Course assignment - Reflection 3

This week we take a look at the BSCS 5E Instructional Model that was developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The 5E model provides a planned sequence of instruction that places students at the center of their learning experiences, encouraging them to explore, construct their own understanding of scientific concepts, and relate those understandings to other concepts (Bybee 1997, p. 176). The BSCS 5E instructional model or the 5E’s embrace a constructivist view of learning that allows learners to test new ideas against what they already know or believe to be true. The 5E’s of the instructional model are engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate.

The goal of the engage phase is to capture the learners’ attention and interest. The teacher is to ask questions, pose a problem, or present conflicting events to promote engagement amongst all learners. If students are puzzled raising questions such as “How did that happen?” or “I have wondered about that,” and “I want to know more about that,” they likely are engaged in a learning situation (Bybee et al., 2006). The exploring phase provides learners with a foundation of experiences with a description of concepts to investigate, observe, and formulate explanations to develop their cognitive thinking. An example of this is, learners completing a lab activity to ensure prior knowledge is activated and the exploration of new ideas are ignited. The explanation phase of the 5E instructional model is prominent due to the fact that at this stage learners are able to now make comprehensible and clear explanations of their prior experiences. During the explanation phase, teachers address key concepts such as scientific, engineering, technology and explicitly explain while using prior experiences. If we were to relate the explanation phase using the NGSS, this would be the crosscutting concept clearly explaining core ideas. The elaborate phase ensures students are involved in their learning experiences that extend and expand their concepts made in prior (engage, explore, explain) phases. In the elaborate phase, teachers must provide all students with material that challenges them but encourages an achievable learning outcome. Students should be encouraged to interact with other students and have access to other resources available (databases, tools, web interactions or searches) to partake in additional activities. In the evaluate phase, from a teachers point of view, observing and assessing learners as they apply their new skills and new concepts takes place in this particular 5E stage. Students should receive feedback and explanations from the teacher on their adequacy of their understanding. This is important to not just students but also for teachers to evaluate or adjust their teaching practice to promote a better learning outcome.

I find the 5E model is extremely effective because it provides a basis for multiple lessons and an entire thematic unit. It also can be used throughout all grade levels and for any subject. The BSCS model state that it can be applied at several levels in the design of curriculum materials and instructional sequences of a yearlong program, to units within the curriculum, and to sequences within lessons (Bybee et al., 2006). A proposal idea can be based on the use of the 5E instructional model in a specific science subject and/or lesson to implement and observe or collect data on how effective the lesson and learning outcome is compared to it being taught the traditional way.

I do see a conflict when using the 5E’s for class periods that are 45-50 minutes long because each phase takes up a certain amount of time that is needed therefore it is not most effective when the 5E lesson requires more time. This type of model does require a specific amount of time to make sure each stage is efficient and students get the best learning experience. My concern is, can teachers shorten the lesson to fit in one class period or does it take away from the constructivist learning outcome? Or can you provide a lesson that only includes engage and explain, and omits the rest of the 5E’s?

Bybee, R. W. 1997. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heine­mann.

Bybee, R.W., J.A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. Carlson Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes. 2006. BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs, CO:  BSCS.

Course assignment – Reflection 2

The authors present to us a theory in a manner that includes the conceptual change description and a study that explores the conceptual change of physics students. The models used in the article portray a physics lesson that concludes what manner students use their existing concepts to sort out new information; this is known as assimilation. When students’ concepts are inadequate they must restructure the central concepts through accommodation. Based on the data that was provided, the physics students work on a complex lesson that reveals dissatisfaction and gradual conceptual change. We learn that in order for students to change their central concepts the following four conditions of scientific conceptual change are necessary (Posner et al., 1982):

1.     There must be dissatisfaction with existing conceptions.

2.     A new conception must be intelligible.

3.     A new conception must appear initially plausible.

4.     A new concept should suggest the possibility of a fruitful research program.

Dissatisfaction with existing concepts are conditions that scientists or students at first are not making changes in their concepts because they do not believe they will work, then understanding new terms for what they are really saying rather than just knowing words. Students have their own judgments, metacognition, and empirical beliefs that are significant to what they find plausible therefore forming their conceptual change. Once students are aware of the new concept, or referred to as successful accommodation, they can go forth and expand their views throughout their lives. The conceptual change theory is aimed to provide a rich bases for all students to continue to grow each new school year. Teachers play a role in applying teaching strategies that create cognitive conflicts in students such as lectures, demonstrations, problems, and labs to raise anomalies (something they can’t comprehend) [Posner et al., 1982]. Teachers are to design an instruction diagnoses errors in student thinking and further help students make sense of the science content by helping students translate from mode of representation to another (Clement, 1977). It is imperative that teaching and learning goes hand in hand.

My concern for the reading is about those students whom do not have prior knowledge on a given topic, would that throw off the process of conceptual change? There would be no dissatisfaction with an existing concept other than simply being perplexed, amused, or accepting and it being plausible. Therefore in a situation like that, prior knowledge would not be added, it would just be filling the gap in their existing knowledge? Additionally, when one student thinks different than the other, one of the two students must have to give up or reject the learning objective from a science core concept?

A possible proposal idea can be about science literacy (science vocabulary) and the process for conceptual change to take place. Taking a further look into how the conceptual change will affect these students achievement in the science classrooms. Also, how their previous literacy affects their success by overcoming the four conditions necessary for change discussed above. Science students can read their textbooks but they may not understand all of the science words. 

Clement, J. J. (1977). Some types of knowledge used in understanding physics. University of Massachusetts, Department of Physics and Astronomy.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982), Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66: 211–227.