Rodger Bybee - 5E Model of the Learning Cycle

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL AND 21ST CENTURY SKILLS

Prepared by

Rodger W. Bybee

Executive Director (Emeritus)

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS)

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL AND 21ST CENTURY SKILLS

Rodger W. Bybee

Executive Director (Emeritus)

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS)

In late 2008, the economy experienced the greatest series of crises and downturn

since the Great Depression. This economic downturn has continued into 2009 and is

projected to continue indefinitely. The public’s attention has centered on jobs and basic

needs. In the midst of discussions about bail-outs and stimulus packages, there is little or

no discussion of workforce skills required in the 21st century. Although the nation’s

economic problems are larger and more complex than workforce skills, recovery and

retraining of the retired, underemployed, and unemployed will require a new generation

with knowledge, attitudes, and abilities generally needed for the 21st century.

The discussion of 21st century skills is not new. For example, in 1983 the Task

Force on Education for Economic Growth of Education Commission of the States

prepared Action for Excellence. In 1984, the National Academies published the report

High Schools and the Changing Workplace, and in 1991 the U.S. Department of Labor

released What Work Requires of Schools: A Scans Report for America 2000.

The recent emphasis on skills includes Teaching the New Basic Skills (Murnane

and Levy, 1996) and more than 20 reports expressing the need to address concerns about

an unprepared workforce. Among the most notable of these reports is Rising Above the

Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

(NRC, 2005 and 2007).

Now educators have the challenge of clarifying the skills and moving from broad

statements of purpose to more specific discussions of educational practice. This paper

addresses potential connections between development of 21st century skills and an

instructional model used by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). That

model is referred to as the BSCS 5E instructional model. This paper draws upon a report

for the National Institutes of Health, Office of Science Education, prepared by BSCS

(Bybee et al., 2006).

Because the discussion centers on 21st century skills, I begin with a brief summary

of those skills as summarized by the National Academies (NRC, 2008). The paper then

introduces the BSCS 5E instructional model and continues with sections summarizing

research supporting the model. I conclude with the implications for use of an

instructional model for the development of 21st century skills in science education

curriculum programs and instructional practices.

21st Century Skills

A recent discussion with a colleague made me aware of the need for a clear and

specific description of the 21st century skills. I was describing the importance of these

skills and he countered with—What are these skills? How do they apply to science

teaching? When would science teachers introduce and develop the skills? One answer to

the first question has been summarized by the National Academies and serves as the

context for discussions about the BSCS 5E instructional model.

Research indicates that individuals learn and apply broad 21st century skills within

the context of specific bodies of knowledge (National Research Council, 2008, 2000;

Levy and Murnane, 2004). In science education, students may develop cognitive skills

while engaged in study of specific science topics and concepts. Following are examples

of 21st century skills.

Adaptability. The ability and willingness to cope with uncertain, new, and

rapidly-changing conditions on the job, including responding effectively to emergencies

or crisis situations and learning new tasks, technologies, and procedures. Adaptability

also includes handling work stress; adapting to different personalities, communication

styles, and cultures (Houston, 2007; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon, 2000).

Complex communication/social skills. Skills in processing and interpreting both

verbal and non-verbal information from others in order to respond appropriately. A

skilled communicator selects key pieces of a complex idea to express in words, sounds,

and images, in order to build shared understanding (Levy and Murnane, 2004). Skilled

communicators negotiate positive outcomes with others through social perceptiveness,

persuasion, negotiation and instructing (Peterson et al., 1999).

Non-routine problem solving.A skilled problem-solver uses expert thinking to

examine a broad span of information, recognize patterns, and narrows the information to

reach a diagnosis of the problem. Moving beyond diagnosis to a solution requires

knowledge of how the information is linked conceptually and involves metacognition—

the ability to reflect on whether a problem-solving strategy is working and to switch to

another strategy if the current strategy isn’t working (Levy and Murnane, 2004). It

includes creativity to generate new and innovative solutions, integrating seemingly

unrelated information; and entertaining possibilities others may miss (Houston, 2007).

Self management/self development. Self-management skills include the ability to

work remotely, in virtual teams; to work autonomously; and to be self motivating and self

monitoring. One aspect of self-management is the willingness and ability to acquire new

information and skills related to work (Houston, 2007).

