Best Strategy for Teaching Biology

Contributed by:
kevin
The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement of students taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle, and lecture methods with the intention of identifying which one among them could be most suitable for teaching Biology.
1. Electronic Journal of Science Education Vol. 17, No. 1 (2013)
Which strategy best suits biology teaching? Lecturing, concept mapping, cooperative
learning or learning cycle?
O. Patrick Ajaja
Delta State University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement of students taught with concept
mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture methods with the intention of
identifying which one among them could be most suitable for teaching Biology. To guide this
study, four research questions were raised and tested at 0.05level of significance. The design
of the study was pre-test, post-test, delayed post-test, quasi experimental repeated measures
design. The samples of the study consisted of four mixed secondary schools, 259 students and
eight Biology teachers. The major findings of the study include: significant effect of the four
instructional methods on achievement and retention; students in the 5E learning cycle and
cooperative leaning groups significantly outscored those in the concept mapping and lecture
groups on achievement and retention tests; students in concept mapping outscored those in
lecture group both on immediate achievement and retention tests; students in 5E learning
cycle and cooperative learning groups did not significantly differ on achievement and
retention tests; males and females in all the four groups did not significantly differ on the
achievement tests; and a non-significant interaction effect between sex and method of
instruction on achievement. It was concluded that the adoption of either 5E learning cycle or
cooperative learning strategies may be appropriate for the teaching and learning of Biology.
Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to O. Patrick Ajaja, Delta
State University Abraka, Nigeria, osawaruajaja@yahoo.com
Keywords. Concept, Mapping, Cooperative Learning, Learning Cycle, Retention.
Introduction
“Since 2000, study after study has made it clear that there is an alarming crisis in
relation to students’ interest in science, either as a possible future career, or as an intrinsic
interest that will continue after school” (Fensham, 2008, p. 20). In the UKin the late 1960s,
the publication of the Dainton report (Department of Education Science (DES), 1968) which
examined the flow of candidates in science and technology into higher education documented
a swing from science in the school-age population as a whole. The list of countries
experiencing declining interest of students in science is on the increase particularly among
the developed countries (Fensham, 2008). One factor which has contributed to low interest in
science by students is the method adopted for teaching and learning science. Fensham (2008,
p. 20-21) listed four views of students which contribute directly to low interest in science:
(i) Science teaching is predominantly transmissive, (ii) The content of
school science has an abstractness that makes it irrelevant, (iii) Learning
science is relatively difficult, for both successful and unsuccessful students,
© 2013 Electronic Journal of Science Education (Southwestern University)
Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu
2. Ajaja 2
and (iv) Hence, it is not surprising that many students in considering the
senior secondary years are saying: Why should I continue studying science
subjects when there are more interactive, interesting and less difficult ones
to study?
This unhealthy development in the disposition of students towards science has
sparked the search for and development of alternative methods of science teaching and
learning which can stimulate students’ interest and guarantee an educational system that
offers equal opportunities for all sexes. Science education as a field of study is therefore in
dire need of methods with qualities such as lesson clarity, promotion of self-activity,
promotion of self-development, stimulation of interest and curiosity and relying on the
psychological process of teaching and learning to recommend to science teachers. The
methods should encourage science teaching and learning that is better than it is now.
Many students today are learning science in a passive way in classrooms where
information is organized and presented to them by their teacher(Moyer, Hackett & Everett,
2007). They noted that “often, the teacher pays little attention to what students already know
about science. In this learning model, the information transmitted by the teacher and
curriculum materials are assumed to make sense and seem reasonable to the students” (p.4).
This model views science from a limited perspective. Science, seen in this way, has been
influenced by the manner in which it is taught and studied. With this conception, science is
thus viewed as a collection of organized body of information about the natural world.
However, another view of science is the dynamic interaction of thought processes, skills and
attitudes that help learners develop a richer understanding of the natural world and its impact
on society. Moyer et al (2007, p.4)pointed out that “science viewed in this way, sees science
as not just a body of knowledge but rather a process for producing knowledge”. This latter
view of science therefore calls for a change from the transmission method of presenting
science to students to allowing the students to interact with the natural world to create
Arising from the view of science as a process for generating knowledge, major reform
efforts were carried out in science education in the 1990s and culminated in the development
of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996)in the U.S. The content
standards presented in the National Standards elaborate what students should understand and
able to do in natural science, and the personal and social context that should be considered in
the design of science curriculum. Trowbridge & Bybee (1996, p. 113) stated that “these
standards emphasize inquiry-oriented activities, connections between science and technology,
the history and nature of science as students develop an understanding of fundamental ideas
and abilities in science, and a vision of good science teaching model. The NSES, although
recommended for the U.S educational system, are internationally practiced in science
education. Trowbridge and Bybee (1996) noted that the standards encourage all students –
including members of populations defined by race, ethnicity, economic status, gender, and
physical and intellectual capacity - to study science throughout their school years and to
pursue career in science. The NSES emphasize that the learning of science is an active
process. Learning science is something that students do, not something that is done for them.
They further stated that doing science requires students to be involved in both physical and
mental processes, collectively known as scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry requires both
hands-on activities and minds-on as well.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
3. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 3
Knowledge, which is long lasting and available for use later, is created through the
transmission of experience. The expansion of education, creation of new fields of discipline
and development of different instructional approaches, calls for detailed assessment of
instructional strategies before they are selected to use in science classroom. Also with the
increasing emphasis on lesson clarity, promotion of self-activity, stimulation of interest and
curiosity, teaching methods associated with subject matter disciplines, instructional variety,
retention rates and life-long learning, there is good reason to explore other instructional
approaches for teaching science different from the one predominantly used (lecture) for very
long time. This exploration is to determine if the methods have varying effects on students’
achievement when compared with the lifelong objectives of teaching science. This indeed
formed the rationale for the current study of determining the effects of concept mapping,
cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture instructional strategies on students’
achievement and retention of biological knowledge when used for instruction.
Reviewed Related Literature
Generally, there are several perspectives that address ways in which pupils learn
(Bennett, 2003). Four perspectives which have been suggested to particularly influence
science education are: transmission of knowledge; discovery learning; developmental view of
learning; and constructivism. These are based on different theoretical models of leaning and
are outlined below.
Four Theories of Learning
Transmission Method (Traditional Method)
The transmission view of teaching and learning sees teachers as passing over their
knowledge to their pupils (Bennett, 2003; Borich, 2004; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996;
Trowbridge, Bybee & Powell, 2000). This view is strongly linked to expository teaching;
teachers standing at the front telling their pupils about scientific ideas. The transmission view
implies that the pupil’s role in the learning process is largely passive, and that a pupil’s mind
is a tabula rasa- a blank state onto which knowledge can be written. The lecture or traditional
teaching method has the following advantages:
1. It is easy to create interest in a topic or subject by the teacher.
2. Students easily acquire knowledge, new information, and explanation of events or
things.
3. It helps students to clarify and gain better understanding of a subject, topic, matter
or event.
4. Students and teachers cover more content materials within a short period of time.
The major limitation of this method is that there is relatively little student activity and
involvement (Ajaja, 2009; Bennett, 2003; Borich, 2004; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996;
Trowbridge et al; 2000). Thus, the students are said to be passive .The limitation experienced
with the transmission approach led to the development of other views of science teaching and
Discovery Method
Discovering learning involves presenting pupils with information in a form which
requires them to discern relationships within the information and to structure and make sense
of the information and relationship. This form of self-directed learning could promote higher
forms of thinking with the aid of meta-cognitive strategies (Borich, 2004). Discovery learning
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
4. Ajaja 4
sees pupils as having a much more active role in their learning. Proponents of this approach
argue that the enhanced learning by learners is due to their active participation in learning
The use of discovery approach for teaching and learning has been associated with
science education for over one hundred years now (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996; Trowbridge
et al, 2000). Ajaja (1998) and Bennett (2003) noted that the school science curricula like
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) (American Institute of Biological Sciences,
1958), Chemical Education Material Study (CEMS) (Campbell, 1961) and Chemical Bond
Approach (CBA) (Strong, 1968) which adopted the discovery approach to teaching
emphasized the presentation of science to pupils as a way in which they could conduct their
own inquiries into the nature of things. Discovery learning in science places a strong
emphasis on practical work organized in such a way that pupils make observations, look for
patterns, and come up with possible explanation for those patterns.
