Graham Lake
Curtin University, Western Australia
A presentation to the 8th Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Conference, Jakarta, November 2015
Abstract: In the State of Western Australia gifted primary school students, in public schools, are able to participate in a gifted and talented program called Primary Extension and Challenge (PEAC). This research aims to investigate firstly whether a three phase learning cycle is a suitable model for teaching science to gifted primary students in Year 6 and secondly, whether a descriptive learning cycle (DLC) or a hypothetical- deductive learning cycle (HDLC) is the most effective in bringing about conceptual and attitudinal change in the students. A basic electronics course was chosen for the intervention treatment. Quantitative data consisting of results from a two-tiered multiple choice test and a concept mapping task were used to investigate conceptual change. Attitudinal change was investigated using the Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA). All quantitative instruments were administered before and after the intervention to determine any conceptual and attitudinal change. Qualitative data consisted of the teacher/researcher’s journal and reflections was used to help interpret the quantitative data. The research concluded that a three phase learning cycle was a very effective teaching/learning model for teaching basic electronics to gifted Year 6 students. Both the DLC and the HDLC gave eta squared effect sizes greater than 0.7 for the concept mapping task and the multiple choice test, however there was no significant difference between the two types of learning cycles. Both types of learning cycle improved enjoyment of science lessons with eta squared values of 0.25 for the DLC and 0.45 for the HDLC group.
Keywords: Learning cycles, Inquiry learning, Giftedness, Conceptual change, Attitudinal change
INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses some aspects of the research towards a Doctor of Philosophy by Graham Lake at Curtin University, Western Australia. The research investigates if a three phase learning cycle is an effective model for teaching science to gifted primary students. Two different learning cycles with different levels of inquiry based learning are compared to ascertain the most effective for gifted Year 6 students. The research has been supervised by Professor David Treagust.
The Primary Extension And Challenge (PEAC) program is a withdrawal extension program for gifted Year 5 and Year 6 students in Western Australian public schools. Students are selected for this program by undertaking two intelligence tests at the end of Year 4. Students in the top 2%, based on these test scores, are offered a position in the PEAC program. Once accepted students stay in the program for both Year 5 and Year 6. Teachers in the PEAC program are mostly primary trained however there are some specialist secondary teachers for subjects such as aeronautics and science. This research is significant because primary trained teachers often lack the confidence to teach science (Hackling, Peers, & Prain, 2007) and secondary trained teachers may need extra professional development for teaching younger and gifted students (Fraser-Seeto, 2013; Rowley, 2012). A three phase learning cycle can provide a simple teaching model for use by both secondary and primary teachers giving them confidence and skills in teaching science to the gifted student.
Simplicity is an essential criterion for a PEAC teaching model due to the time constraints of a PEAC course, hence the decision to use a three phase learning cycle as described by Lawson (1995). A 20 hour course of basic electronics was used in this research. Two types of learning cycle were compared to investigate which was the most effective; a Descriptive Learning Cycle (DLC) or a Hypothetical Deductive Learning Cycle (HDLC). Each cycle incorporated the phases of Concept Exploration, Concept Development, and Concept Application. The DLC is mainly teacher centred and could be described as scaffolded inquiry. The HDLC on the other hand is more student centred with less intentional scaffolding. In both the DLC and the HDLC, students worked in pairs and were encouraged to continually discuss their ideas and observations with their partners.
Change in student attitude to science lessons was also investigated to determine any change due to learning cycles. Monitoring student attitude was a critical aspect of this research because maintaining a high level of motivation is a critical aspect of gifted education (Reis & Renzulli, 2010).
THE RESEARCH
This research was designed to answer the following questions:
Research Question 1:
Is a three phase learning cycle an effective teaching model for bringing about change in the conceptual structures of PEAC students studying basic electronics?
Research Question 2:
Which of the two learning cycles, a DLC or a HDLC, is the most effective in bringing about change in the conceptual structures of PEAC students studying basic electronics?
Research Question 3:
Does a three phase learning cycle change a PEAC student’s enjoyment of science lessons?
Research Question 4:
Which of the two learning cycles, a DLC or a HDLC, is the most effective in changing a PEAC student’s enjoyment of science lessons?
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This research collected empirical quantitative data, using a pre- and post-test procedure, to objectively compare the effectiveness of two different forms of a learning cycle, a DLC and a HDLC. This is consistent with a post-positive paradigm example cited by Treagust et al. (2014, p. 4) of a study by Ryoo and Linn (2012), which looked at a new teaching method and its effectiveness on student achievement using a pre- and post-test procedure. Each type of learning cycle was given to separate but equivalent groups of PEAC students. The student groups were determined by the school timetable rather than being chosen randomly thus making the design quasi-experimental.
