DE JUNIO DE 2013 EN CONMEMORACIÓN DEL 40 ANIVERSARIO DEL GOLPE DE ESTADO EN NUESTRO PAÍS

Lack of implementation of one or more of the five phases

For the most effective learning to occur teachers need to engage students in each of the five phases (Marek, 2009). There were several instances where teachers omitted a component of a phase or a complete phase or phases. Components of a phase need not be significant, provided teachers have a sense of what the overall sequence is aiming to achieve. In a limited minority of cases teachers completed the Engage and Explore phases but reported their omission of Explain and later phases; at other times the Evaluate phase was probably overlooked. The reasons for omitting phases were sometimes provided as being time-based25_{. Examples from about 20 identified}

responses (from six different units26₎27 _{include: ‘I didn’t complete any more of the}

following lessons from Lesson 6 (i.e., the Explain and later phases were omitted) (T9G WW ES1); ‘After getting materials ready for mystery balloon, did not have time or energy to collect things needed for this lesson’ (T3 MMat S1 Elab L7); ‘Didn’t do this as too similar to what we did in Lesson 4 (an Explore lesson), and having already done it in Lesson 1 (the Engage lesson) we needed something different’ (T4 SA ES1 Eval); ‘Have taught up to L6 (i.e., omitted Evaluate lesson). Children more interested in latter stages of unit’ (6G MM S3); ‘Opted not to do (Explain) lesson as bread issue is becoming monotonous, class wanted to grow moulds’ (T6 MM S3 Explain) and:

Sorry I did not do this (Explain phase) as requested. I just knew the students hadn’t got the understandings or interest to do this as intended. I squeezed in extra lessons as best I could, but still couldn’t come at this one. (T3 SM S2 Explain)

These reported omissions indicate that they occurred because of lack of time, of lack of energy (of the teacher), teachers’ perception that later lessons were beyond students’ comprehension, lessons were considered repetitious, students were more interested in later content in the unit, and the writing requirements were beyond the class skill level.

Sometimes teachers realised the difficulties that deleting phases may cause learners: ‘Not having completed all activities made some classifying a bit tricky’ (CD Tuk: Explain L5), but on other occasions the teachers implied that the phase may have been unnecessary, and this suggests that the purpose of the phase may not have been appreciated: ‘This (Evaluate lesson) seems a rather simplistic activity to repeat—plant life-cycle—unless most students struggled with it initially’ (T21 PA S2 Eval) and: ‘Children were

25

See section 4.2 and appendices 4.1 and 4.2A and 4.2B outlining teachers’ perceptions of limitations of the Primary Connections units. 26

WW, MM, ASS, SM, PA and SA. 27

A survey of the feedback frequencies for the Evaluate phase, and sometimes the Elaborate phase, (see table 3.2, shows that there was a distinct reduction in comments for the Evaluate phase in most units. This may mean that teachers had little to add about this phase; it may also suggest that several teachers did not implement it.

‘Overall, teachers and

students enjoyed the Primary

Connections units, and student

learning in science advanced’

35

the 5E model

able to answer questions effectively without “doing” the experiment’ (T16 WW Exp). In another instance, a teacher may also have felt some phases were unnecessary or may have selectively implemented components of phases while still addressing phase purposes (an acceptable approach as suggested in above): ‘I skim and select points and lessons absolutely necessary for student achievement of outcomes’ (T2G MM S3).

There is a key issue here. Teachers need to appreciate that each phase in the 5E model is necessary and must be completed in the recommended order in order to be most effective (Marek, 2009).

4.32

Apparent inappropriate application of a phase

There were several comments that suggested that some teachers may have been overlooking the main purposes of the phase. Some examples from different phases are outlined.

In an Engage lesson it appeared a teacher expected students to ‘know’ something about the content of the unit and hence did not use the TWLH chart; its purpose is to listen to any ideas the students wish to offer: ‘Did not do (i.e., TWLH chart) as children had no idea about solids, liquids gases in beginning’ (T1 SD S1). In an Explore lesson an ‘expert’ was invited. Their topic fitted with the focus on ‘toys’ but perhaps not the purposes of the Explore phase: ‘Had a ‘scientist in residence’ who visited and talked to us about the science of toys’ (T1 OM Exp L4). Other teachers appeared to provide too much input in Engage or Explore lessons:

Guided part labelling session with worm drawing provided via photocopy. (T5 SZ S1 Explore)

I drew a simple sketch on black board as children described what happens when it rains, extended this into simple water-cycle diagram and introduced terms— evaporation, precipitation and condensation. I downloaded a simple diagram for children to paste into books, I then introduced a water-cycle chart as children were interested and still asking questions (T6 Ww S1 Exp)

This possible inappropriate application of a phase may have included providing students with the ‘Background information’ (for teachers): ‘Prepared students by sharing background knowledge with them’ (T2 MM) and: ‘L2 information was made into a cloze activity, which was used as a review of knowledge’ (T22 MM).

If these inferences are correct then the impact of the 5E model will be limited. Marek’s (2009) research review reported the impact of inappropriate actions in various 5E phases. Two examples are: providing conceptual explanations before experiences ‘results in little or no conceptual understanding’ and data obtained during exploration must be followed by discussion (p. 144).

4.4 Teacher understanding of the

5E learning cycle

As described in Chapter 3, a survey was distributed to about 60 teachers who had taught the first six Primary Connections units analysed in this project. The survey

was a two-tier test of teachers’ understanding of the purposes of the Explore, Explain and Elaborate phases of the learning cycle (Odom & Settlage, 1996). Although only a 20% response (n=11) rate was obtained, the results still raise questions for further reflection. A summary of the results (derived from Appendix 4.3) indicates that three teachers gave correct responses irrespective of reasons for 12 or 13 of the 13 items, while these same teachers had nine or ten correct responses with appropriate reasons for their response. This does suggest that many teachers may have a limited understanding of these phases. In this very small sample the Explore phase is better understood than the Explain or Elaborate phases. As an understanding of the purpose of the 5Es is related to the ways teachers implement the approach, then, if these responses are indicative, this aspect may need to be made more explicit for teachers.