Adapt Instructional Practices to be Trauma-Informed

farm1980

The_BSCS_5E_Instructional_Model_Creating_Teachable..._----_Ch_2_-_Exploring_Historical_Examples_of_Instructional_Models.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Adapt Instructional Practices to be Trauma-Informed

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 13

CHAPTER 2

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

D id anyone ever propose an instructional sequence similar to the BSCS 5E Instruc- tional Model? The short answer is yes. The BSCS 5E Model has an orientation similar to others in education history. This chapter discusses several historical predecessors to the contemporary 5E Model (Bybee 1997).

JOHANN FRIEDRICH HERBART Johann Friedrich Herbart, a German philosopher, influenced American education thought in the late 1800s and early 1900s. For Herbart, the primary purpose of education was devel- opment of character, and the process of developing character began with cultivating the student’s interest. Herbart considered concepts to be the fundamental building blocks of the mind and, thus, justification for including a concept in a course of study. In a contemporary sense, Herbart was interested in the creation and development of knowledge and cognitive abilities that would contribute to an individual’s character. Herbart’s philosophy contrasted with another model that proposed that the purpose of education was to exercise the mind.

Foundations for Teaching Herbart described two ideas as foundations for teaching: interest and conceptual under- standing. The first principle of effective instruction consisted of the student’s interest in the subject. This provides a connection to personal meaning and contexts relative to teachable moments. Herbart suggested two types of interest: one based on direct experiences with the natural world and the second based on social interactions. Instruction can quite easily use the natural world and capitalize on the curiosity of students. In addition, teachers can introduce objects from the natural world and use them to help students accumulate a rich set of sense impressions. Herbart suggested the observation and collection of living organisms and the introduction of tools and machines. As teachers introduce lessons, they should take into account and make connections to prior experiences (Herbart 1901).

Herbart’s model also implies that teachers recognize the social interests of students and interactions with other individuals. Thus, teaching should incorporate opportunities for social interaction among students and between students and the teacher.

The second principle of Herbart’s model resides in the association of sense perceptions with generalizations or principles, or the formation of concepts. For Herbart, sense percep- tions of objects, organisms, and events were essential, but they were not sufficient in and of themselves for the development of the mind. An important theme in Herbart’s model is

Bybee, Rodger. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model : Creating Teachable Moments, National Science Teachers Association, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ncent-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5254062. Created from ncent-ebooks on 2023-04-07 03:38:29.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION14

CHAPTER 2

the coherence of ideas. That is, each new idea must be related to ideas students currently believe. Said in contemporary terms, a student’s prior knowledge and current conceptions should be recognized as a part of instruction.

Herbart’s Instructional Model Herbart’s ideas can be synthesized into an instructional model (see, for example, Compayre 1907; DeBoer 1991). Teachers would begin with the current knowledge and experiences of the student and present ideas that easily related to those concepts. Second, the teacher intro- duces new ideas that connect with current knowledge and help students slowly construct more elaborate concepts. According to Herbart (1901), the best pedagogy allowed students to discover the relationships among different, but related, experiences. The teacher would guide, question, and suggest connections and relationships through indirect methods and experiences. The third step in the inferred instructional model involves formal instruction, where the teacher systematically explains ideas that the student could not be expected to discover independently. In the final step of Herbart’s model, teachers ask students to demonstrate their conceptual understanding by applying the concepts to new situations. Students would solve problems, write essays, and perform tasks that demonstrate their understanding of the concepts. Herbart’s model is one of the first systematic approaches to teaching and has been used in various forms by educators for more than 100 years (DeBoer 1991). Table 2.1 summarizes Herbart’s instructional ideas.

Table 2.1. A Synthesis of Herbart’s Instructional Model

PHASE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY

Preparation The teacher uses techniques that identify students’ prior experiences and current concepts.

Presentation The teacher introduces new experiences and makes connections to prior experiences.

Generalization The teacher directly explains ideas and develops concepts for the students.

