Content uploaded by Emmanuel Ikechuku Abamba
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emmanuel Ikechuku Abamba on Jun 18, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article LUMAT General Issue 2021
LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education
Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0
The effects of School location on students’ academic
achievement in senior secondary physics based on the
5E learning cycle in Delta State, Nigeria
Ikechuku Abamba
State University, Abraka, Nigeria
This study examined the effects of school location on secondary school students’
academic achievement in Physics based on the 5E learning cycle. The design of the
study was a non – randomized prêt-test, post-test control group quasi-
experimental design. The population of the study was 66,345. Two hundred and
forty-three students were sampled from six schools. Four hypotheses were tested
at 0.05 level of significance. The hypotheses state that there is no significant
difference in mean achievement scores in Physics between urban and rural
students taught using 5E leaning cycle among others. The statistical tools used
were mean, standard deviation and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) were used
in testing the hypotheses formulated. The result amongst others showed there is
no significant difference between rural and urban students’ achievement taught
using 5E learning circle (Fcal. (113) = F crit (0.005), p>0.05). Based on the findings,
it was recommended among others, that 5E learning cycle be adopted in Nigeria
secondary schools as a teaching method and that faculties of education in various
schools of higher learning should ensure that 5E learning cycle is included as a
method of teaching Physics
Keywords: school location, 5E learning cycle, physics, interaction effects and
students achievement
1 Introduction
The International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) defines Physics as the
scientific study of matter and energy and their interactions with each other, which
plays a key role in the future process of mankind. Advancement in physics often
translates to the technological sector and, sometimes to the other sciences,
Mathematics and Philosophy (IUPAP, 1999). For instance, advancement in Physics,
relative to electromagnetism, has led to the spread of electrically driven devices;
advancement in thermodynamics has led to the development of motorized
transport; just as advancement in mechanics has also led to the development of
calculus, quantum chemistry, and the use of instruments such as electron
microscope in microbiology. Okoronta (2004) asserts that Physics is a vehicle for
achieving long-term goals of science because it is instrumental to technological and
socio economic growths across the globe. Physics, as a subject, is the foundation
Article Details
LUMAT General Issue
Vol 9 No 1 (2021), 56–76
Received 28 May 2020
Accepted 5 February 2020
Published 19 February 2021
Pages: 21
References: 35
Correspondence:
abambai@yahoo.com
https://doi.org/10.31129/
LUMAT.9.1.1371
ABAMBA (2021)
57
upon which the scientific and technological advancement of a nation rests (Ogunleye
&Babajide, 2011). It is the link between all the science subjects at the secondary
school level and technological courses at the tertiary levels of education.
In spite of the importance of Physics, its teaching and learning have been in
decline in Nigeria as shown by its low enrollment. The reason is not far-fetched.
Ogunleye and Babajide (2011) state that there are observable problems plaguing the
learning of Physics in Nigeria. They include poor infrastructure, lack of qualified
manpower, non – availability of, or poorly equipped laboratories, wrong teaching
methods, among others. Such problems often lead to students’ poor performance in
external examinations, such as the West African Examination Council (WAEC) or
Joint Admission and Matriculation Board (JAMB), (Abamba, 2012)
Research by Ogunleye and Babajide (2011) affirm that Physics students at the
secondary school level continue to exhibit poor performances in the subject. The
methods of teaching adopted by teachers go a long way in determining how students
learn, and this ultimately affects their academic achievement. Eze (2003) blames the
persistent low achievement on persistent use of traditional teaching methods,
especially the lecture method which has been very ineffective in teaching pedagogy.
Hence, Eze (2003) advocate a shift from the traditional methods to more effective
ones that will engage the students’ domains (affective, cognitive and psychomotor)
of learning. Teaching is not just a process of passing information by the teacher or
showing how much a teacher can express himself but one that affords students the
opportunity to interact with both humans and available material resources.
Agbowaro (2008) states that meaningful learning is active, constructive, intentional,
authentic and cooperative. Therefore, it is imperative for teachers to employ
methods that are student-centered. According to Bybee, Tylor, Gardner, Scaffer,
Powell, Westbrook and Landes (2006), science teachers’ globally strive to improve
their instructional practices to enhance students’ learning. According to them,
science teachers, curriculum experts have identifying research findings to
incorporate into materials in order to facilitate connections between the teachers,
the curriculum, and the students. Bybee et al. (2006) state that the use of coherent
and coordinated sequencing of lessons and instrument models have become popular
in science education at present.
LUMAT
58
1.1 Origin and development of 5E
The 5E learning cycle is an instructional model that describes a teaching sequence
that can be used for an entire program, specific units and individual lessons. It was
developed by the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) through a team led by
Roger Bybee in the late 1980’s from the work of Atkin and Karplus who explored
children thinking and their explanation of natural phenomena. By 1961, Karplus
began connecting the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to the design of
instrumental material and science teaching. In 1901, J.M. Atkin shared Karplus’
ideas about the teaching of science to young children. Their collaboration led to the
development of a model of guided discovery that focused on exploration, invention,
and discovery (Bybee et al., 2006; Kolis, Krusack, Stombaugh, Stow and Brenner,
2010; Ajaja and Eravwoke, 2012). In the 1980’s, Lawson and others slightly
modified the terms of the Atkin and Karplus model, though, in spite of the changes,
the conceptual foundation of the learning cycle remained the same. According to
Bybee, the new phases added to the SCS model are engagement and evaluation. The
5E learning cycle has become successful in improving students’ achievement in
science and in helping to improve the way students learn. According to Bybee (2011),
the 5E learning cycle has been more successful than was imagined when it was
originally developed and it is recognized internationally and applied in other
disciplines other than science; adapted by curriculum developers outside the BSCS,
and used by science teachers at all levels.
The 5E learning cycle consists of 5 stages which are engagement, exploration,
explanation, extension and evaluation in that order.
1. Engagement: the teacher assesses the learners’ prior knowledge, helps in
engaging them in a new concept, using short activities in promoting curiosity
and eliciting prior knowledge. According to them, such activities should
connect past and present learning experiences, reveal prior conceptions, and
organize students’ thinking in achieving the learning outcomes of current
activities (Bybee, 2011).
2. Exploration: this stage provides students with a common experience within
which current concepts, processes and skills are identified and a conceptual
change is facilitated. Learners may complete laboratory excise that allows
them to use prior knowledge in generating new ideas, exploring possibilities
and questions, designing and conducting preliminary investigations (Bybee,
2011).
ABAMBA (2021)
59
3. Explanation: this stage focuses on students’ attention on their engagement and
exploration experiences, and enables them to demonstrate an understanding
of concepts, process skills or behaviour (Bybee, 2011). It enables teachers to
directly introduce concepts, processes or skills. Learners are allowed to explain
their understanding of the concepts. The teacher’s explanation or the
curriculum may guide students towards a deeper understanding of the
concept.
4. Extension (elaboration): teachers challenge and extend students conceptual
understanding and skills. Through new experiences, students develop deeper
and broader understanding, acquire more information, adequate skills, and
apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities
(Bybee, 2011). Students conduct additional activities based on their new
experiences.
5. Evaluation: according to Bybee et al. (2006), evaluation stage encourages
students to assess their understanding and ability and provides opportunities
for teachers to evaluate students’ progress towards achieving the educational
objectives. It is a diagnostic process which enables the teacher to determine
whether the learner has attained understanding of concepts knowledge.
Since the development of 5E learning cycle, a lot of researches have been carried
out to examine the instructional effectiveness of learning across different subjects in
the sciences. Adams, Bevevino & Dangel (1992) explored the 5E learning cycle
model approach and found that it encourages students to develop their own frame of
thought. Caprio (1994) compared a class taught with traditional method in 1985
with one taught with 5E instructional model and found that the students taught by
using 5E instructional model achieved higher.
Some studies conducted by using 5E instructional model revealed that the model
increases the success of students, improves conceptual understanding and their
attitudes (Kor, 2006 & Saglan, 2006 in Cardak et al., 2008). In another study,
Seyhan & Morgil (2007) compared two classes taught with traditional methods with
two classes taught with the 5E instructional method. They found that the
experimental group had a much greater understanding of information, especially on
questions that required interpretation. Keser & Akdeniz (2010) stated that the 5E
learning cycle aids the teacher to structure and sequence potential learning
experiences in a systematic and synergistic way that is consistent with a
constructivist view of teaching and learning. They further said that the 5E learning
LUMAT
60
cycle is not an essential part of students’ learning but a scaffold or framework for the
teacher. Hence, students must be provided with learning environments that
encourage them to explain their ideas and understanding and give opportunity for
them to extend their knowledge of concepts to other contexts (Boddy et al., 2003).
Cepni, Sahin & Ipek (2010) showed that instructional materials embedded with
different techniques in the 5E learning cycle could be effective in removing
alternative conceptions and providing conceptual changes more than existing
material. Turki & Calik (2008) also found that students were highly motivated and
their achievement were increased when 5E learning cycle model was employed in
the teaching of exothermic and endothermic reactions. Tuna & Kacar (2013)
observed students’ scores in experimental group on academic achievement and
permanence on trigonometry knowledge are higher than those of the control group
statistically when 5E learning cycle was employed. The difference between the
groups is statistically significant and in favour of the experimental group. Abdul,
Muhammad, Khalid & Shahid (2010) worked on the teaching of Physics with the 5E
learning cycle model. The study was aimed at measuring the effectiveness of the 5E
learning cycle based on the constructivist approach in the teaching of Physics in
public secondary schools. Results showed that the achievement level of students had
a significant difference from the performance of students taught with traditional
methods. They concluded that the instruction based on 5E learning cycle model
yielded better student’ performance than that of students taught by the lecture
method. Ajaja & Eravwoke (2012) showed that students taught by using the learning
cycle had a better achievement in Biology and Chemistry compared to their
counterparts that were taught by the lecture method. Similarly, Balci, Cakiroglu &
Tekkaya (2006) compared the effectiveness of 5E learning cycle with expository
instructions and found that the activities of students in 5E learning cycle activated
their prior knowledge and to overcome struggling with their misconceptions.