A mixed methods approach was used in this research because the experimental data was best interpreted by considering the personal reflections of the teacher involved in the administration of the learning cycles. During the research treatment, the teacher collected qualitative data consisting of his personal reflections, specific teaching strategies, and audio recordings of two lessons. A limitation of this study was the small number of research subjects available. PEAC classes are quite small and include two age groups of students – Year 5 and Year 6, however it was decided to concentrate on a sample of Year 6 students only ensuring the research groups were homogeneous with respect to academic level. A period of 3 years was required to acquire matched samples of 25 students.
Research instruments
The research instruments consisted of a constrained concept mapping task, a two-tiered multiple choice knowledge application test, and a science related attitudes questionnaire. Each instrument was administered prior to the course starting and on completion of the course, thus enabling the determination of conceptual and attitudinal change
Constrained mapping task
The constrained concept mapping task was based on a method described by Yin et al. (2005). In this task students were given all the concepts and some linking phrases, then asked to construct a map to indicate the relationships between the concepts. A blank mapping sheet is shown In Figure 1. The completed maps were scored using a method based on one described by Yin et al. (2005). In this method all single propositions from all maps were extracted and placed on an Excel spreadsheet and then given to two expert markers (physics teachers) to rate each on a scale of 0 to 5. The rater scores were correlated using a Pearson product-moment correlation to determine the inter-rater reliability. This correlation was very high with a value 0.90 (see Table 1).
The two sets of scores were then reviewed by a third rater to mediate any differences in the scores to produce a final score for assessing the student concept maps. Each student’s concept map was then scored using the scaled list of concept propositions. Each key concept, based on the course outline, was also scored to determine how many students understood that concept.
Figure 1. Constrained concept mapping task worksheet Table 1. Table of descriptive statistics for inter-rater reliability
Marker Mean Standard
Deviation
d.f. Pearson r Sig.(2 tailed)
Marker 1 2.93 1.45
Marker 2 3.03 1.61
Correlation 74 0.90 < 0.01
A Pearson ‘r’ of 0.90 indicates a strong correlation between the two concept raters indicating a strong reliability for the marking of the student concept maps.
Knowledge application test
The knowledge application test consisted of ten two-tiered multiple choice items. The test contained five parallel pairs of items in order to determine a split half reliability using a Rulon’s equation for five matched pairs of items, then applying a Spearman-Brown prophecy formula to predict the reliability for a ten item test (Magnusson, 1967). This method of determining reliability was used because the large variation in difficulty of the items did not satisfy conditions for a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Knowledge Test reliability coefficients Group n Split half Correlation
for 5 items
Spearman-Brown estimate 10 items
Sig. (2 tailed) 10 items
All Students 51 0.48 0.65 <0.01
A typical Knowledge Test question is shown below:
Question 1.
In Diagram 1, two globes A and B are connected as shown and each shines equally bright.
Diagram 1
What would happen to the brightness of each globe when a wire is connected between points X and Y as shown in Diagram 2?
Diagram 2
(a) Globe A and B would shine with the same brightness.
(b) Both would shine, but globe A would be brighter than Globe B.
(c) Globe A would shine brighter and Globe B would not shine.
Choose the best alternative below as a reason for your above answer:
(a) The wire takes half the energy from Globe B.
(b) The wire from X-Y is a short circuit.
(c) The wire has low resistance and does not affect the globes.
Attitude to science questionnaire
The Test of Science Related Attitudes or TOSRA (Fraser, 1981) was used to measure attitudinal change in the students as a result of the research intervention. The TOSRA consists of seven sets of ten questions covering a range of attitudes, however only one set will be discussed in this paper, and that is the Enjoyment of Science Lessons. This set were chosen to investigate if learning cycles improved a PEAC student’s enjoyment of science.
Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR)
The LCTSR (Lawson, 1995) was administered to 50, Year 6, PEAC students to ascertain their developmental level. This instrument was not administered to the electronic classes specifically, but to the total Year 6 PEAC cohort in 2014. It was considered the results of this test would provide useful background information for interpreting the research results.
RESULTS
All results are presented with a table of descriptive statistics and a graph where possible.
Concept mapping task results
It should be noted that the concept mapping task is an open ended task resulting in a large range of scores, consequently the standards deviations are quite large.
