The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications

Abstract

Summary Engagement The teacher or a curriculum task accesses the learners' prior knowledge and helps them become engaged in a new concept through the use of short activities that promote curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. The activity should make connections between past and present learning experiences, expose prior conceptions, and organize students' thinking toward the learning outcomes of current activities. Exploration Exploration experiences provide students with a common base of activities within which current concepts (i.e., misconceptions), processes, and skills are identified and conceptual change is facilitated. Learners may complete lab activities that help them use prior knowledge to generate new ideas, explore questions and possibilities, and design and conduct a preliminary investigation. Explanation The explanation phase focuses students' attention on a particular aspect of their engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This phase also provides opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process, or skill. Learners explain their understanding of the concept. An explanation from the teacher or the curriculum may guide them toward a deeper understanding, which is a critical part of this phase. Elaboration Teachers challenge and extend students' conceptual understanding and skills. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. Evaluation The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress toward achieving the educational objectives. Since the late 1980s this instructional model has been used in the design of BSCS curriculum materials. The model describes a teaching sequence that can be used for entire programs, specific units, and individual lessons. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model plays a significant role in the curriculum development process as well as the enactment of curricular materials in science classrooms.

Full text

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 1
Introduction
Science teachers continuously strive to improve their instructional practices to enhance student
learning. Complementing the aims of science teachers, curriculum developers systematically
attempt to identify research findings they can incorporate in materials that will facilitate
connections between teachers, the curriculum, and students. Recently, the use of coordinated and
coherent sequencing of lessons—learning cycles and instructional models—has gained
popularity in the science education community.
Recent research reports, such as How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School
(Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000) and its companion, How Students Learn: Science in the
Classroom (Donovan & Bransford, 2005), have confirmed what educators have asserted for
many years: The sustained use of an effective, research-based instructional model can help
students learn fundamental concepts in science and other domains. If we accept that
premise, then an instructional model must be effective, supported with relevant research and it
must be implemented consistently and widely to have the desired effect on teaching and learning.
Since the late 1980s, BSCS has used one instructional model extensively in the development of
new curriculum materials and professional development experiences. That model is commonly
referred to as the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, or the 5Es, and consists of the following phases:
engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. Each phase has a specific
function and contributes to the teacher’s coherent instruction and to the learners’ formulation of a
better understanding of scientific and technological knowledge, attitudes, and skills. The model
frames a sequence and organization of programs, units, and lessons. Once internalized, it also
can inform the many instantaneous decisions that science teachers must make in classroom
situations. See Table 1 for a summary of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
This report summarizes recent research on the sequencing of science instruction, including
laboratory experiences, in order to facilitate student learning. Specifically, the report provides a
rationale and empirical support for the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
One reason for reviewing the historical development and research base for the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model is its ubiquitous use in education today. This widespread use falls into three
primary categories of use: 1) documents that frame larger pieces of work such as curriculum
frameworks, assessment guidelines, or course outlines; 2) curriculum materials of various
lengths and sizes; and 3) adaptations for teacher professional development, informal education
settings, and disciplines other than science. A simple internet search, using a popular search
engine such as Google, reveals the wide and varied applications of the 5E model. In spring 2006,
this type of search showed the following range of uses:
• more than 235,000 lesson plans developed and implemented using the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model;
• more than 97,000 posted and discrete examples of universities using the 5E model in
their course syllabi;
• more than 73,000 examples of curriculum materials developed using the 5E model;
• more than 131,000 posted and discrete examples of teacher education programs or
resources that use the 5Es; and

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 2
• at least three states that strongly endorse the 5E model, including Texas, Connecticut, and
Maryland.
The first section of this report provides a brief history of instructional models and discusses the
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) learning cycle (Karplus & Thier, 1967), the
predecessor to the BSCS 5Es. After that discussion, the same section summarizes research
supporting contemporary views of learning and the effectiveness of different instructional
models, with emphasis on the SCIS learning cycle and the BSCS 5E model.
Table 1. Summary of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Phase Summary
Engagement The teacher or a curriculum task accesses the learners’ prior knowledge and
helps them become engaged in a new concept through the use of short activities
that promote curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. The activity should make
connections between past and present learning experiences, expose prior
conceptions, and organize students’ thinking toward the learning outcomes of
current activities.
Exploration Exploration experiences provide students with a common base of activities
within which current concepts (i.e., misconceptions), processes, and skills are
identified and conceptual change is facilitated. Learners may complete lab
activities that help them use prior knowledge to generate new ideas, explore
questions and possibilities, and design and conduct a preliminary investigation.
Explanation The explanation phase focuses students’ attention on a particular aspect of their
engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to
demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This
phase also provides opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept,
process, or skill. Learners explain their understanding of the concept. An
explanation from the teacher or the curriculum may guide them toward a deeper
understanding, which is a critical part of this phase.
Elaboration Teachers challenge and extend students’ conceptual understanding and skills.
Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader
understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their
understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities.
Evaluation The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and
abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress
toward achieving the educational objectives.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 3
Origins of
Contemporary Instructional Models

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 4
Origins of Contemporary Instructional Models
Although the idea of instructional models is not new, their application and use has increased
dramatically in recent years. This discussion presents a brief history of several instructional
models, in particular those that influenced the development of the contemporary BSCS 5E
Instructional Model. The historical models include brief discussions of several approaches
including one by Johann Herbart and John Dewey. We then provide greater philosophical and
psychological detail for a model presented by J. Myron Atkin and Robert Karplus because this
model was the foundation for the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
Johann Friedrich Herbart
Johann Friedrich Herbart, a German philosopher, influenced American educational thought
around the turn of the 20th century. For Herbart, the primary purpose of education is the
development of character, and the process of developing character begins with the students’
interest. Herbart considers concepts to be the fundamental building blocks of the mind, and the
function of a concept is justification for including a concept in a course of study. In a
contemporary sense, Herbart is interested in the creation and development of conceptual
structures that would contribute to an individual’s development of character.
Herbart proposes two ideas as foundations for teaching: interest and conceptual understanding.
The first principle of effective instruction consists of the students’ interest in the subject. Herbart
suggests two types of interest, one based on direct experiences with the natural world and the
second based on social interactions. Science 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
suggests the observation and collection of living organisms and the introduction of tools and
machines (Herbart, 1901).
Herbart’s model also incorporates the social interests of children and their interactions with other
individuals. A thorough education takes into account the contribution of social interactions to
learning. Thus, an instructional model should incorporate opportunities for social interaction
among students and between students and the teacher.
The second principle of Herbart’s model is the formation of concepts. For Herbart, sense
perceptions of objects, organisms, and events are essential, but in and of themselves they are not
sufficient for the development of mind. A very important theme in Herbart’s model is the
coherence of ideas. That is, each new idea must be related to extant ideas. Said in contemporary
terms, prior knowledge is the point of departure of instruction.
In summarizing Herbart’s ideas into an instructional model, we begin with the current knowledge
and experiences of the students and the new ideas related to concepts the students already have.
Introducing new ideas that connect with extant ideas would slowly form concepts. According to
Herbart (1901), the best pedagogy allows students to discover the relationships among
experiences. Teachers would guide, question, and suggest through indirect methods. The next
step involves direct instruction, where the teacher systematically explains ideas that the student
could not be expected to discover independently. In the final step, teachers ask students to

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 5
demonstrate their understanding by applying the concepts to new situations. 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. Table 2 summarizes Herbart’s instructional model.
Table 2. Herbart’s Instructional Model
Phase Summary
Preparation The teacher brings prior experiences to the students’ awareness.
Presentation The teacher introduces new experiences and makes connections to prior
experiences.
Generalization The teacher 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 science teacher. No doubt, the early influence of science
explains the obvious connection between Dewey’s conception of thinking and scientific inquiry.
In How We Think (1910, 1933), Dewey outlines what he terms a complete act of thought and
describes what he maintains are indispensable traits of reflective thinking. Those traits include
(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 provide the best solution for the problem.
In Democracy and Education (1916), Dewey further describes the relationship between
experience and thinking. He summarizes the general features of the reflective experience:
(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; (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 result, thereby
testing the hypothesis. (p. 150)
Based on this quotation, it seems clear that Dewey implies an instructional approach that is based
on experience and requires reflective thinking. In contemporary terms, doing hands-on activities
in science is not enough. Those experiences also must be minds on.
The 1938 report Science in General Education (Commission on Secondary School Curriculum,
1937) expresses Dewey’s model of reflective thinking, and a section on “How the Science
Teacher May Encourage Reflective Thinking” describes elements of an instructional model.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 6
Table 3 synthesizes an instructional model from Dewey’s statements and from Science in
General Education.
Table 3. Dewey’s Instructional Model
Phase Summary
Sensing Perplexing
Situations The teacher presents an experience where the students feel
thwarted and 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
hypotheses and tries to establish a relationship between the
perplexing situation and previous experiences.
Testing the Hypothesis The teacher allows students to try various types of experiments,
including imaginary, pencil-and-paper, and concrete
experiments, 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 devise a statement that
communicates their conclusions and expresses possible actions.
By 1950, a variation of John Dewey’s instructional model emerged in science methods textbooks
(Heiss, Obourn, & Hoffman, 1950). The authors based their “learning cycle” (their term) on
Dewey’s complete act of thought. Table 4 presents that learning cycle.
Table 4. Heiss, Obourn, and Hoffman 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.
The Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, an era of curriculum reform, instructional models were
popularized by leaders of the reform movement. In a popular and now-classic article, “Messing
About in Science,” David Hawkins (1965) describes a teaching model that uses the symbols of
the circle, the triangle, and the square. In general, the symbols represent phases of an
instructional model that includes unstructured exploration, multiple programmed experiences,
and didactic instruction.
The model described by Hawkins provides the basic strategies for the units developed by the
Elementary Science Study (ESS). The systematic approach to instruction did not, however, gain