Systems thinking.The ability to understand how an entire system works, how an

action, change, or malfunction in one part of the system affects the rest of the system;

adopting a “big picture” perspective on work (Houston, 2007). It includes judgment and

decision-making; systems analysis; and systems evaluation as well as abstract reasoning

about how the different elements of a work process interact (Peterson, 1999).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BSCS 5E Instructional Model

Beginning in the late 1980s, BSCS began using an instructional model in most of

its programs. That model is commonly referred to as the BSCS 5Es and consists of the

following phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation.

Each phase has a specific function and contributes to the teacher’s coherent instruction

and the students’ formulating a better understanding of scientific and technological

knowledge, attitudes, and skills. The model has been used to help frame the sequence and

organization of programs, units, and lessons. Once internalized, it also can inform the

many instantaneous decisions science teachers must make in classroom situations. See

Table 1 for summary of the BSCS 5E instructional model.

Summary of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model - Phase Summary

Engagement

The teacher or a curriculum task assesses the learners’ prior knowledge and

helps them become engaged in a new concept through the use of short activities

that promote curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. The activity should make

connections between past and present learning experiences, expose prior

conceptions, and organize students’ thinking toward the learning outcomes of

current activities.

Exploration

Exploration experiences provide students with a common base of activities

within which current concepts (i.e., misconceptions), processes, and skills are

identified and conceptual change is facilitated. Learners may complete lab

activities that help them use prior knowledge to generate new ideas, explore

questions and possibilities, and design and conduct a preliminary investigation.

Explanation

The explanation phase focuses students’ attention on a particular aspect of their

engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to

demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This

phase also provides opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept,

process, or skill. Learners explain their understanding of the concept. An

explanation from the teacher or the curriculum may guide them toward a deeper

understanding, which is a critical part of this phase.

Elaboration

Teachers challenge and extend students’ conceptual understanding and skills.

Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader

understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their

understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities.

Evaluation

The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and

abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress

toward achieving the educational objectives.

The following sections provide more detail about the different phases of the

instructional model. I have used examples from the NRC list of 21st century skills in

discussions of the five phases.

Engagement

The first phase engages students in the learning task. The student

mentally focuses on an object, situation, or event. The engagement activity introduces a

new problem that students have to solve. The activities of this phase should make

connections to past and future activities. The connections depend on the learning task and

may be conceptual, procedural, or behavioral.

Asking a question, defining a problem, and acting out a problematic situation are

all ways to engage the students and focus them on the instructional activities. The role of

the teacher is to present a situation and identify the instructional task and learning

outcomes. The teacher also sets the rules and procedures for the activity. The experiences

need not be long or complex; in fact, they should be short and simple.

Successful engagement results in students being puzzled by, and actively

motivated in, the learning activity. Here the word activity refers to both mental and

physical activity.

Exploration

Once activities have engaged students, they need time to explore

their ideas and skills. Exploration activities are designed so that all students have

common, concrete experiences upon which they continue building knowledge and skills.

If engagement brings about disequilibrium, exploration initiates the process of

equilibration. This phase should be concrete and meaningful for the students.

The aim of exploration activities is to establish experiences that teachers and

students can use later to formally introduce and discuss scientific skills. During the

activity, the students have time in which they can explore their knowledge and skills.

This phase may require students to recognize new situations, learn new tasks,

technologies, and procedures. As a result of their mental and physical involvement in the

activity, the students establish relationships, observe patterns, identify variables, and of

necessity, must adapt.

The teacher’s role in the exploration phase is that of facilitator or coach. The

teacher initiates the activity and allows the students time and opportunity to investigate

objects, materials, and situations based on each student’s own ideas of the phenomena or

problem. If called upon, the teacher may coach or guide students as they begin proposing

explanations or solutions. Use of tangible materials and concrete experiences are essential

in the exploration phase.

A portion of the exploration phase may center on cooperative learning (Johnson

and Johnson, 1987; Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1986; Johnson, Johnson, and

Maruyama, 1983). The opportunity for students to interact, discuss, and even argue in a

supportive environment about goal-centered activities enhances their skills in adapting,

for example, to different communication styles and personalities. In addition, they will

have to communicate their ideas in order to build a shared understanding of the problem

and proposed solutions.

Explanation

Explanation means the act or process in which concepts, processes,

or skills become plain, comprehensible, and clear. The process of explanation provides

the students and teacher with a common use of terms relative to the learning experience.