The discovery method, unlike the lecture method, has the following advantages:
1. It helps the pupil understand the material better by showing him that the concepts
involved are so reasonable that he can discover them himself or herself.
2. It helps a learner to remember concepts, principles and laws better since what is
discovered is by far less likely to be forgotten.
3. It helps the individual to learn on his own so that he or she may become
increasingly independent of the teacher.
4. It keeps the teacher in touch with his or her class so that he or she knows whether
the pupils understand or follow the work.
After a long use of discovery approach for teaching and learning of science, it became
apparent that there were limitations with the approach. Bennett (2003) reported that questions
were asked about the appropriateness of asking pupils to “discover” things for themselves
when both teachers and pupils knew that the answers were already there in the form of
currently accepted scientific theories. There was also a question over the nature of the
understanding pupils developed when left to their own devices and to what extent pupils
“discover” the scientifically accepted explanations of the phenomena they experience. These
identified limitations and criticisms levied against discovery learning, paved the way for a
shift in research efforts from discovery learning to constructivism.
Developmental views of learning
Research work in the field of psychology of education has examined how children’s
abilities to obtain, process and use information develop as they grow and mature. Bennett
(2003) noted that the single most influential theory of cognitive development in the twentieth
century emerged from the work of Jean Piaget. His theory describes four stages of intellectual
development through which children pass:
(i) Sensori-motor stage (0-2years) Children learn through their senses and physical
experiences.
(ii) Pre-operational stage (2-7years) Children reason directly from what they perceive
and may not be logical.
(iii) Concrete operational stage (7-11years) Thinking characterized by logic and does
not require real objectives at hand.
(iv) Formal operational stage; (11years and above) Children become capable of
abstract thought.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
5. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 5
Two key processes in learning are central to Piaget’s theory. Piaget viewed learning as
an active process in which the learner compares and contrasts modes of thinking about new
experiences with those of prior experiences. Moyer et al (2007) noted that often the child
realizes that the explanation used for an earlier experience does not fit with a new experience.
This is resolved by the learner having to modify his/her way of thinking to come to a
conclusion that seems personally reasonable Piaget called this, process of thought adjustment
equilibration (Piaget & Inhelder, 1958). This adaptation occurs through the two active
thought processes, assimilation and accommodation.
Constructivism
Cognitive psychologists and science educators influenced by the early work of
Ausubel (1968), Bruner (1960), Kelly (1955) and Vygosky (1978) are of the view that useful
knowledge is not passed along intact from one person to another, nor is it discovered in the
external world. The synthesis of the ideas generated from these theorists gave rise to the
constructivist perspective. The constructivist insists that knowledge is produced by the
learner (Bennett, 2003, Moyer et al, 2007, Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). Underlying the
constructivist perspective is the notion that all people normally try to make sense of their
world. Through their own constructive processes, individuals impose order and predictability
on phenomena and events of the world. Trowbridge and Bybee (1996) stressed that the
constructivists contend that we cannot directly teach a student the principles of science.
Three Instructional Strategies
The notion that learning is influenced by prior experiences and must be constructed by
the learner led to the development of what has become the dominant view of learning in
science education today (Bennett, 2003; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996; Trowbridge et al,
2000).The impact and influence of this view of learning gave rise to the development of new
strategies of teaching science such as concept mapping, cooperative learning and learning
cycle where the emphasis is on the active participation of learners in the learning process.
All three instructional strategies share complimentary objectives of engaging students
in the learning process and promoting higher thought processes and more authentic behaviors
required for scientific and technological development. Wise and Okey (1983) stated that
effective science classroom appears to be one in which students are active, kept aware of
instructional objectives and receive feedback on their progress towards the stated objectives.
In classroom where elements of constructivism are incorporated in teaching and learning,
students get opportunities to physically interact with instructional materials and engage in
varied kinds of activities. This position suggests that for effective learning to take place,
students must be actively involved in the learning process. The three instructional strategies
which employed the principles of constructivism are discussed below.
Concept Mapping
A concept map is a two-dimensional representation of the relationship between key
ideas. At first glance, a concept map looks like a flow chart in which key terms are placed in
boxes connected by directional arrows. When based on educational psychology theories of
how we organize information, concept maps are hierarchical, with broader, more general
items at the top and more specific topics arranged in a cascade below them. According to
Novak and Gowin (1984), a standard concept map construction methods include the
following series of steps:
(i.) define the topic,
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
6. Ajaja 6
(ii.) list the most important concepts;
(iii.) arrange concepts hierarchically;
(iv.) add links to form a preliminary concept map;
(v.) add linking phrases;
(vi.) add cross links; and
(vii.) review map.
The principle of a concept map is that it provides a visual means of showing
connections and relationships between a hierarchy of ideas ranging from the very concrete to
the abstract (Ajaja, 2009; Bennett, 2003). Ajaja (2011) noted that concept maps help in
understanding ideas by showing the connections with other ideas.
The benefits of concept mapping are mainly to the individual making the map. The
process of simplifying concepts and arranging them on a page forces the learner to think
about what is most important. It helps to clarify one’s thought and understanding and makes
learning more meaningful. A concept map can be a heuristic device that is a process in which
the learner can make discoveries and uncover meanings through trial and error. It helps in the
development of critical thinking skills which is a conscious effort to think about thinking.
Ajaja (2011) stated that the development of concept mapping as an instructional tool
can be traced to the early work of Ausubel and others in the 1970s. Continuing, Ajaja noted
that since its introduction, concept mapping has become a very useful tool in teaching and
learning and particularly in science education. Literature on concept mapping indicates that it
has been used for instruction, assessment and learning (Johnson & Raven, 1998; Novak &
Musonda, 1991; Power & Wright, 1992; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996; Trowbridge, Bybee &
Powell, 2000).
Some studies on the effects of concept mapping when used as an instructional tool for
teaching and learning, indicated its relevance in improving the cognitive and affective aspects
of learning. A study conducted by Ajaja (2011) determined the effects of concept mapping as
a study skill on student’s achievement in Biology. The major findings of this study indicated
a significant and consistent improvement in Biology achievement as the period of experience
with the use of the method increased. Also, students who used concept mapping as a study
skill retained biological knowledge longer than those who used other methods. All the
students interviewed in the concept mapping classroom agreed that concept maps helped
them not only in the determination of the relationships among the concepts but also shaped
their understanding of the concepts and increased their critical thinking. The findings of Hall,
Dansereau, and Skaggs (1992), and Kinchin (2000a & 2000b) were similar to these research
findings. Kinchin (2000a) found a significant impact of concept mapping on achievement
when used for instructing secondary school biology students. Kinchin (2000b) in a study
comparing the effect of the use of concept mapping as a study skill on students achievement,
found a positive effect on students who used concept maps to revise and summarize the
materials given.
Apart from studies which solely determined the effects of concept mapping on
students' achievement, mapping has been used along with other instructional strategies and
their combined effects on students’ achievement determined. Whereas some studies showed
significant improvement on students’ achievement when concept mapping was combined
with other instructional strategies, others found no significant differences. For example,
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
7. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 7
Okebukola (1989) investigated whether concept mapping alone as an instructional strategy in
Biology would enhance meaningful learning when compared with concept mapping in
cooperative learning groups. The study found a significantly higher achievement scores in
Biology among students in the concept mapping group than those in class, taught with
concept mapping and cooperative learning group.
Jegede, Alaiyemola and Okebukola (1992),comparing the effectiveness of concept
maps as teaching strategy in Nigeria, and Ezeudu (1998),examining the effect of concept
mapping on students’ chemistry achievement in Enugu and Nsukka educational zones, found
that students taught with concept mapping significantly performed better on achievement
tests than those in the control group. These findings indicate that concept mapping facilitates
meaningful learning and understanding of concepts in science. Mensah, Otuka and Ernest
(1995), in a similar study in senior secondary schools in Ghana, found that concept mapping
can be used as a pre-instructional and post-instructional tool in Biology.
Markwo and Lonning (1998) investigated the use of students’ constructed maps and
the effects the maps had on students’ conceptual understanding of Chemistry experiment that
they performed. They foundthat learning was enhanced and the construction of the pre and
post instruction concept maps did help students understand the concepts in the experiments
they performed.