Ajaja (2013) showed that students in the 5E learning cycle and cooperative
learning group significantly outscored those in the concept mapping and lecture
group on both achievement and retention tests. Furthermore, students in 5E
learning cycle and cooperative learning groups did not significantly differ on
achievement and retention. Qarareh (2012) also observed that students taught by
the use of the 5E learning cycle achieved better results than students in the group
that was taught with the traditional method.
ABAMBA (2021)
61
1.2 Limitations
However, since the application of 5E learning cycle in the teaching/learning process,
a rage limitation has been observed. One such limitation is that teachers have been
finding it difficult to use the model effectively such that major characteristics of the
model are overlooked (Keith & Shelly, 2012). In addition to this, not extending the
elaboration into novel areas beyond the specific concept has been identified
educator using only verbal explanation during the 3rd stage (explain) has also been
criticized (Keith et al., 2012; Fletcher in Somayeh & Shahram, 2015). Hence,
researchers have called for proper training of both instructors and students before
the commencement of instruction (Ajaja, 2013).
The model has also been criticized for being time-consuming both in
implementation and in planning, with calls for increased time on the task before and
during instruction (Ajaja, 2013; Claire, 2013). Kirschner et al. (2006) and Dodge,
(2017) also observed the risk of developing new misconceptions by students with
little background or experience in the concept. Furthermore, Ajaja (2012) observed
that low ability students may find it very difficult to cope with the model and called
for strong cooperation among members of a group under such program. Finally, the
bulk of the limitations highlighted stern from the fact that most educators find 5E
learning cycle novel and thus lack the skill required for the effective use of the
model. There must be adequate tutelage for both instructors and students on their
level of participation in all 5 stages of instruction
1.3 Urban and rural schools
The location of a school has a big role to play in the academic achievement of
students at school. Akinyele (2011) stated that the immediate environment of a child
plays a major role in his socialization. According to him, the area in which a school is
located can affect the academic achievement of a student. In the same vein, Akpan
(2001) has stated that school location is one of the major factors that affect students’
academic achievements. A school located in a rural area is usually faced with
problems like shortage of teachers, lack of laboratories, poorly equipped
laboratories, among others in Nigeria. These shortcomings negatively affect both
students’ motivation and achievement. Evidence abound that the educational
aspirations of students who study in rural are weaker than those of their urban
counterparts (Hum, 2003; Arnold et al., 2005). Macmillan (2012) found that
students in rural areas place less value on studies such that their achievements are
LUMAT
62
affected.
Adesoji and Olatunbosun (2008) have pointed out that the relationship between
the location 0f a school and students’ academic achievements has been reported.
Urban students perform better than their counterparts in semi-urban and rural
schools (Adepoju, 2001; Ogunleye, 2002; Ndukwu, 2002). Corroborating this, Hu
(2003) said that, compared with urban students, rural students tend to have lower
educational aspiration, place less values on academics, and have lower academic
motivation. Owoeye (2002) found a significant difference between the academic
performance of students in rural areas and that of their urban counterparts.students
in urban areas are better.
On the other hand, Ajayi (1999) studied the relationship between academic
achievement and school location and found that the there is no significant difference
between academic achievement of students in urban students and that of students in
rural students. Yusuf and Adigun (2010) also observed that whether a student
attends a rural or urban secondary school does not make any difference in his
academic achievement. Owoeye and Yara (2011) posit that in Nigeria, education in
rural areas is usually full of difficulties.
1. Teachers who are qualified don’t like being posted to villages
2. Villagers prevent their children from going to school regularly because of the
children’s involvement in farming activities
3. Parents are reluctant to entrust their female wards to male teachers.
4. Lack of roads and communication facilities making it difficult to get books and
teaching materials to the schools.
There is, therefore, disparity between the quality of teachers in urban schools
and that of those in rural areas, and, this is reflected in students’ achievement. The
review has shown that more researchers hold the view that urban students do better
than rural ones. This research is, therefore, designed to investigate whether the
application of 5E learning cycle will significantly improve the achievement of
students both in rural schools and urban schools irrespective of the location of the
school.
Having established that students’ academic achievement in the sciences,
particularly in Physics is, in decline, it has become imperative to find methods and
strategies that can curb this downward trend in students’ achievement in that
subject. Having examined the effectiveness of the 5E learning cycle in improving
students’ achievement in the learning of science subjects, and having and seeing the
ABAMBA (2021)
63
poor achievement in the rural areas, this work therefore seeks to examine the effects
of school location on students’ achievement in Physics based on the 5E learning
cycle. The general purpose of this study is to examine the effects of school location
on students’ academic achievement based on the 5E learning cycle. Specifically, the
study will find out whether
1. There is a difference in the mean achievement scores in Physics between urban
and rural students taught with the 5E learning cycle model.
2. There is a difference between the mean achievement scores of urban and rural
secondary school students taught with the lecture method.
2 Research hypotheses
The following null (Ho) hypotheses were put forward to answer the problems stated
and tested at 0.05 level of significance
1. Ho1: there is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of
students in Physics between groups taught by the 5E learning cycle and those
taught with lecture method.
2. Ho2: there is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores in
Physics between urban and rural students taught with 5E learning cycle model.
3. Ho3: there is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores in
Physics between urban and rural students taught with the lecture method.
4. Ho4: there is no significant interaction effect between method and school
location on students’ academic achievements in Physics.
3 Materials and methods
3.1 Design of the study
A research design is the plan or logical structure of a study (Okorodudu, 2013).
According to him, the nature of the problem and the hypotheses to be tested as well
as the type of sample and the subjects determine to a large extent the design to be
adopted. The study is a non-randomized pre-test, post-test control group quasi-
experimental design. The population of the study is sixty-six thousand, three
LUMAT
64
hundred and forty-five (66,345). Two hundred and forty-six students were sampled
using simple random sampling technique from six secondary schools in Delta State
(two from each senatorial district out of the three senatorial districts) using
stratified sampling.
3.2 Instrumentation
The research instruments designed by the researcher and used for this study include
1. Physics Achievement Test (PAT). The test was constructed by the researcher
on topics in the concept of light waves. The topics treated include reflection of
light waves, refraction of light waves and applications of light waves. The test
consisted of 50 multiple-choice questions with options A-D or E from past
West African Examination Council (WAEC) questions. A table of specification
prepared showed that 48% of the question tested their knowledge of the
concepts, 36% tested comprehension, and 16% tested application of the
concepts.
2. Instructional packages for the instructors (lesson play). They include (a)
comprehensive lesson plan on 5E learning cycle on the concept of light waves
(b) comprehensive lesson plan based on the traditional method (lecture
method).
3.3 Validity and reliability
Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed
correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables
called factors. The Physics Achievement Test (PAT) was administered to 31
participants who were involved in the pilot test. The instrument was found valid in
content, construct and face. In establishing the reliability of the instrument, Kuder-
Richardson formula 21 (KR 21) was used to estimate the internal consistency
reliability of PAT. KR21 coefficient calculated was 0.71. Based on this value, the
Physics achievement test was found reliable. The factor analysis of items in Physics
Achievement Test (PAT) was processed so that the test could be estimated for
content and construct validity. The factor analysis of the PAT began with the
processing of Descriptive Statistics and Initial Communalities. The Descriptive
Statistics of mean and standard deviation of total items retained for the 31 (intact
ABAMBA (2021)
65
class) participants who were involved in the pilot test of the PAT instrument at Delta
State University Secondary School were reported. A total of 50 items were selected
out of the initial total items of 78 that were factor analysed. These 78 items selected
were computed for content and construct validity using Factor Analysis Output from
principal component analysis (PCA).
To establish the content validity of the instrument, Eigen value of above 1 was
used to select factor components into the PAT instrument. The factor matrix of all
factors or components had to be rotated to determine the weight of each item within
each of the components. The cumulative variance for all rotated sums of squared
loading was estimated as 89.45%. This is an indication of the content validity of
PAT. It revealed that PAT covered up to 89.45% of the domain of Physics
Achievement Variable with a total of unexplained variance of 10.55%. Therefore, on
the whole, the cumulative Eigen value of 89.45% is above 50% and hence the PAT
was considered content valid.
In establishing the construct validity, the factor matrix of all factors or
components had to be rotated using Varimax to determine the weight of each item
within each of the components. Eigen value of above 1 was used to select factors that
genuinely measure similar construct. From the observed scores, latent variables
were identified with the number of items measured by the construct. Since rotated
factor loading matrixes range between 0.29 and 0.81, it can be concluded that PAT
has construct validity.
The Physics Achievement Test, after selection, was given to three experts in
science education to establish the face validity of the instrument.
3.4 Treatment procedure
• Training of instructors
The physics teachers used for the experimental group were trained on the skills of
using 5E learning cycle for teaching. This exercise lasted for three days (a day was
devoted to a teacher in a school). The process started with explaining the meaning
of 5E learning cycle, its origin, modifications and applications in the teaching-
learning process. The next stage was done using the 5E training manual adopted
from SEDL (2012), explaining the role of teachers and students on every stage of the
model.
LUMAT
66
• Treatment proper
The researcher obtained an official permission from the heads of the six (6)
secondary schools for the study. The Physics teachers in each school were used as
research assistants. Where the school has more than one Physics teacher, the
research assistant was the teacher assigned to Senior Secondary 11 (SSII). The
researcher gave them orientation on the purpose of the study to ensure uniformity
and ensure that each conformed to the content and method assigned. For the
research assistants in the experimental groups, the researcher explained how to
follow up the students at every stage and guide their transition to the next stage of
instruction based on the 5E learning cycle. The researcher explained the kind of
questions to be asked at different stages of the cycle. The level of their involvement
at every stage was also explained to the teachers. The researcher embarked on
several supervision visits to the schools to check on the effectiveness of the teachers
with respect to the treatment procedure assigned to that school.
At the end of the orientation exercise, the research assistants for the
experimental groups were handed a copy of the instructional lesson plans based on
the 5E instructional model and the necessary instructional materials for the
instructions to commence. In addition, copies of lesson plans for the control groups
as well as the necessary instructional materials were given to the assistants in order
to commence teaching.
The researcher visited each school before the commencement of instruction, and
administered the test (Physics Achievement Test, PAT) with the assistance of the
research assistants in each school. The students were given the necessary
instructions and asked to answer the questions within specified time frame. After
the test, the researcher retrieved the answer sheets and the question papers from
them and marked. This accounted for the pre-test scores. Also, the researcher
handed the test (PAT) to the research assistants a week to the end of the program to
administer to the students within three days after instruction has been concluded.
They were collected back by the researcher for marking. This accounted for the post-
test scores.
ABAMBA (2021)
67
3.5 Method of data analysis
The data obtained were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard
deviation) while hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 were tested using the Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA).
4 Results and Discussions
Data gathered were analysed and the results are presented below.
4.1 Test of assumptions
The following tests of assumptions were established to justify the use of ANCOVA.
1. The covariate was measured before treatment
2. The Crombach alpha using the reliability procedure was established
3. More than one covariate were used
4. The linearity was established. The straight line shows a linear relationship
with each other.
5. The significant interaction between the covariate and the treatment is 0.4.
This is above 0.05 level of significance, thus, establishing the homogeneity of
regression slope.
4.2 Test of hypotheses
• Result on hypothesis 1
The hypothesis examined whether there is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of students in Physics between groups taught by using 5E
learning cycle and those taught by using the lecture method.
From table 1, the experimental group had a mean achievement score of 25.50
while that of control group had a mean achievement of 15.25 in post-test score over
50. The difference in mean achievement is 10.25. Also, the standard deviation for
post-test experimental group is 5.16 while that of control is 3.19. This shows that
there is a difference in the mean achievement in favour of the experimental group.
LUMAT
68
An inferential statistics will be used to establish whether the difference is statistically
significant.
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of both experimental and control groups.
Test
Teaching
Method
N
Mean
SD
Pretest
5E model
113
8.86
3.15
Lecture
133
8.64
3.18
Posttest
5E model
113
25.50
5.16
Lecture
133
15.25
3.19
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was carried out to determine the difference is
significant and the result is presented in table2.
The result of the ANCOVA gives an F (246) =360.591 which is significant at 0.05
level of significance. This implies that there is a statistically significant difference in
the achievement of the groups. From the result, there are enough reasons to reject
hypothesis 1. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the mean achievement
scores of students taught using 5E learning cycle and those taught by using the
lecture method in Physics. Furthermore, the value of Adjusted R Squared is 0.596.
This implies that the 5E learning cycle contributed 59.6% to the achievement of
students.
Table 2. Summary of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the significance of difference in physics test
scores between students exposed to 5E learning cycle and lecture method.
Dependent variable: post-test
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
6441.352a
2
3220.676
182.041
.000
Intercept
10724.767
1
10724.767
606.193
.000
Pretest
25.904
1
25.904
1.464
.227
Treatment
6379.578
1
6379.578
360.591
.000
Error
4299.156
243
17.692
Total
108701.000
246
Corrected Total
10740.508
245
a. R Squared = .600 (Adjusted R Squared = .596)
• Result on hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 examined whether there is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores in Physics between urban and rural students taught by using 5E
learning cycle.
ABAMBA (2021)
69
Table 3 shows the mean achievement of rural and urban students in pre-tests are
9.18 and 8.87 with a standard deviation of 3.25 and 2.85 over 50 respectively. The
post test scores are 25.57 and 25.32 while the standard deviations are 5.88 and 4.64
respectively. From the result of the discipline statistics, there is a difference in the
mean achievement scores in Physics between rural and urban students taught by
using 5E learning cycle method.
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation between urban and rural students taught using 5E learning cycle.
Test
School
location
N
Mean
SD
Pre
-test
Rural
44
9.18
3.25
Urban
62
8.87
2.85
Post
-test
Rural
47
25.57
5.88
Urban
62
25.32
4.64
When subjected to inferential statistics using ANCOVA, the result is presented in
table 4. The ANCOVA result reveals that F (113) = 0.004 is not significant at 0.05
level of significance. This result shows that the F – ratio of 0.004 is not statistically
coefficient. This implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the
achievement of urban and rural students taught by using 5Elearning cycle.
Table 4. Result of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of test scores between urban and rural students on
achievement in groups taught using 5E learning cycle
Dependent variable: post-test
• Result on hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 examined whether there is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores in Physics between urban and rural students taught by using the
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares
Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model
7.571a
2
3.785
.140
.870
.003
Intercept
6622.269
1
6622.269
244.723
.000
.690
Prettest
7.350
1
7.350
.272
.603
.002
Location
.097
1
.097
.004
.952
.000
Error
2976.624
110
27.060
Total
76590.000
113
Corrected Total
2984.195
112
a. R Squared = .003 (Adjusted R Squared = .016)
LUMAT
70
lecture method. Table 5 shows the mean achievement scores for rural and urban
students in pre-test are 9.74 and 8.48 respectively, while the post test scores are
13.75 and 15.67 over 50 respectively. From the result of the description statistics,
there is a difference in the mean scores in Physics between rural and urban students
taught by using the lecture method.
Table 5. Mean and standard deviation between urban and rural students taught using lecture method.
Test
School
location
N
Mean
SD
Pretest
Rural
34
9.74
3.57
Urban
84
8.48
2.92
Posttest
Rural
34
13.71
3.58
Urban
84
15.67
3.04
In determining whether the difference was significant, ANCOVA was employed.
The result of F (133) = 2.914 is not significant at 0.05 level of significant. This
implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the achievement of
urban and rural students taught with the lecture method. Therefore hypothesis 3 is
accepted.
Table 6. Result of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of test scores between urban and rural students on
achievement in groups taught using lecture method
Dependent Variable: Post-test
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
Df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected Model
36.258a
2
18.129
1.790
.171
.027
Intercept
3017.837
1
3017.837
298.013
.000
.696
Prettest
10.246
1
10.246
1.012
.316
.008
Location
29.508
1
29.508
2.914
.090
.022
Error
1316.449
130
10.127
Total
32398.000
133
Corrected Total
1352.707
132
a. R Squared = .027 (Adjusted R Squared = .012)
• Result on hypothesis 4
In determining the interaction between methods and location, ANCOVA interaction
table was employed and the result is presented in table 7.
Table 7 shows F (228) = 2.178; P>0.141 which reveals that there is no interaction
effect between method and location on students achievements in Physics. This
ABAMBA (2021)
71
implies that the factors could not interact to affect the achievement of students in
Physics.
Table 7. Summary of ANCOVA for significant interaction effect between the methods used and school
location on achievement in Physics.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: post-test
Source
Type III Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
6511.513a
4
1627.878
92.769
.000
Intercept
9305.457
1
9305.457
530.295
.000
Pretest
47.818
1
47.818
2.725
.100
Treatment
6361.421
1
6361.421
362.522
.000
Location
30.128
1
30.128
1.717
.191
treatment * location
38.219
1
38.219
2.178
.141
Error
4228.995
241
17.548
Total
108701.000
246
Corrected Total
10740.508
245
R Squared = .606 (Adjusted R Squared = .600)
The graph of interaction in
figure 1 shows an ordinary interaction because the lines does not cross each
order. From
table 7, F-cal (2.178)> F-crit (3.84) shows that there is no significant interaction effect
between method and loca
tion on student achievement in Physics. Thus, the null hypothesis of non –
significant interaction effect was
accepted.
Figure 1. Graph illustrating significance interaction effect between method and location on students’
achievement in Physics.
LUMAT
72
4.2 Test of hypotheses
This work examined the effects of school location on students’ academic
achievements based on the 5E learning cycle. The study also examined the
interaction between the methods employed and school location.
Hypothesis 1 stated that there is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of students in Physics between groups taught by using 5E
learning cycle and those taught with lecture method. The mean score of the
experimental group is higher than the mean score of the control group. This implies
that the experimental (5E learning cycle) group achieved better than the control
group. The t-test result (t-cal. (18.315) > t-crit (1.960), p>0.005) shows difference in
performance is significant. A confirmatory test using ANCOVA (F (246) =360.591,
p>0.005) also confirms that the difference is significant in favour of the
experimental group. Therefore, the achievement scores of students taught by using
5E learning cycle and those taught by using the lecture method in Physics is
significantly different. This result is in consonance with Cardak et al. (2008), Cepni,
Sahin & Ipek (2010), Tuna & Kacar (2013), Ajaja & Eravwoke (2012), Qarareh
(2012), Balci, Cakiroglu & Tekkaya (2006) who reported a significant difference in
students’ achievement in favour of 5E learning cycle.
Hypothesis 2 stated there is no significant difference in the mean achievement
scores in Physics between urban and rural students taught by using 5E learning
cycle. The result of the descriptive statistics showed the mean achievement for rural
and urban students in pre-test which were 8.87 and 9.18 respectively differ from the
post-test scores of students which were 25.32 and 25.25. The descriptive statistics
showed a difference in the mean achievement scores between rural and urban
students. This implies that the rural students performed better than their urban
counterparts. The finding establishes the fact that rural students are not
disadvantaged when the 5E learning cycle is employed. However, when subjected to
ANCOVA (F (133) =0.004, p>0.005), the difference was not significant. This led to
the acceptance of the null hypothesis. This implies that the achievement of rural and
urban students do not differ significantly when they are taught Physics by using the
5E learning cycle. The result of Adjusted R Squared of 0.016 shows that the effect of
school location on students’ achievements based on 5E learning cycle is 1.6%. The
result on hypothesis 2 is at variance with the results of Adesoji and Olatunbosun
(2008), Adepoju (2001), Ogunleye (2002), Ndokwu (2002), Owoeye (2002), Yusuf
and Adigun (2010), Ajayi (1999) and Owoeye and Yara (2011). These researchers
ABAMBA (2021)
73
have observed that the achievements of students in urban and rural areas are
significantly different.
In examining whether there is a significant difference in the mean achievement
scores in Physics between urban and rural students taught by the lecture method,
post-test scores of students showed that rural students scored 13.71; while urban
students scored 15.67. On the basis of this result, it was established that there is a
difference in the mean achievement scores in Physics between rural and urban
students taught the use lecture method. The mean score of the urban students was
higher than that of the rural students. This implies that urban students achieved
better when the lecture method is employed. However, on exposure to ANCOVA (F
(113) = 0.05, P> 0.05), the difference was not significant. This implies that there is
no significant difference in achievement scores between rural and urban students
when they are taught by the using lecture method. The result on the hypothesis is at
variance with results of Adesoji and Olatunbosun (2008), Adopoju (2001), Ogunleye
(2002), Ndokidu (2002), Owoeye (2002), Yusuf and Adigun (2010), Ajayi (1999)
and Owoleye and Yara (2011) who reported significant difference in the achievement
of students in urban and rural areas. This show with equal treatment, there will be
no significant difference in the achievement between rural and urban students. Also,
irrespective of the school location, the 5E learning circle improved the mean
achievement of students.
The research also showed that there is no interaction effect between method and
school location in students achievements in Physics. F cal (2.178) < F-cal (3.84);
p>0.141 show no significant interaction effect. Graphically, a dis-ordinal interaction
between the lines crossed each other. This implies that the two factors did not
interact to cause the desired test scores of the students. Thus, the null hypothesis of
the non-significant interaction effect is established.
5 Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Conclusion
On the basis of the findings of this study, it is concluded that both methods (the
lecture method and the 5E learning circle) improved students’ achievement in
Physics. However, the group exposed to 5E learning cycle achieved significantly
better than the one taught with the traditional method. This study has established
that the achievement of students taught by using both the lecture and the 5E
LUMAT
74
learning circle did not differ significantly with school location (urban and rural).
From the Adjusted R Square, the effect of school location on students’ achievements
in Physics based on the 5E learning cycle is just 1.6%. Also, there is no interaction
effect between method and school location in determining the achievements of
students in Physics when the 5E learning cycle is employed.
5.2 Recommendations
On the basis of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendations are made:
1. The findings of the study have proved statistically the effectiveness of 5E
learning cycle in enhancing better achievements in the learning of Physics.
Thus, Physics teachers are encouraged to adopt the method in the teaching of
the subject with a view to improving students’ achievement in it. The method
enables students to cooperate with one another and individual acquisition of
knowledge instead of being spoon-fed. Using 5E learning cycle provides
teachers with the opportunity to discover for themselves the individual
problems of students and the general weakness of the students in the class.
2. Faculties of education of various institutions of higher learning should ensure
that the 5E learning cycle is included as a method of teaching Physics and
other science subjects. This will acquaint would-be teachers with the
knowledge of the method and its advantages.
References
Abamba, E.I. (2012). Content coverage and students’ academic achievement in senior secondary
physics: The Delta State Example of Nigeria. Asia-Pacific Forum on science learning and
teaching. 13(1), p2
Adams, K., Bevevino, M. & Dengel, J. (1999). Constructivist theory in the classroom. The Clearing
House, 117–120.
Adepoju, T. (2001). Location factors as correlates of private and academic performance of
secondary schools in Oyo State. Unpublished Paper, UI, Ibadan.
Adesoji, F.A. &Olatunbosun, S.M. (2008). Student, teacher and school environmental factor as
determinants of achievement in senior secondary school chemistry in Oyo State, Nigeria.
The Journal of International Social Research, 1(2).
Abdul, Q.S., Muhammad, N.Q., Khalid,J.S.& Shalid, H.M. (2010). Teaching physics through
learning cycle. An experimental study, 13(2):5-18.
Ajaja, O.P. (2013). Which Strategy best suit biology teaching? Lecturing, Concept mapping,
cooperative learning or learning cycle? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 17(1).
ABAMBA (2021)
75
Ajaja, O.P. & Eravwoke, U.O. (2012). Effects of 5E learning cycle on students on achievement in
Biology and Chemistry. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3). 244–262.
Ajayi, I.A. (1999). Unit cost of secondary education and students’ academic achievement in Ondo
State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, U.I.
Agbowaro, C. (2008). “The effects of metacognition on the meaningful learning of some biological
concepts in secondary schools in Plateau State. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Conference
of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria.
Akinyele O.A. (2011). Gender differences and school location factors as correlate of secondary
school students’ achievement in physics. The 2011 Maui International Academic
Conference, Maui, Hawaii, USA 2011.
Akpan, E.U.U. (2001). Government and science and technology education in Nigeria. Journal of
Educational Issues, 1(1): 101–113.
Arnold, M.L., Newman, J.H., Gaddy, B.B. & Dean, C.B. (2000). A look at the condition of rural
education research: setting direction for future research. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 20(6). Retrieved from http://www.jrre.Psu.edu/articles/20-26pdf.
Balci, S., Cakiroglu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and
evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tool. Biochemistry
and Microbiology Education, 34(3): 199–203
Bybee, R.W. (2011). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills: A commissioned
paper for a workshop on exploring the intersection of science education and the
development of 21st century skills. Retrieved 2014 from WWW.bscs.org.
Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Scaffer, P.V., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A. &Landes, N.
(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. WWW.bscs.org.
Caprio, M. W. (1994). Easing into constructivism, connecting meaningful learning with students’
experience. Journal of College Science Teaching. 23(4), 210–212.
Cardak, O., Dikmenl, M. & Saritas, O. (2008). “Effect of 5E instructional model in student success
in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic”. Asian Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and teaching, Vol. 9, Issue 2, Article 10.
Cepni, S., Sahin, C. & Ipek, H. (2010).teaching floatation and sinking concepts with different
method and technique based on the 5E instructional model. Asian Pacific Forum on
Science Learning and teaching, Vol. 11, Issue 2, Article 5.
Eze, C.U. (2003). Effect of target task approach on students’ achievement in senior school
certificate physical chemistry. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference and Inaugural
Conference of CASTME Africa.
Hu, S. (2003). Educational aspiration and postsecondary access and choice: Students in the
urban, suburban and rural schools compared. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol.
11(14). http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v//n14/.
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP, 1999). www.triumf.iinfo/.../IUPAP-
Aims.html. Retrieved 2011.
Keser, O.F. & Akdeniz, A.R. (2010). Assessment of the constructivist physics learning
environments. Asia-pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1) article 6.
Macmillan, M. J. (2012). School Location versus academic achievement in Physics: Does
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has any effect? Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 2(8): 162–168
Ndukwu, P.N. (2002). School and teacher factors as determinants of classroom material resources
utilization in pre-primary school in Lagos State. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis.
Njoku, Z.C. (2002). Enhancing girls’ acquisition of science process skills in co-educational
Ogunleye, A.O. (2002). Science education reform and its implications for the professional
development of science teachers in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference
and Inaugural Conference of CASTME Africa.
Ogunleye, B.O. &Babajide, V.F.T. (2011). General instructional strategy enhances senior
secondary school students’ achievement in physics. European Journal of Educational
Studies, 3(3): 453–455
LUMAT
76
Okorodudu, R. I. (2013). Research methods and Statistics-A practical approach. University
printing press, Delta State University, PMB 1, Abraka-Nigeria.
Okoronta, A.U. (2004). Model based instructional strategies as determinant of students’ learning
outcomes in secondary physics in Lagos State. An Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, UI, Nigeria.
Owoeye, J.S. & Yara, P.O. (2011). School location and academic achievement of secondary schools
in Ekiti State. Asia Social Science. Vol. 7
Owoeye, J.S. (2002). The effect of integration of location facilities and class size on academic
achievement of secondary school students in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis,
U.I.
Qarareh, A.O. (2012). The effect of using the learning cycle method in teaching science on the
Educational achievement of the sixth graders. International Journal of Education Science,
4(2):123–132
Seyhan, H. & Morgil, I. (2007). The effect of 5E learning model on teaching of acid-base topics in
Chemistry education. Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 120–123.
Tuna, A. & Kacar, A. (2013). The effect of 5E Learning Model in teaching trigonometry on students’
Academic Achievement and the permanence of their knowledge. International Journal on
new trends in education and their implications. 4(1).
Yusuf, M.A. & Adigun, J.T. (2010). The influence of school sex, location and type on students’
academic performance. International Journal of Education Science, 2(2).