In this phase, the teacher directs student attention to specific aspects of the engagement

and exploration experiences. Explanations are ways of ordering and giving a common

language for the exploratory experiences and, for example, specific skills the teacher

wishes to emphasize. The teacher should base the initial part of this phase on the

students’ explanations and clearly connect the explanations to experiences in the

engagement and exploration phases of the instructional model. The key to this phase is to

present concepts and skills briefly, simply, clearly, and directly, and then continue on to

the next phase.

The explanation phase is teacher-directed and in today’s parlance would be

referred to as “direct instruction.” Teachers have a variety of techniques and strategies at

their disposal. Educators commonly use verbal explanations, but there are numerous

other strategies, such as video, films, and educational courseware.

Elaboration

Once the students have an explanation, it is important to involve

them in further experiences that apply, extend, or elaborate the concepts or skills.

Elaboration activities provide further time and experiences that contribute to learning.

Audrey Champagne (1987) discusses an example of the elaboration phase that is

appropriate for this discussion of 21st century skills.

Students engage in discussions and information-seeking activities.

The group’s goal is to identify and execute a small number of promising

approaches to the task. During the group discussion, students present

and defend their approaches to the instructional task. This discussion

results in better definition of the task as well as the identification and

gathering of information that is necessary for successful completion

of the task. The teaching model is not closed to information from the

outside. Students get information from each other, the teacher, printed

materials, experts, electronic databases, and experiments which they

conduct. As a result of participation in the group’s discussion, individual

students are able to elaborate upon the conception of the tasks, information

bases, and possible strategies for its [the task’s] completion. (p. 82)

Note the use of interactions within student groups as a part of the elaboration

process. Group discussions and cooperative learning situations provide opportunities for

students to express their understanding of the subject and receive feedback from others

who are very close to their own level of understanding.

The elaboration phase also is an opportunity to involve students in new situations

and problems that require the application of identical or similar explanations. Transfer of

learning and generalization of concepts and skills is the primary goal of the elaboration

phase.

Evaluation

In this phase students receive feedback on the adequacy of their

explanations and abilities. Informal evaluation can occur from the beginning of the

instructional sequence. The teacher can complete a formal evaluation after the elaboration

phase. As a practical educational matter, science teachers must assess educational

outcomes. This is the phase in which teachers administer tests to determine each student’s

level of understanding and, in the context of this paper, their skills and abilities. This also

is the important opportunity for students to use the skills they have acquired and evaluate

their understanding and communicate their solutions.

Research on Learning and Instruction

The BSCS 5E instructional model builds on the work of other instructional

models and is supported by current research on learning. BSCS has a long history of

developing curriculum materials that reflect the most recent research about learning and

teaching. Our current understanding has been informed by research conducted by

cognitive scientists from around the world (Brooks and Brooks, 1993; Driver, et al.,

1994; Lambert, et al., 1995; Matthews, 1992; National Research Council, 2000; Piaget,

1976; Posner, et al., 1982; Vygotsky, 1962). Cognitive research shows that learning is an

active process occurring within and influenced by the learner. Hence, learning results

from an interaction between what information is encountered and how the student

processes that information based on perceived notions and extant personal knowledge.

The BSCS 5E instructional model applies this research to curriculum materials.

How people learn

Several reports from the National Academies present

significant syntheses of contemporary research on learning. The first NRC reviewH, ow

People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown and Cocking,

1999), has been followed by other reports that go beyond the synthesis and discuss

strategies for applying the findings to practice, including How People Learn: Bridging

Research and Practice (Donovan, Bransford, and Pellegrino, 1999), How Students

Learn: Science in the Classroom (Donovan and Bransford, 2005), Taking Science to

School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (Duschl, Schweingruber, and

Shouse, 2007), and Ready, Set, Science: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science

Classrooms (Michaels, Shouse, and Schweingruber, 2008).

The findings from these reports have implications for curriculum materials and

classroom instruction designed to develop 21st century skills. The findings imply that

curriculum and instruction must do the following:

§ Build on current conceptions, skills, and abilities.

§ Use meaningful contexts to develop concepts, skills, and abilities.

§ Make the concepts, skills, and abilities explicit learning outcomes.

Relative to this review and the BSCS 5E instructional model, a quote from How

People Learn (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999) seems especially germane:

"An alternative to simply progressing through a series of exercises

that derive from a scope and sequence chart is to expose students

to the major patterns of a subject domain as they arise naturally

in problem situations. Activities can be structured so that students

are able to explore, explain, extend, and evaluate their progress.