Application The teacher provides experiences where the students demonstrate their understanding by applying concepts in new contexts.

JOHN DEWEY John Dewey began his career as a teacher. Dewey’s early experiences influenced the con- nection between Dewey’s conception of thinking and processes associated with science and technology. In How We Think (Dewey 1933 [1910]), Dewey outlined what he called a complete act of thought and described what he proposed were indispensable traits of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 15

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

reflective thinking. The traits included (1) defining the problem, (2) noting conditions associated with the problem, (3) formulating a hypothesis for solving the problem, (4) elaborating the value of various solutions, and (5) testing the ideas to see which provided the best solution for the problem.

Foundations for Teaching In Democracy and Education, Dewey (1916) further described the relationship between expe- rience and thinking. He summarized the general features of the reflective experience as

(i) perplexity, confusion, doubt, due to the fact that one is implicated in an

incomplete situation whose full character is not yet determined; (ii) a conjectural

anticipation—a tentative interpretation of the given elements, attributing to them

a tendency to affect certain consequences; (iii) a careful survey (examination,

inspection, exploration, analysis) of all attainable consideration which will define

and clarify the problem in hand; (iv) a consequent elaboration of the tentative

hypothesis to make it more precise and more consistent, because squaring with a

wider range of facts; (v) taking one stand upon the project hypothesis as a plan of

action which is applied to the existing state of affairs; doing something overtly to

bring about the anticipated results, thereby testing the hypothesis. (p. 150)

Dewey suggests an instructional approach based on experience that engages reflective thinking by students. In contemporary terms, doing hands-on activities is important but inadequate; those experiences also must be minds-on. Dewey suggests that a worthwhile instructional sequence must provide students with the opportunities to formulate and test hypotheses and thus engage in the reflective thinking process.

In a later volume, Experiences and Education (1938), Dewey makes the case for experi- ences as the basis for many dimensions of learning. He argues that educational experiences consist of two features: They have continuity, and they include interactions with others. Dewey notes that the principle of continuity “means, nevertheless that the future has to be taken into account at every stage of the educational process” (Dewey 1938, p. 47) and “the principle of interaction makes it clear that failure of adaptation of material to needs and capacities of individuals may cause an experience to be non-educative” (Dewey 1938, pp. 46–47). Later, he states:

It is a cardinal precept of the newer school of education that the beginning of

instruction shall be made with the experience learners already have; that this

experience and the capacities that have been developed during its course provide

the starting point for all further learning. (Dewey 1938, p. 74)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION16

CHAPTER 2

Dewey concludes, “I am not so sure that the other condition, that of orderly develop- ment toward expansion and organization of subject-matter through growth of experience, receives as much attention” (Dewey 1938, p. 74).

Dewey’s Instructional Model Underlying these general recommendations, one can detect a model of instruction. Table 2.2 summarizes Dewey’s implied instructional model. I synthesized this model from Dewey’s statements in Democracy and Education (1916), Experiences and Education (1938), How We Think (Dewey 1933 [1910]), and the Commission on Secondary School Curriculum

(1937) report Science in General Education.

Table 2.2. Synthesis of Dewey’s Instructional Model

PHASE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY

Sensing perplexing situations The teacher presents an experience where the students sense a problem.

Clarifying the problem The teacher helps the students identify and formulate the problem.

Formulating a tentative hypothesis The teacher provides opportunities for students to form possible solutions (i.e., hypotheses) and establish a relationship between the perplexing situation and previous experiences.

Testing hypothesis The teacher allows students to try various means, including imaginary, pencil-and-paper, and concrete investigations to test the hypothesis.

Revising rigorous tests The teacher suggests tests that result in acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis.

Acting on the solution The teacher asks the students to develop a statement that communicates their conclusions and expresses possible actions.

A Unit Method of Instruction In the same period as John Dewey’s writing, I noted an article by R. S. Howard in which he described a “Unit Method of Instruction” (Howard 1927). The article shows a remarkable alignment of terms and ideas used in later instructional models. Here is the sequence pro- posed by Howard: exploration, presentation (preceded by reading preparation), assimilation,

organization, recitation, and examination. In 1950, a variation of John Dewey’s instructional model emerged in science methods

textbooks (Heiss, Obourn, and Hoffman 1950). The authors based their “learning cycle” (their term) on Dewey’s complete act of thought. Table 2.3 presents that learning.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 17

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

Table 2.3. Heiss, Obourn, and Hoffman’s Learning Cycle

PHASE SUMMARY

Exploring the unit Students observe demonstrations to raise questions, propose a hypothesis to answer questions, and plan for testing.

Experience getting Students test the hypothesis, collect and interpret data, and form a conclusion.

Organization of learning Students prepare outlines, results, and summaries; they take tests.

Application of learning Students apply information, concepts, and skills to new situations.

ROBERT KARPLUS Robert Karplus was a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. He earned his PhD in chemical physics from Harvard when he was 21 years old. As a physicist, Karplus was both a theoretician and experimentalist, which gave him scientific perspectives that likely contributed to his formulation of a learning cycle for a school science program.

Foundations for Teaching In the late 1950s, Karplus became concerned that children in his daughter’s elementary school were being taught science by reading textbooks. So he visited his daughter’s class and conducted science demonstrations for the children. The children were quite intrigued, and even excited, by the teachable moments created by the demonstrations, but they did not seem to learn any science. Karplus realized he needed to know more about how chil- dren learn to be an effective teacher (Fuller 2002; Stage 2006).

Karplus discovered the work of Jean Piaget and visited Geneva, Switzerland, to study with Piaget in spring 1961. Children’s development from concrete to abstract reasoning and the process of self-regulation (i.e., the process of equilibration) influenced the way Karplus approached education research, curriculum development, and formulation of an instructional model referred to as the Learning Cycle.

The Learning Cycle In the early 1960s, J. Myron Atkin and Robert Karplus (1962) proposed a systematic approach to instruction. The Learning Cycle they proposed had three phases—exploration,

invention, and discovery (see Table 2.4, p. 19). This instructional model became a founda- tional aspect of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), a project led by Robert Karplus and Herbert Thier.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION18

CHAPTER 2

The SCIS Learning Cycle was influenced by other individuals and curriculum projects of the era. For example, the classic article “Messing About in Science” by David Hawkins (1965) describes a teaching model using a circle, triangle, and square as symbols. In general, the symbols represented phases of an instructional model similar to the Learning Cycle. That model included unstructured exploration and multiple programmed experiences and didactic instruction.

In past decades, the Learning Cycle has undergone elaboration, modification, and application to different education settings. In addition, an analysis of elementary pro- grams indicated that SCIS was one of the most effective programs (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport 1983). These positive effects on learning relate at least in part to the Learning Cycle. The Learning Cycle has also been central to a proposed theory of instruction (Lawson, Abraham, and Renner 1989).

Using the Learning Cycle creates situations in which the processes based on Piaget’s ideas of assimilation, accommodation, and organization occur (Renner and Lawson 1973; Lawson, Abraham, and Renner 1989). Here is a description of the three phases—exploration, invention, and discovery—with elaboration based on Piagetian psychology:

• Exploration refers to the relatively unstructured experiences (i.e., teachable moments) in which students gather information. In a Piagetian perspective, this phase involves disequilibrium and, predominantly, the process of assimilation.

• Invention refers to a formal statement (often the definition) of a new concept. Following the exploration, the invention phase begins the process of accommodation that allows interpretation of newly acquired information through the restructuring of prior concepts.

• The discovery phase involves application of the new concept to another novel situation. During this phase, the learner continues to move closer to a state of equilibrium and a new level of cognitive organization (integration of the new concept with related concepts).

A number of studies have shown that the Learning Cycle has many advantages when compared with other approaches to instruction, specifically the transmission model of teaching. These studies are summarized in Abraham and Renner (1986). Jack Renner and his colleagues (Renner, Abraham, and Birnie 1985; Abraham and Renner 1986; Renner, Abraham, and Birnie 1988) have investigated, respectively, the form of acquisition of information in the Learning Cycle, the sequencing of phases in the Learning Cycle, and the necessity of all phases of the Learning Cycle. These studies have generally supported use of the Learning Cycle as originally proposed by Atkin and Karplus. Research on dis- covery, guided discovery, and statement-of-rule learning (Egan and Greeno 1973; Gagne

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 19

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

and Brown 1961; Roughead and Scandura 1968) supports the “sequencing and necessity” requirements drawn by Renner and his colleagues.

Although the form and structure of the Atkin and Karplus Learning Cycle (1962) have undergone little revision, researchers have offered different interpretations of each phase of the cycle. Abraham and Renner (1986) refer to the exploration phase as gathering data. This interpretation provided more structure for the assimilation of new material and restricts Atkin and Karplus’s original notion that exploration should provide students with common experiences, regardless of whether those experiences involve gathering data in a laboratory sense.

Lawson (1988) describes the invention phase as concept introduction, suggesting that because the new concept is not fully developed during this phase, the learner does not truly invent the concept. Lawson further suggests that the appropriate label for this phase may be term introduction because only the vocabulary associated with the new concept is learned at this point.

Renner renamed the discovery phase expansion, taken from the idea that the learner actually expands on the new concept and is involved in the Piagetian process of organiza- tion. Lawson (1988) suggested a more restrictive interpretation of this phase when he used the term concept application. One should be aware, however, that in applying the concept to new situations, the learner may still be in the process of restructuring or reconstructing the concept. Lawson (1995) has provided an excellent detailed history of the development and modifications of the Learning Cycle.

Those interested in detailed discussion of Robert Karplus, his education research, and the Learning Cycle should refer to A Love of Discovery (Fuller 2002), A Theory of Instruction (Lawson, Abraham, and Renner 1989), and The Learning Cycle (Marek and Cavallo 1997).

Table 2.4. Atkin and Karplus Learning Cycle

PHASE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY

Exploration Teacher or curriculum provides initial experience with phenomena.

Invention The teacher introduces new terms associated with concepts that are the object of study.

Discovery The teacher provides experiences for students to apply concepts and use of terms in related, but new, situations.

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL This section describes development of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. I take the liberty to make this more personal as I was directly involved with the formulation of the model. While I led the team, I fully acknowledge the contributions made by coworkers, especially

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION20

CHAPTER 2

Nancy Landes, Jim Ellis, Janet Carlson, Deborah Muscella, Bill Robertson, Susan Wooley, Steve Cowdrey, Terry Spencer, and Gail Foster.

At this point, I must also note the contributions of Roger Johnson. At a time after the BSCS team had a general formulation of the instructional model, I had breakfast with Roger. After I described the model using terms for the Learning Cycle, Roger suggested using descriptive words with the same initial letter, as that would help teachers and other educators recall and use the model. After some thought, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model was born.

Foundations for Teaching In the mid-1980s, BSCS received a grant from IBM to conduct a study that would produce design specifications for a new science and health curriculum for elementary schools. The results of that study were published as New Designs for Elementary School Science and Health (BSCS and IBM 1989). Among the innovations that resulted from this design study was the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. As mentioned earlier, the BSCS model has five phases: engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. When formulating the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, I consciously began with the Learning Cycle. The psychology underlying the BSCS 5E Instructional Model also was consistent with the model imple- mented earlier by Karplus and Thier, in that it was primarily a Piagetian orientation. I was familiar with the work of Jean Piaget, as I completed a book titled Piaget for Educators (Bybee and Sund 1982). Furthermore, I had been thinking about and considering a modifi- cation of the Learning Cycle and used it in the arrangement of chapters and the structure of individual chapters. In a note to readers, I described my use of a modified Learning Cycle: “The book itself and most of the chapters are divided into four sections: Exploration, Explanation, Extension, and Evaluation” (Bybee and Sund 1982, p. xiii).

As a graduate student in the late 1960s, I had studied Piaget’s theory and its applica- tion to teaching. I was especially interested in the process of equilibration as the means for changing an individual’s cognitive structures. Also in the late 1960s, I was invited to Lawrence Hall of Science and spent a week with Robert Karplus, Herb Thier, Chet Lawson, and their colleagues. In this period, I also taught elementary school science and used units from the SCIS. This discussion provides some background and context for the Learning Cycle and the subsequent modifications for BSCS curriculum programs.

Modifications to the Learning Cycle The following sections use the phases of the BSCS model to describe additions and modi- fications to the original Learning Cycle, and I make connections to the theme of creating teachable moments.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 21

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

ENGAGE This phase of the 5E Model was added to the original Learning Cycle. At a workshop on the SCIS Learning Cycle, I asked Jack Renner about the need to explicitly engage students. He suggested that the exploration phase of the Learning Cycle served that purpose. I still thought that a separate phase that clearly engaged students was an important means to mentally establish students’ focus, expose their current understanding, possibly initiate a state of disequilibrium, and create a teachable moment. So, in our work at BSCS, we added the engage phase.

If you needed three words to express this phase, creating teachable moments would be ideal. All of the features of a teachable moment would be included—personal meaning, intellectual puzzlement, individual motivation, and readiness to learn. The exception to common descriptions of teachable moments should be obvious: Designing an engaging experience is not an unplanned experience.

EXPLORE This phase is similar to the original explore phase of the Learning Cycle. In the BSCS project, we decided to use the Learning Cycle because of the strong research base, more of which is discussed in the next chapter. As an updated addition, we added an emphasis on coop- erative learning based on the research of David and Roger Johnson and their colleagues (Johnson and Johnson 1987; Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1986).

The explore phase should send students in a direction that will help them begin resolv- ing any disequilibrium of the teachable moment from the engage phase. It may also be the case that some students not originally engaged (i.e., they did not experience a teachable moment) will be engaged by the explore activities. The exploration allows the teacher to gain an understanding of students’ knowledge of the experience and the related concepts. Students likely will have some knowledge of the concepts to be explored, but in a class of 25 students (or more), there also will likely be substantial variation in students’ knowledge and understanding.

EXPLAIN In this phase, the students try to explain what the teacher or curriculum created as they experienced in the engage and explore activities. This phase is a variation from the Learning Cycle’s invention or “term introduction” phase. Note also that we used the term explain as a third E and variation from the Learning Cycle. The term explanation is commonly used in science literature, so it aligned well in the original use of the BSCS model. An explanation refers to the act or a process that makes an idea comprehensible.

A teachable moment expresses a time when students are motivated and open to an explanation. The teacher’s challenge is to make the explanation clear, simple, succinct,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION22

CHAPTER 2

direct, and understandable to the students. Vocabulary terms may be introduced and con- nections should be made to the engage and explore experiences.

Contemporary emphasis on NGSS, especially the science and engineering practices in which students develop arguments and their own explanations of concepts, highlights the need for students to try out their explanations based on what they learned from experi- ences in the engage and explore phases. Students may experience a new teachable moment with the challenge to use new vocabulary and ideas in ways that make them their own.

Teachers should listen to what students say and how they incorporate the new explana- tion. Do students’ use of terms and application of concepts make sense? Students may not express complete and clear understanding of concepts and practices, but they should be able to express what they understand by using new, more accurate vocabulary and ideas.

ELABORATE The original Learning Cycle’s third phase was discovery. Later, in a series of 1977 publica- tions, Karplus referred to this phase as concept application (Lawson, Abraham, and Renner 1989). For the BSCS model, we decided to use the term elaborate to capture the Piagetian perspective of what happens conceptually. Terms such as extend and extension also express the aim and what is required of the student during activities in this phase.