Descriptive Learning Cycle (DLC)
The DLC group concept scores indicate a statistically significant improvement with a large effect size as shown in Table 4.
Table 3. DLC group statistics for total concept scores DLC Total Concepts Mean N Standard
Deviation df ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed) Effect size (Eta2)
Pre intervention 13.03 25 9.33 24 7.94 0.000 0.73
Post intervention 34.84 25 17.46 24
A B
X Y
A B
Figure 2. Graph of total scores for DLC total concepts Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle (HDLC)
Similar to the DLC group the HDLC group concept scores indicate a statistically significant improvement with a large effect size as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. HDLC group statistics for total concept scores HDLC
Total Concepts Mean n Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed)
Effect size (Eta2)
Pre intervention 19.27 26 12.30 9.39 0.000 0.78
Post intervention 43.19 26 20.50
Figure 3. Graph of total scores for HDLC total concepts Group comparison for concept map scores
Even though both the DLC and the HDLC group show a significant improvement as a result of the intervention, there is no statistical significant difference between the two groups as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Group statistics for total concept scores
Group Mean of Diff.’s n. Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed)
DLC 21.80 25 13.74 0.57 0.57
HDLC 23.92 26 12.99
Key Concept Scores
Figure 4 shows the percentage of students who demonstrated a good understanding of the electronics course key concepts. Five concepts, current and resistance, voltage as a force, voltage and current, diode function and transistor function, show a large difference between the DLC and the HDLC groups. These differences can be accounted for by the manner in which the concepts were presented to the students by the teacher (shown in Table 6). For example, a water tap analogy was used to explain transistor function to the DLC group, and a computer assignment was given the HDLC group for the same concept.
Figure 4. Group percentage differences for Key Concepts for concept mapping task.
Table 6. Teaching strategies used for selected key concepts.
Concept Teaching Strategy
DLC HDLC
Current as a flow of charge Teacher explained that 1 amp is 6,240,000,000,000,000,000e’s per second.
Computer research assignment
Voltage is a force Teacher defined voltage after short
discussion. Teacher extracted definition
from the students after a lengthy discussion and used gravity as an analogy to voltage.
Voltage and current Carefully explained; highly guided lesson; teacher centred discussion.
Student centred; group discussions;
some teacher guidance.
Diode function Teacher explained. Computer based assignment.
Transistor function Teacher explained using water
tap analogy. Computer based assignment.
Teaching strategies in bold type indicate the higher scoring group for that concept. It can be noted that the higher scoring strategies were those that had more teacher input such as explanations using analogies.
Knowledge Test results
Although the Knowledge Test was 10 questions, each question had two parts – answer and reason. One mark was awarded for the correct answer and two marks if supported by a correct reason.
Descriptive Learning Cycle
It can be seen from Table 7 and Figure 5 that there is large increase in the Knowledge Test scores as a result of the intervention (Effect size of 0.71).
Table 7. DLC Group statistics for the Knowledge Test.
DLC Mean n Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed) Effect size (Eta2)
Pre-Test 6.32 25 2.72 7.63 0.000 0.71
Post-Test 13.28 3.37
Figure 5. Graph of pre and post intervention DLC Knowledge Test scores.
Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycle
The HDLC group Knowledge Test results show a similar improvement to the DLC group with an effect size of 0.80.
Table 8. HDLC Group statistics for the Knowledge Test
HDLC Mean n Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed) Effect size (Eta2)
Pre-Test 7.12 26 3.01 10.04 0.000 0.80
Post-Test 13.15 2.66
Figure 6. Graph of pre and post intervention HDLC Knowledge Test scores Group comparison for Knowledge Test scores
Similar to the concept map scores there was a significant improvement in Knowledge Test scores for both the DLC and the HDLC groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups as indicated in Table 9.
Table 9. Group statistics for the Knowledge Test
Group Mean
of diff’s n Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed) Effect size (Eta2)
DLC 6.96 25 4.56 0.85 0.40 0.01
HDLC 6.04 26 3.07
Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA) Enjoyment of Science Lessons
Table 10. Table of results for Enjoyment of Science Lessons for the DLC and HDLC groups
DLC HDLC
Pre Post Pre Post
Mean 39.80 44.0 40.42 46.19 N 25 25 26 26 d.f. 24 24 25 25 S.D. 5.36 6.65 7.27 4.21
Cronbach’s α 0.95 0.85 0.89 0.90
‘t’ value 2.85 4.40
Sig. (2 tail) 0.009 0.000
Effect Size –(eta2) 0.25 0.45
Each group showed a statistically significant improvement in the enjoyment of science as a result of the intervention. The post intervention scores of 44 (DLC) and 46 (HDLC) are out of a possible 50 indicated a very high level of enjoyment. There was however no statistically significant difference between the two groups as shown in Table 11
Table 11. Table of group differences for ‘Enjoyment of Science lessons’
Group Mean
of diff’s n Standard
Deviation ‘t’ value Sig.
(2 tailed) Effect size
DLC 4.20 25 7.377 -0.795 0.430 0.026
HDLC 5.77 26 6.689
Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR)
The maximum score on this test is 12. It can be seen from Table 12 that most Year 6 students, based on the LCTSR results, are in the transitional category (Score of 5 – 8).
Table 12. Level of thinking of Year 6 PEAC students as measured by the LCTSR
Level of Thinking Score Students achieving this level
Empirical-inductive 0 – 4 10
Transitional 5 - 8 36
Hypothetical-deductive 9 - 12 4
CONCLUSIONS
Care must be taken in generalizing from the results of this research due to the small number of research subjects involved. Although some of the results indicate a strong trend, and the instruments used appeared to be valid and reliable, this research should be considered a case study.
Research Question 1:
Research Question 1 asks if a three phase learning cycle is an effective teaching model for PEAC students.
Based on the results of this research it can be concluded that both the DLC and the HDLC are effective teaching models for PEAC students studying basic electronics.
Research Question 2:
Research Question 2 asks whether a DLC or a HDLC is the most effective teaching model for PEAC students.
The results indicate there is no statistically significant difference between the two learning cycles. This conclusion however needs to be interpreted in light of the teacher reflections. The teacher noted that a high degree of scaffolding was required with the HDLC students due to their lack of prior knowledge and their lack of background in scientific method procedures. This resulted in the HDLC students receiving almost as much teacher support as the DLC students. This fact basically meant the HDLC was not a truly student
centred learning cycle. Even though the HDLC group did not produce a better result than the DLC group, the students did acquire valuable procedural knowledge with respect to inquiry methods.
Another contributing factor to there being no difference between the two treatments was the student’s developmental level. The result of the LCTSR indicate that few Year 6 PEAC students are at a hypothetical- deductive reasoning level of development. Most students are at a transitional level. Perhaps a HDLC is not appropriate for the developmental level of Year 6 PEAC students.
Research Question 3:
Does a three phase learning cycle change a PEAC student’s enjoyment of science lessons?
It is important to keep gifted students highly motivated and engaged. Creating an enjoyable science lesson is a key step in achieving this. It can be seen from Table 10 that the PEAC students found both types of learning cycle highly enjoyable. Both the DLC and the HDLC groups showed a significant improvement in their enjoyment of science lessons as a result of the learning cycles. The post intervention TOSRA scores being 44.0 and 46.2 out of 50 respectively. From this result it can be concluded that PEAC students found learning cycles highly enjoyable.
Research Question 4:
Which of the two learning cycles, a DLC or a HDLC, is the most effective in changing a PEAC student’s enjoyment of science lessons?
Although each learning cycle was successful in improving PEAC student’s enjoyment of science lessons there was no significant difference between the DLC and the HDLC groups.
CLOSING COMMENT
This study set out to investigate whether a three phase learning, as described by Lawson (1995), was an effective teaching model for PEAC students. It can be concluded that the learning cycle was highly effective in improving student understanding and application of difficult electrical concepts. However the HDLC, which is more student centred and inquiry based, did not appear to be significantly better than the DLC. This could be partly due to the scaffolding required in the HDLC for Year 6 students due to their lack of prior knowledge of the subject, and partly due to the scientific reasoning level of most PEAC students being transitional and not hypothetical-deductive. The manner in which each concept was taught, such as the use of analogies, appears to be an important factor. Both learning cycles appeared to improve students’
enjoyment of science lessons with no significant difference between the two cycles.
REFERENCES
Fraser-Seeto, K. (2013). Pre-service teacher training in gifted and talented education: An Australian perspective. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 3(1), 29-38.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). TOSRA. Test of Science Related Attitudes Handbook. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Hackling, M., Peers, S., & Prain, V. (2007). Primary Connections: Reforming science teaching in Australian primary schools. Teaching Science,, 53(3), 12-16.
Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Magnusson, D. (1967). Test Theory. USA: Addison-Wesley.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and individual differences, 20(4), 308-317.
Rowley, J. L. (2012). Professional development needs of teachers to identify and cater for gifted students. the Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 75-80.
Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166-184.