Ideas are best introduced when students see a need or a reason for

their use—this helps them see relevant uses of the knowledge to

make sense of what they are learning" (p. 127).

This quotation directs attention to a research-based recommendation for a

structure and sequence of instruction that exposes students to problem situations (i.e.,

engage their thinking) and then provides opportunities to explore, explain, extend, and

evaluate their learning. This research summary from the National Research Council

supports the structure, function, and sequence of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.

The features of integrated instructional units map directly to the BSCS

instructional model. Stated another way, the BSCS model is a specific example of the

general concept of integrated instructional units. According to the NRC committee’s

report, integrated instructional units connect laboratory experience with other types of

science learning activities including reading, discussions, and lectures.

Typical (or traditional) laboratory experiences differ from the integrated

instructional units in their effectiveness in attaining the goals of science education.

Research shows that typical laboratories suffer from fragmentation of goals and

approaches. Although the studies are still preliminary, research indicates that integrated

instructional units are more effective than typical laboratory research for improving

mastery of subject matter, developing scientific reasoning, and cultivating students’

interest in science. In addition, integrated instructional units appear to be effective for

helping diverse groups of students’ progress toward these three goals.

Summary

After a brief description of 21st century skills, the first section

introduced the BSCS 5E instructional model. The five different phases (i.e. engagement,

exploration, explanation, elaboration, evaluation) were discussed in the context of the 21st

century skills. This was a first examination of the possible connections between the

learning outcomes expressed as 21st century skills and the instructional model. The

section continued with a discussion of contemporary research on learning. Here too, close

connections between the research foundations and the BSCS 5E instructional model were

identified.I included a brief discussion of integrated instructional units, an insightful

finding fromAmerica’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (NRC, 2006),

because I believe it holds promise as a general model for effective teaching to develop

21st century skills. The BSCS 5E instructional model is a specific example of integrated

instructional units.

The next section reviews research on the BSCS 5E instructional model and

clarifies the degree to which it holds promise for teaching 21st century skills in school

science education.

Research on the BSCS 5E Instructional Model

This section is based on the report, The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins,

Effectiveness, and Applications (Bybee et al., 2006) and more recent research on the

BSCS model. Due to the relative youth of the BSCS 5E instructional model compared

with the older SCIS learning cycle, there are fewer published studies that specifically

compare the BSCS 5E instructional model with other modes of instruction. However, the

findings suggest that, like its predecessor the SCIS learning cycle, the BSCS 5E

instructional model is effective, or in some cases, comparatively more effective, than

alternative teaching methods in helping students reach important learning outcomes in

science. Several comparative studies suggest that the BSCS 5E instructional model is

more effective than alternative approaches at helping students master science subject

matter (e.g., Akar, 2005; Coulson, 2002). This observation relates to later discussion,

particularly of the 21st century skill—systems thinking.

Fidelity to the instructional model. Coulson (2002) explored how varying levels

of fidelity to the BSCS 5E model affected student learning. The outcome measure was

selected-response tests administered pre- and post-instruction. Coulson found that

students whose teachers taught with medium or high levels of fidelity to the BSCS 5E

Instructional Model experienced learning gains that were nearly double that of students

whose teachers did not use the model or used it with low levels of fidelity. The impact of

varying levels of fidelity to the BSCS 5E model affected student learning. Coulson found

that students whose teachers taught with medium or high levels of fidelity to the BSCS

5E instructional model experienced learning gains that were nearly double that of student

whose teachers did not use the model or used it with low levels of fidelity. The impact of

varying levels of fidelity identified here may help explain the ambiguous results of Ward

and Herron (1980).

Recent studies on implementation fidelity. A 2007 publication by Taylor, Van

Scotter, and Coulson reported two research studies that extended and strengthened the

relationship between fidelity of curriculum implementation, specifically of the BSCS 5E

instructional model and gains in student learning. The first research was case studies of

four teachers field-testing a new high school science program using the BSCS 5E

instructional model. The research identified distinctly different student learning gains for

teachers implementing the program as designed as compared to teachers implementing

the program with considerably less fidelity. The learning gains were assessed using a 20

item subset of questions from the standardized National Science Teachers Association

(NSTA)/National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) biology exam administered

at the beginning and end of the year. Fidelity was measured by classroom observation by

developers of the curriculum being field tested. Relative to this essay on 21st century

workforce skills, the outcome was mastery of biological facts and concepts.

