International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, September 2016, 9(1), 21-38..

The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model Enriched

With Cooperative Learning and Animations on
Seventh-Grade Students’ Academic Achievement
and Scientific Attitudes*

İkramettin DAŞDEMİR a**

a Ordu University, Turkey

Received: 15 June 2016 / Revised: 27 August 2016 / Accepted: 12 September 2016

Abstract
The aim of this research is to determine the effect of the different teaching methods, on seventh-
grade students’ academic achievement and scientific attitudes. The research was carried out using
quasi-experimental methods. The research sample consisted of 84 seventh grade students studying
in three different classes. One of these classes an animation group, the second class was a
cooperative group, the third was a control group. The data collection tools used were the Science
Achievement Test (SAT) and the Scientific Attitude Scale (SAS).When each group’s SAT and SAS
pre-test ANOVA scores were compared, no significant differences were found between them. SAT
post-test results showed a significant difference in favour of the animation group. In addition, the
findings of the study revealed that the cooperative group’s mean post-test were not statistically
significant. When SAS post-test scores of the animation and control groups were compared, there
was a significant difference in favour of the animation group. When the SAS post-test scores of the
cooperative and control groups were compared, there was a significant difference in favour of the
cooperative group. When the SAS post-test scores of the cooperative and animation group were
compared, there were no statistically significant differences in students’ attitudes.
Keywords: 5E model, cooperative learning, animation, scientific attitude, academic achievement.

Introduction
Knowledge is constantly expanding in the information age and as a consequence modern
societies are constantly changing. Intensive scientific studies have focused on finding new
methods and techniques in education to improve learning and instruction (Çavaş &
Huyugüzel-Çavaş, 2014). Turkey has in the past obtained relatively poor results in
comparative international exams such as PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS in the field of
mathematics and science. New approaches were introduced as a result of perceived

* This article was presented at the 8th International Education Research Congress. Canakkale,
Turkey, 5-8 May, 2016.
** Ikramettin Dasdemir, Ordu University, Faculty of Education, 52200, Ordu, Turkey. Phone:
+904522265200, E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN:1307-9298
Copyright © IEJEE
www.iejee.com
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

failures in the curriculum and teaching approaches (Cengiz, 2014; Küçükyılmaz, 2014).
Particular attention was given to changes in curricula and teaching methods for science
courses. With this aim, views on science curricula were evaluated and international
literature on science education was reviewed. Science curricula successfully implemented
in developed countries were closely examined and incorporated into the new design,
taking account of the conditions in different regions of Turkey (MEB, 2004). Taking into
account educational research into how students learn science and the conditions which
best promote science learning, it is evident that new understandings of the teaching-
learning process and the learning environment must be embraced, and new teaching
strategies developed (Cengiz, 2014). Science education research studies carried out in
recent years emphasize that constructivist learning theory provides a useful and
functional framework from which to attain the goals of science education and brings new
practices to instruction (MEB, 2006). Constructivism is a learning theory which states
essentially that a learner constructs knowledge and applies it (Karadağ & Korkmaz, 2007).
The most effective model of constructivist learning theory is the 5E instructional model,
which consists of five phases: Engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. The
‘engage’ phase of the 5E model provides students with the opportunity to be aware of
their own thoughts in relation to ideas on any concept. To achieve this, the teacher begins
the lesson with an introduction which raises curiosity. In this phase, he or she raises
questions about the phenomenon. What is important for students is to assert new ideas,
but not to know the correct answers. In the ‘explore’ phase, students work individually or
with a group. They carry out experiments, explore scientific knowledge via computer,
video or in a library environment with the guidance of the teachers, or they generate
solutions to problems. In the ‘explain’ phase of the model, students try to describe and
explain the situation, phenomenon, or concept chosen under the guidance of the teacher.
In this phase, the teacher encourages students to replace their incomplete or incorrect
knowledge with correct scientific knowledge. In the ‘elaborate’ phase, students apply new
learning to a new or similar situation and problem. Thanks to this phase, they learn new
concepts which have not existed before. In the ‘evaluate’ phase of the model, the teacher
observes students’ behaviour and asks them questions as they solve problems. Moreover,
the teacher encourages students to assess their own learning as they explore and apply
new concepts and skills (Cengiz, 2014; Çepni, Akdeniz & Keser, 2000; Korkmaz & Karadağ,
2007; Turgut et al., 1997). Different studies revealed that the 5E instructional model had
positive effects on students’ academic achievement and also promoted students’
meaningful learning (Ağgül-Yalçın & Bayrakçeken, 2010; Chen, 2008; Ceylan & Geban,
2009; Kanlı et al., 2007; Klavuz, 2005; Seyhan & Morgil, 2007).
Raghavan, Sartoris & Glaser (1998) state that some students need more time and greater
variety of experience in the environment to learn meaningfully and to provide reasonable
responses at higher levels (as cited in Şahin & Çepni, 2012). Different teaching techniques
can be used to realize this. One of these is the enriched 5E model, which research studies
revealed was a suitable teaching method as it can be used in conjunction with other
teaching methods and techniques (Orgill & Thomas, 2007; Sahin, Calik & Cepni, 2009;
Sahin & Çepni; 2012; Türk & Çalık, 2008; Ürey & Çalık, 2008 ).
When the literature was reviewed, it could be seen that the 5E model has been enriched in
different ways in science education. There is the 5E instructional model enriched with
conceptual change texts (Sahin et al., 2009 ; Şahin & Çepni, 2012; Türk & Çalık, 2008; Ürey
& Çalık, 2008), the 5E instructional model enriched with concept cartoons (İnel et al.,
2009; Kabapınar, 2005; Sahin & Çepni, 2012), the 5E instructional model enriched with
Predict-Observe and Explain Technique (Lee, 2007; Monaghan & Clement, 1999; Şahin &
Çepni, 2009; Tao, 1997; Tao & Gunstone, 1997; Tao & Gunstone, 1999; Taylor & Coll, 2002;
Yin, Tomita & Shavelson, 2008; as cited in Şahin & Çepni, 2012) the 5E instructional model

22
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

enriched with worksheets (Şahin et al., 2009; Şahin & Çepni, 2009; Şahin & Çepni, 2012;
Türk & Çalık, 2008; Ürey & Çalık, 2008; Yin et al., 2008, ). These enriched 5E models
demonstrated that students’ academic achievement was increased, misconceptions in
understanding were identified and eliminated, and also the students displayed positive
attitudes towards the science course (Şahin & Çepni, 2012). However, when the literature
was reviewed, no studies were found which featured the 5E model enriched with
cooperative learning and animations. Our intention with this study was to eliminate these
weaknesses.
Moreover, the research studies demonstrated that each student had different learning
styles and they learned differently (Çalik, Okur & Taylor, 2010; Lamanauskas et al., 2010;
Raghavan et al., 1998; She, 2005a; Tytler, 1998b; Uğur, Akkoyunlu & Kurbanoğlu, 2009; as
cited in Şahin & Çepni, 2012). In this study, the 5E instructional model enriched with
different teaching methods and techniques was used. Visuals must be considered
important when designing an enriched 5E model because the studies revealed that
concepts were more successfully retained in learning environments where real life visuals
were provided (Şahin & Çepni; 2012). In addition, using information and communication
technologies in student- centred education promotes students’ comprehension skills
(Mayer, 2003; Pekdağ, 2010). Animations can be used to actualize them. Because
animations are dynamic and have the facility to create the illusion of abstract phenomena,
they have a positive effect on learning (Lewarter, 2003; Lowe, 2003). Using animations
enhances student learning (Dasdemir & Doymuş, 2012). It has been found that visual
materials in a learning environment are important and e beneficial for teaching and
learning and that visual materials provide opportunities for students to talk about the
subject, increasing their self-confidence (Efe et al., 2011). In addition to using visuals,
students are actively engaged in the lesson when using the cooperative learning method.
The student takes responsibility, performs his duties, learns, teaches, discusses and asks
questions. In this way, the student revises the information more than once (Efe et al.,
2011). Through cooperative learning, students’ level of remembering science subjects
increases (Efe et al., 2011; Hevedanlı et al., 2005,). Moreover, the cooperative learning
method enables students to become active in the learning environment and helps to raise
achievement level in the class (Güngör & Özkan; 2012)
This study involved the implemention of the 5E instructional model enriched with
different teaching methods and techniques. The reason why different teaching methods
and techniques were used together was to address the issue of individual diversity (Şahin
& Çepni; 2012), because every student has a different learning style and they learned
differently (Çalik et al., 2010; Lamanauskas et al., 2010; Raghavan et al., 1998; She, 2005a;
Tytler, 1998b; Uğur et al., 2009; as cited in Şahin & Çepni, 2012). The aim of this study is to
determine the effect of the 5E model, enriched with other different teaching methods and
techniques, on seventh grade secondary school students’ academic achievement and
scientific attitudes in a chosen course unit. For that purpose, answers will be sought to the
following questions.

1. Does the 5E instructional model enriched with animations have an effect on

students’ academic achievement?
2. Does the 5E instructional model enriched with animations have an effect on
students’ scientific attitudes?
3. Does the 5E instructional model enriched with cooperative learning have an effect
on students’ academic achievement?
4. Does the 5E instructional model enriched with cooperative learning have an effect
on students’ scientific attitudes?

23
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

5. Which one is more effective in teaching the seventh grade course unit on light? Is it
the 5E instructional model enriched with animations or the 5E instructional model
enriched with cooperative learning?
6. Which one is more effective in teaching the seventh grade students scientific
attitudes?

Is it the 5E instructional model enriched with animations or the 5E instructional model

enriched with cooperative learning?
Method
In examining the effect of teaching materials and methods in schools and classrooms, a
quasi-experimental research design is preferred, which involves selecting students rather
than random allocation (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Çepni, 2007). This design is advantageous
and useful in circumstances where it is not possible to randomize individuals or groups
(Karasar, 2005; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). For this reason, the study was carried out
using a quasi-experimental method and according to the pre-test post-test design with
randomly chosen groups.
Sampling
The research sample consisted of 84 seventh grade students studying in three different
classes of a secondary school in Erzurum. One of these classes was chosen as an animation
group, which was taught with the 5E model enriched with animations (n= 29). The second
group was a cooperative group taught with the 5E instructional method enriched with
cooperative learning (n= 27). The third was a control group (n= 28), where the 5E
instructional method was implemented. All three groups were taught with the same
science teacher. The teacher had 12 years of teaching experience. The science teacher was
a graduate of the science teaching department of the Education Faculty. The teacher had
experience of teaching with the 5E instructional model. Moreover, he had completed his
Ph.D. and conducted studies which involved animations and cooperative learning
techniques.
Data Collection Tools
The data collection tools used were the Science Achievement Test (SAT) and Scientific
Attitude Scale (SAS). The SAT was composed of questions designed to take into
consideration the learning outcomes of the units included in the teacher’s books, which
were produced by different publishing houses. The opinions and suggestions of an
assistant professor from the science education field and two science teachers were sought
to verify the reliability and validity of the questions. The resulting SAT consisted of 25
questions. The reliability coefficient of these questions was administered to 64 sixth grade
students who were familiar with the background information required for this unit. Using
Cronbach Alpha, the reliability coefficient was determined to be 0, 78. The Scientific
Attitude Scale developed by Moore and Foy (1997), and adapted to Turkish by Demirbaş
(2005), was used in the study. The scale consisted of 40 items. The Cronbach Alpha
reliability coefficient was found to be 0.76 and the Spearman-Brown split-half test
correlation was 0.84 (Afacan, 2008). A typical 5-level Likert Scale was used and the
following quantitative values were given: Strongly disagree (1)”, “Disagree (2)”, “Neither
agree nor disagree (3)”, “Agree (4)” and “Strongly agree (5)”.
The scoring for the negative items was reversed. Both the Science Achievement Test (SAT)
and the Scientific Attitude Scale (SAS) were administered to three groups as pre-test and
post- test. As a result of the Scientific Attitude Scale, the minimum score a student can get
is 40 and the maximum is 200.

24
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

Implementation
This study was carried out within the context of the course unit on light, which is part of
the secondary school seventh grade curriculum. The unit included the following sub-
topics: absorption of light, ‘is white light really white?’ refraction of light, and lenses.
Before starting the unit, the science achievement test and the scientific attitude scale were
administered to all students as pre-test. Then, the light unit lectures were delivered over a
period of 4 weeks (16 hours in total), in line with the science curriculum. The secondary
school science curriculum is based on the 5E instructional model. In conjunction with the
teaching model adopted for the curriculum, a student’s book, work book and teacher’s
book were designed and developed. While the 5E instructional model on its own was
administered to the control group, the animation group was taught with the 5E
instructional model enriched with animations and the cooperative group received the 5E
instructional model enriched with the cooperative learning model. The 5E instructional
model applied to the control group was implemented according to the teacher’s book. In
the engage phase of this model, questions were asked to generate students’ interest and to
access their prior knowledge. In the explore phase, activities were conducted to help
students discover key concepts. In the explain phase, the teacher provided scientific
explanations of the subject. In the extend/elaborate phase, students applied new learning
to new situations. In the evaluate phase of the model, students were asked questions about
their learning and the subject was evaluated. In addition to the 5E instructional model
administered to the control group, the animation group watched animations related to the
subject. The teacher made necessary explanations and asked questions during the
animation screening. In the case of wrong responses to the questions, the animations were
repeated until the students came up with the correct answer. In addition to the 5E
instructional model administered to the control group, the cooperative group was divided
into groups of four and they were required to ask each other questions about the subject.
In this way the subject matter was reinforced. As soon as the implementation was
completed, a science achievement test and a scientific attitude scale were administered to
all students as post-test. Some examples of the animations shown to the animation group
are given below:

Figure 1. The light gets through from less dense to denser environment

25
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

Figure 2. The light gets through from denser to less dense environment

Figure 3. The thin edge of the lens image

Data Analysis
The data obtained from the Science Achievement Test (SAT) and Scientific Attitude Scale
(SAS) were analysed using the SPSS 16.0 package program. A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA), one of the parametric tests, was used for the scores obtained from the SAT and
SAS pre-test post-test of the students participating in the research study. The reasons why
a parametric test was used for the analysis of the data are that the data was normally
distributed. It was derived from an equal-interval scale and the variances were equal. The
reason for the application of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to compare
the means of more than two independent groups.
Findings
The findings obtained from the responses of the students in the experimental and control
groups in the Science Achievement Test (SAT) and Scientific Attitude Scale (SAS) pre-test
and post-test are presented in the following tables:

26
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

Table 1. Descriptive statistical results of the students’ (SAT) pre-test post-test total scores
Groups Measurement N M sd se
Pre-test 38.00 11.827 2.028
Animation 29
Post-test 72.67 11.171 2.039

Pre-test 44.12 14.455 2.479

Cooperative 27
Post-test 59.19 12.579 2.421

Pre-test 42.67 12.794 2.336

Control 28
Post-test 54.80 12.872 2.350
Maximum score= 100
When the descriptive statistics in Table 1 were examined, the mean pre-test scores for the
Animation, Cooperative, and Control groups were (M(Animation)= 38.00, M(Cooperative)= 44.12
and M(Control)= 42.67), respectively. It was determined that the mean post-test scores were
(M(Animation)= 72.67, M(cooperative)= 59.19 and M(Control)= 54.80, respectively. A difference was
revealed between the groups’ pre-test and pot-test scores. A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was applied to determine whether this difference was significant or not (see
Table2).
Table 2. A One-Way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Results for the SAT Question Scores
Obtained from the Pre-Test and Post –Test
Sum of SD Mean F p
Squares squares
Pre-test Between 799.886 2 399.943 2.353 0.101
groups
Within 13768.623 81 169.983
groups
Total 14568.509 83
Post-test Between 5945.114 2 2972.557 18.962 0.00
groups
Within 12697.641 81 156.761
groups
Total 18642.755 83

When the One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Results for the SAT Scores from the pre-
test were viewed, it was revealed that there was no significant difference between the
animation, control and cooperative groups (F(2, 81)= 2.353, p> 0.05). In this context, it can be
stated that the groups had similar prior knowledge. However, when the one-way Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) Results for the post-test results were viewed, it was found that there
was a statistically significant difference between the groups (F(2, 81)= 18.962, p<0.05, r=
0.56). A Games-Howell post hoc test was administered to determine which specific groups
differed. When this test was examined, it was viewed that there was a statistically
significant difference between the animation group and the cooperative group p=.0000;
Differences between the means =13.481; se= 3.165; p<0.05 ) and animation group and
control group (p= .0000; Differences between the means= 18.838; se= 3.064; p<0.05 ), but
there was no statistically significant difference between the cooperative group and the

27
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

control group (p=.250; Differences between the means= 5.357; se= 3.330; p>0.05).
Considering these results, it can be stated that, with regard to the teaching of the seventh
grade course unit on light, the 5E instructional model enriched with animations was more
effective than the cooperative learning model and the 5E instructional model. Moreover, it
is viewed that it has a medium-sized effect (r=0.56).
Table 3. Descriptive statistical results of the students’ (SAS) pre-test-post-test total scores
Groups Measurement N M sd se
Pre-test 140.00 13.625 2.530
Animation 29
Post-test 142.03 13.291 2.314

Pre-test 139.81 12.510 2.247

Cooperative 27
Post-test 140.56 12.804 2.263

Pre-test 133.52 9.553 1.838

Control 28
Post-test 132.75 9.348 1.767
Maximum score =200
When the descriptive SAS statistics in Table 3 were examined, the mean pre-test scores for
Animation, Cooperative, and Control groups were (M(Animation)= 140.00, M(Cooperative)= 139.81,
M(Control)= 133.52), respectively. It was determined that their mean post-test scores were
(M(Animation)= 142.03, M(cooperative)= 140,59, M(Control)= 132.75), respectively.
A difference was identified between the groups’ mean scores. A one-way Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was applied in order to determine whether this difference was
statistically significant or not (see Table 4)
Table 4. One-Way ANOVA Results for the SAS Question Scores Obtained from the Pre-Test
and Post –Test
Sum of df Mean F p
Squares squares
Pre-test Between 758.858 2 379.429 2.598 0.08
groups
Within 11827.539 81 146.019
groups
Total 12586.397 83

Post-test Between 1468.184 2 734.092 5.046 0.008

groups
Within 11784.690 81 145.490
groups
Total 13252.874 83
Maximum score =200
Considering the SAS pre-test results given in Table 2, it was found that there was no
statistically significant difference between the animation, cooperative, and control groups.
(F(2, 81)= 2.598, p= 0.08, p>0.05). In this context, it can be stated that the groups’ scientific
attitude skills are similar. However, it was found that there was a statistically significant

28
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

difference between the groups with regard to their SAS post-test scores (F(2, 81)= 5.046; p=
0.008; p<0.05, r= 0.35) A Games-Howell post- hoc test was administered to determine
which specific groups differed. When this test was examined, it was observed that there
was a statistically significant difference between the animation group and the control
group and in favour of the former (p= 0.006; p<0.05). Also there was a statistically
significant difference between the cooperative group and control group, in favour of the
cooperative group (p=0.023; p<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant
difference between the cooperative group and the animation group (p= 0.893; p>0.05).
According to these results, it can be stated that the 5E instructional model enriched with
animations and cooperative learning made a contribution to students’ scientific attitudes
at medium level.
Results and Discussion
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), one of the parametric tests, was administered as
the data was normally distributed. It was derived from an equal-interval scale and the
variances were equal. When each of the three groups’ SAT pre-test ANOVA scores were
compared, it was found that there were no significant differences in the groups’
preparedness before the implementation (see Table1). Because the students in these three
groups are so close in terms of their levels of prior knowledge, it provides an excellent
opportunity to compare the methods implemented (Şahin & Çepni, 2012; Özsevgeç, 2007).
Moreover, this result that it can be concluded that the students who study at the same
school with the same curriculum have the same level of knowledge. Also, when the pre-
test scores of the students in these three groups are examined, it is revealed that they have
considerable knowledge of the subject matter in the light unit. It may be concluded that,
because of the spiral structure of the science curriculum, the students have prior
knowledge of the unit from their previous grades. They come in to the formal learning
environment with this background knowledge and also with the right or wrong
information they have learnt from their environment (Dekkers & Thijs, 1998; Erginer,
2006; Novak, 1988; Seiger-Ehrenberg, 1981; Şahin & Çepni, 2012).
When the three groups’ science achievement test post-test results were evaluated
(Table2), a significant difference in favour of the animation group was found iwhen
compared with the cooperative group. It can be concluded that the 5E model enriched
with animations was more effective in understanding the course unit than the cooperative
learning model. This result is not compatible with the studies of Doymuş et al. (2010) and
Karaçöp et al. (2009). Doymuş et al. (2010) examined the effect of computer animations
and the cooperative learning model on students’ learning of electrochemistry topics in
their studies. The findings of the study revealed that computer animations and the
cooperative learning model had similar effects on students’ understanding of the subject
matter. Karaçöp et al (2009), in their study, taught experimental groups with computer
animations and the jigsaw technique, and control groups with the traditional teaching
method, when teaching the electrochemistry unit. The findings revealed that a computer-
assisted teaching method implemented with computer animations, combined with the
jigsaw technique used for teaching the course, was more effective than the traditional
lecture method. There were no significant differences between the animation technique
and the jigsaw technique. This situation can be explained by the fact that the effectiveness
of every teaching method can differ between classes and between subjects.
Moreover, it was concluded at the end of the study that the 5E model enriched with
animations was more effective in understanding the seventh grade light unit than the 5E
instructional model.

29
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

A possible explanation for this situation is that the computer animations may have created
a richer learning environment for students through the use of visual, aural, and interactive
support (Özmen & Kolomuç, 2004). This result was compatible with the results of Aksoy,
(2013), Aslan-Efe (2015), Daşdemir and Doymuş (2012), Karaçöp and others (2009),
Keleş and others (2010), Lowe (2003), Mayer and Moreno (2002), McClean and others
(2005), Park and Gittelman (1992), Rieber (1991), Rotbain and others (2008), Schnotz
and Rasch (2005), Sülün and İskender (2007) and Tezcan and Yılmaz (2003).
Aslan-Efe (2015) determined that using animations in environmental education had
positive effects on university students’ academic achievement. Aksoy (2013) found that
using animations with the sixth grade ‘Solar System and Beyond’ unit in primary school
positively affected students’ academic achievement. Moreover, Daşdemir (2013) revealed
that using animations with the sixth grade ‘Structure of Matter’ unit in primary school
made a contribution to students’ academic achievement, retention of knowledge, and
development of science process skills. Also, the findings revealed that the cooperative
group’s mean post-test scores were higher than those of the control group between the
cooperative learning model and the control group (see Table 1) but they were not
statistically significant. This demonstrates again that one method might not be equally
effective with all subjects or all classes. The result obtained from this study is compatible
with the studies of Atıcı and Gürol (2002), Bilgin and Akbayır (2002), Tatar and Oktay
(2007), Topsakal-Umdu (2010), Varank and Kuzucuoğlu (2007). In their study; Topsakal-
Umdu (2010) examined and compared the effect of teaching with cooperative learning and
the traditional teaching method on 8th grade primary school students’ achievements and
attitudes in Science and Technology course. It was found that the cooperative learning
method had positive effects on attitudes towards the Science and Technology course and
although the post-test scores of the students in the experimental group were higher than
the students’ post-test scores in the control group, this difference was not statistically
significant. Varank and Kuzucuoğlu (2007) revealed that the cooperative learning method
did not increase student because the teacher did not provide good guidance for the
students and this method selected students randomly when forming the student groups.
Tatar and Oktay (2007) observed that students saw each other as rivals and this situation
had a negative effect on achievement. Moreover, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA),
a parametric test, was used as the data obtained from the scientific attitude scale (SAS)
was normally distributed. It was derived from an equal-interval scale and the variances
were equal. When the three groups’ SAS pre-test ANOVA results were compared, it was
found that there was no significant difference between the groups’ scientific attitude pre-
test scores before the implementation (see Table 4). It can be concluded that because the
students in the three groups had the same scientific attitudes, their interest in science
courses were similar. When the SAS post-test results were considered, it was revealed that
there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (see Table 4). According
to the results of the Games-Howell post- hoc test administered to determine which specific
groups differed, a significant difference in favour of the animation group (p= 0.006;
p<0.05) was determined when compared with the control group. From this result, it can
be stated that because using the 5E instructional model supported with animations in
education was effective in teaching students scientific facts, concepts, phenomenon, and
principles (Schank & Kozma, 2002), it makes a positive contribution to students’ success.
The results obtained from this research study are compatible with the studies conducted
by Genç (2013), Bülbül (2010) and Baram and others (2011). Genç (2013) examined the
effect of using computer animations on students’attitudes to their course when they were
incorporated into the “cells” and “tissues” topics of their biology course. The findings
revealed that students’ mean attitude scores towards the biology course increased
significantly. Similarly, Bülbül (2010) stated that a teaching method based on a computer-

30
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

assisted 7E learning cycle was effective in developing students’ attitudes towards the
biology course. Moreover, Bayram and others (2011) in their research studies concluded
that animations used professionally, in the right place at the right time, had a positive
effect on students’ perspectives, interests, and attitudes towards chemistry and on
achievement in the chemistry course.
In addition, when the SAS post-test scores of the cooperative group and control group
were compared (p=0.023; p<0.05), it was determined that there was a significant
difference in favour of the cooperative group. This situation can be explained as follows:
Cooperative learning contributed to students’ developing a positive attitude towards their
science course (Bilgin & Karaduman, 2005). The finding from this study is consistent with
those obtained from studies by many researchers (Aktaş, 2013; Altun, 2015; Ateş, 2004;
Ayna et al., 2008; Azar, 2008; Bilgin & Geban, 2004; Çinici, 2010; Demiral, 2007; Doymuş
et al., 2004; Ghaith & Bouzeineddine, 2003; Hevedanlı & Akbayın, 2006; Kaptan &
Korkmaz, 2000; Koçakoğlu & Solak, 2006; Köseoğlu, 2010; Şimşek, 2007).
Bilgin & Geban (2004) investigated the effect of the cooperative learning model on pre-
service teachers’ attitudes towards science courses, through its application to the
Teaching Science I course. The study found that the cooperative learning model had a
positive effect on students’ attitudes towards science. Köseoğlu (2010) revealed that the
cooperative learning method had positive effects on students’ academic achievements and
they exhibited positive attitudes towards a biology course.
Also, when the SAS post-test scores of the cooperative group and animation group were
compared, it was observed that there were no statistically significant differences in
students’ attitudes. This situation can be explained by the fact that a change may not have
occurred between students’ attitudes that were taught with two active teaching methods.
In future studies, the effectiveness of the enriched 5E model, the cooperative learning
model and the 5E instructional model can be further examined in different classes and
with different course units. Moreover, it would be beneficial if teachers and students’
views on these teaching methods could be further explored.

• • •
References

Afacan, Ö. (2008). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen teknoloji toplum çevre ilişkisini algılama düzeyleri ve
bilimsel tutumlarının tespiti. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,
Ankara.
Ağgül Yalçın, F. & Bayrakçeken, S. (2010). The effect of 5E learning model on pre-service science
teachers’ achievement of acids-bases subject, International Online Journal of Educational
Sciences, 2(2), 508-531.
Aksoy, G. (2013). Effect of computer animation technique on students' comprehension of the "solar
system and beyond unit in the science and technology course, Mevlana International Journal of
Education (MIJE), 3(1), 40-46.
Aktaş, M. (2013). 5E öğrenme modeli ve iş birlikli öğrenme yönteminin biyoloji dersi tutumuna
etkisi, Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 109-128.
Altun, S. (2015). The Effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and views on the
science and technology course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3),
451-468.

31
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

Aslan-Efe, H., Oral, B., Efe, R. & Öner-Sünkür, M. (2011). The Effects of teaching photosynthesis unit
with computer simulation supported cooperative learning on retention and student attitude to
biology. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 5(2), 313-329.
Aslan Efe, H. (2015) The effects of animation supported environmental education on achievement,
retention of ecology and environmental attitude, Journal of Computer and Education Research
DOI: 10.18009/jcer.90852
Ates, M. (2004). İşbirlikli öğretim yönteminin ilköğretim 2. kademesinde madde ve özellikleri
ünitesinde öğrenci başarısına etkisi. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
Atıcı, B. & Gürol, M. (2002). Bilgisayar destekli asenkron isbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci
başarısına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 27(124), 3-12.
Ayna, C., Aktas, M. &Koray, Ö. (2008). Fen bilgisi dersinde kullanılan işbirlikli öğrenme jigsaw II
tekniğinin ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarı ve derse yönelik tutum düzeyleri
üzerindeki etkisi. VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Abant İzzet Baysal
Üniversitesi, Bolu
Azar, N. (2008). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde öğrenme stillerinin işbirlikçi grup atamalarında
kullanılmasının öğrencinin akademik başarı, tutum, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve kalıcılık
düzeylerine etkisi. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü, Zonguldak.
Bayram, K., Özdemir, E. & Koçak, N. (2011). Kimya eğitiminde animasyon kullanımı ve önemi. Selçuk
Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 371-390.
Bilgin, T. & Akbayır, K. (2002). İsbirlikli öğrenmenin dizi ve serilerin öğretimindeki etkililiği. V. Ulusal
Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara,
Bilgin, İ. & Geban, Ö. (2004). İşbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi ve cinsiyetin sınıf öğretmenliği öğretmen
adaylarının fen bilgisi dersine karşı tutumlarına, fen bilgisi öğretimi I dersindeki başarılarına
etkisinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 9-18.
Bilgin, İ. & Karaduman, A. (2005). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen dersine karşı
tutumlarına etkisinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim-Online, 4(2), 32-45.
Bülbül, Y. (2010). Effects of 7e learning cycle model accompanied with computer animations on
understanding of diffusion and osmosis concepts. (Unpublished thesis). Middle East Technical
University the Graduate School Of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara.
Ceylan, E. & Geban, Ö. (2009). Facilitating Conceptual Change in Understanding State of Matter and
Solubility Concepts by Using 5E Learning Cycle Model. Hacettepe University Journal of
Education, 36, 41-50.
Cengiz, E. (2015). Fen bilimleri dersindeki öğrenci hataları ve öğretmenlerin bu hatalara verdikleri
geribildirimlerin incelenmesi. (Yanlanmamış doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
Chen, J. H. (2008). Research of elementary school student's learning achievements with the
implementation of 5e learning cycle based on nanotechnology curriculum. (Unpublish master's
thesis). Graduate Institite of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University
of Education,Taiwan
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London, Routeledge and Kegan Paul.
Çalik, M., Okur, M. & Taylor, N. (2010). A Comparison of different conceptual change pedagogies
employed within the topic of ‘‘Sound Propagation’’. J Sci Educ Technol, DOI 10.1007/s10956-
010-9266.

32
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

Çepni, S., Akdeniz, A. R. & Keser, Ö. F. (2000). Fen bilimleri öğretiminde bütünleştirici öğrenme
kuramına uygun örnek rehber materyallerin geliştirilmesi. 19. Fizik Kongresi, Fırat Üniversitesi,
Elazığ.
Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. (Genişletilmiş üçüncü bask), Trabzon,
Celepler Matbaacılık.
Çinici, A. (2010). Kavramsal değişim yaklaşımına dayalı işbirlikli ve bireysel öğrenme etkinliklerinin 9.
sınıf öğrencilerinin difüzyon ve osmoz kavramlarını anlamalarına ve biyolojiye karşı tutumlarına
etkisi. (Doktora tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
Daşdemir, İ., Doymuş, K. (2012). Kuvvet ve hareket ünitesinde, animasyon kullanımının
öğ¬rencilerin akademik başarılarına, öğrenilen bilgilerin kalıcılığına ve bilimsel sü¬reç
becerilerine etkisi, Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 77-87.
Dekkers, P.J.J.M. & Thijs, G.D. (1998). Making productive use of students’ initial conceptions in
developing the concept of force, Science Education, 82(1), 31-51.
Demirbaş, M. (2005). Social Learning Theory in Science Teaching Investigation of the Effects of
learning products. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Gazi University Education Sciences Institute,
Ankara.
Demiral, S. (2007). İlköğretim fen bilgisi dersi maddenin iç yapısına yolculuk ünitesinde işbirlikli
öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci başarısına, bilgilerin kalıcılığına ve derse karsı tutumlarına etkisi.
(Yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü , Ankara.
Doymuş, K., Şimşek, Ü. & Bayrakçeken, S. (2004). İşbirlikçi öğrenme yönteminin fen bilgisi dersinde
akademik başarı ve tutuma etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 1, 103-115.
Doymuş, K., Şimşek, Ü., Karçöp, A., & Doğan, A.( 2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin elektrokimya
konusundaki kavramları anlamalarına bilgisayar animasyonları ve jigsaw tekniklerin etkisi.
Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 431-448.
Erginer, E. (2006). Yeni ilköğretim programları gerçekten yapılandırmacı mı? Bir fikir taraması.
İlköğretmen Eğitimci Dergisi, 4, 46-47.
Ergin, İ. (2006). Fizik eğitiminde 5E modelinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına, tutumuna ve
hatırlama düzeyine etkisine bir örnek: “İki boyutta atış hareketi”. (Doktora tezi). Gazi
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Ergin, İ., Kanlı, U. & Tan, M. (2007). Fizik eğitiminde 5E modeli’nin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına
etkisinin incelenmesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 191-209.
Ghaith, G.M. & Bouzeineddine, A. R. (2003). Relationship between reading attidues, achievement
and learners’ perceptions of their jigsaw-II cooperative learning experience. Reading
Psychology, 24, 105- 121.
Güngör, S.N. & Özkan, M. (2012). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersindeki insan ve çevre
ünitesinin işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemiyle işlenmesinin öğrenci başarısı üzerine etkisi. Uludağ
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 249-258.
Hevedanlı, M., Oral, B. & Akbayın, H., (2004). Biyoloji öğretiminde işbirlikli öğrenme ile geleneksel
öğretim yöntemlerinin öğrencilerin erişileri ve öğrendiklerini hatırda tutma düzeyleri üzerindeki
etkileri. XIII Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı.
Hevedanlı, M. & Akbayın, H. (2006). Biyoloji öğretiminde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin başarı,
hatırda tutma ve derse yönelik tutum üzerindeki etkileri. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 6, 21-31.
Huyugüzel Çavaş, P. & Çavaş, B. (2014). Fen eğitiminde duyuşsal özellikler: Tutum ve motivasyon. Fen
Bilimleri Öğretimi, Ankara, Anı Yayıncılık.

33
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

İnel, D., Balım, A. G. & Evrekli, E. (2009). Fen öğretiminde kavram karikatürü kullanımına ilişkin
öğrenci görüşleri, Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(1),
1-16.
Kabapınar, F. (2005). Effectiveness of teaching via concept cartoons from the point of view of
constructivist approach. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 5(1), 135-146.
Kaptan, F. & Korkmaz, H. (2000). İşbirliğine dayalı fen öğretiminin öğretmen adaylarının özyeterlik
düzeylerine etkisi. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara
Karadağ, E. & Korkmaz T. (2007). Kuramdan uygulamaya yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımı.
Ankara, Kök Yayıncılık.
Karçöp, A., Doymuş, K., Doğan, A. & Koç, Y. (2009). The Effects of Computer Animations and Jigsaw
Technique on Academic Achievement of Students. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 29(1), 211-235.
Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (15. Baskı), Ankara, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Keleş, Ö., Uzun, N. & Varnacı Uzun, F. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının çevre bilinci, çevresel tutum,
düşünce ve davranışlarının doğa eğitimi projesine bağlı değişimi ve kalıcılığının
değerlendirilmesi, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(32), 384-401.
Kılavuz, Y. (2005). Yapılandırıcı yaklasım teorisine dayalı 5e öğrenme döngüsü modelinin onuncu sınıf
ögrencilerinin asit ve bazlarla ilgili kavramları anlamalarına etkisi.(Yüksek lisans tezi).
Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Estitüsü, Ankara.
Koçakoğlu, M. & Solak, K. (2006). İşbirliğine dayalı öğrenme yönteminin 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen ve
teknoloji dersine karşı tutumlarına etkisi. VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi
Kongresi, Ankara.
Köseoğlu, P. (2010). The İnfluence of jigsaw technique- based teaching on academic achievement,
self-efficacy and attitudes in biolology education. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 39, 244-254.
Küçükyılmaz, A. E. (2014). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi, Ankara, Anı
Yayıncılık.
Lamanauskas, V., Bilbokaitė, R. & Gedrovics, J. (2010). Lithuanian and Latvian students’ attitude
towards science teaching/ learning methods: Comparative analysis. Problems of Education in
the 21st Century, 19, 55-64.
Lee, S. (2007). Exploring students’ understanding concerning batteries—theories and practices.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 497–516.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and
Instruction, 13(2), 177-189.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic
graphics Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 14, 87-99.
McClean, P., Christina, J., Roxanne, R., Lisa, D., John, R., Jeff, T. & Alan, W. (2005). Molecular and
cellular biology animation: development and ımpact on student learning. Cell Biology
Education, 4(2), 169-179.

34
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence- Based Inquiry. Sixth
Edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
MEB (2004). Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, MEB Müfredat Geliştirme Süreci.
http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/programlar/prog_giris/prog_giris_11.html. (10 Ekim 2014)
MEB (2006). Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar)
Öğretim Programı, Ankara.
Monaghan, J.M. & Clement, J. (1999). Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations
for understanding relative motion concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9),
921- 944.
Moore, W. R. & Foy, R. (1997). The Scientific Attitude Inventory: A Revision (SAI II). J. Res. Sci. Teach.
34(4), 327-336.
Orgill, M-K & Thomas, M. (2007). Analogies and the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 74(1), 40–45.
Özmen, H. & Kolomuç, A. (2004). Bilgisayarlı öğretimin çözeltiler konusundaki öğrenci başarısına
etkisi, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 57-68.
Özsevgeç, T. (2007). İlköğretim 5. sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik 5e modeline göre
geliştirilen rehber materyallerin etkililiklerinin belirlenmesi. (Doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik
Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
Pekdağ, B. (2010). Kimya öğreniminde alternatif yollar: animasyon, simülasyon, video ve
multimedya ile Öğrenme, Journal of Turkısh Science Education, 7(2), 79-110.
Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M.L. & Glaser, R. (1998). Why does it go up? The impact of the MARS
curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium balloon. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547–567.
Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G. & Stavy, R. (2008). Using a computer animation to teach high school
molecular biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 49–58.
Sahin, Ç., Calık, M. & Cepni, S. (2009). Using different conceptual change methods embedded within
5E model: A sample teaching of liquid pressure. Energy Education Science and Technology Part
B: Social and Educational Studies, 1(3), 115-125.
Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in
multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning,
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47–58.
Schank, P. & Kozma, R. (2002). Learning chemistry through the use of a representation-based
knowledge building environment Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
21(3), 253-279.
Novak, D. J. (1988). Learning Science and The Science of Learning, Studies in Science Education, 15,
77–101.
Seiger-Ehrenberg, S. (1981). Concept development. concept learning: How to make it happen in the
classroom. Educational Leadership, 39(1), 36-43.
Seyhan, H. G. & Morgil, İ. (2007). The effect of 5e learning model on teaching of acid-base topic in
chemistry education. Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 120-123.
She, H. C. (2005a). Promoting students’ learning of air pressure concepts: The interrelationship of
teaching approaches and student learning characteristics. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 74(1), 29-51.
Sülün, Y. & İskender, B. M. (2007). Özel dershanelerde fen öğretimi: animasyonlarla mitoz-mayoz
hücre bölünmesi. 1. Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi,Ankara.

35
 International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

Şahin, Ç. & Çepni, S. (2009). Animasyon destekli tahmin-gözlem-açıklama tekniğinin fen öğretiminde
kullanılması. 3. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, Trabzon.
Şimşek, Ü. (2007). Çözeltiler ve kimyasal denge konularında uygulanan jigsaw ve birlikte öğrenme
tekniklerinin öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapıda öğrenmeleri ve akademik başarıları üzerine
etkisi. (Doktora Tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
Tao, P.K. & Gunstone, R.F. (1997). The Process of conceptual change in ‘force and motion’. Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago
IL.
Tao, P.K. & Gunstone, R.F. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during
computer-supported physic instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-
882.
Tao, P.K. (1997). Confronting students’ alternative conceptions in mechanics with the force and
motion microworld. Computers in Physics, 11(2), 199-207.
Tatar, E. & Oktay, M. (2007). Students’ misunderstandings about the energy conservation principle:
A general view to studies in literature. International Journal of Environmental & Science
Education. 2(3), 79 – 86.
Taylor, N. & Coll, R.K. (2002). Pre-service primary teachers' models of kinetic theory: An
examination of three different cultural groups. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in
Europe, 3(3), 293-315.
Taylor, N. & Lucas, K.B. (2000). Implementing and evaluating a sequence of instruction on gaseous
pressure with pre-service primary school student teachers. Australian Science Teachers
Journal, 46(4), 9-34.
Tezcan, H. & Yılmaz, Ü. (2003), Kimya öğretiminde kavramsal bilgisayar animasyonları ile
geleneksel anlatım yönteminin başarıya etkileri, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 2(14), 18–32.
Turgut, M. F., Baker, D., Cunningham, R. & Piburn, M. (1997). İlköğretim Fen Öğretimi. YÖK/DB Milli
Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Yayınları, Ankara
Türk, F. & Çalık, M. (2008). Using different conceptual change methods embedded within 5E model:
A sample teaching of endothermic- exothermic reactions. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1-10.
Tytler, R. (1998b). Childrens’ conceptions of air pressure: Exploring the nature of conceptual
change. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 929-958.
Uğur, B., Akkoyunlu, B. & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2009). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its
implementation in terms of their learning styles. Educ Inf Technol, DOI 10.1007/s10639-009-
9109-9
Umdu-Topsakal, Ü. (2010). 8. Sınıf canlılar için madde ve enerji ünitesi öğretiminde isbirlikli
öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci başarısına ve tutumuna etkisi, Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 91-104.
Ürey, M. & Çalık, M. (2008). Combining different conceptual change methods within 5e model: A
sample teaching design of ‘cell’ concept and its organelles. Asia- Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 1-15.
Varank, İ. & Kuzucuoğlu, G. (2007). İsbirlikli öğrenmede birlikte öğrenme tekniğinin öğrencilerin
matematik basarılarına ve isbirliği içinde çalısma becerilerine etkisi, İlköğretim Online, 6(3),
323-332.

36
 The Effect of the 5E Instructional Model / Daşdemir

Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K. & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions,
Floating and sinking, Science Scope, 31(8), 34-39.

37
International Electronic Journal of ElementaryEducationVol.9, Issue1, 21-38, September2016

www.iejee.com
This page is intentionally left blank

38