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).