Obianor (1997) and Ezeudu (1998) provided two opposing views on how concept
mapping affect students’ of different sexes. Ezeudu (1998), who studied the interaction effect
between concept mapping and gender on achievement in Chemistry, found that the male
students significantly out-performed the females in the achievement test administered.
Obianor (1997) found that there was no significant difference in achievement between males
and females taught with concept mapping. This is consistent with the finding of Ajaja, (2011)
as earlier reported.
The major limitation of concept mapping is that it taps high cognitive ability and a
very good mastery of the subject area. Low ability teachers and learners may not be able to
draw and use concept maps for teaching and learning. Bennett (2003) identified two major
limitations of the use of concept mapping in instruction. First, concept mapping is not easy to
construct, and respondents require training and practice in producing maps. Second, there are
difficulties with the interpretation of concept maps in particular with devising appropriate
ways of scoring to enable valid comparisons to be made. Thus limitations are found to
frustrate low achievers in mastering the techniques required for the use.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy which organizes students in small
groups so that they can work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning.
Specifically, the cooperative learning approach to instruction is where students are arranged
in pairs or small groups to help each other learn assigned material (Trowbridge & Bybee,
1996; Trowbridge et al, 2000). Interaction among students in cooperative learning groups is
intense and prolonged (Borich, 2004). In cooperative learning groups, unlike self-directed
inquiry, students gradually take responsibility for each other’s learning. Borich (2004) and
Trowbridge et al (2000) identified four basic elements in cooperative learning models. Small
groups must be structured for positive interdependence; there should be face-to-face
interactions, individual accountability, and the use of interpersonal and small group skills.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
8. Ajaja 8
Cooperative learning has been found to be useful in several areas such as helping
learners acquire the basic cooperative attitudes and values they need to think independently
inside and outside the classroom (Borich, 2004, Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 1990);
promoting the communication of pre – social behavior; encouraging higher order thought
processes; and fostering concept understanding and achievement (Borich, 2004; Johnson et
al, 1990; Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996; Trowbridge et al, 2000). Cooperative learning brings
together in adult-like settings which, when carefully planned and executed can provide
appropriate models of social behavior (Steven & Slavin 1995). Steven and Slavin (1995)
noted that if all other benefits of cooperative learning were not enough, the fact that it has
been linked to increase in the academic achievement of learners at all ability levels is another
reason for its use. Cooperative learning is known to actively engage students in the learning
process and seeks to improve the critical thinking, reasoning, and problem solving skills of
the learner (Bramlett, 1994; Megnin, 1995; Webb, Trooper & Fall, 1995).
A review of studies on the effects of cooperative learning on students’ achievement
indicated that cooperative learning gains are not limited to a particular ability level or sex but
to all who engage in it (Ajaja & Eravwoke, 2010; Bramlett, 1994; Crosby & Owens, 1993;
Glassman, 1989; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 1986; Megnin, 1995; Webb, Tropper& Fall,
1995). Stevens and Slavin (1995) linked cooperative learning to increase in academic
achievement of learners at all ability levels. While studies by Glassman (1989) and Johnson,
Johnson and Stanne (1986) found cooperative learning to emphasize the status and respect for
all group members, regardless of gender. Very importantly, the study by Crosby and Owens
(1993) found that different cooperative learning strategies can be employed to help low
ability students who had difficulties making success in the traditional classroom to improve
A more recent study by Ajaja and Eravwoke (2010) reaffirmed the ability of
cooperative learning when used as an instructional strategy to bring about significant
improvement in students’ achievement in school science subjects. The findings of the study
indicated that students in cooperative learning group outscored those in the lecture group in
an achievement test and a non – significant difference in achievement scores between male
and female students in the cooperative learning group.
The major disadvantages of cooperative learning include:
(i) not all members of a group will participate in solving the problems they
are confronted with;
(ii) some very active members of a group may overshadow less active ones;
(iii) the method is time consuming; and
(iv) low ability students who solely depend on the teacher for all information
may not be able to make any contributions during cooperative learning.
Learning Cycle
The learning cycle is a generic term used to describe any model of scientific inquiry
that encourages students to develop their own understanding of a scientific concept, explore
and deepen that understanding and then apply the concept to new situations (Walbert, 2003).
The learning cycle is an established planning method in science education and is consistent
with contemporary theories about how individuals learn (Lorsbach & Tobin 1997). It is
useful in creating opportunities to learn science. There are different models of the learning
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
9. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 9
cycle, popular among these models are the three phase model, four phase model and the five
phase model.
Moyer, Hackett and Everett (2007) stated that the learning cycle model of learning
and teaching evolved for the past 40 years. The emergence of this model was influenced by
the work of Jean Piaget and its application by Robert Karplus and Myron Atkin (1962), who
applied cognitive development theory and discovery learning to instructional strategies in
elementary science. Karplus and Myron Atkin with the support of the National Science
Foundation developed a three phase learning cycle that served as the central teaching/learning
strategy in the newly introduced science curriculum improvement study (SCIS) program
(Atkin & Karplus, 1962).
The first three phase model of the learning cycle consisted of: Exploration, Invention
and Discovery and were first used in the SCIS program (Moyer et al, 2007; Trowbridge et al,
2000). Continuing, they noted that these terms were modified to Exploration, Concept
Introduction and Concept Application by Karplus. Moyer et al (2007) reported the
observation of Barman and Kofar (1989) and Hackett and Moyer (1991) that the cycle
evolved through modification to include additional phases such as engage, explore, explain,
elaborate, extend and apply and are used to frame single guided discovery lesson as well as
extend experiences such as chapters and units. They noted that a fifth phase, evaluate, was
incorporated into an elementary science program developed by the Biological Science
Curriculum Study (Biological Science Curriculum Study, 1992). These series of
modifications gave birth to the model called 5E learning cycle the model used for this study.
The 5E cycle has even been further modified to show different forms and versions.
However, the model specifically adopted for this study is the Bybee’s 5E model which has
five stages. The five stages include: Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration and
Evaluation. At all the stages, evaluation is done by the teacher to determine the level of
Most empirical studies on the effectiveness of learning cycle when used as an
instructional strategy found significant improvement in students’ achievement, retention,
attitude and correction of misconceptions. Studies by Baser (2008), Pulat (2009), Lee (2003),
Lord (1999), Nuhoglu and Yalcin (2006), and Whilder and Shuttleworth (2004) found that
students’ achievement improved after the instruction of 5E learning cycle. Specifically, the
empirical study by Lee (2003) found out that the students acquired knowledge about plants in
daily life easier and understood the concepts better when taught with learning cycle. Pulat
(2009) in another study determined the impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students’
Mathematics achievement and attitude towards the subject. The results showed that the
students’ mathematics achievement improved after the instruction of learning cycle.
Studies by Ajaja (1998) and Nuhoglu and Yalcin (2006) showed that learning cycle
enhanced the retention of science knowledge. Nuhoglu and Yalcin (2006) specifically
emphasized that learning cycle make knowledge long lasting and that students become more
capable of applying their knowledge in other areas outside the original context. There appears
to be scarcity of literature on the effect of learning cycle on retention when separated from
achievement as a whole.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
10. Ajaja 10
The major advantage of 5E learning cycle apart from other advantages associated with
constructivist approaches to instruction is the creation of learning opportunities for students
(Moyer et al, 2007). The approach offers students the opportunity to perform physical
activities designed to answer questions raised by the teacher and students and at the same
time engaged mentally. The approach may therefore be very appropriate for teaching for
conceptual change.
Two major limitations can be identified with the 5E learning cycle. First, the method
is time consuming. A method of instruction which involves as many as five stages may not be
very suitable for achieving immediate lesson objectives. Secondly field dependent and low
ability students who most often dependent on teachers for all information and directives may
experience some difficulties using the approach for learning. However, these two limitations
may be reduced through increasing instruction time for science subjects and re-emphasizing
strong cooperation among students when the method is used.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded on three theories, one on realist epistemology and education
and two on pragmatist epistemology and education. The two theories under pragmatism are
Piaget’s theory of cognitive functioning development and Vygotsky’s activity theory of
learning. The basic principle of philosophic realism is that matter is the ultimate reality. The
realists are of the view that the world we perceive is not a world that we have recreated
mentally but the world as it is (Kneller, 1972). This epistemological stance suggests that the
selection of the learning task for the student should be the responsibility of the school. The
initiative in education, therefore, lies with the teacher, not the student, who must decide what
subject matter can be made to satisfy the student personal needs and interest (Kneller, 1972).
Kneller further stated that to instruct the student in the knowledge that matters most is the
true end of education; satisfying the interest is only a means to this end, a useful teaching
strategy. This specification and stand is clearly demonstrated in the lecture method of
The major principle in Piaget’s Constructivist Theory of Cognitive Functioning is that
learning is attained through ‘construction’ (Piaget, 1970). This theory suggests that human
knowledge is innate and that human knowledge is directly shaped by experience. This theory
sees learning as occurring based on the interaction between what the learner already knows
and the physical environment. King (1998), while discussing Piaget’s theory, noted that
human beings are capable of extending biological programming to construct cognitive
systems that interpret experiences with objects and other persons. This thought provides a
model for building classroom instruction for small groups and individuals that will lead to
practice and learning in the classroom. King (1998) argued that peer or small group
interactions provide rich and necessary context for students to revise their current cognitive
system which may lead to invention. The basic principle of this theory, which is creating
knowledge through interaction between the learner and the environment perfectly, agrees
with the fundamental structures of concept mapping, cooperative learning and 5E learning
cycle. They all emphasize active participation in lesson through physical activities and mental
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
11. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 11
Vygotsky’s Activity Theory of Learning sees learning as appropriation which resides
within the learner. Vygotsky (1978) believed that a student’s learning development is
facilitated by social interaction with more sophisticated individuals who provide guidance
during the learning process. The theory of zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)
emphasize that children learn best if placed in an environment which requires thinking
slightly above their developmental level. Vygotsky believed that learning development in
such environment is facilitated by the social interaction among peers and between teachers
and learners. Moyer et al (2007, p. 8) stated that from the work of Vygotsky, “it can be seen
that the value of students working in small groups to conduct science investigations comes
from the discourse that takes place”. This reasonably follows that the skillful intervention of a
teacher can elevate the level of students’ thinking and learning. The structure of this theory
also agrees with the principle of concept mapping, cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle
in part, particularly in the area of skillful intervention of the science teacher to elevate
students’ thinking and learning, but more with the cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle
because of the existence of social interaction among students in these two models to bring
about learning.
Statement of the Problem
A literature review suggests that although concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E
learning cycle, and lecture instructional strategies significantly improve science students’
achievement and retention, the students taught with lecture method performed significantly
less well than students taught with all the other three strategies. This development indicates a
significant breakthrough in science education research in the identification and creation of
alternative learning environments to lecture environment. However, a question may be asked
as to whether these four instructional approaches will produce varying effects on students’
achievement when used to teach specific school science subjects. This is a gap in the
literature which needs to be filled to enable researchers and science teachers to fully
appreciate the roles and effects of these four instructional strategies in the teaching and
learning of science.
To guide this study, the following research questions were raised and answered.
1. Will there be any significant effect of concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E
learning cycle and lecture methods of instruction on students' achievement in
Biology?
2. Will there be any significant difference in Biology achievement among students
taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle, and lecture
methods?
3. Will there be any significant difference in Biology achievement between males and
females taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and
lecture methods?
4. Will there be any significant difference in the retention of biological knowledge
among students taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle
and lecture methods?
Research Design and Methodology
Design of the Study
The design employed for the study was a 4 (treatment) X 2(sex) X 8 (test) pretest,
post-test, delayed post-test, non-equivalent, quasi-experimental repeated measures. The
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
12. Ajaja 12
design consisted of four treatment groups (concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E
learning cycle and lecture groups), two sexes (male and female) and eight repeated testing (1
pre-test, 6 post-tests and 1 delayed post-test). On this design, only testing was the repeated
measure. The repeated testing is shown diagrammatically as O1 x O2 x O3 x O4 x O5 x O6 x O7
O8. O1 stands for the pre-test while O2 – O7 stand for two weekly post-tests given at the end
of every two week’s instruction with test items restricted to the two week’s contents covered
and drawn from the segment allocated to them in the test instrument called Biology
Achievement Test (BAT). O8 stands for the delayed post-test. For the pre and delayed post-
tests, the BAT was administered as a whole without time series testing.
The repeated measures design as shown in this study is appropriate and right
considering the fact the same research participants in each of the experimental treatment
conditions were involved. Johnson and Christensen (2000) stated that if all participants in a
study are repeatedly measured under each treatment condition as in this study, the design is
best described as repeated – measures design. They further noted that with the repeated –
measures design; the investigator does not have to worry about the participants in the
different groups being equated because the same participants participate in all experimental
conditions. The participants, therefore, serve as their own control, which means that the
participants in the various experimental conditions are matched (Johnson & Christensen,
The repeated measures design adopted for this study was framed under the interrupted
time series design model for four groups – to be:
1. Pre-tested once;
2. Exposed to twelve week treatment;
3. Repeatedly post tested at two weeks intervals, and
4. Delayed posted once.
The single pre-test and repeated post-tests were favored for two major reasons. First,
in Nigeria, evaluation of learning outcomes is based on continuous assessment and since the
study lasted for twelve weeks, repeated post tests on content covered after two weeks was
most appropriate. Second, it was used to establish baseline data through administering one
single pre-test to establish confidence in the effectiveness of the methods considered and their
treatment procedures. This reason agrees with Wiseman’s (1999) stand that if a group scores
approximately the same on each of the pre-test and then, after the treatment, improves
significantly on the post-tests, the researcher has grounds for more confidence in the
effectiveness of that treatment. Although the pre-test was administered once, each of the
contents tested in the series of post-tests were copied from the instrument used for pre-test
and the items were restricted to the contents covered in each of the two weeks instruction. It
therefore boils down to the same effect which the series of pre-tests would have had.
The design was quasi-experimental because intact, comparative groups (classes)
convenient and in place (acknowledging that assignments of individuals to groups have been
made without the application of randomization procedures) were used. Wiseman (1999)
stated that when the assignment of subjects to treatment groups follows these procedures as
stated above, the design is described as a quasi-experimental design. In a similar vein,
Campbell and Stanley (1963) stated that when a research person lacks the full control over
the scheduling of experimental stimuli which makes a true experiment possible, collectively,
such situations can be regarded as quasi-experimental designs. The introduction of sex as an
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
13. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 13
intervening variable into the design of the study shows a potential overlap of sex and teaching
method on students’ achievement.
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample of the study consisted of 259 senior secondary class (SSII) Biology
students in eight intact classes from four senior secondary schools in Ika South Local
Government Area of Delta State. There are forty (40) public secondary schools in the Local
Government Area and from this population, the four selected schools were chosen based on
the parameters of comparability and convenience. The parameters included presence of well-
equipped laboratory, trained and experienced Biology teacher, mixed-gender school and
school located within sixty (60) kilometers from researcher’s place of work. Only the four
schools used for the study met the specified conditions.
Eight Biology teachers were used for the study. Before they were selected, they were
matched on the five criteria of sex, type of certificate possessed, professional qualification,
years of experience and country of training. On the strength of this, only male Biology
teachers who were graduates, professionally trained as Biology teachers, with between five to
ten years of teaching experience and trained in Nigeria were selected. Two Biology teachers
were selected from each school using the criteria stated above.
The intervention consisted of a twelve week instructional unit on Biology. During the
unit the students 10 topics:
(i) The cell;
(ii) Diffusion and osmosis,
(iii) Feeding definition and types and cellular respiration,
(iv) Photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, and heterotrophy,
(v) Excretion,
(vi) Growth,
(vii) Cell reaction to its environment,
(viii) Types of movement,
(ix) Reproduction and
(x) Tissues and supporting systems.
One major instrument was used for the study. The Biology Achievement Test (BAT)
consisted of 120 multiple choice test items constructed by the researcher and drawn from the
12 weeks instructional unit. The test items were arranged into six sets of twenty items each
for administration at the end of every two weeks instruction. An example of test question is
found in Appendix A.