The second study centered on the same general question of learning gains of

students whose teachers implemented a program with fidelity versus students whose

teachers implemented the program with less fidelity. The study included 326 ninth-grade

students and 15 teachers. Fidelity was measured using an observation protocol adapted

from Horizon Research Inc., Classroom Observation Protocol (HRI, 2000).

Very important for this paper, the rating scales quantified the extent to which

teachers encouraged students to engage in metacognitive activity, communicate their

understanding of concepts, and apply their understanding to new situations. Teachers

using strategies and learning sequences consistent with the 5Es at medium (basic) or high

(extensive) levels had students with significantly higher gain scores.

The findings support the effectiveness of the BSCS 5E instructional model and

complement studies conducted at other grade levels and science disciplines (see, e.g.

Ates, 2005; Ebrahim, 2004; Lord, 1997). One aside to this discussion is the essential role

played by professional development so teachers can develop an understanding of

curriculum materials and the instructional model that is integral to this design.

Linking the BSCS 5E Instructional Model to 21st Century Skills

In this section, I turn to the specific issue of 21st century skills and the potential of

the BSCS 5E instructional model to contribute to the development of those skills. Before

addressing the skills, several points must be clarified.

As prior sections have noted, fidelity to the structure and sequence of the 5E

model results in greater student learning. This is not to say that teachers cannot adapt or

modify teaching strategies with nuances that may enhance learning. But, the

modifications should be made with knowledge and understanding of the design of

curriculum material and instructional model. The decisions must be informed by an

understanding of the learning theory underlying the instructional model (e.g. Bransford,

Brown, and Cocking, 2000).

My review of the 5E instructional model did not find any cases where the model

was used explicitly for development of the 21st century skills. Here, I would note the

importance of establishing the 21st century skills as explicit learning outcomes. In this

case, it seems educational policies may be leading curriculum programs and instructional

practices designed for teachers to implement 21st century skills (Gewertz, 2008).

Adaptability. In general, this skill centers on the ability and willingness of

individuals to cope with uncertain, new, and changing conditions. Learning new tasks,

technologies, and procedures seem particularly applicable to opportunities for learning in

science classrooms. Also, adapting to different personalities, communication styles, and

work environments should be noted.

In the science classroom, the opportunities to develop the skills of adaptability

require student activities, investigations, and laboratory work as part of an integrated

instructional sequence, i.e. BSCS 5E instructional model.

Complex communication/social skills. These skills require processing and

interpreting information and selection of appropriate words and images, to build a shared

understanding. Terms such as social perceptiveness, persuasion, negotiation, and

instructing convey the essence of these skills.

The opportunities to develop these skills also center on activity-based science

programs, ones with a clear inquiry orientation. Student should have opportunities to

collect data and present their findings using graphs, charts, or other means. Scientific

arguments based on evidence would be the essence of these skills in science classrooms.

Findings by Boddy, Watson, and Aubusson (2003) reported increased higher-order

thinking by students after a unit of work based on the 5E instructional model. The unit

was taught to a year 3 class in Australia.

A recent study by BSCS staff is entitled, “The Relative Effects of Inquiry-Based

and Commonplace Science Teaching on Students’ Knowledge, Reasoning and

Argumentation: A Randomized Control Trial (Wilson et al., in press). This study used a

randomized control trial that examined the effectiveness of inquiry-based curriculum

materials and teaching (i.e., the BSCS 5E instructional model). Fifty-eight students aged

14-16 were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups were taught toward the

same goals by the same teacher with one group being taught from materials organized on

the BSCS 5E instructional model and the other from commonplace teaching strategies as

defined by national teacher survey data. Students in the group where the teacher used the

BSCS 5E instructional model reached significantly higher levels of achievement

compared to the other group. The effect was consistent for the range of learning goals—

knowledge, scientific reasoning, and argumentation. The finding held for testing

immediately following instruction and four weeks later. This study lends possible support

to the 21st century goals of non-routine problem solving (i.e., scientific reasoning),

complex communication (i.e., argumentation), and systems thinking (i.e., knowledge).

Non-routine problem solving. Solving problems requires examination of a broad

range of information, recognition of patterns, and selection of information to diagnose a

problem and propose a solution. Proposing a solution also requires metacognition, that is,

reflection on the possible consequences of applying a particular strategy. Certainly,

creativity and innovation are part of problem solving.

As students engage in scientific inquiry, they have the aforementioned

opportunities. The studies by Taylor et al. (2007), Boddy et al. (2003), and Wilson et al.

(in press) suggest positive support for the BSCS 5E instructional model and contribute to

a linkage between scientific reasoning and problem solving.

Self management/self development. The skills of self management and self

development suggest the ability to work alone, acquire new information, and persist at

given tasks.

Underlying these skills, one assumes interest in, motivation to study, and positive

attitudes toward a domain of study or work. Research supporting the role of the BSCS 5E

instructional model in developing interest can be found in studies by Von Secker (2002),

Akar (2005), and Tinnin (2000).

Systems thinking. This is the ability to understand how a system works and how

changes in components may affect the entire system. The skills of analyzing a system,

understanding sub systems, and various elements of the structure and function of systems

are part of systems thinking.This ability requires mastery of knowledge about systems and the application of

that knowledge to practical laboratory work and life situations. The majority of studies

based on the BSCS 5E instructional model support the efficacy of the model to enhance

students’ mastery of subject matter (see e.g., Bybee et al., 2006; Coulson, 2002; Taylor et

al., 2007; Akar 2005; and Wilson et al., in press).

Evaluation of field test materials. BSCS also has conducted numerous evaluations

of programs, usually in a field-testing phase of development. Programs upon which the

BSCS 5E instructional model is the explicit pedagogical strategy include:

§ Science for Life and Living (BSCS, 1988)

§ Middle School Science and Technology (BSCS, 1994, 1999, 2005)

§ BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (BSCS, 1997, 2003, 2006)

§ BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach (BSCS, 2006)

In addition to these core programs, BSCS incorporated the 5E model in a number

of supplemental units, most significantly a series of 16 modules that BSCS developed for

the Office of Science Education at the National Institutes of Health. Specific results from

these studies are described in the aforementioned BSCS publication (Bybee et al., 2006).

In general, these studies supported and provided greater detail to the external evaluations

cited earlier. The results indicate consistently positive results for mastery of subject

matter and interest in science. There also is support for the development of scientific

reasoning. Noteworthy for this discussion of 21st century skills are results from a fifth

grade study of science for Life and Living in which we found significant effects for

process skills, manipulative skills, and higher order thinking skills.

Making a clear and compelling statement about the efficacy of the BSCS 5E

instructional model directly to develop 21st century skills would not be prudent based on

the available evaluations. However, it is possible to provide some inferences based on the

research, especially if one recognizes the parallels between 21st century skills such as

problem solving, self motivation, communication, and systems thinking and learning

outcomes in science such as scientific reasoning, interest, argumentation, and mastery of

science subject matter.

The majority of research on the BSCS 5E instructional model has been directed at

mastery of science knowledge. Some research has been directed toward outcomes

associated with scientific inquiry such as described in the National Science Education

Standards (NRC, 1996). Here too, there is some support for positive achievement. Table

2 presents inferences about the effectiveness of research on the BSCS 5E instructional

model and 21st century skills.

The BSCS 5E Instructional Model and Development of 21st Century Skills: A

Concluding Discussion

This section presents the potential of the BSCS 5E instructional model, but

perhaps more importantly, some of the implications for science education programs and

practices.

Curriculum goals. To what extent are 21st century skills targeted for instruction?

The clearest and most direct answer to this question is—not very much. That said,

arguments that 21st century skills should be emphasized in school science programs is

relatively new. As noted in the prior section, there may be some linkages between the

BSCS 5E instructional model and development of 21st century skills if one accepts a

modification of, for example, non-routine problem solving to scientific reasoning and

complex communication to argumentation.

Review of the contemporary program, BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach,

reveals that the 5E instructional model is used to introduce a unit on “The Process of

Scientific Inquiry.” The context for this unit is the investigation of sports drinks. In the

different phases of the instructional model, students discuss the difference between

evidence and inference (engage); follow protocols to complete an investigation and

gather evidence about sports drinks (explore); read about scientific inquiry (explain);

review a study on the benefits of sports drinks compared to water and write a paragraph

about the benefits of sports drinks (elaborate), and design a homemade sports drink, test

the drink, and present it to the class as an advertisement (evaluate). In this example, the

5E model is used to develop an understanding of scientific inquiry and develop the

abilities of identifying questions that guide an inquiry and use evidence and inference to

develop an explanation.

This example shows that the BSCS 5E instructional model has been used to

develop students’ abilities and skills associated with scientific inquiry. So, making the

connection to curriculum goals such as those identified as 21st century skills is certainly

possible.

Alignment with learning research. To what extent does the instructional model

treat 21st century skills and conceptual science knowledge as separate or intertwined? The

example described in the prior section shows that conceptual knowledge, e.g.,

understanding scientific inquiry and skills, e.g., abilities of scientific inquiry can be

intertwined.

To what extent does the BSCS 5E instructional model reflect the research on

children’s and adolescents’ learning and development in science? Although the

instructional model was developed in the late 1980s, it was based on earlier research

associated with the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) and other research on

conceptual change (see, Bybee et al., 2006). Subsequent reviews by the NRC (see, e.g.

Bransford et al., 2000) suggested that the BSCS model had a clear alignment with

recommendations from the NRC reviews. In curriculum projects developed after 2000,

the NRC studies have been used as a basis for the programs.

Assessment and evidence. Where has the model been implemented, and what are

the characteristics of teachers and students exposed to the model? The model has been

widely implemented in education. This widespread use falls into three primary categories

of use: 1) documents that frame larger pieces of work such as curriculum frameworks,

assessment guidelines, or course outlines; 2) curriculum materials of various lengths and

sizes; and 3) adaptations for teacher professional development, informal education

settings, and disciplines other than science. A simple internet search, using a popular

search engine such as Google, reveals the wide and varied applications of the BSCS 5E

model. A recent search showed the following range of uses:

§ more than 235,000 lesson plans developed and implemented using the BSCS 5E

instructional model;

§ more than 97,000 posted and discrete examples of universities using the 5E model

in their course syllabi;

§ more than 73,000 examples of curriculum materials developed using the 5E

model;

§ more than 131,000 posted and discrete examples of teacher education programs or

resources that use the 5Es; and

§ at least three states that strongly endorse the 5E model, including Texas,

Connecticut, and Maryland.

So, one can assume an extraordinary range of teachers and students have been exposed to

the model.

Does the model, or research on its effectiveness, incorporate assessment of 21st

century skills? The model and research on its effectiveness have not directly incorporated

an assessment of 21st century skills. Exceptions to this statement have been described.

The available evidence suggests support for problem solving, self management,

communication, and systems thinking, but the support is based on associated goals such

as scientific reasoning, interest in science, argumentation, and mastery of science

knowledge.

Effectiveness and implications. What does the evidence indicate about the impact

or efficacy of the model in supporting one or more of the 21st century skills among

diverse groups of students? Based on the available evidence, I would infer that the model

would be effective in developing one or more 21st century skills among diverse groups of

students. Evidence supporting the model’s efficacy to develop conceptual understanding

is very strong, especially if one also considers the evidence for the original SCIS model

and variations on that model. Both of these models should be considered as the

foundation for the BSCS 5E model.

One has to consider the fact that the longstanding and major goal of school

science education has been learning scientific knowledge. This has been the explicit goal

of most curriculum programs. If one or more of the 21st century skills were explicitly

emphasized in student activities and investigations based on the 5E model, it is highly

probable that students would develop the skills and abilities.

Does the evidence suggest that certain instructional design principles help to

account for the impact or efficacy of the instructional model? I believe there are design

principles that account for the efficacy of the BSCS model and that those principles are

applicable to curriculum goals such as the 21st century skills. Table 4 lists design

principles for an instructional model that could be used to develop 21st century skills.

These principles are adapted from an earlier publication (Bybee, 1997). These design

principles are applicable to the development of one or more of the five categories of

skills. The general and primary point is that one or more of the 21st century skills must be

the explicit learning outcome for the instructional model.

Design Principles for an Instructional Model

1. The model should have 3 to 5 phases that represent an integrated instructional sequence.

2. The model should be based on contemporary research on student learning and

development.

3. The model must help the learner integrate new skills and abilities with prior skills and

abilities.

4. The model must allow for social interactions (student-student as well as student-teacher

interactions).

5. The model must be generic and applicable to a wide range of classroom contexts and

activities.

6. The model must be manageable for teachers with classrooms of 25-30 or more students.

7. The model must be understandable to teachers and students.

8. The model must accommodate and incorporate a variety of teaching strategies including

laboratories, educational technologies, reading, writing, and individual student work.

Conclusion

The BSCS 5E instructional model and other such models do hold promise for

teaching 21st century skills. This said, it also must be noted that although the development

of skills and abilities has been noted as educational goals for science programs, very little

emphasis has been placed on these goals.

Activity-based school science programs that incorporate instructional models

have the potential to develop 21st century skills. Among the major challenges associated

with this assertion are: providing model curriculum materials that exemplify the goals,

changing teachers’ perceptions about explicitly teaching to develop skills and abilities,

and encouraging fidelity to instructional models designed to help students attain 21st

century skills.

I will conclude with a personal note. The BSCS 5E instructional model has been

more successful than I ever could have imagined when we originally developed the

model in the late 1980s. BSCS has included the model in most programs developed since

that time. However, the dissemination and successful use of the model far exceeds the

adoption of BSCS programs or implementation and professional development institutes.

The BSCS 5E instructional model is recognized internationally, included in several state

frameworks, applied in disciplines beyond science, adapted by curriculum developers

other than BSCS, and used by science teachers at all levels—elementary school through

college and university.

The wide-spread acceptance of the BSCS 5E instructional model suggests that its

use in the design of curriculum materials for 21st century skills would greatly enhance the

adoption and acceptance of those materials by science educators and science teachers.

References

Akar, E. (2005). Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle model on students’ understanding of

acid-base concepts. Dissertation Abstracts International.

Ates, S. (2005) The effectiveness of the learning-cycle method on teaching DC circuits to

prospective female and male science teachers. Research in Science and

Technological Education, 23(2): 213-227.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). (2006). BSCS Science: An Inquiry

Approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Boddy, M., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A Trial of the Five Es: A referent model

for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(1):

27-42.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist

classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bransford, et al. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.

Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bybee, R., Taylor, J. et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and

effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.

Champagne, A. (1987). The psychological basis for a model of science instruction.

Commissioned paper for IBM-supported design project. Colorado Springs, CO:

BSCS.

Coulson, D. (2002). BSCS Science: An inquiry approach—2002 evaluation findings.

Arnold, MC: PS International.

Donovan, M., & Bransford J. (Eds.) (2005). How students learn: Science in the

classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Donovan, M., Bransford, J., & Pellegrino, J. (1999). How people learn: Bridging

research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Driver, R. et al. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s

ideas. London, Routledge.

Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning

and teaching science in grades k-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ebrahim, A. (2004). The effects of traditional learning and a learning cycle inquiry

learning strategy on students’ science achievement and attitudes toward

elementary science (Kuwait). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(4): 1232.

Gewertz, C. (2008). States press ahead on ‘21st

-century-skills’. Education Week, October

15, 2008: 21-23.

Horizon Research, Inc. (2000). Horizon Research-2000-2001 Local systemic change

classroom observation protocol. (Found at www.horizon-research.com).

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the

classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Books.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal

attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical

formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research,

52: 5-54.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., et al. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating

the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lord, T. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college

biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3): 1127-1147.

Matthews, M. (1992). Constructivism and the empirist legacy. In M.K. Pearsall (Ed.),

Volume II Relevant Research. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers

Association (NSTA): 183-196.

Meichtry, Y. (1991). The effects of the first-year field test BSCS middle school science

program on student understanding of the nature of science. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 52(8): 2878A.

Michaels, S., Shouse, A., & Schweingruber, (2007). Ready, set, science: Putting research

to work in k-8 classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Murnane, R., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating

children to thrive in a changing economy. New York: Free Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high

school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2005 and 2007). Rising above the gathering storm:

Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder & H.H. Chipman (Eds.), Piaget and His

School. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Posner, G. et al. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of

conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2): 211-227.

Pulakos, E., Arad, S., Donovon, M., & Plamondon, K. (2000). Adaptability in the

workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85(4): 612-624.

Tinnin, R. (2000). The effectiveness of a long-term professional development program on

teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes, skills, and knowledge using a thematic learning

approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11): 4345.

Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence

and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95: 151-160.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ward, C., & Herron, J. (1980). Helping students understand formal chemical concepts.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(5): 387-400.

Wilson, C., Taylor, J., Kowalski, S., & Carlson, J. (in press). The relative effects of