5 . The t#test analysis of paired samples( tests 1vs2, 1vs , 1vs5, 1vs5 and 1vs! indicated significant differences. @ith this result, <o( was rejected because there was a significant increase in students test scores over period of experience.

Ta-)e 4 ANCOVA +(!!ar, a-)e #" P#+ 8a%1&e*e!e" e+ +%#re %#!par&"0 !a)e a"' $e!a)e -&#)#0,E%1e!&+ r, + ('e" + a(01 9& 1 )ear"&"0 %,%)e 9& 1 Pre8 e+ a+ %#*ar&a e S#(r%e "re#test Eex Brror Total -orrected total 0 non#significant difference was found in the "ost achievement test scores between male and female students in the learning cycle classroom %1.5 2, "O0.05& as shown in table :. @ith this result, <o(5 was retained because there was really no significant difference in "ost achievement test scores between male and female students taught with learning cycle. 21 S(! #$ +F(are+ 2 21. 12 15 .525 5509.5C5 152C59.:! 1 C95C. 09 D$ 1 1 55 5: 5C Mea" +F(are 2 21. 12 15 .525 100.1C2 F 2 .1C 1.5 2

Ta-)e G ANCOVA +(!!ar, a-)e #$ &" era% &#" e$$e% -e 9ee" !e 1#' a"' +e> #" p#+ a%1&e*e!e" S#(r%e "re#test ;roups Eex ;roup Eex Brror Total -orrected total S(! #$ +F(are+ 1:95.! C 15 9.55: 0.059 2:5.5:5 1100 .:02 250:52.55 ! 15 52.55! D$ 1 1 1 1 10C 112 111 Mea" +F(are 1:95.! C 15 9.55: 0.059 2:5.5:5 102.: 9 F 1:.5 15.9C0 0.00 2.CC!

Ehown in table 9, a non#significant interaction effect was found between method and sex on achievement %2.CC!, "O0.05&. @ith this result, <o(5 was therefore retained because the method of instruction and sex did not interact to influence students) test scores.

Ta-)e @3 8 e+ a"a),+&+ %#!par&"0 e+ &!a e' re e" &#" &" per%e" a0e -e 9ee" + ('e" + &" )ear"&"0 %,%)e a"' )e% (re %)a++r##!+. Gr#(p ,earning cycle ,ecture N 5: 55 Mea" ::.C25 :0. C0 SD !.2C !.5C 8%a) 11.125 Ta-)e8 1.9:2 P 3.35

Ehown in table 10, a significant difference was found in estimated retention between students taught with learning cycle and those taught with lecture method %t M 11.125, "N0.05&. @ith this result, <o(! 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 'nowledge of the concepts taught than those taught with lecture method. D&+%(++&#".

22

3ur experiences in the teaching of secondary school science, has indicated the need for a different 'ind of method as a substitute for the ones used now. This is hinged on the persistent poor performances of students in school science subjects %@0B-, 200C, 200: = 2009&. 8t is our desire to ma'e students to experience in$uiring#based science as recommended in the 2ational -urriculum for Eenior Eecondary Echools through an approach that integrates science content and pedagogy in a manner consistent with in$uiring. Aany of today)s methods adopted for teaching science in our schools are best suited for teaching liberal arts and social science subjects, not for subjects that teach in$uiry by having student experience in$uiring. Aodeling science teaching through learning cycle lessons, suggest active participation of students in teaching learning process which results in the creation of 'nowledge by students themselves. The science teacher who uses this method merely acts as a facilitator rather than a dispenser of 'nowledge. 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 'nowledge organi1ation 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. Eecond, they learnt science content that supports their need to understand the science concepts that they will teach %Aoyer et al 200C&. Third, they experienced in$uiry Kbased 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. 2one 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 'nowledge that learning cycle is an instructional method for teaching science. ?or example, table 1 shows that !9.!06 biology and C . 06 chemistry teachers sampled lac' 'nowledge of the use 2

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 lac' of detailed 'nowledge of the procedure for its use in instruction by those who claimed that they 'new it as an instructional method. The teachers who 'new about it may not have been taught how to use it and so could not use it for teaching. Aoyer et al %200C& noted that people tend to teach in the same way that they were taught. The comparison of "re#test and "ost#test scores of students taught with learning cycle indicated a significant difference. This means that the method had a significant effect on students achievement in biology and chemistry. This result may be explained with the active participation of students at every stage of the instructional model. This therefore means that the difference between the "re#test and "ost#test scores was not due to chance but as a result of treatment. The treatment that gave the result the s'illful 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) thin'ing and learning. This agrees with the finding of 4ygots'y %19C:& that learning is facilitated by social interaction with more sophisticated individuals that provide guidance during the learning process. ?rom the wor' of 4ygots'y, it can be deduced that guidance provided by the biology and chemistry teachers during instruction may have influenced the conceptual understanding of the students K which resulted in their better achievement. This also agrees with the finding of <iccan %200:&. 8n her study she examined the influence of 5B learning cycle on the Cth grade students) achievement in linear e$uation with one variable. Ehe found that in the 5B learning cycle group, the pre and post achievement scores were significantly different. <iccan)s wor' also revealed that 5B learning cycle had a statistically significant effect on conceptual and procedural 'nowledge. 3ne 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 %/aser, 200:. 2uhoglu = Jalcin, 200!. -a'iroglu, 200!. -arada', Fi'menli = Earitas 200:. @hilder = Ehuttleworth, 2005. ,ee, 200 . /alci, 25

2005. ,ord, 1999&. Epecifically -arda', Fi'menli and Earitas %200:& investigated the effect of 5B learning cycle on sixth grade students) achievement studying the circulatory system unit. @hile the experimental and control groups were the same at first, after implementation, there was an important different in favour of the experimental group. 0gain Femircioglu, 31men and Femircioglu %2005& used 5B learning cycle instructional model to teach the topic H?actors 0ffecting the Eolubility B$uilibriumI in ,ycee#2 chemistry curriculum. 8t was found that the experimental group students scored significantly higher achievement test mar's than the control group. This result may be explained with the fact that the use of the 5B learning cycle in the teaching biology and chemistry made the understanding and internali1ation of the concepts taught easier. "ulat %2009& stated that in the activities based on the 5B learning cycle se$uence, 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 ma'e them discover the topic and create a situation of Hneed to 'nowI setting the phase for explanation phase. -ontinuing, "ulat %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 'nowledge and s'ill in the phase of evaluation. 8n this way, the students were engaged in more meaningful and permanent learning. This indeed may have produced the result. 0nother major finding of this study was the significant difference in "ost#test scores as period of experience in the use of the method increased. Table C showed a steady and consistent increase in "ost#test scores averaged wee'ly of students in learning cycle classroom. Etudents t#test comparison of test scores of test 1 and tests 2, , 5, 5 and ! indicated significant differences in "ost Ktest scores between test 1 and tests 2, , 5, 5, and !. The noticed significant difference among the wee'ly averaged "ost#test scores of wee's 1 K ! in consistent with the findings of 0jaja %199:& and -ampbell %2000&. 0jaja %199:& determined the effects of 0dvance 3rgani1er, Fiscovery and 8nvention methods of teaching biology on students achievement. 3ne of the findings of the study was that the 25

achievement test scores of the students taught with invention method increased as the period of experience with the method increased. -ampbell %2000& investigated the fifth grade students) understanding of force and motion concepts through the use of the 5B learning cycle. Etudents participated in investigations about force and motion concepts wee'ly for a period of 15 wee's. ?indings showed that students 'nowledge about force and motion concepts increased over the period of study. The increase in test scores of students over the period of experience may be explained with the fact that as the period of use the method increased, students ac$uired more s'ills and competences re$uired for the use of the method to cause learning. This may have been responsible for the steady and consistent increase in students "ost test scores over period of experience. This increase will however, stabili1e at a climax when all the s'ills necessary for its use have been mastered and internali1ed by the students. This explanation agrees with the findings of %Bgelston, 19C2 = ,ahnston, 19C & discussed by 0jaja %199:& that the initial low scores of students in the invention class was due to the unfamiliarity and difficulty of the learning tas'. ?or a difficult tas', if the rule is overlearned and ade$uately revised at subse$uent times the initial setbac' experienced by students will have disappeared over a period of few wee's. The study found a non#significant difference in "ost 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. /y definition, if one group changes in a similar amount as another group, there will be no significant difference between them. @hat 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. 2!

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. 3nce the students began wor', the teachers acted as facilitators providing guidance and detailed explanations to students when answers they provided were not very correct. The finding of non#significant difference in "ost#test scores between male and female /iology and chemistry students contradicts earlier studies on influence of sex on science achievement. ?or example /ennett %200 & 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 see'ing for solution. The adoption of learning cycle as a strategy for teaching all school science considering its potential to influence all sexes e$ually may provide the solution to the problem of underachievement found among male students. 0lthough non#significant interaction effect was found between method and sex on achievement, but table indicates that female students in learning cycle group scored more mar's than

the males. The difference between the two sets of scores was not wide enough to give a significant difference. The non Ksignificant 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 e$uivalent before treatment, it will be difficult to establish a significant difference in the post#test scores when the conditions in learning cycle classrooms were the same for all sexes. The second reason is that it may be that the teachers who taught the learning cycle group taught very well that all the students understood what was re$uired of

2C

them their sexes notwithstanding. 0ll students actively participated in all the phases of the learning cycle. The finding of higher retention of biology and chemistry 'nowledge by students taught with learning cycle than those taught with lecture method can be li'ened to the findings of other researchers in the past. The findings therefore confirms the earlier findings of %2uhoglu = Jalcin, 200!. 0jaja, 199:. ;urumurthy, 1995 = 0jewole, 1990&. They all stated that students retained 'nowledge most when they are taught with methods which involved them actively. 0jaja %199:& while explaining the high level of retention found among the invention group li'e 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 'nowledge is the main determinant of student achievement in science.

C#"%)(+&#". 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 'nowledge. @ith the strong empirical support for it and the fact that it facilitates students to learn effectively and organi1e 'nowledge in a meaningful way, its ability to ma'e 'nowledge ac$uired to be long lasting and not discriminating of sex ma'es it a suitable alternative among other instructional methods for teaching biology and chemistry in secondary schools. @e must however, be careful not to over generali1e the findings of this study since the method has the potential of ma'ing the completion of content materials listed for a given period to last for a very long time considering the number of stages involved. @hat the method does say is that contents taught with learning cycle have the potential of being better understood, internali1ed and retained than when taught with methods where students are 2:

passive. The demand of the 2ational Ecience Bducation Etandard in selection of science teaching method include( proper understanding internali1ation and retention of 'nowledge 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 thin'ing. The exchanges between the teacher and students in the learning cycle classroom focus on guiding students to thin' for themselves. This implies that science teachers must model their interactions to enforce collaboration with students, emphasi1ing proper and ade$uate guidance to enable students learn on their own. This therefore means that the 5B 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. ?urther research into learning cycle could help science educators to understand the following better( %i& @hat 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

Re$ere"%e+. 0babio, 3.J. %200:&. New School Chemistry for senior secondary schools. 3nitsha( 0fricana ?irst "ublishers ,td. 0jaja, 3.". %199:&. 0n evaluation of differential effectiveness of 0usubel, /runer and *arplus methods of teaching biology in 2igerian secondary schools. Ph.D Thesis of University of Benin. 0jewole, ;.0. %1990&. Bffects of guided discovery and expository instructional methods on students transfer of learning. Journal of STAN, 2! %2&( 59 K !!. 0t'ins, >.A. = *arplus, D. %19!2&. Fiscovery or inventionG The Science Teacher, 29 %5&( 55. /alci, E. %2005&. 8mproving :th grade students) understanding of photosynthesis and respiration in plants by using 5B learning cycle and conceptual change text. +npublished Master s Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. /arman, -.. = *otar, A. %19:9&. The learning cycle. Science and Children, 29 %2&( 0 K 2. /aser, B.T. %200:&. -ited in "ulat, E, %2009&. 8mpact of 5B learning cycle on sixth grade students) mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. /ennett, >. %200 &. Teachin" and learnin" science #ondon$ -ontinuum. /orich, ;. ;.F. %2005&. !ffective teachin" method% fifth edition. 2ew >ersey( "earson Aerrill "rentice <all. /E-E %1992&. Ecience for life and living. Fubugue, 80( *endall7hunt. /ybee, D.@. %199C&. 8n ,earning http77boo's.google.com7boo'sG cycle %2010& Detrieved Eeptember !, 2010 from

-a'iroglu, >. %200!&. The effect of learning cycle approach on students) achievement in science. !urasian Journal of !ducational &esearch% 22( !1 K C . -ampbell, A.0. %2000&. The effects of the 5B learning cycle on students) understanding of force and motion concepts. M.Sc Thesis% University of Central 'lorida. -arda', 3.. Fi'menli, A. = Eantas, 3. %200:&, Bffects of 5B instructional model on students success in primary school !th year circulatory system topic. Asia(Pacific% 'orum on Science #earnin" and Teachin", 9 %2&( 1 #11. -eylan, B. %200:&. Bffects of 5B learning cycle model on understanding of state of matter and solubility concept. +npublished Ph.D Thesis of Middle !ast University. Femircioglu, ;.. 31men, <.. = Femircioglu, <. %2005&. 8n "ulat %2009& 8mpact of 5B learning cycle on sixth grade students) mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. 0

Friver, D.. ;uesne, B. = Tiberghien, 0. %19:5&. Children s ideas in Science. "hiladelphia( 3pen +niversity "ress. ?ielding, A. %1995&. 4aluing difference in teachers and learners( /uilding on *olb)s learning styles to develop a language of teaching and learning. The Curriculum Journal% 5 % &( 9 #51C. ;ibbs, ;. %19::&. #earnin" )y doin"( A "uide to teachin" and learnin" methods. ,ondon. ?urther Bducation +nit. ;urumurthy, -. = ;angoli, E.;. %1995&. 0 study of the effectiveness of guided open ended approach to physics experiments. *nternational Journal of Science !ducation, 1C %2&( 2 K 251. <ac'ett, >.*.. = Aoyer, D.<. %1991&. Science in your world. 2ew Jor'( Aacmillan. <ealey, A. = >en'ings, 0. %2000&. ,earning cycle and learning styles( *olb)s experimental learning theory and its implications in geography in higher education. Journal of +eo"ra,hy, 99( 1:5 K 195. <iccan, /. %200:&. 8n "ulat, E. %2009&. 8mpact of 5B learning cycle on sixth grade students) mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. >ohnson, /. = -hristensen, ,. %2000&. !ducational research. /oston( 0llyn and /acon. >ohnson, ;./.. = Daven, ".<. %199:&. /iology( Princi,les and e-,loration. /oston( <olt, Dineheart and @inston. *aynar, F. %200C&. The effect of 5B learning cycle approach on sixth grade students) understanding of cell concept, attitude toward science and scientific epistemological beliefs. +npublished M.Sc Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. *olb, F.0. %19:5&. !-,erimental learnin" e-,erience as the source of learnin" and develo,ment . Baglewood -liffs, 2ew >ersey( "rentice#<all. ,awson, 0. %19::&. 0 better way to teach biology. The American Biolo"y Teacher% 50 %5&( 2!! K 2C:. ,earning -ycle %2010&. Emith)s http77boo's.google.om7boo'sG wor'. Detrieved Eeptember !, 2010 from

,ee, -.0. %200 &. 0 learning cycle in$uiry into plant nutrition. The American Biolo"y Teacher, !5 %2&( 1 ! K 155. ,ord, T.D. %1999&. 0 comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of !nvironmental !ducation% 0 % &( 22 K 2:. Aar'ow, ".;. = ,onning, D.0. %199:&. +sefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories( Etudents) "erception and effects on achievement. Journal of &esearch in Science Teachin"% 5 %9&( 101! K 1029.

Aoyer, D.<.. <ac'ett, >.*., = Bverett, E.0. %200C&. Teachin" science as investi"ation$ Modelin" in.uiry throu"h learnin" cycle lessons. 2ew >ersey( "earson Aerrill7"rentice <all. 2ational Desearch -ouncil %199!&. 2ational Ecience Bducation Etandards. @ashington, F-( 2ational 0cademy "ress. 2uhoglu, <. = Jalcin, 2. %200!&. The effectiveness of the learning cycle model to increase students) achievement in the physics laboratory. Journal of Tur/ish Science !ducation, %2&( 2: K 0. "ulat, E. %2009&. 8mpact of 5B learning cycle on sixth grade students) mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc Thesis of Middle !ast Technical University. Denner, >.. 0braham, A. = /irnie, <. %19::&. The necessity of each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high school physics. Journal of &esearch in Science Teachin", 25 %1&( 9 K 5:. Thorndi'e, D.,.. = <agen, B.". %199C&. Measurement and evaluation. 2ew Jor'( >ohn @iley and Eons. Trowbridge, ,.@. = /ybee, D.@. %199!&. Teaching secondary school science( Etrategies for developing scientific literacy. 2ew >ersey( "rentice <all, 8nc. 4ygots'y, ,.E. %19C:&. Mind in Society. -ambridge A.0.( <arvard +niversity "ress. @0B- %200C&. Chief e-aminer s re,ort. ,agos( @0B- "ress ,td. @0B- %200:&. Chief e-aminer s re,ort. ,agos( @0B- "ress ,td. @0B- %2009&. Chief e-aminer s re,ort. ,agos( @0B- "ress ,td. @ilder, A. = Ehuttleworth, ". %2005&. -ell in$uiry( 0 5B learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 51 %1&( 25 K 1. @iseman, F.-. %1999&. &esearch strate"ies for education$ 2ew Jor'( @adsworth "ublishing -ompany.