Content Validity
The content validity of the BAT was achieved by a five-member panel consisting of
three experienced Biology teachers drawn from three public senior secondary schools in
Ethiope East Local Government Area of Delta State, one expert in Measurement and
Evaluation, and one Biology educator. The five experts determined the content validity of the
instrument by critically examining the contents of the test items, the content of the 12 week
instructional unit and contents of table of specification. These three documents were made
available to panel members to assist them in reaching a decision. The panel members worked
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
14. Ajaja 14
independently and forwarded their findings back to the researcher. The returns were collated
and reviewed, and items were revised based on recommendations of the jury members.
Construct Validity
A pilot test was conducted to determine the construct validity, quality of individual
questions, and estimate reliability of BAT. This involved the administration of BAT to 65
SSII Biology Students (independent group) in St. Charles College, Abavo (a secondary
school) that agreed to participate in the pilot study. The characteristics of pilot group was
similar to the characteristics of the population of SSII Biology students but were not part of
the sample selected for the study.
Factors Analysis. The determination of Construct Validity of measurement of BAT
involved a series of Factor Analysis being carried out. This involved the Extraction Method
known as Principal Component Analysis and Rotation Method known as Quartrimax with
Kaiser Normalization. On analysis of the responses of the 65 respondents the items were
reduced from 132 to 120 by selecting only items with initial Eigen values of at least 1.
Item Difficulty. The difficulty of each item was determined with Kuder Richardson
20 procedure for estimating internal consistency of a test. This was accomplished by dividing
the number of subjects who answered the item correctly by the number of subjects who made
attempts. The range of possibilities is between 0.00 and 1.00 (Wiseman, 1999). The higher
the difficulty index, the easier the question. Wiseman specifically stated that items with
difficulty indices of 0.00 – 0.2 are too difficult while those with 0.8 – 1 are too easy. Based
on this recommendations only item with difficulty indices of 0.3 – 0.7 were selected into the
test instrument.
Estimate of Reliability
The reliability of BAT was calculated with Kuder Richardson 21 approach which
specifically gives an estimate of the internal consistency of the instrument. This involved the
analysis of the responses to items in the instrument to determine the number of items on the
test, the arithmetic average (mean), and the variance of the scores (standard deviation
squared). All these information were substituted to Kuder Richardson 21. The reliability
index obtained was r = 0.86. This result showed that the instrument was reliable and suitable
for the study. This agreed with the recommendations of Leedy and Ormrod (2005), Johnson
and Christensen (2000), Thorndike and Hagen (1997), and Wiseman (1999) that reliability
has to do with accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure, a high reliability value of
0.70 or higher shows that the test is reliable (accurately) measuring the characteristic it was
designed to measure. On the strength of the results of content validity, factor analysis, item
difficulty and reliability of the instrument, the instrument was used for data collection.
Treatment Procedure
The treatment procedure adopted was a combination of four treatment steps used in
similar studies by Ajaja and Eravwoke(2010), Ajaja (2011), Ajaja and Eravwoke (2012) and
Ajaja (2005).The eight instructors (two per group) used for the study were trained separately
on the skills of using concept maps(Appendix B), cooperative learning (Appendix C), 5E
learning cycle (Appendix D) and lecture (Appendix E) methods of teaching for four days
lasting for two hours per day. Three other specialists on instruction joined the researcher in
training the instructors on the teaching. The first day was spent discussing the theories, origin
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
15. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 15
and characteristics of the four instructional strategies. On the second day, the instructors were
trained using the training manuals developed by the researcher; one manual each for concept
mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture methods. The training manuals
specifically defined the steps and stages involved in using each method and the specific roles
teachers and students should play in each stage. The third and fourth days were spent on
practice and generation of ideas on how to apply each method in the teaching of the selected
concepts. The training came to a close when the researcher and the three other resource
persons were convinced that the biology teachers trained can accurately apply the strategies
in teaching the selected concepts.
A week before the commencement of treatment, all eight Biology teachers were given
extracts which contained the contents in the twelve week instructional unit. The extracts were
taken from Modern Biology for Senior Secondary Schools by Ramalingan (2008) and
Biology: Principle and Exploration by Johnson and Raven (1998). Lesson plans written on
each of the concepts in the 12 week instructional unit using the four methods teaching
formats were given to the specific teachers assigned to use for teaching. This was done to
ensure that all the instructional presentations followed the recommended formats for the
designated classes. The lesson plans specified both the teachers’ and students’ activities
during instruction.
Two days before the instruction began, groups were pre-tested with the 120 items on
the BAT. This was done to determine the equivalence of the groups before treatment and to
be sure that any noticed change later was due to the treatment. On treatment, and in each of
the specific classrooms where instructional strategies were applied, the teachers used the
methods on with they were trained.
At the end of every two weeks’ instruction a post achievement test of 20 items
selected from the BAT instrument and restricted only to contents taught in every two weeks
was administered to all the four groups. This was done for the purpose of effecting
continuous assessment directive demanded by the Nigerian educational system and
determining the effectiveness of treatment as the period of experience with method increased.
The students’ test scores were averaged at the end of the 12 weeks of instruction to present a
single post – test score. Four weeks after the post-test, a delayed post-test using the full BAT
instrument as used in pre-test was administered to the four groups with the intention of
estimating the retention of the knowledge taught long after the end of treatment. The data
collected are summarized in tables under result.
Result
Three statistics were used for the analysis of the collected data. Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test for significant differences among achievement test
score means for all the groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the
males and females in the four treatment groups on achievement and to compare the retention
among the four groups. For paired samples, t – test was used to test for significant difference
between students’ pre-instructional and post- instructional test scores.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
16. Ajaja 16
Table 1 comparison of pre and post-test achievement means of concept mapping,
cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture groups and t – test comparison of
pre and post-test means
Groups N Pre-test Post-test df t Critical t
X X
Concept mapping 64 25.28 43.42 63 18.07 2.00
Cooperative learning 67 25.40 49.41 66 19.630 1.994
5E Learning cycle 69 25.45 50.21 68 21.90 1.994
Lecture 59 25.39 36.97 58 9.143 2.00
With respect to the pre-test scores, all the participants in four groups were equivalent
regarding the knowledge of the concepts taught before the treatment as shown in Table 1.
This was demonstrated by comparison of their mean scores and confirmed with the ANOVA
test. The ANOVA comparison of groups shown in Table2 indicated non-significant
difference F = 2.1752, P > 0.05.
Table 2 ANOVA comparison of pre – test scores of concept mapping, cooperative
learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture groups.
Source of variation SS df MS F P – value F crit
Between groups 552.6957 3 184.2319 2.175247 0.091233 2.63779
Within groups 23036.96 272 84.69469
Total 23589.65 275
On the post-test scores, Table 1 showed that students taught with 5E learning cycle
scored the highest marks. This was followed by students in the cooperative learning, concept
mapping and lecture groups respectively. All the students in concept mapping, cooperative
learning and 5E learning cycle groups scored higher marks than those in the lecture group.
On the t-test comparison of the pre-test and post-test means, the data indicated significant
effects of all the instructional methods on achievement.
Table 3 ANCOVA summary table comparing concept mapping, cooperative learning,
5E learning cycle and lecture groups on achievement with pre-test as co-variant
Source of variation Type III sum dt Mean s F Sig
of square square
Corrected model 16193.423a 7 2313.346 27.297 .000
Intercept 11369.407 1 11369.407 134.157 .000
Pre 8263.709 1 8263.709 97.511 .000
Method 7296.140 3 2432.047 20.557 .000
Sex 46.823 1 46.823 0.894 0.345
Method * sex 78.817 3 26.272 0.501 0.682
Error 21271.462 251 84.747
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
17. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 17
Total 568086.790 259
Table 3 which compared achievement test scores of students in the concept mapping,
cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture groups indicated a significant difference
among the groups. The calculated F was found to be greater than the critical F, which implied
that F = 20.557, P < 0.05.
With respect to interaction between sex and method of instruction on achievement, a
non-significant interaction effect was found, shown in Table 3. This was based on the fact
that the calculated F value is less than the critical F value, F = 0.501, P > 0.05. This meant
that the sex of the students did not really combine with the methods of instruction to
influence their post test scores in the various instructional groups.
Table 4 Scheffe post – hoc test to compare the concept mapping, cooperative learning,
5E learning cycle and lecture groups
Dependent (I)Method of (J) method of instruction Mean Std.error Sig
Variable instruction difference
(I-J)
Post-test Lecture group 5E learning cycle group -13.42444* 1.92869 .000
concept mapping -6.63739* 1.96311 0.11
cooperative group -12.62163* 1.9419 .000
5E learning Lecture group 13.42444* 1.9286 .000
cycle group Concept mapping 6.78705* 1.88764 .005
Cooperative group 80281 1.86559.980 .980
Concept Lecture group 6.63739* 1.9631 .011
Mapping 5E learning cycle group -6.78705* 1.8876 .005
Cooperative group -5.98424*1.90115 .021
Cooperative Lecture group 12.62163*1.94192 .000
Group 5E learning cycle group .802811.86559 .980
Concept mapping 5.98424*1.90115 .021
The Scheffe test is a test used to show the direction of significance when significant
difference is established. The Scheffe post-hoc test shown in table 4 indicated the following:
(a) all the students in the concept mapping, cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle
significantly obtained higher scores than those in the lecture group; (b) students in the
cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle groups significantly obtained higher scores than
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
18. Ajaja 18
those in the concept mapping group; and (c) students in the cooperative learning and 5E
learning cycle groups obtained scores that did not significantly differ.
Table 5 Comparison of post-test scores of males and females in concept mapping,
cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture groups by mean and ANOVA.
Groups N Male Male female Female df F Fcrit
X N X N
Concept 64 42.57 34 43.61 30 63 0.2020 3.9958
Cooperative 67 50.71 32 48.84 34 66 0.6205 3.9909
5E Learning 69 48.73 37 50.74 32 68 0.5192 3.9840
Lecture method 59 37.144 29 36.43 30 58 0.0619 4.0098
On comparison of post-test scores of males and females, all the male and female
participants in the concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture
groups did not significantly differ on the knowledge of concepts taught (Table 5). This was
determined by comparison of their mean post-test scores and confirmed with ANOVA test. In
all the groups, the calculated F values were less than the critical F values (Table 5).
Table 6 comparison of X scores of groups taught with concept mapping, cooperative
learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture on retention.
Groups N Average SD
5E learning cycle 69 90.7 4.77
Cooperative learning 64 88.43731 6.14
Concept mapping 67 81.1125 6.55
Lecture method 59 76.1661 6.2009
Table 6which compared the mean estimated retention of students taught with the four
methods, indicated that students taught with the 5E learning cycle method retained more of
the biological knowledge (90.7%) than those taught with concept mapping, cooperative
learning and lecture methods respectively. On ranking of retention, among the groups, the
group taught with 5E learning cycle method was followed by the group taught with
cooperative method (88.44%), the next was the group taught with concept mapping with
(81.11%) while the group taught with the lecture method had the least (76.16%). The noticed
difference on retention scores among the students taught with concept mapping, cooperative
learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture methods was confirmed with ANOVA test.
Table 7 ANOVA summary table comparing students in concept mapping, cooperative
learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture method on retention.
Source of variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between groups 8522.108339 3 2840.703 80.64771 .05 2.640001
Within groups 8982.01892 255 35.22236
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
19. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 19
Total 17504.12726 258
The ANOVA comparison of the groups (Table 7) indicated a significant difference, F
= 80.6477, P<0.05. This was based on the fact that the calculated F-value of 80.64771 is
greater than the critical F-value of 2.640001 at 0.05 level of significance.
Discussion
A focus of research in science education is to isolate the appropriate methods and
strategies which may lead to effective teaching and cause effective learning by students. A
review of literature on instructional methods indicated that new methods and strategies are
periodically recommended for science teaching and learning. For each of these new methods
convincing proofs of their effectiveness in science teaching and learning are demonstrated.
However, it is obvious that not all these strategies and methods are appropriate for all
subjects and conditions. In most cases, the science teachers are at cross roads as to which
methods are most appropriate for teaching the different science subjects. This study therefore,
is not only timely but significant in the sense it will reduce the frustration science teachers, in
general, and Biology teachers in particular, face in their choice of the most appropriate
method among these four popular methods for effective teaching and learning.
The most significant findings are the large effects of the instructional methods on
students’ achievement and retention. The non-significant difference between males and
females on achievement and retention in all the instructional methods was expected. The
higher achievement of students in the constructive teaching groups (5E learning cycle,
cooperative learning and concept mapping) is noteworthy, as is the lower achievement and
retention of students in the lecture group. The ANCOVA and ANOVA analyses showed that
the method of teaching does predict students’ achievement in groups with varying
instructional methods.
However, while the unique and significant effects of 5E learning cycle, cooperative
learning and concept mapping on students’ achievement over and above lecture method is
applauded, there are several specific observations that were made about the findings in
relation to the various instructional methods. First, the analysis indicated that all methods had
significant effects on students’ achievement in Biology. Since the post-test scores of all the
students in all the groups were significantly greater than their pre-test scores, it therefore
follows that the post achievement test scores was earned not by chance but as a result of
treatment with the prescribed instructional methods. This implies that all the methods
compared have the potential to cause learning to take place but at varying degrees which is
the bases for this study. The ability of this study to establish a cause and effect relationship as
found, agrees with the principle of experimental research as recommended by Borich (2004),
Johnson and Christenson (2000), and Wiseman (1999). They all agreed that in experimental
research, a treatment must be confirmed to be responsible for any difference noticed.
Secondly, the analyses showed a significant difference in achievement scores among
the four instructional groups. The variations in achievement scores among the groups may be
due to the variation in the teaching strategies adopted in each of the groups and their
comprehension of the methods of instruction. This may have translated into influencing their
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
20. Ajaja 20
scores in the achievement test. The post hoc analysis which indicated that all the students
taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle strategies outscored
those taught with lecture method suggests that the students in these groups may have been
more active in the learning process than those in the lecture group and thus contributing to
their higher achievement scores. This is hinged on the fact that students learn better by doing.
The low achievement scores as found among the students taught with lecture method may not
be unconnected with the transmission approach involved, where the teachers pass over their
knowledge to their pupils.
The significantly higher achievement of students taught with concept mapping,
cooperative learning and 5E learning cycle over those taught with lecture method as found in
this study is consistent with the findings earlier researchers made on this same subject matter.
Nevertheless, higher achievement of students taught with cooperative learning and 5E
learning cycle over those taught with concept mapping, the limitations ascribed to concept
mapping may be the possible explanation for the lower score. These limitations may have
frustrated the low achievers particularly and resulted in their lower achievement scores to
produce the lower mean found with the group. The non-significant difference in the
achievement scores between students in the cooperative and 5E learning cycle groups may be
explained with the very active participation of students in learning process and the
cooperative activities which go on during instruction with the two methods. This may have
influenced the students’ effective learning and understanding of the concepts they were
exposed to equally.
Thirdly, the analyses also found a non-significant interaction effect between sex and
method of instruction on achievement. This simply means that the combination of the sex of
students and the methods used for instruction does not influence achievement in Biology.
This therefore implies that the noticed significant differences in achievement scores among
students taught with concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle and lecture
methods may not be linked to sex but entirely to the methods of instruction. It therefore
follows that the degree of achievement earned by students in the various instructional groups
may be hinged on the effectiveness of the methods. This finding agrees with the intention and
recommendation of science education researchers that whatever method that should be
adopted for science teaching should be such that enables students to learn equally,
irrespective of sex. This disposition is most relevant now that there is a deliberate effort to
bridge the gap between males and females on representation in science.
Fourthly, the analyses once again showed that no significant difference exists between
the males and females in the concept mapping, cooperative learning, 5E learning cycle, and
lecture groups. This finding, therefore, suggests that the four instructional methods are
suitable for science teaching and learning. This position is based on the fact that the major
objective of science education research is to identify and isolate instructional methods and
strategies which will enable all students irrespective of sex and ability to learn equally. This
finding is consistent with the findings of researchers in the past on the same issue.
Fifthly, the estimated retention determined with the delayed post – test, the analysis
showed that students taught with the 5E learning cycle, cooperative learning, concept
mapping and lecture method, retained a reasonable percentage of the concepts taught after
four weeks of initial treatment. However, the margin of retention varied among the four
methods used for instruction. Shown in Table 6, the order of retention followed this
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
21. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 21
sequence: 5E learning cycle group 90.7%, Cooperative learning group 88.44%, Concept
Mapping group 81.11% while lecture group 76.16%. The ANOVA comparison of the four
groups indicated significant difference among the groups while post hoc analysis on retention
indicated that students taught with 5E learning cycle and cooperative learning significantly
retained more than those taught with concept mapping and lecture methods. No significant
difference was, however, found on retention between students taught with 5E learning cycle
and cooperative learning methods. Students taught with concept mapping were found to
retain more than the lecture group. Lecture method was the last on ranking of retention
among the four methods. The finding of significant retention by students in all the
instructional groups agreed with what initial researchers found using the various methods.
The noticed lower retention of biological knowledge by students taught with lecture
method and concept mapping than those taught with 5E learning cycle and cooperative
learning, may not be unconnected with the earlier identified limitations associated with the
two methods. The problem of the difficulties in the construction of concept maps and their
interpretation as pointed out by Bennett (2003) may have frustrated particularly the low
ability students in the effective learning and retention of the concepts they were exposed to.
While in the lecture group, the transmission approach adopted by teachers and the passive
role played by students may have made the knowledge they acquired to be easily forgotten
after a short period of time. These may have resulted in the lower retention found. The non-
significant difference on retention between students in the cooperative learning and 5E
learning cycle groups as found in this study may be explained with the very high level of
engagement of students in the learning process. To apply cooperative learning in the Biology
teaching involved 18 steps while the application of 5E learning cycle in the classroom entails
five stages all of which are shown in the treatment procedure. These series of activities may
have influenced the internalization of the concepts taught and their eventual retention for a
longer time.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicated that all four instructional methods showed
significant effects on students’ achievement as measured with immediate post-test and
delayed post test to determine retention. There were however, variations in the levels of
achievement among students in the four instructional groups compared. The variation in the
levels of achievement among students taught with the different strategies was a direct
reflection of the philosophical theories under which the methods evolved. The instructional
method framed under the realist ideals produced students with lower scores, while the
methods hinged under pragmatic ideals produced students who scored higher marks because
of the varying level of students’ activities in the lessons. Among the methods with pragmatic
ideals, methods with features of social interaction among the students, produced students with
the highest scores because of bonds of relationship established. Students in the 5E learning
cycle and cooperative learning groups for example were found to score higher marks both in
immediate achievement and retention tests probably because of the interplay of a higher
students’ activity during the lessons and social interaction which is a significant feature in the
structure of the two methods. Students in the concept mapping and lecture groups followed
respectively probably because of the reduced degrees of students’ activities and social
interaction. The difference in test scores of students in learning cycle and cooperative
learning groups was however not significant. The conclusion therefore is, since the major
objective of science instruction is for students to learn effectively, it is very obvious from the
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
22. Ajaja 22
findings of this study that the better methods for teaching and learning Biology could be
either the learning cycle or cooperative learning. These methods will however be very
effective only if the laboratory facilities for science teaching and learning are available in
schools, considering the numerous steps involved in their use. In schools where laboratory
facilities for Biology teaching and learning are not available, a better alternative to the lecture
method remains the concept mapping since the method does not essentially demand the use
of laboratories for practice. However, before the adoption of the method as an appropriate
instructional strategy, both the teachers and students should be well trained to acquire the
skills necessary for its use. The efficient acquisition of the skills necessary for its use both by
the Biology teachers and students will reduce the limitations associated with the method.
Lecture method could still be used to teach very abstract topics to enable students easily
acquire knowledge, new information, and explanation of events or things. It will reduce the
frustration students will experience with the other methods when dealing with very novel
References
Ajaja O.P. (1998).An evaluation of differential effectiveness of Ausubel, Bruner and Karplus
methods of teaching biology in Nigerian secondary schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis of
University of Benin.
Ajaja, O.P. (2005). An evaluation of differential effectiveness of Ausubel, Bruner and
Karplus methods of teaching biology in Nigeria secondary schools. African Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 6 (1&2), 1 – 9.
Ajaja, O.P. (2009). Teaching methods across disciplines. Ibadan: Bomn Prints.
Ajaja .O.P (2011). Concept mapping as a study skill: Effects on students’ achievement in
biology. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 49 – 57
Ajaja, O.P., & Eravwoke, O.U. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on junior
secondary school students achievement in integrated science. Electronic Journal of
Science Education, 14(1), 1 – 18.
Ajaja, O.P., & Eravwoke, U.O. (2012). Effects of 5E learning cycle on student's achievement
in biology and chemistry. Cypriot Journals of Educational Sciences, 7 (3), 244 – 262.
American Institute of Biology Sciences (1958).Biological science curriculum study.
Colorado: University of Colorado.
Atkins, J.M., & Karplus, R. (1962).Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher, 29(5), 45.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt Rinehart
and Winston.
Barman, C., & Kotar, M. (1989).The learning cycle. Science and Children, 29 (2), 30 – 32.
Baser, E.T. (2008).Cited in S.Pulat, (2009).Impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade
students’ mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc. Thesis of
Middle East Technical University.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and learning science London: Continuum.
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), (1992). Science of life and living. Dubugue
I.A: Kendall/hunt.
Borich, G.D. (2004). Effective teaching methods, fifth edition. New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice
Hall.
Bramlett, R. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning: A field study evaluating issues of
school – based consultant. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 67- 84.
Bruner, J. (1975). The act of discovery: Readings in science education for the elementary
school. New York: Macmillan pub. Co.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
23. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 23
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R.W. (1997). In learning cycle (2010). Retrieved sept.6 2010 from
http//books.google.com/books?
Campbell, D.T.,&Stanley, J.C. (1963).Experimental and quasi experimental designs for
research. New York: American Educational Research Association.
Campbell, J.A. (1961). The chemical education material study. Journal of Chemical
Education, 38 (1), 2.
Crosby, M.S., & Owens, E.M. (1993). The disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping: A
look at cooperative learning as an alternative. In National Dropout Prevention Center
Bulletin: Solutions and Strategies, 5, 1 - 8.
DES, (1968).Enquiry into the flow of candidates in science and technology into higher
education (the DaintonReport). London: HMSO.
Ezeudu, F.O. (1998). The effect of concept mapping on students’ achievement, interest and
retention in selected units of organic chemistry. Review of Education, 15(1), 181 – 190.
Fensham, P.J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. UNESCO.
Glassman, P. (1989). A study of cooperative learning in mathematics, writing and reading in
the intermediate grades: A focus upon achievement, attitudes and self-esteem by gender,
race, and ability group. Dissertation, Hofstra University, New York.
Hackett, J.K. & Moyer, R.H. (1991).Science in your world. New York: Macmillan.
Hall, R., Dansereau, D. & Skaggs, L. (1992).Knowledge maps and the presentation of related
information domains. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 5 – 18.
Jegede O.J., Alayemola F., & Okebukola P.A (1992).The effect of concept mapping on
students’ anxiety and achievement in biology. Journal of research in science teaching,
27, 951-960.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000).Educational research; Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R. & Holubec, E. (1990).Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, M.N:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, G.B., &Raven, P.H. (1998).Biology: Principle and explorations. Florida: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Johnson, R., Johnson, R. & Stanne, M. (1986). Comparison of computer – assisted
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 382 – 392.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal construct, New York: Norton.
Kinchin, I.M. (2000a). Using concept maps to reveal understanding: A two tie analysis.
School Science Review, 81, 41 – 46.
Kinchin, I.M. (2000b). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of biological education, 34, 61
– 68.
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing, cognition and metacognition.
Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57 – 74.
Kneller, G.F. (1972). Introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: John Wiley.
Lee, C.A. (2003). A learning cycle inquiry into plant nutrition. The American Biology
Teacher, 65(2), 136 – 144.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2005).Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey:
Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in
environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22 – 28.
Lorsbach, A.&Tobin, K. (1997).Constructivism as a reference for science teaching. Accessed
on 20th Oct. 2012 from https//etd.lib.melu.edu.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
24. Ajaja 24
Markow, P.G., & Lonning, R.A. (1998). Usefulness of concept mapping in college chemistry
laboratories: Students perception and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015 – 1029.
Megnin, J. (1995). Combining memory and creativity in teaching mathematics. Teaching
Prek – 8, 25 (6), 48 – 49.
Mensah, J.A., Otuka, J., & Ernest, N.W. (1995). Concept mapping: A Ghanaian secondary
school students’ experience. Science Education International I.C.A.S.E, 6(4), 24 – 28.
Moyer, R.H., Hackett, J.K., & Everett, S.A. (2007).Teaching science as investigation:
Modeling inquiry through learning cycle lessons. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill? Prentice
Hall.
National Research Council, (1996).National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D.B. (1984).Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Novak, J.D., & Musonda, D. (1991).A twelve – year longitudinal study of science concept
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117 – 153.
Nuhoglu, H, & Yalcin, N. (2006). The effectiveness of the learning cycle models to increase
students achievement in the physics laboratory. Journal of Turkish Science Education,
3(2), 28 – 30.
Obianor, E.W. (1997). The use of concept mapping to teach the concept of atom.
Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.
Okebukola, P.O.A. (1989). Concept mapping with co-operative learning flavour. The
American Biology Teacher, 54 (4), 218 – 221.
Power, D., & Wright, E. (2008). The effects of hand-on-science instruction on students
cognitive structures as measured by concept maps. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, M.A.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed), Carmichael’s manual of child
psychology (3rd ed., Vol1). New York: Wiley.
Piget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1985).The growth of logical thinking to adolescence. New York:
Basic Books.
Pulat, S. (2009).Impact of 5E learning cycle on sixth grade students’ mathematics
achievement and attitude towards mathematics. M.Sc. Thesis of Middle East Technical
University.
Ramalingan, S.T. (2008). Modern biology for senior secondary schools. Onitsha: African
first publishers Ltd.
Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’
achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal,
32(2), 321 – 351.
Strong, L. (1968). Chemical bonding approach. Richmond: Earldom College
Thorndike, R.L., & Hagen, E.P. (1997).Measurement and evaluation. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Trowbridge, L.W., & Bybee, R.W. (1996).Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for
developing scientific literacy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.
Trowbridge, L.W., Bybee, R.W. & Powell, J.C. (2000). Teaching secondary school science.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.
Walbert, D. (2003). The learning cycle. Retrieved September 9, 2012 from
www.learnnc.org/lp/pages 1663.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
25. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 25
Webb, N., Trooper, J., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative
small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(34), 406 – 423.
Wilder, M., & Shutteworth, P. (2004). Cell inquiry: A 5E learning cycle lesson. Science
Activities, 41(1), 25 – 31.
Wise, K., & Okey, J. (1983). A meta – analysis of the effects of various science teaching
strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 434.
Wiseman, D.C. (1999). Research strategies for education. New York: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
26. Ajaja 26
Appendix A
Sample of Test Items in BAT
Instruction: Answer all questions, each correct answer attracts 1 mark
Each questions is followed by four options Time Allowed: 20 minutes
1. The term cell can best be described by which of the following? Answer: C
A. the smallest unit
B. the smallest organism
C. the smallest unit of life
D. the smallest indivisible organism
2. Eukaryotic cells differ from prokaryotic cells in that eukaryotic cells ……Answer: D
A. lack organelles
B. have DNA, but not ribosomes
C. are single-celled
D. have a nuclear membrane
3. Cell exists in the following forms except…. Answer: B
A. independent form
B. mass
C. colony
D. filament
4. The term “cell” was first used by …. Answer: B
A. Robert Hooke in 1628
B. Robert Hooke in 1665
C. Robert Hooke in 1668
D. Robert Hooke in 1672
5. Organelles that are present in plant cells but absent from animals cells include the
….Answer: A
A. Chloroplast and central vacoule
B. flagellum and cell wall
C. mitochondria
D. endoplasmic reticulum, cell wall and lysosomes
6. The organelle which packages and distributes proteins and lipids is……Answer: B
A. endoplasmic reticulum
B. golgi apparatus
C. lysosome
D. nuclear envelope
7. The organelle which acts as the central power house is…….Answer: C
A. lysosome
B. ribosome
C. mitochondrium
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
27. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 27
D. golgi apparatus
8. Which of the following does the chloroplast do in a cell? ............Answer: D
A. Capture water
B. capture carbon dioxide
C. capture oxygen
D. capture sunlight
9. In which of the following organelles is protein manufactured in the cell? ………Answer: C
A. rough endoplasmic reticulum
B. smooth endoplasmic reticulum
C. ribosome
D. vesicle
10. The activities of the cell is directed by …..Answer: C
A. Chromosomes
B. mitochondria
C. nucleus
D. lysosomes
11. The spontaneous movement of any molecule from an area of high concentration to an
area of low concentration is…. Answer: B
A. Osmosis
B. diffusion
C. equilibrium
D. active transport
12. Which type of molecules most easily move across a membrane? Answer: A
A. Hydrophobic molecules, like N2
B. large polar molecules, like glucose
C. ions, like chloride (Cl-)
D. small, uncharged polar molecules, like water
13. Distilled water is ……………… relative to a solution containing dissolved salts.
Answer: B
A. hypertonic
B. hypotonic
C. isotonic
D. none of the above
14. A red blood cell placed in distilled water will….. Answer: C
A. remain unchanged
B. lose water and shrink
C. gain water and expand
D. none of the above
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
28. Which strategy best suits biology teaching? 29
Appendix B
Concept Mapping Strategy
Concept Mapping Classroom.Subjects in this group were introduced to and trained on how
to construct concept maps following the procedures of Novak and Gowin (1984). For
example, to create a concept map, start with what you already know. Build from what is
familiar. What are the key components or ideas in the topic you are trying to understand?
Place each concept in its own individual cycle, box or other geometrical shapes. Label each
arrow with descriptive terms so that your diagram can be read as a statement or proposition
by following interconnections from the top to down. With these steps learned and understood,
the students practiced the construction of several concept maps before the commencement of
instruction. A specific application of concept mapping to teach a topic is shown below.
Application of concept mapping to teach “Forms in which cells exist”
Step 1 The focus question or key topic of what was to be taught was defied as “Forms in
which cells exist”.
Step 2 With the key topic identified, the most important and general concepts associated with
the topic were listed together with the students. The key concepts listed included;
Independent Forms, Multicellular Forms, Organisms, Colony, Filament, Ball, Long Strand,
Single celled plants, Single celled animals, Living things, and all organisms are made of cells.
Step 3 The identified concepts were listed from the most general and inclusive to the most
specific see Fig 1 for details.
Step 4 Links were added as shown in Fig. 1 to form a preliminary concept map. The students
participated in drawing the links.
Step 5 The teachers together with the students added phrases to describe the relationship
among concepts. Some of the phrases used included: can be in, which are, such as, examples
of, showing and others.
Step 6 After building the preliminary concept map, the instructors together with the students,
determined and drew cross links that linked all concepts from different areas or sub-domains
on the map to elaborate on how the concepts are interrelated.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu
29. Ajaja 30
Step 7 The teachers and the students reviewed the concept map and made some necessary
changes both in content and correction.
Forms in which cells exist
Can be in Can be in
Multicellular forms
Independent forms
Which are Such as
Organisms a. Colony a. Filament
Such as Cells joined to
Cells combine and
form form
Single celled Single celled
Long strand e.g.
plant like animal like Ball e.g. volvox spirogyra
Euglena Amoeba
Examples of single celled Examples of multiple celled
Living things
Showing
All organisms are made of cells
Fig. 1. Concept map of forms in which cells exist
On treatment, the students taught with concept mapping strategy were first asked to
read the extracts they were presented and construct a pre – instruction concept map at home.
This was followed with 60 minutes, instruction on concepts in the various weeks’
instructional units, using concept mapping. Students provided main concepts, cross links,
linking phrases or complete map. After this, the students did the study, and turned in
assignments at the end of every week’s instruction. The students were found to have
restructured their concept maps briefly during the class instruction and extensively as
homework after each week’s instruction. This post instruction concept map constituted the
group’s understanding of the concepts learned in the units of instruction.
Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu