What's new?? Being an effective aka a great teacher is hard work. There’s always some new approach or newly worded approach to teaching to keep us on our toes…some of which we’re familiar with, and others not so much. Some of these tactics we hold on to, internalize and own and others we chose not to for varying reasons. The 5 E lesson planning tool, is one of those however, that I think we should have never let go of...
The 5 E's!!
Engagement
|
Object, event or question used to engage students.
Connections facilitated between what students know
and can do.
|
Exploration
|
Objects and phenomena are explored.
Hands-on activities, with guidance.
|
Explanation
|
Students
explain their understanding of concepts and processes.
New
concepts and skills are introduced as conceptual clarity and cohesion are
sought.
|
Elaboration
|
Activities allow students to apply concepts in contexts,
and build on or extend understanding and skill.
|
Evaluation
|
Students
assess their knowledge, skills and abilities. Activities permit evaluation of
student development and lesson effectiveness.
|
Adapted from Bybee, R.W. et al.
(1989).
It was “first used as an inquiry lesson planning model in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program, a K-6 science program in the early 1970s, the early learning cycle model had 3 stages (exploration, invention, discovery). Using the learning cycle approach, the teacher "invents" the science concept of the lesson in the 2nd stage (rather than defining it at the outset of the lesson as in the traditional approach). The introduced concept subsequently enables students to incorporate their exploration in the 3rd stage and apply it to new examples. Many examples of learning cycles have been described in the literature (Barman, 1989; Ramsey, 1993). The 5E Learning Cycle ( Bybee, 1989) is used in the new BSCS science programs as well as in other texts and materials.”
Science instruction, I
believe, is in a metamorphic state. Instruction is moving strategically away
from “Let’s do a lab to prove something we already know.” to “Let’s ask some questions
and find some answers about something we’d like to know more about!” which
already sounds more exciting!! Students are encouraged to prove and or refute
their prior curiosities and conclusions about a subject, teachers ask students
questions, instead of constantly giving answers. Students are promoted to own
their answers, seek clarifications, test possible solutions and reach
formidable conclusions and or reconciliations. Teachers act as guides and/or
facilitator and students are pushed to take control of their own learning.
In my ever so cool Physics class last week we read an interesting
chapter on Science instruction from the piece entitled “How Students Learn:
Science in the Classroom” released by the Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted
Report for Teachers edited and compiled by M. Suzanne Donovan and John D.
Bransford, written by James Minstrel
and Pamela Kraus.. The
chapter was entitled Guided Inquiry in the Science Classroom, in short it was about an inquiry based unit
plan done by Minstrel, a high school Physics teacher. The chapter began with a
realization had by Minstrel while discussing a cart being pulled off the side
of a table by the mass of a weight drawn over a pulley. He simply asked his
students what they thought would happen and the answers, although given by
students who based on the reading, should have known better, surprised and
bewildered him. He even asks “What good is having my students know the
quantitative relation or equation for gravitational force if they lack a qualitative
understanding of force and the concepts related to the nature of gravity and
its effects?” (p. 476).
The pages that followed gave in depth descriptions of 4 hands-on activities that challenged his student’s notions about the relationships and differences between air and gravitational pull. He then built in an opportunity for his students to discuss their findings and make conclusions and an assessment to see how much his students really knew about the situation at hand. The final pages detailed the rest of the unit plan which gave more tactile scenario experiences that his students engaged in while working on answering the rest of the question the lesson began with.
Minstrel’s unit plan model, I believe, is an example of what those
scientific flower children were looking for in science instruction over 40
years ago. Inquiry. In 5 E lesson plans, students are to engage, explore,
explain, elaborate, and extend in a particular lesson plan sequence. In
Minstrel’s lesson, he began by “engaging” his student’s prior knowledge and
understandings with a scenario and a corresponding question. He then presented
them with several hands on activities to help them answer the question he
asked, this would serve as the “exploring” stage of the lesson. Students were
then asked to “explain” their findings and new understandings in a class discussion,
which he called the “Consensus Discussion and Summary of Learning” (p. 491).
After this students were assessed on their findings, which could be interpreted
as the “elaboration” step in the 5 E process, Minstrel asked his students to show
him that they knew what they’d learned using assessment questions. In Minstrel’s
lesson plan, after their assessment, the students were given the opportunity to
extend their knowledge of their newly acquired/adjudicated information by engaging
in several other related, but very different hands on activities. Finally he
allowed a platform for his students to put all of this knowledge together in a
sort of conceptual framework.
My friends engaging in a discussion with each other!!
So what’s the end result? Inquiry based, student centered learning,
which allows students to address their preconceptions about certain phenomena
in order to broaden their understanding of them and others related to it. The
students in Minstrel’s class could now make sense of concepts they’d previously
only skimmed the surface of before. “How Students Learn” suggests that students
learn best under circumstances in which students' preconceptions are identified
and addressed, and subsequent learning is monitored (p.512). The text goes on
to propose that educators keep the following in mind when planning for science
instruction: “students need opportunities to see
where ideas come from, and they need to be held responsible for knowing and
communicating the origins of their knowledge and students need opportunities to learn to inquire
in the discipline.” (p. 512). An educator understood the needs of their
students and adjusted their delivery to accommodate them.
Bybee, R.W. et al. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, D.C.: The National Center for Improving Instruction.
Ramsey, J. (1993). Developing conceptual storylines with the learning cycle. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 1-20.