Some individuals have had difficulty with the term elaborate. I think it does describe what is intended, in a Piagetian sense—that is, an elaboration of mental structures. But the term does not clearly express what students and teachers should do, which, staying with E words, would most appropriately be that students extended their thinking.

EVALUATE In the process of designing the instructional model, we listened to the advice of classroom teachers on our advisory board and panels to help us design specific components of the model. Teachers consistently told us that testing and assessment were not only important but required. So, we decided to include a final activity that would help teachers assess student learning. We decided to use the term evaluate. At the time, our idea was to incor- porate another activity that would be used as an assessment. The teacher would introduce the lesson and then literally and figuratively step back from teaching and monitor the evaluation. In this way, we incorporated an embedded assessment into the 5E Model.

From a teacher’s perspective, the evaluate phase should answer the questions, “How successful was the teaching part of creating a teachable moment?” and “How successful was student learning related to the teachable moment?” From a curriculum perspective, we later found that designing the evaluate activity first was an ideal application of back- ward design to the process of developing school programs.

Some have criticized the BSCS 5E Instructional Model because it appears that teachers do not assess student learning until the end of the sequence. That is not accurate. Teachers

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 23

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

have opportunities embedded within each phase of the 5E Model. In the engage phase, they listen for current conceptions (i.e., misconceptions). In the explore phase, they evalu- ate students’ process of equilibration (i.e., putting ideas together). In the explain phase, they assess how students’ explanations have improved. And in the elaborate phase, they determine how well students can transfer what they have learned to a new situation.

What are the commonalities and differences between the SCIS Learning Cycle and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model? The one principal commonality underlying both models is the work of Jean Piaget (Piaget and Inhelder 1969; Piaget 1975; Bybee and Sund 1982) and subsequent research consistent with constructivist learning, specifically the focus of cognitive sciences and the work on misconceptions, the difference between novice and expert explanations of phenomena. The view of learning is summarized and discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

The changes introduced to the Learning Cycle reflected research on learning published since the first work on the original SCIS Learning Cycle. BSCS recognized the need for an initial phase that engaged the learner in the science concepts and a concluding phase that evaluated the learner’s understanding of those concepts. These phases were addi- tions to the Learning Cycle. Beyond changes in terms describing the original Learning Cycle, embedding cooperative learning within phases was a primary modification to the Learning Cycle.

Figure 2.1 (p. 24) summarizes several historical instructional models that influenced formation of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.

CONCLUSION The uniqueness of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is related to the alliterative nature of terms used to identify the model’s phases. Every stage of the model begins with the same letter—E. When we compare this 5E Model with Herbart’s (1901) model of preparation, presentation, generalization, and application or the Learning Cycle (Atkin and Karplus 1962) model of exploration, invention, and discovery, it becomes apparent why those models did not catch on among educators. A danger, of course, is that something that is catchy and easy to remember might be misused as often as it is used effectively; however, something that cannot be remembered or understood is less likely to have widespread sustainable effects.

The perspective underlying the instructional models for both SCIS and BSCS views learning as dynamic and interactive. Individuals redefine, reorganize, elaborate, and change their initial concepts and abilities through interaction with their environment and/or other individuals. The learner “interprets” objects and phenomena and internal- izes the interpretation in terms of current concepts similar to the experience presented or encountered. Changing and improving conceptions often requires challenging the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION24

CHAPTER 2

students’ current conceptions and showing those conceptions to be inadequate. If a current conception is challenged, there must be opportunities, in the form of time and experiences, to form a more adequate conception. In sum, the students’ construction of knowledge can be assisted by using sequences of lessons designed to challenge current conceptions and provide time and opportunities for reconstruction to occur, and the ideal way to begin this process is with a teachable moment.

I will conclude the historical discussion with some questions: Is there a need to modify the instructional model once again? Given contemporary initiatives such as the NGSS and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, is the BSCS 5E Instructional Model still viable? Should the model be modified in ways that accommodate current education research and social trends? At this point in the discussion, I would say no. The BSCS model can accommodate current trends and issues. Later chapters specifi- cally discuss this response in greater detail.

Figure 2.1. Origins and Development of Instructional Models

Copyright © 2006 BSCS. Image from Bybee, R. W., J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. Carlson Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes. 2006. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness and applications. www.bscs.org/bscs-5e- instructional-model

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

THE BSCS 5E INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL: CREATING TEACHABLE MOMENTS 25

Exploring Historical Examples of Instructional Models

REFERENCES Abraham, M. R., and J. W. Renner. 1986. A descriptive instrument for use in investigating science

laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 19 (2): 155–165.

Atkin, J. M., and R. Karplus. 1962. Discovery of invention? The Science Teacher 29 (5): 45.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and IBM. 1989. New designs for elementary school science and health: A cooperative project between Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and International Business Machines (IBM). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

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

Bybee, R. W., and R. B. Sund. 1982. Piaget for educators. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bybee, R. W., J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. C. Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes. 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS).

Commission on Secondary School Curriculum. 1937. Science in general education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Compayre, G. 1907. Herbart and education by instruction, trans. M. Findloy. New York: Crowell.

DeBoer, G. 1991. A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy. New York: Macmillan Company.

Dewey, J. 1933. How we think: A restatement of the relations of reflective thinking to the educative process. Originally published in 1910. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Dewey, J. 1938. Experiences and education. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

Egan, D. E., and J. G. Greeno. 1973. Piagetian theory and instruction in physics. The Physics Teacher 11 (3): 165–169.

Fuller, R., ed. 2002. A love of discovery: Science education—the second career of Robert Karplus. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Gagne, R. M., and L. T. Brown. 1961. Some factors in the programming of conceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 62: 313–321.

Hawkins, D. 1965. Messing about in science. Science and Children 2 (5): 5–9.

Heiss, E. D., E. S. Obourn, and C. W. Hoffman. 1950. Modern science teaching. New York: Macmillan Company.

Herbart, J. 1901. Outlines of educational doctrine, trans. C. DeGarmo; ed. A. Lange. New York: Macmillan.

Howard, R. S. 1927. The unit method of instruction as applied to the teaching of physics. School Science & Mathematics 27 (8): 844–854.

Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1987. Learning together and alone. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D., R. Johnson, and E. Holubec. 1986. Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION26

CHAPTER 2

Lawson, A. 1988. A better way to teach biology. American Biology Teacher 50 (5): 266–289.

Lawson, A. E. 1995. Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lawson, A. E., M. Abraham, and J. Renner. 1989. A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. NARST Monograph, Number One. Cincinnati, OH: National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).

Marek, E., and A. Cavallo. 1997. The learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Piaget, J. 1975. From noise to order: The psychological development of knowledge and phenocopy in biology. Urban Review 8 (3): 209.

Piaget, J., and B. Inhelder. 1969. The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Renner, J. W., M. R. Abraham, and H. H. Birnie. 1985. The importance of the form of student acquisition of data in physics learning cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 22 (4): 303–325.

Renner, J. W., M. R. Abraham, and H. H. Birnie. 1988. The necessity of each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25 (1): 39–58.

Renner, J. W., and A. E. Lawson. 1975. Intellectual development in pre-service elementary school teachers: An evaluation. Journal of College Science Teaching 5 (2): 89–92.

Roughead, W. G., and J. M. Scandura. 1968. What is learned in mathematical discovery? Journal of Educational Psychology 59: 283–289.

Shymansky, J. A., W. C. Kyle, and J. M. Alport. 1983. The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20: 387–404.

Stage, E. K. 2006. History of experiential learning in the U.S.: Where did the learning cycle come from? Paper presented at the GEMS Science Education Forum, Gakushuin Women’s College, Tokyo, Japan.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

EXPLAIN A

Contemporary Discussion

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. N

at io

na l S

ci en

ce T

ea ch

er s

A ss

oc ia

tio n.

A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .