Abstract
This action research aimed to develop graduated students’ understanding of teaching biology based on the 5E instructional model using a flower components lesson in a higher degree Biology Education course. The 5E instructional model was promoted in this study in view of the educational policies of the participants’ countries which supported the student-centered learning approach. Flower components topic was selected as it is a common topic in the science curriculum of participants’ countries and all participants studied this topic when they were students at the primary level. The data was collected from two student cohorts of a Biology Education course. Each cohort comprises five and six students, respectively. Students’ reflection sheet and activity sheet were analyzed using content analysis. The analysis of data indicated that the instruction enhanced students’ understanding of 5E Instructional model and flower components topic. Students were also able to plan for lessons using the 5E instructional model in other biology topics. Results of the reflection sheets also showed students’ appreciation for putting theory into practice in biology education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arslan, H. O., Gebun, O., & Saglam, N. (2015). Instruction model to foster conceptual understanding in cell division and reproduction concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(5), 670–684.
Asian Development Bank. (2002). Teacher development for quality learning: The Thailand education reform project. Brisbane: Office of Commercial Services.
Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34(3), 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2006.49403403199.
Bell, B. (2003). Teacher development in science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 681–693). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness and applications.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10–13.
Cardak, O., Dikmenli, M., & Saritas, O. (2008). Effect of 5E instructional model in students success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1–12.
Cakiroglu, J. (2006). The effect of instruction model approach on students’ achievement in science. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 22, 61–73.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fazelian, P., Ebrahim, A. N., & Soraghi, S. (2010). The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and retention of sciences for middle class students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 140–143.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C., & Oesch, J. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575–591.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). (2004). Science and technology teacher standard. Bangkok, Thailand: IPST.
Kaynar, D., Tekkaya, C., & Cakiroglu, J. (2009). Effectiveness of 5E instruction model instruction on students’ achievement in cell concept and scientific epistemological beliefs. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37, 96–105.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. California: Corwin Press.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2003). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 667–680). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ministry of Education. (2004). Development of education in Myanmar, in The Government of the Union of Myanmar. Retrieved from https://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2004/myanmar_ocr.pdf.
Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.004.
Nopparatjamjomras, T. R., Nopparatjamjomras, S., & Jittivadhna, K. (2011). Research report of the development program for in-service junior high school teachers in welfare schools. Bangkok, Thailand: The Thailand Research Fund.
Nopparatjamjomras, T. R. (2012). Developing a social constructivist teaching and learning module on DNA for high school students in Thailand. In M. Kim & C. H. Diong (Eds.), Biology Education for social and sustainable development (pp. 233–240). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (2000). Learning reform: A learner-centered approach. Bangkok, Thailand: Watana Panit Printing & Publishing.
Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC). (2001). Research report to develop science education reform policy in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of the National Education Commission.
Pelzang, T. (2012). Enhancing grade 10 Bhutanese students’ understanding of the DNA and chromosome structure using 5Es instruction model. (Master of Science Thesis in Science and Technology Education). Nakhon Pathom, Thailand: Maidol University.
Pelzang, T., Nopparatjamjomras, S., & Nopparatjamjomras, T. R. (2014). Enhancing grade 10 Bhutanese students’ understanding of DNA and chromosome structure concepts. In R. P. Devadason, I. Zurida, & K. T. Ng (Eds.), Empowering the future generation through science education (pp. 63–75). Penang: SEAMEO RECSAM Publication Unit.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
Tenzin, W., & Maxwell, T. W. (2008). Primary science education in Bhutan: Development and challenges. In R. K. Coll, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science Education in Context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 313–332). Sense Publishers.
Urey, M., & Calik, M. (2008). Combining different conceptual change methods within 5E model: A sample teaching of cell concepts and its organelles. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1–16.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to show our gratitude to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Institute for Innovative learning, Mahidol University for partial funding of this study. The authors also would like to thank Myat Noe Khin and Sushmika Tamang for their help with the Myanmar and Bhutan science curriculum, respectively.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nopparatjamjomras, T.R., Nopparatjamjomras, S. (2020). Teaching Integration of 5E Instructional Model and Flower Components. In: Teo, T.W., Tan, AL., Ong, Y.S. (eds) Science Education in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5155-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5154-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5155-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)