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 7
the widespread acceptance of other curriculum development studies, in particular the Science
Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS).
Robert Karplus, a theoretical physicist at the University of California–Berkeley, became
interested in science education in the late 1950s. His interest led to an exploration of children’s
thinking and their explanations of natural phenomena. By 1961, Karplus began connecting the
developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to the design of instructional materials and science
teaching.
In 1961, J. Myron Atkin, then at the University of Illinois, shared Karplus’s ideas about teaching
science to young children. Eventually, they collaborated on a model of guided discovery in
instructional materials (Atkin & Karplus, 1962). Karplus continued refining his ideas and the
instructional model as he tested different instructional materials and observed the responses of
elementary children.
By 1967, Robert Karplus and his colleague Herbert Thier used the original terms and provided
greater clarity and a curricular context as they described the three phases of their model for
science teaching. “The plan of a unit may be seen, therefore, to consist of this sequence:
preliminary exploration, invention, and discovery” (Karplus & Thier, 1967, p. 40).
The three phases and the sequence of the SCIS learning cycle are exploration, invention, and
discovery. Exploration refers to relatively unstructured experiences in which students gather new
information. Invention refers to a formal statement, often the definition and terms for a new
concept. Following the exploration, the invention phase 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
develop a new level of cognitive organization and attempts to transfer what he or she has learned
to new situations. (See Table 5.)
A number of studies have shown that the SCIS learning cycle has many advantages when
compared with other approaches to instruction. These studies are summarized in Abraham and
Renner (1986). Jack Renner and his colleagues (Renner, Abraham, & Birnie, 1985; Abraham &
Renner, 1986; Renner, Abraham, & 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 each phase of the learning cycle. These studies have generally supported use
of the SCIS learning cycle as originally designed by Atkin and Karplus. Research on discovery,
guided discovery, and statement-of-rule learning (Egan & Greeno, 1973; Gagne & Brown, 1961;
Roughead & Scandura, 1968) supports the “sequencing and necessity” conclusions drawn by
Renner and his colleagues. Lawson (1995) provides an excellent detailed history of the
development and modifications of the SCIS learning cycle.
Initially, the SCIS learning cycle used the terms exploration, invention, and discovery to identify
the phases and sequence of the model. In the 1980s, Lawson (1988) and others slightly modified
the terms used for the learning cycle. The modified terms are exploration, term introduction, and
concept application. Although there were changes in terminology, the conceptual foundation of
the learning cycle remained essentially the same.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 8
Table 5. Atkin-Karplus Learning Cycle
Phase Summary
Exploration Students have an initial experience with phenomena.
Invention Students are introduced to new terms associated with concepts that are
the object of study.
Discovery Students apply concepts and use terms in related but new situations.
Analyses of elementary programs indicate that SCIS was one of the effective programs
(Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport, 1983). These positive effects on learning relate at least in part to
the learning cycle. The SCIS learning cycle was used as central to a theory of instruction
prescribed by Lawson, Abraham, & Renner (1989). In addition, the SCIS learning cycle has been
applied successfully in different educational settings.
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model
In the mid-1980s, BSCS received a grant from IBM to conduct a design study that would
produce specifications for a new science and health curriculum for elementary schools. Among
the innovations that resulted from this design study was the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. As
mentioned earlier and elaborated later in this section, the BSCS model has five phases:
engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. When formulating the BSCS
5E Instructional Model, we consciously began with the SCIS learning cycle. The middle three
elements of the BSCS model are fundamentally equivalent to the three phases of the SCIS
learning cycle.
Table 6. Comparison of the Phases of the SCIS and BSCS 5E Models
SCIS Model BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Engagement (New Phase)
Exploration Exploration (Adapted from SCIS)
Invention (Term Introduction) Explanation (Adapted from SCIS)
Discovery (Concept Application) Elaboration (Adapted from SCIS)
Evaluation (New Phase)
The following paragraphs describe the phases of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. Phases of the
BSCS model can be applied at several levels in the design of curriculum materials and
instructional sequences. They may be applied to the organizational pattern of a yearlong
program, to units within the curriculum, and to sequences within lessons. These paragraphs are
slightly modified from the original descriptions in New Designs for Elementary School Science
and Health (BSCS, 1989).
Engagement: The first phase engages students in the learning task. The students mentally focus
on an object, problem, situation, or event. The activities of this phase make connections to past
experiences and expose students’ misconceptions; they should serve to mitigate cognitive
disequilibrium.
Asking a question, defining a problem, showing a discrepant event, and acting out a problematic
situation are all ways to engage the students and focus them on the instructional task. The role of

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 9
the teacher is to present the situation and identify the instructional task. The teacher also sets the
rules and procedures for establishing the task.
Successful engagement results in students being puzzled by, and actively motivated in, the
learning activity. Here, the word “activity” refers to both mental and physical activity.
Exploration: Once the activities have engaged the students, the students have a psychological
need for time to explore the ideas. Exploration activities are designed so that the students in the
class have common, concrete experiences upon which they continue formulating concepts,
processes, and skills. Engagement brings about disequilibrium; exploration initiates the process
of equilibration. This phase should be concrete and hands on. Educational software can be used
in the phase, but it should be carefully designed to assist the initial process of formulating
adequate and scientifically accurate concepts.
The aim of exploration activities is to establish experiences that teachers and students can use
later to formally introduce and discuss concepts, processes, or skills. During the activity, the
students have time in which they can explore objects, events, or situations. As a result of their
mental and physical involvement in the activity, the students establish relationships, observe
patterns, identify variables, and question events.
The teacher’s role in the exploration phase is that of facilitator or coach. The teacher initiates the
activity and allows the students time and opportunity to investigate objects, materials, and
situations based on each student’s own ideas of the phenomena. If called upon, the teacher may
coach or guide students as they begin reconstructing their explanations. Use of tangible materials
and concrete experiences is essential.
Explanation: The word “explanation” means the act or process in which concepts, processes, or
skills become plain, comprehensible, and clear. The process of explanation provides the students
and the teacher with a common use of terms relative to the learning task. In this phase, the
teacher directs students’ attention to specific aspects of the engagement and exploration
experiences. First, the teacher asks the students to give their explanations. Second, the teacher
introduces scientific or technological explanations in a direct, explicit, and formal manner.
Explanations are ways of ordering the exploratory experiences. The teacher should base the
initial part of this phase on the students’ explanations and clearly connect the explanations to
experiences in the engagement and exploration phases of the instructional model. The key to this
phase is to present concepts, processes, or skills briefly, simply, clearly, and directly and to move
on to the next phase.
Teachers have a variety of techniques and strategies at their disposal to elicit and develop student
explanations. Educators commonly use verbal explanations; but, there are numerous other
strategies, such as videos, films, and educational courseware. This phase continues the process of
mental ordering and provides terms for explanations. In the end, students should be able to
explain exploratory experiences and experiences that have engaged them by using common
terms. Students will not immediately express and apply the explanations—learning takes time.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 10
Elaboration: Once the students have an explanation and terms for their learning tasks, it is
important to involve the students in further experiences that extend, or elaborate, the concepts,
processes, or skills. This phase facilitates the transfer of concepts to closely related but new
situations. In some cases, students may still have misconceptions, or they may only understand a
concept in terms of the exploratory experience. Elaboration activities provide further time and
experiences that contribute to learning.
Audrey Champagne (1987) provides a clear description of this phase:
During the elaboration phase, students engage in discussions and information-
seeking activities. The group’s goal is to identify and execute a small number of
promising approaches to the task. During the group discussion, students present
and defend their approaches to the instructional task. This discussion results in
better definition of the task as well as the identification and gathering of
information that is necessary for successful completion of the task. The teaching
cycle is not closed to information from the outside. Students get information from
each other, the teacher, printed materials, experts, electronic databases, and
experiments that they conduct. This is called the information base. As a result of
participation in the group’s discussion, individual students are able to elaborate
upon the conception of the tasks, information bases, and possible strategies for its
[the task’s] completion. (p. 82)
Note the use of interactions within student groups as a part of the elaboration process. Group
discussions and cooperative learning situations provide opportunities for students to express their
understanding of the subject and receive feedback from others who are very close to their own
level of understanding.
This phase is also an opportunity to involve students in new situations and problems that require
the transfer of identical or similar explanations. Generalization of concepts, processes, and skills
is the primary goal.
Evaluation: This is the important opportunity for students to use the skills they have acquired
and evaluate their understanding. In addition, the students should receive feedback on the
adequacy of their explanations. Informal evaluation can occur at the beginning and throughout
the 5E sequence. The teacher can complete a formal evaluation after the elaboration phase. As a
practical educational matter, teachers must assess educational outcomes. This is the phase in
which teachers administer assessments to determine each student’s level of understanding.
What are the commonalities and differences between the SCIS learning cycle and the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model? The principle commonality underlying both models is the psychological
theory that informed the sequence and emphasis for the phases. Both models use the work of
Jean Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Piaget, 1975) and subsequent research consistent with the
Piagetian theory, specifically the focus of cognitive sciences and the work on misconceptions,
the difference between novice and expert explanations of phenomena, and naive versus canonical
theories. The view of learning is summarized here and discussed in greater detail in the next
section.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 11
Briefly, the theory underlying both SCIS and the BSCS 5Es views learning as dynamic and
interactive. Individuals redefine, reorganize, elaborate, and change their initial concepts through
interaction with their environment, other individuals, or both. The learner “interprets” objects
and phenomena and internalizes the interpretation in terms of the current experience
encountered. To change and improve conceptions often requires challenging the students’ current
conceptions and showing those conceptions to be incomplete or inadequate. If a current
conception is challenged, there must be opportunity, in the form of time and experiences, to
develop a more accurate 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.
The changes introduced to the BSCS model reflect research on learning published since the
original SCIS learning cycle. BSCS recognized the need for the explicit engagement of the
learner with his or her prior knowledge (Champagne, 1988). BSCS maintained the term
exploration and the original intent of the phase; however, we incorporated cooperative learning
into this phase based on the research of Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1986). We maintained
the invention or concept introduction phase, but changed the term to explanation to emphasize
the development of scientific explanations. For the discovery phase, we again incorporated
cooperative learning. We also changed this phase to elaboration to emphasize the application
and transfer of ideas to further develop current understanding. Finally, we added a phase of
evaluation. In this phase, students demonstrate their understandings and abilities through a new
activity. This change was made to address the need for formal assessment opportunities that were
integral to the instructional plan (Kulm & Malcolm, 1991). This phase also provides
opportunities for self-reflection, an essential component of learning revealed by studies on
metacognition (Brown & Campione, 1987). See Figure 1 for a summary of the origins and
evolution of the instructional models reviewed in this section.
Since the late 1980s, the 5E instructional model has been a central feature in the majority of
BSCS programs, especially our core programs. The core programs are summarized in Tables 7
and 8. Field-test results for several of these programs are described in a later section of the
report.
Table 7. Core Programs That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Original Program Contemporary Program
Science for Life and Living © 1992
1st Edition (Grades K–6) BSCS Science Tracks © 2006
2nd Edition (Grades K–5)
Middle School Science & Technology © 1994
1st Edition (Grades 6–8) BSCS Science & Technology © 2005
3rd Edition (Grades 6–8)
BSCS Biology: A Human Approach © 1997
1st Edition (Grades 9–12) BSCS Biology: A Human Approach © 2006
3rd Edition (Grades 9–12)
BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach © 2006
1st Edition (Grades 9–11) BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach © 2006
1st Edition (Grades 9–11)

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 12
Table 8. Modules in the NIH Curriculum Supplement Series That Incorporate the BSCS
5E Instructional Model
Elementary Level
Open Wide and Trek Inside (Grades 1–2)
Middle School Level
The Brain: Our Sense of Self (Grades 7–8)
Chemicals, the Environment, and You: Explorations in Science and Human Health (Grades 6–8)
Doing Science: The Process of Scientific Inquiry (Grades 7–8)
How Your Brain Understands What Your Ear Hears (Grades 7–8)
Looking Good, Feeling Good: From the Inside Out (Grades 7–8)
The Science of Energy Balance: Calorie Intake and Physical Activity (Grades 7–8)
The Science of Healthy Behaviors (Grades 7–8)
The Science of Mental Illness (Grades 6–8)
Understanding Alcohol: Investigations into Biology and Behavior (Grades 7–8)
High School Level
The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology Through the Study of Addiction (Grades 9–12)
Cell Biology and Cancer (Grades 9–12)
Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases (Grades 9–12)
Human Genetic Variation (Grades 9–12)
Sleep, Sleep Disorders, and Biological Rhythms (Grades 9–12)
Using Technology to Study Cellular and Molecular Biology (Grades 9–12)
In summary, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is grounded in sound educational theory, has a
growing base of research to support its effectiveness, and has had a significant impact on science
education. While encouraging, these conclusions indicate that it is important to conduct research
on the effectiveness of the model, including when and how it is used, and continue to refine the
model based on direct research and related research on learning.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 13
Contemporary Models
BSCS 5E
(1980s)
Engagement
Exploration
Explanation
Elaboration
Evaluation
Atkin and Karplus
(1960s)
Exploration
Invention
(Term Introduction)
Discovery
(Concept Application)
Figure 1. Origins and Development of Instructional Models
Historical Models
Herbart (Early 1900s)
Preparation
Presentation
Generalization
Application
Dewey (Circa 1930s)
Sensing Perplexing Situations
Clarifying the Problem
Formulating a Tentative Hypothesis
Testing the Hypothesis
Revising Rigorous Tests
Acting on the Solution
Heiss, Obourn, and Hoffman (Circa 1950s)
Exploring the Unit
Experience Getting
Organization of Learning
Application of Learning

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 14
Effectiveness of
Contemporary Instructional Models

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 15
Effectiveness of Contemporary Instructional Models
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model builds on the work of other instructional models and is
supported by current research on learning. BSCS has a long history of developing curriculum
materials that reflect the most recent research about learning and teaching. Our current
understanding has been informed by research conducted by cognitive scientists from around the
world (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Driver, et al., 1994; Lambert, et al., 1995; Matthews, 1992;
National Research Council, 2000; Piaget, 1976; Posner, et al., 1982; Vygotsky, 1962). Cognitive
research shows that learning is an active process occurring within and influenced by the learner.
Hence, learning results from an interaction between what information is encountered and how
the student processes that information based on perceived notions and extant personal
knowledge. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model applies this research to curriculum materials.
How People Learn
Several reports from the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences
(NRC and NAS) present significant syntheses of contemporary research on learning. The first
NRC review, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Bransford, Brown &
Cocking, 1999), has been followed by other reports that go beyond the synthesis and discuss
strategies for applying the findings to practice, including How People Learn: Bridging Research
and Practice (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999) and How Students Learn: Science in the
Classroom (Donovan & Bransford, 2005).
How People Learn (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999) offers insights about learners and
learning that are especially important for this review. Three major findings are highlighted
because they have a strong research base and clear implications for the use of systematic and
carefully designed instruction:
1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world
works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp
new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn for the
purpose of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
2. To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a
deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in
the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in
ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
3. A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take
control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring
their progress in achieving them. (pp. 10–13)

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 16
These findings have parallel implications for classroom instruction and translating those
implications into curriculum materials. The findings imply that teachers must be able to do the
following:
• Recognize and draw out preconceptions from their students and base instructional
decisions on the information they get from their students.
• Teach their subject matter in depth so that facts are conveyed in a context with
examples and a conceptual framework.
• Integrate metacognitive skills into the curriculum and teach those skills explicitly.
Relative to this review and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, a quote from How People Learn
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) seems especially germane:
An alternative to simply progressing through a series of exercises that derive from
a scope and sequence chart is to expose students to the major patterns of a subject
domain as they arise naturally in problem situations. Activities can be structured
so that students are able to explore, explain, extend, and evaluate their progress.
Ideas are best introduced when students see a need or a reason for their use—this
helps them see relevant uses of the knowledge to make sense of what they are
learning. (p. 127)
This quotation directs attention to a research-based recommendation for a structure and sequence
of instruction that exposes students to problem situations (i.e., engage their thinking) and then
provides opportunities to explore, explain, extend, and evaluate their learning. This research
summary from the National Research Council supports the design and sequence of the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model.
Integrated Instructional Units
Following the work of Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, the National Research Council published
America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Sciences (2006). This report examined the
status of science laboratories and developed a vision for their future role in high school science
education. The NRC committee (NRC, 2006) used the following definition for laboratory
experiences:
Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with
the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using tools, data
collection techniques, models, and theories of science. (p. 31)
Note that this definition includes physical manipulation of substances, organisms, and systems;
interactions with simulations; interactions with actual (not artificially created) data; analysis of
large databases; and remote access to instruments and observations, for example, via World
Wide Web links.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 17
The committee was very clear that science education includes both learning about the methods
and processes of scientific research and the knowledge derived from those processes. The
learning goals that should be attained as a result of laboratory experiences include the following:
• Enhancing mastery of subject matter
• Developing scientific reasoning
• Understanding the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work
• Developing practical skills
• Understanding the nature of science
• Cultivating interest in science and interest in learning science
• Developing teamwork abilities (NRC, 2006, p. 76–77)
In the analysis of laboratory experiences, the committee applied results from the large and
growing body of cognitive research. Some researchers have investigated the sequence of science
instruction, including the role of laboratory experiences, as these sequences enhance student
achievement of the aforementioned learning goals. The NRC committee (NRC, 2006) proposed
the phrase “integrated instructional units”:
Integrated instructional units interweave laboratory experiences with other types
of science learning activities, including lectures, reading, and discussion. Students
are engaged in forming research questions, designing and executing experiments,
gathering and analyzing data, and constructing arguments and conclusions as they
carry out investigations. Diagnostic, formative assessments are embedded into the
instructional sequence and can be used to gauge the students’ developing
understanding and to promote their self-reflection on their thinking. (p. 82)
Integrated instructional units have two key features; first, laboratory and other experiences are
carefully designed or selected on the basis of what students should learn from them. And second,
the experience is explicitly linked to and integrated with other learning activities in the unit.
The features of integrated instructional units map directly to the BSCS instructional model.
Stated another way, the BSCS model is a specific example of integrated instructional units.
According to the NRC committee’s report, integrated instructional units connect laboratory
experience with other types of science learning activities including reading, discussions, and
lectures.
Typical (or traditional) laboratory experiences differ from the integrated instructional units in
their effectiveness in attaining the goals of science education. Research shows that typical
laboratories suffer from fragmentation of goals and approaches. Although the studies are still
preliminary, research indicates that integrated instructional units are more effective than typical
laboratory research for improving mastery of subject matter, developing scientific reasoning, and
cultivating interest in science. In addition, integrated instructional units appear to be effective for
helping diverse groups of students progress toward these three goals. Table 9 compares typical
laboratory experiences and integrated instructional units.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 18
Table 9. Attainment of Goals: Typical Laboratory Experience versus Integrated
Instructional Units
Goal Typical Laboratory
Experience Integrated Instructional
Unit
Mastery of Subject Matter Is no better or worse than
other modes of instruction Increases mastery compared with
other modes of instruction
Scientific Reasoning Aids the development of
some aspects Aids the development of more-
sophisticated aspects
Understanding of the
Nature of Science Shows little improvement Shows some improvement when
explicitly targeted as the goal
Interest in Science Shows some evidence of
increased interest Shows greater evidence of
increased interest
Understanding of the
Complexity and Ambiguity
of Empirical Work
Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Development of Practical
Skills Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Development of Teamwork
Skills Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Source: NRC. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning
Over the years, different groups have advocated different strategies for teaching science. On one
end of the continuum is direct instruction. At its extreme, direct instruction relies on lecturing
and rote memorization. At the other end of the continuum is discovery learning or full inquiry.
The extreme position in this view is that students must discover all the knowledge themselves
without direct guidance from the teacher. In reality, most teaching strategies are somewhere in
the middle of the continuum. One difficulty, however, is that the terms “direct instruction” and
“discovery learning” are interpreted differently by different people. Not only are they interpreted
differently, they have had additional values ascribed to them, such as “one is good, the other is
bad.” As we shall see, a case can be made for the general idea of integrated instructional units
and, specifically, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. That case emerges from research that often
is cited as supporting “direct instruction.”
Research headed by David Klahr and colleagues has stimulated review and discussion of the
relative importance of direct instruction and discovery learning as instructional approaches to
science teaching (Chen & Klahr, 1999; Klahr & Nigam, 2004). In the 1999 study, Chen and
Klahr investigated the efficacy of different instructional approaches for an important aspect of
scientific reasoning. Specifically, they intended to compare the efficacy of direct instruction vs.
discovery learning. They asked the question: “What is the effectiveness of different instructional
strategies in children’s acquisition of the domain-general strategy, Control of Variables Strategy,
or CVS.” They had children aged seven to 10 years old design and evaluate experiments after
direct instruction in CVS and without direct instruction (i.e., discovery learning). They reported
that with explicit training (i.e., direct instruction), children were able to learn and transfer the

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 19
basic strategy for designing unconfounded experiments, that is, they could apply CVS (Chen &
Klahr, 1999).
One interesting aspect of the research conducted by Klahr and his colleagues is that their
approach actually paralleled a key characteristic of an instructional model or integrated
instructional unit. While this is evident in the articles, it is not expressed in their conclusion that
direct intervention is the most effective strategy for teaching the Control of Variables Strategy.
The following quotations are from the methodological sections of the key articles cited in the
direct instruction versus discovery learning debate. In Table 10, we point out the phases that
parallel the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. The entire approach used by Klahr and colleagues
could well be described as an integrated instructional unit that centers on students learning the
key concepts of CVS.
The present study consisted of two parts. Part I included hands-on design of
experiments. Children were asked to set up experimental apparatus so as to test
the possible effects of different variables. The hands-on study was further divided
into four phases. In Phase 1, children were presented with materials in a source
domain in which they performed an initial exploration followed by (for some
groups) training. Then they were assessed in the same domain in Phase 2. In
Phases 3 and 4, children were presented with problems in two additional domains
(Transfer-1 and Transfer-2). Part II was a paper-and-pencil posttest given two
months after Part I. The posttest examined children’s ability to transfer the
strategy to remote situations. (Chen & Klahr, 1999, p. 4)
In a further summary of the design, the researchers note the following:
… children were given explicit instructions regarding CVS. Training occurred
between the Exploration and Assessment phases. It included an explanation of the
rationale behind controlling variables as well as examples of how to make
unconfounded comparisons. (Chen & Klahr, 1999, p. 4)
Chen and Klahr’s 1999 research article presents a very well-designed study that, in our
view, most likely used an integrated instructional approach closely resembling the BSCS
5E Instructional Model. As indicated in their summary of the methodology for the
intervention, Chen and Klahr used an instructional sequence that included four of the five
phases in the 5E model. With an engagement phase omitted, the researchers had the
students begin with an exploration, proceeded to an explanation of CVS that included a
demonstration, and then had the students apply or elaborate CVS to these new situations
for which they used the terms assessment and Transfer-1 and Transfer-2.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 20
Table 10. Alignment between Chen and Klahr’s Work and the BSCS 5E Instructional
Model
Quotes from
Chen and Klahr (1999)
Alignment
with the
BSCS Model Rationale
“Children were presented materials in
a source domain in which they
performed an initial exploration.”
Engagement Engagement initiates the learning
process and exposes students’
current conceptions.
“Children were asked to set up
experimental apparatus so as to test
the possible effects of different
variables.”
Exploration In the exploration phase, students
gain experience with phenomena or
events.
“… included an explanation of the
rationale behind controlling variables
as well as examples of how to make
unconfounded comparisons.”
Explanation In the explanation phase, the
teacher may give an explanation to
guide students toward a deeper
understanding.
“… children were presented with
problems in two additional domains” Elaboration In the elaboration phase, students
apply their understanding in a new
situation or context.
“Part II was a pencil-and-paper
post-test given two months after Part
I.”
Evaluation In the evaluation phase, student
understanding is assessed.
In this section, we have pointed out the similarity of the methodology used by Klahr and
colleagues to the BSCS model. Our discussion describes the research method Klahr’s team uses
and points out the parallel of the method to the 5E instructional model. However, Klahr and
colleagues isolate one strategy of that model, the training, explanation, or direct instruction, as
the key factor in student learning. Others have generalized these results to claim that direct
instruction is the best way to teach the process skills of science (Adelson, 2004; Begley, 2004a,
2004b). The entire context and teaching approach used in Klahr’s research presents a situation
that suggests such a conclusion is far beyond the evidence.
In a second article, the authors (Klahr & Nigram, 2004) clarify the characteristics of direct
instruction:
… we use an extreme type of direct instruction in which the goals, the materials,
the examples, the explanations, and the pace of instruction are all teacher-
controlled. (p. 2)
The researchers (Klahr & Nigram, 2004) also describe discovery learning:
In our discovery learning condition, there is no teacher intervention beyond the
suggestion of a learning objective: no guiding questions and no feedback about
the quality of the child’s selection of materials, explorations, or self-assessments.
(p. 2)

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 21
Here are the outstanding differences between direct instruction and discovery learning:
The main definition is that, in direct instruction, the instructor provided good and
bad examples of CVS, explained what the differences were between them, and
told the students how and why CVS worked, whereas in the discovery condition
there were no examples and no explanations, even though there was an equivalent
amount of design and manipulation of materials. (Klahr & Nigam, 2004, p. 4)
In this study by Klahr and Nigam, the researchers used a methodology generally similar to that
described earlier. As a result of a very detailed and thorough study, the authors (Klahr & Nigam,
2004) concluded:
These results suggest a re-examination of the long-standing claim that the
limitations of direct instruction, as well as the advantages of discovery methods,
will manifest themselves in broad transfer to authentic contexts. (p. 7)
We note that integrated instructional models such as the SCIS learning cycle (Karplus & Thier,
1967) and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model are not limited by the constraints that Klahr and
Nigam impose on direct instruction. On the contrary, both SCIS cycle and the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model incorporate direct instruction in one phase in an integrated instructional
model.
Klahr and his colleagues have not explicitly acknowledged that the teaching strategies used in
their research could be interpreted as much more than direct instruction. The implications of their
research, however, have been stated in the extreme by the popular press, with titles such as
“Instruction Versus Exploration in Science” (Adelson, 2004) and “Carnegie Mellon Researchers
Say ‘Direct Instruction,’ Rather Than ‘Discovery Learning,’ is Best Way to Teach Process Skills
in Science.” Unfortunately, characterization of these instructional approaches as separate, as
opposed to possibly being integrated, has done a disservice to both approaches.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 22
A Review of the Support for Contemporary Instructional Models
Teaching strategies and instructional models may have their foundations on solid research and
they may expand on previous models, but we need to evaluate them to determine if they are
actually effective in improving students’ mastery of subject matter, scientific reasoning, interest
in science, and understanding of the nature of science. In this section, we review the studies of
the effectiveness of instructional models based on the learning cycle. However, before beginning
this review, it is important to acknowledge the difficulties in conducting this type of educational
research. Unlike other types of research, it is often not feasible, appropriate, or, at times, even
ethical to use methods that include randomized samples. Other challenges related to conducting
effectiveness studies include assessing the different degrees of fidelity of implementation by
different teachers and differences in the experience and qualifications of the teachers.
Methodology
The information synthesized in this section was gathered by searching established databases;
using Web search engines; and reviewing the table of contents and citations in articles,
handbooks, journals, and summary chapters. The searches were conducted by five different
research teams. This process provided a wide sweep of the available information with enough
redundancies to catch details one researcher might have missed. Table 11 summarizes the
specific databases, search engines, and search phrases used to find the literature, dissertations,
and reports cited here.
Table 11. Sources of Information
Type of Source Details
Databases Academic Search Premier
Academic Universe, LexisNexis
Dissertation Abstracts
EBSCOhost, Library
Education: A SAGE Full-Text Collection
ERIC
ERIC, First Search
ERIC, EBSCOhost
ERIC, U.S. Department of Education, Professional Development
Collection
Information Science & Technology Abstracts
JSTOR
Online ProQuest
WilsonWeb OmniFile Full Text Mega
Search Engines Google
Google Scholar
Info
Yahoo
Search Phrases 5E
5 E
5-E
5E Curriculum

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 23
5E Cycle
5E Education
5-E effectiveness
5E instruction
5E Instructional Model
5E Model Effectiveness
5-E learning
5E Learning
5E lessons
5E model
5E model lessons
5E Science
5E Teacher
5-E teacher
Learning Cycle
Books Reviewed Handbook of Research on Curriculum (1992)
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (1996)
Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (1994)
Handbook on Science Teaching and Learning (1997)
Science Teaching and the Development of Thinking (1995)
Journals Reviewed The American Biology Teacher
Journal of Research on Science Teaching
Science Education
School Science and Mathematics
The Science Teacher
Historical Research on the SCIS Learning Cycle
Lawson (1995) completed a comprehensive review of more than 50 research studies on the
learning cycle that were conducted through the 1980s. The earliest studies investigated the
effectiveness of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) program developed in the
1960s for teaching elementary science. Because the SCIS program used a learning cycle
instructional model, the results of studies about SCIS provide evidence about the effectiveness of
this type of instruction. Later studies focused specifically on the learning cycle model. Several
studies focused on the impact of omitting one or more phases of the learning cycle, changing the
sequence of the phases, or using different instructional formats within the phases.
In addition, Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas (1993) conducted a rigorous meta-analysis that
included 47 research studies conducted from 1981 through the spring of 1991. The focus of these
studies was the effectiveness of different instructional interventions, including the learning cycle,
for addressing student misconceptions in science. This section summarizes what these studies
reveal about the learning cycle’s effectiveness for improving students’ mastery of subject matter,
scientific reasoning, and interest and attitudes about science. In addition, we further the
connection to the goals of integrated instructional units described in America’s Lab Report
(NRC, 2006, p. 100) by aligning the key findings of the studies to those goals.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 24
Mastery of subject matter: Ten studies cited by Lawson investigated the impact of the learning
cycle approach on subject matter knowledge of elementary through undergraduate students.
Typically, these studies compared learning gains for students taught using a learning cycle
approach with those taught using a “traditional” approach. The traditional approaches are
generally described as a lecture followed by a verification lab or activity. Six of the studies
(Bishop, 1980; Bowyer, 1976; Nussbaum, 1979; Renner & Paske, 1977; Saunders &
Shepardson, 1987; Schneider & Renner, 1980) found that students who were taught using the
learning cycle had greater gains in subject matter knowledge than students taught using more
traditional approaches. These studies examined science subject matter learning from the
elementary (Nussbaum, 1979), middle school (Bishop, 1980; Bowyer, 1976; Saunders &
Shepardson, 1987), high school (Schneider & Renner, 1980), and college (Renner & Paske,
1977) levels. Furthermore, two of the studies (Bishop, 1980; Schneider & Renner, 1980) found
that the achievement gains among students who experienced learning cycle instruction persisted
in delayed post-tests of students’ understanding of science concepts.
Four of the studies that Lawson reviewed found no differences in achievement between students
who experienced learning cycles and those who received traditional instructional formats. Horn
(1980) reported that SCIS curriculum materials were no more effective than traditional text
materials for helping first graders learn new vocabulary and understand text. Vermont (1985)
found no differences in learning the mole concept and changing misconceptions between college
chemistry students who experienced either learning cycle or traditional lecture-laboratory
instructional approaches. In the other two studies, researchers reported some differences in favor
of the learning cycle approach, but not in the area of content achievement. For example,
Campbell (1977) found that college physics students in learning cycle–based classes used formal
reasoning patterns and had more positive attitudes toward science than students in traditional
classes, although he found no significant differences in content achievement. Similarly, Davis
(1978) found more positive attitudes and better understanding of the nature of science among
fifth and sixth graders in learning cycle classes than in classes using a traditional approach, but
there were no differences in content achievement between students who experienced the two
approaches.
Several additional studies that had inconclusive results may help identify variables that limit the
effectiveness of this model. In a study of college chemistry students, Ward and Herron (1980)
developed learning cycle versions of three experiments. Students in the learning cycle sections
clearly had greater achievement on one of the three experiments, but there was no difference
between scores in the learning cycle and traditional sections for the other two experiments. The
researchers speculated that limited time spent on activities in the experiments, flaws in the
achievement test, and teaching assistants’ lack of fidelity in implementing the learning cycle
might explain the results. Another possible explanation is the developmental level of students.
Purser and Renner (1983) compared subject matter learning for high school students enrolled in
an eight-month biology course that used either a learning cycle or a traditional approach. Most of
the students were at a concrete or transitional level of reasoning, based on Piagetian tasks. The
researchers found no achievement differences between students for concepts that required formal
thought. However, students in the learning cycle section had greater learning gains for concepts
that required concrete thought.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 25
Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas (1993) used cluster analysis to identify instructional
approaches that had the largest effects on conceptual change. They concluded that “Meta-
analysis of research testing the success of the Learning Cycle and its modifications in eradicating
misconceptions provides support for the approach.” Specifically, they found that the average
effect of the learning cycle on conceptual change was about one-quarter of a standard deviation
unit, with larger effects when additional strategies (such as prediction laboratories) were
included as part of the learning cycle. They further noted that when a learning cycle that included
laboratory work was compared with a one that did not include a laboratory, the differential effect
was about one and one-half standard deviations. When a laboratory was combined with other
forms of traditional instruction (i.e., lecture, demonstration, and nonrefutational text not in a
learning cycle format), however, it was much less effective. Comparison of a prediction
laboratory–learning cycle combination with traditional instruction showed positive results in
favor of the former, by one-third of a standard deviation.
Scientific reasoning: Many of the studies reviewed by Lawson investigated the impact of
learning cycle instruction on students’ scientific reasoning abilities. This instructional model
consistently showed superior results over more traditional instructional approaches for
cultivating the development of these abilities: 17 of 18 studies had positive results. For the
purpose of our discussion, we have divided the studies into two categories. The first category
contains studies that address scientific inquiry abilities (e.g., asking questions, designing
experiments, developing and communicating scientific explanations), which are the cornerstones
of how scientific reasoning is defined in America’s Lab Report. The second category contains
studies that address more general reasoning skills, such as conservation of number or weight,
proportional reasoning, or development from concrete to formal operational thinking.
Scientific inquiry abilities
Thier (1965) and Allen (1971) reported that elementary students who had experienced the SCIS
curriculum had a superior ability to describe objects by their properties, compared with students
who experienced traditional instruction. Allen (1967), however, found no difference in
classifying skills for elementary school students who were taught using either SCIS or non-SCIS
materials. Other studies noted gains in identifying and controlling variables by students who
experienced the learning cycle approach, as opposed to those who experienced more traditional
instruction (Allen, 1973b; Lawson, Blake, & Nordland, 1975; Lawson & Wollman, 1976).
Several studies identified the superiority of the learning cycle approach for developing science
process skills such as classifying, measuring, experimenting, and predicting (Renner, et al. 1973;
Brown, Weber, & Renner, 1975; Bowyer, 1976; TaFoya, 1976).
General reasoning skills
Many studies of the SCIS program and the learning cycle investigated the impact of these
approaches on students’ general reasoning skills. The studies reviewed by Lawson assessing
these types of skills all showed that instruction based on the learning cycle was more effective
than traditional instruction. For example, Renner, et al. (1973) concluded that first graders who
used the SCIS materials had greater gains in reasoning skills, as measured by Piagetian
conservation tasks, than first graders who used a textbook. Linn & Thier (1975) found that fifth
graders who were taught using the SCIS materials performed better than those who did not on
tasks that required identification and compensation of variables. Several studies noted general

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 26
gains in reasoning skills and in proportional reasoning for students who experienced instruction
using the learning cycle model (McKinnon & Renner, 1971; Renner & Lawson, 1975; Wollman
& Lawson, 1978). Finally, a number of studies assessed the development of formal thinking
skills among students who experienced either learning cycle or traditional instruction. These
studies also found greater gains for students who were taught science using a learning cycle
format (Carlson, 1975; Schneider & Renner, 1980; Saunders & Shepardson, 1987).
Renner and Paske (1977) obtained ambiguous results in a study of college students enrolled in a
physics course for nonscience majors. Students enrolled in the course sections that used a
learning cycle format had greater gains on formal tasks from the low to the high concrete levels,
and from the high concrete to the low formal levels. Students enrolled in the course sections that
used the traditional lecture-demonstration approach had greater gains from the low to the high
formal levels. The researchers concluded that a learning cycle approach is more effective for
producing reasoning gains for students at a concrete level, but the traditional method may be
better for further progress in reasoning among students at a formal level of reasoning.
Interest and attitudes about science: Instruction that uses a learning cycle approach
consistently results in more positive attitudes about science. Lawson reviewed 12 publications
that reported the impact of learning cycle instruction on students’ attitudes. Eight of the studies
found more positive attitudes for students who experienced learning cycle instruction than for
those who did not. Four studies that did not do this comparison also reported positive attitudes
about science among students in learning cycle classes. Lawson commented that finding a
positive relationship between the use of learning cycle programs and student attitudes is typical;
he noted only one study that found no relationship between attitudes and the SCIS program
(presented at a meeting of the National Science Teachers Association in 1977).
With regard to the SCIS program, Malcolm (1976) found that students who experienced the
SCIS program had higher levels of self-concept that those who experienced a textbook-based
program. Hendricks (1978) found general affective domain gains for students in a SCIS program,
and Allen (1973a) reported slightly better motivation for students in a SCIS program. Others
who reported positive attitudes about science following exposure to the SCIS program include
Brown (1973); Brown, Weber, and Renner (1975); Krockover and Malcolm (1976); Haan
(1978); and Lowery, Bowyer, and Padilla (1980).
Lawson reviewed four studies that focused specifically on the impact of the learning cycle
approach (as opposed to the entire SCIS program) on student attitudes toward science. All
reported a positive relationship. Campbell (1977) found not only more positive attitudes toward
laboratory work in a physics course, but also a decreased likelihood of withdrawing from the
course among college students in the learning cycle sections of the course as compared with
those in the traditional sections. Another study found that college students enrolled in learning
cycle sections of a nonmajor physics course enjoyed their instruction more than those enrolled in
the traditional sections (Renner & Paske, 1977). Middle school students taught science using a
learning cycle approach also had more positive attitudes about science than those taught using a
traditional approach (Davis, 1978; Bishop, 1980).

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 27
Critical features of the learning cycle approach: Some researchers have critiqued conclusions
of the studies because the learning cycle programs include multiple teaching strategies within the
phases of the learning cycle. This multifactorial nature of instruction and analysis makes it
difficult to determine whether the success of the model is due to the entire package, to specific
phases within the model, or to one or more of the strategies used within the phases. A series of
studies conducted in high school physics and chemistry classes by Renner and his colleagues
addressed this criticism (Renner, Abraham, & Birnie, 1984; Abraham & Renner, 1984; Abraham
& Renner, 1986; Renner, Abraham, & Birnie, 1985, 1988). These studies investigated the effects
of changing the sequence of the learning cycle phases, omitting one or more of the phases, and
using different instructional formats within the phases.
Regarding gains in science subject matter knowledge, the researchers found that
• optimum learning of concepts requires all three phases of the learning cycle;
• students learn new concepts better when the term introduction phase is second;
• the combination of the exploration and the term introduction phases is more effective for
conceptual learning than using the term introduction phase alone;
• the laboratory format is effective only when it is used in conjunction with discussions;
and
• the effectiveness of the laboratory format depends on the clarity of the data that leads to
the concept.
The studies also reported differences for the Piagetian categories of learners—formal operational
and concrete operational. For formal operational learners, optimum learning occurred when all
phases of the learning cycle are present, but the sequence and instructional format of the learning
cycle phases did not matter. For concrete operational learners, highest achievement occurred
when the term introduction phase was last and the laboratory format was used.
These studies also provided information about the impact of the learning cycle approach on
student attitudes about science instruction. Students believed the sequence of the instructional
phases was important and preferred to gather their own data from an experiment before they
discussed the concept. They regarded the laboratory format most positively and the reading
format the most negatively.
In summary, the line of research by Renner and his colleagues reinforced the notion that the
learning cycle is most effective when used as originally designed:
• All three phases of the model must be included in instruction, and the exploration phase
must precede the term introduction phase.
• The specific instructional format may be less important than including all phases of the
model, but laboratory work (typical in the exploration phase) is more effective for many
students, provided it is followed by discussion (term introduction).
• Finally, student attitudes toward science instruction are more positive when they are
allowed to explore concepts through experimentation or other activities before discussing
them.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 28
Impact of the learning cycle approach on teaching behaviors: Several of the studies reviewed
by Lawson investigated the impact of using SCIS curriculum materials on teacher behaviors.
Studies that compared teachers who were trained in the SCIS learning cycle and used SCIS
materials with those who were not found that SCIS teachers asked higher-order questions that
emphasized skills such as interpretation, analysis, prediction, and synthesis more often than non-
SCIS teachers, who asked recognition and recall questions (Moon, 1969; Porterfield, 1969;
Wilson, 1969; Eaton, 1974). Simmons (1974) found that SCIS teachers were more student-
oriented than non-SCIS teachers, and Kyle (1985) reported that SCIS teachers allotted more time
for teaching science than non-SCIS teachers.
Findings from Recent Research on the Learning Cycle
The effectiveness of the learning cycle is also well documented in more contemporary research.
Like the earlier studies, recent research studies link the use of the learning cycle to positive
changes in students’ mastery of subject matter, scientific reasoning, and interest and attitudes
toward science. In the following sections, we discuss studies that describe the learning cycle’s
effectiveness toward furthering student outcomes in each of these three categories.
Mastery of subject matter: A significant line of research shows that learning cycle–based
teaching approaches help students develop deep understanding of science concepts. For example,
several comparative studies examined student learning gains across traditional and learning
cycle–based teaching approaches. Across multiple disciplines and grade levels, teaching
approaches based upon the learning cycle were found to result in greater gains of subject matter
learning. Examples include studies of undergraduate physics (Ates, 2005) and biology students
(Lord, 1997) as well as studies of high school physics (Billings, 2001) and elementary school
science students (Ebrahim, 2004).
Interestingly, there also is evidence that merely reading instructional materials that are structured
with a learning cycle can be educative. In a randomized-control trial study of 123 high school
students, Musheno and Lawson (1999) found that students who were randomly assigned to read
learning cycle–based instructional materials scored higher on a subject matter assessment than
their counterparts who were randomly assigned to read materials that were structured in a more
traditional, encyclopedic fashion.
A subset of this comparative research on learning cycle–based teaching explores the effect of
augmenting the learning cycle with other teaching strategies. For example, Odom and Kelly
(2001) found that integrating concept mapping into learning cycle–based instruction enhanced its
impact on the subject matter learning gains of high school biology students. Similarly, Lavoie
(1999) compared student learning gains resulting from the standard learning cycle of exploration,
term introduction, and concept application with those resulting from this standard learning cycle
preceded by a predict-discuss activity. Although both approaches resulted in considerable
learning gains for high school biology students, the augmented learning cycle produced gains
that were significantly larger.
Scientific reasoning: Learning cycle–based teaching is also useful in helping students develop
the ability to reason scientifically. For example, Johnson and Lawson (1998) found that learning
cycle–based teaching had a statistically significant positive effect on the scientific reasoning (i.e.,

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 29
proportional reasoning and control of variables) of undergraduate biology students while a more
didactic teaching approach did not. Similar research by Curtis (1997) demonstrated that learning
cycle–based instruction can have a positive impact on the scientific reasoning of high school
chemistry students. Findings from these studies are corroborated elsewhere in recent research
literature (e.g., Lavoie, 1999).
Interest and attitudes toward science: The impact of learning cycle–based curricula and
teaching on attitudes toward science is described thoroughly in the literature. Evidence that
learning cycle–based teaching can have a positive effect on attitudes exists in studies of
elementary school students (Ebrahim, 2004), middle school physical science students
(McDonald, 2003), and high school chemistry (Curtis, 1997), physics (Billings, 2001), and
biology students (Lavoie, 1999). In addition, similar findings exist in studies of undergraduate
biology students (e.g., Lord, 1997).
Findings from Recent Research on the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Due to the relative youth of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model compared with the learning cycle,
there are fewer published studies that compare the BSCS 5E Instructional Model with other
modes of instruction. However, the findings of these studies suggest that, like its predecessor the
learning cycle, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is effective, or in some cases, comparatively
more effective, than alternative teaching methods in helping students reach important learning
outcomes in science. For example, several comparative studies suggest that the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model is more effective than alternative approaches at helping students master
science subject matter (e.g., Akar, 2005; Coulson, 2002). Coulson (2002) also explored how
varying levels of fidelity to the BSCS 5E model affected student learning. Coulson found that
students whose teachers taught with medium or high levels of fidelity to the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model experienced learning gains that were nearly double that of students whose
teachers did not use the model or used it with low levels of fidelity. The impact of varying levels
of fidelity identified here may help explain the ambiguous results of Ward and Herron (1980)
described earlier.
We did not find any comparative studies for the learning outcomes of scientific reasoning,
interest and attitudes toward science, and understanding of the nature of science. However, we
found studies whose findings indicated that the BSCS 5E Instructional Model had a positive
effect on scientific reasoning (Boddy, 2003) and on interest and attitudes toward science (Akar,
2005; Boddy, 2003; Tinnin, 2001). One study reported a decrease in understanding of the nature
of science among middle school students who used field-test curriculum materials based on the
BSCS 5E Instructional Model (Meichtry, 1991). Given the novel and unfinished nature of the
field-test curriculum materials, these results should probably be considered in the light of
Coulson’s (2002) findings about the impact of fidelity of use on learning gains, described
previously.
Summary and Implications for Further Research
Table 12 summarizes the relationship between the evidence from lines of research about the
learning cycle and the BSCS 5E Instructional Model and the goals for integrated instructional
units from America’s Lab Report. Clearly, many areas need further research, as indicated by the

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 30
number of cells stating “has inadequate evidence.” Appendix A summarizes the findings from
the studies that exist and the citations.
There is compelling research on the learning cycle suggesting that it can have a positive impact
on mastery of subject matter, scientific reasoning, and interest and attitudes toward science.
Similar evidence exists in a smaller number of studies for the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. The
most noticeable void in the literature is research exploring the utility of both the learning cycle
and BSCS 5E approach in helping students develop an understanding of the nature of science
and the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, as well as practical and teamwork skills. In
addition, the research base around the BSCS 5E Instructional Model should be elaborated on
through additional studies that compare its effect on mastery of subject matter, scientific
reasoning, and interest and attitudes with other modes of instruction. The widespread use of the
BSCS 5E Instructional Model warrants a commitment to a line of research that rivals that of the
learning cycle.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 31
Table 12. Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Learning Cycle and BSCS 5E Instructional Models with Integrated
Instructional Units and Typical Laboratory Experiences
Goal of America’s
Lab Report
Typical
Laboratory
Experience
Integrated
Instructional Units Learning Cycle
(SCIS)* Learning Cycle
(Other)*
BSCS 5E
Instructional
Model*
Mastery of Subject
Matter Is no better or
worse than other
modes of
instruction
Increases mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction
Has inadequate
evidence Has strong
evidence of
increased mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction
Shows some
evidence of
increased mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction
Scientific
Reasoning Aids the
development of
some aspects
Aids the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
Has strong
evidence of the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
Has adequate
evidence of the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
Shows some
evidence of the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
Understanding of
the Nature of
Science
Shows little
improvement Shows some
improvement when
explicitly targeted
at this goal
Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence
Interest in Science Shows some
evidence of
increased interest
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Understanding of
the Complexity and
Ambiguity of
Empirical work
Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence
Development of
Practical Skills Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence
Development of
Teamwork Skills Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence Has inadequate
evidence
*See the appendix for specific references.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 32
Evaluations of the 5E Instructional Model in BSCS Programs
By the 1980s, evidence for the effectiveness of the learning cycle was clear. Consequently, as
BSCS began developing a new generation of comprehensive materials, we used the learning
cycle research as the basis for an updated variation of the SCIS model—the BSCS 5E model.
The first of these materials, Science for Life and Living (BSCS, 1988), was a comprehensive K–6
program that spanned the science disciplines and incorporated health and technology. During the
design of this program, BSCS conceived the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. The use and
refinement of the BSCS 5E model continued as we developed three more comprehensive
programs: Middle School Science & Technology (BSCS, 1994, 1999, 2005); BSCS Biology: A
Human Approach (BSCS, 1997, 2003, 2006); and BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach (BSCS,
2006).
In each program, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is the explicit pedagogical principle. The 5Es
are expressed on several levels, with the most concrete at the unit level in the elementary
program and at the chapter level in the middle and high school programs. As the students explore
each unit or chapter, they experience a 5E cycle that carefully structures their learning. To
differing degrees, the 5Es are also expressed at the lesson level and at the program level, but the
most explicit use occurs at the unit or chapter level. Appendix B contains an example of the how
the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is used in each comprehensive program as well as in selected
National Institutes of Health (NIH) modules.
In addition to comprehensive programs, BSCS also uses the 5Es in content areas other than
science and in supplementary materials, such as our middle school health series Making Healthy
Decisions (BSCS, 1997; 2004) and the 16 modules that BSCS developed for the Office of
Science Education at the National Institutes of Health. The NIH modules, each comprising a 5E
cycle, span the grade levels, and each is designed to take five to 10 days of classroom time. (See
Table 8.)
In the development process, every BSCS program is field-tested nationwide to ensure that the
activities work well in the classroom and improve students’ understanding of the concepts. The
results of the field tests inform a careful revision of the program before it is published. For a
more detailed description and discussion of these results, see the evaluation section that follows.
BSCS curriculum developers carefully design each activity to exemplify the given stage of the
instructional model. In addition, the materials for teachers help them apply the most current
research on learning. To ensure that the materials have the greatest chance of being implemented
in the way they were intended and to honor the integrity of the 5Es, BSCS developed two charts
that explicitly show the salient characteristics of each stage of the 5Es (see Tables 13 and 14).
These tables describe in detail what each phase of the instructional model should look like and
what it should not look like, from the students’ and the teacher’s perspective.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 33
Table 13. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: What the Student Does
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model:
What the Student Does
Stage of the
Instructional
Model That Is Consistent with
This Model That Is Inconsistent with
This Model
Engagement  Asks questions such as, “Why did this
happen?” “What do I already know about
this?” “What can I find out about this?”
 Shows interest in the topic
 Asks for the “right” answer
 Offers the “right” answer
 Seeks one solution
Exploration  Thinks freely, within the limits of the
activity
 Tests predictions and hypotheses
 Forms new predictions and hypotheses
 Tries alternatives and discusses them with
others
 Records observations and ideas
 Asks related questions
 Suspends judgment
 Lets others do the thinking and
exploring (passive involvement)
 “Plays around” indiscriminately with
no goal in mind
 Stops with one solution
Explanation  Explains possible solutions or answers to
others
 Listens critically to others’ explanations
 Questions others’ explanations
 Listens to and tries to comprehend
explanations that the teacher offers
 Refers to previous activities
 Uses recorded observations in explanations
 Assesses own understanding
 Proposes explanations from “thin air”
with no relationship to previous
experiences
 Brings up irrelevant experiences and
examples
 Accepts explanations without
justification
 Does not attend to other plausible
explanations
Elaboration  Applies new labels, definitions,
explanations, and skills in new but similar
situations
 Uses previous information to ask questions,
propose solutions, make decisions, and
design experiments
 Draws reasonable conclusions from
evidence
 Records observations and explanations
 Checks for understanding among peers
 Plays around with no goal in mind
 Ignores previous information or
evidence
 Draws conclusions from thin air
 In discussion, uses only those labels
that the teacher provided
Evaluation  Answers open-ended questions by using
observations, evidence, and previously
accepted explanations
 Demonstrates an understanding or
knowledge of the concept or skill
 Evaluates his or her own progress and
knowledge
 Asks related questions that would
encourage future investigations
 Draws conclusions, not using
evidence or previously accepted
explanations
 Offers only yes-or-no answers and
memorized definitions or
explanations as answers
 Fails to express satisfactory
explanations in his or her own words

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 34
Table 14. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: What the Teacher Does
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model:
What the Teacher Does
Stage of the
Instructional
Model That Is Consistent with
This Model That Is Inconsistent with
This Model
Engagement  Creates interest
 Generates curiosity
 Raises questions
 Elicits responses that uncover what the
students know or think about the concept or
topic
 Explains concepts
 Provides definitions and answers
 States conclusions
 Provides closure
 Lectures
Exploration  Encourages the students to work together
without direct instruction from the teacher
 Observes and listens to the students as they
interact
 Asks probing questions to redirect the
students’ investigations when necessary
 Provides time for the students to puzzle
through problems
 Acts as a consultant for students
 Creates a “need to know” setting
 Provides answers
 Tells or explains how to work
through the problem
 Provides closure
 Directly tells the students that they
are wrong
 Gives information or facts that solve
the problem
 Leads the students step by step to a
solution
Explanation  Encourages the students to explain concepts
and definitions in their own words
 Asks for justification (evidence) and
clarification from students
 Formally clarifies definitions, explanations,
and new labels when needed
 Uses students’ previous experiences as the
basis for explaining concepts
 Assesses students’ growing understanding
 Accepts explanations that have no
justification
 Neglects to solicit the students’
explanations
 Introduces unrelated concepts or
skills
Elaboration  Expects the students to use formal labels,
definitions, and explanations provided
previously
 Encourages the students to apply or extend
the concepts and skills in new situations
 Reminds the students of alternate
explanations
 Refers the students to existing data and
evidence and asks, “What do you already
know?” “Why do you think …?” (Strategies
from exploration also apply here.)
 Provides definitive answers
 Directly tells the students that they
are wrong
 Lectures
 Leads students step by step to a
solution
 Explains how to work through the
problem
Evaluation  Observes the students as they apply new
concepts and skills
 Assesses students’ knowledge and skills
 Looks for evidence that the students have
changed their thinking or behaviors
 Allows students to assess their own learning
and group-process skills
 Asks open-ended questions such as, “Why
do you think …?” “What evidence do you
have?” “What do you know about x?” “How
would you explain x?”
 Tests vocabulary words, terms, and
isolated facts
 Introduces new ideas or concepts
 Creates ambiguity
 Promotes open-ended discussion
unrelated to the concept or skill

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 35
Summary of Evaluation Results for BSCS Programs That Use the 5E Instructional Model
Science for Life and Living: Student cognitive outcomes were measured in four areas. Science
content outcomes in grades five and six included general energy concepts and general ecology
concepts. Health content was measured at grades three through five, and scientific inquiry
understandings were assessed at all grade levels. Students in grade two were given an oral scale
that combined scientific processes and content. Of the eight significant differences found in the
cognitive scales, seven were in favor of the treatment group (students using Science for Life and
Living). (See Harms, 1991, for more detail.)
Table 15. Measurements of Student Cognitive Outcomes
Grade Level Cognitive Area Tested Standard Deviation
2 Change and Measurement –0.19*
3 Health
Patterns and Predictions No significant difference
No significant difference
4 Health: Substance Avoidance Skills
Systems 0.20**
0.30***
5 Energy
Health: Fitness, Safety, Interpretation of Ads
Process Skills: Observation, Measurement,
Experimental Design, Interpretation
0.57***
0.24**
0.21**
6 Ecology
Subscale for Ecosystems
Decision-Making Skills
0.46**
0.64**
No significant difference
*Statistically significant difference is in favor of the control group.
**Statistically significant difference < 0.05.
***Statistically significant difference < 0.001.
An additional study conducted in North Carolina compared the student outcomes in fifth grade
on the end-of-grade test for students who used Science for Life and Living (SFLL) and students
who used an activity-centered, but traditional, science program (ACTS) for a full academic year
(Maidon & Wheatley, 2001). Students taking SFLL outscored the students in ACTS on the
overall measure and all subscales. The results are summarized in Table 16.
Table 16. Comparison of Test Results for Students in SFLL and ACTS
Fifth-Grade
End-of-Grade Test SFLL
Number SFLL
Mean ACTS
Number ACTS
Mean p Value
Overall 191 31.21 215 26.10 0.0000
Process Skills Subscale 191 14.63 215 12.20 0.0001
Conceptual Knowledge Subscale 191 12.80 215 10.83 0.0000
Nature of Science Subscale 191 2.63 215 2.22 0.0001
Manipulative Skills Subscale 191 1.15 215 0.84 0.0004
Lower-Order Thinking Skills 191 16.45 215 13.91 0.0000
Higher-Order Thinking Skills 191 18.10 204 15.51 0.0001
These results are significant. Both programs were activity centered, but Science for Life and
Living used the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, while ACTS used a more traditional approach to

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 36
instruction in which students received content information first and then did an activity to
reinforce the information the teacher had provided. These results indicate that the use of an
instructional model has a positive effect on the learning and doing of science as well as on
thinking skills.
Middle School Science & Technology: The formative evaluation conducted during the
development and field-testing of Middle School Science & Technology (MSST) provided
valuable data about student learning and attitudes. BSCS administered pre- and post-tests to
students that covered concepts from the grade level of the program the students were
experiencing. There were always positive gains in these scores. In one district in Ohio, project
staff administered a content test to a group of students using the program that was twice as large
as a group that was not using the program. The results showed statistically significant differences
(p < 0.01) for the treatment group. The students using MSST had higher raw scores and answered
more questions. On open-ended questions, the treatment group used more scientific vocabulary
words correctly and had higher-quality responses (BSCS, 1994).
Three field-test sites in three different states compared the scores of students in the treatment
group with other students on the state assessments and found that students using MSST scored
equal to or above other students. A site in North Carolina reported gains of one-half to one full
grade level on the California Achievement Test. Tests of thinking skills showed gains of two to
eight percentile points after one year of use of the program.
BSCS Biology: A Human Approach: In a comparison study that looked at the results of 76
students using BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (BB: AHA, the treatment condition) and 49
students using another biology program (the comparison condition), there was an overall
improvement in mean post-test scores. When a more detailed study was conducted to examine
the relationship between the teachers’ fidelity of use of the program and student learning, more
interesting results emerged. One preliminary study found distinct differences in the learning
gains of students whose teachers implemented the program as designed as opposed to the gains
of students whose teachers implemented the program with considerably less fidelity. Student
learning was measured using a 20-item subset of questions from the NABT/NSTA biology exam.
This test was used because, at the time of the study, it was considered a difficult test that was
independent of a particular curriculum. Fidelity was measured through classroom observations.
These findings are illustrated in Table 17 and Figure 2.
Table 17. Student Learning Gains by Teacher
Teacher Pre-Test Average Post-Test Average Average Gain
1 6.4 10.3 3.9
2 9.2 10.4 1.2
3 4.8 5.5 0.7
4 4.5 4.4 0

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 37
Figure 2. Pre- and Post-Test Results for NABT/NSTA Biology Exam
BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach: The field test of the instructional materials developed
during Phase 1 of BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach comprised urban, suburban, and rural
classrooms across 10 states, 31 teachers, 64 classes, and nearly 2,000 students. Assessment
instruments included student surveys, teacher surveys, pre- and post-tests, an end-of-field-test
survey, and classroom observations by an external evaluator and BSCS project staff. Among the
findings, several stand out with respect to the quality and effectiveness of instructional materials
and student achievement. The key findings are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3. Student Test Gains by Grade Level
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ninth Grade (N = 340) Tenth Grade (N = 483)
Test Score (%)
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Figure 4. Ninth-Grade Test Gains by Ability Level
0
20
40
60
80
100
General (N = 168) Mixed (N = 118) Honors (N = 82)
Test Scores
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Number o
f
Correct
Responses
(20 Possible)
1 2 3 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre–Test: Beginning of School Year
Post–Test: End of School Year
Teacher 1: Field-tested
curriculum for two years;
high level of fidelity
Teacher 2: Field-tested
curriculum for two years;
medium level of fidelity
Teacher 3: Field-tested
curriculum for one year;
medium level of fidelity
Teacher 4: Field-tested
curriculum for one year;
low level of fidelity
Field-Test Teachers

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 38
As mentioned above, Coulson (2002) also conducted a study examining the relationship between
fidelity of use and student learning for BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach. In this study, the
learning gains of 634 ninth-grade students were determined by administering an identical chapter
test before and after instruction. Implementation fidelity was measured by external evaluation
staff and the curriculum development staff using an observation protocol adapted from the
Horizon, Inc. Classroom Observational Protocol (HRI, 2001). This protocol allowed researchers
to classify each teacher’s fidelity of use as either “low,” “medium,” or “high.” For each
classroom study, three observers were in the classroom: two curriculum developers and the
external evaluator. Each observer rated the teacher separately. Post-observation analysis
indicated high inter-rater reliability. It is important to note that researchers operationally defined
“fidelity” as teachers implementing the program as designed or in the spirit of the program’s
instructional model (i.e., the 5Es), not necessarily as rigid adherence to specific steps of the
procedure.
The major finding of this study is the establishment of a strong relationship between student
learning gains and implementation fidelity. Specifically, the data in this study suggest that when
teachers implemented the program with a medium or high level of fidelity, the learning gains
experienced by their students were significantly greater than the learning gains of teachers who
did not adhere closely to the program (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Ninth-Grade Test Gains by Levels of Implementation
The average student learning gain on the chapter assessment for teachers who implemented the
curriculum materials with a medium or high level of fidelity is approximately 28 percent,
whereas the average gain in classrooms with significantly less adherence to the program was 17
percent. This result becomes more dramatic when the scores are adjusted for differences in the
pre-test. If these gain scores are normalized to express learning gains as a percentage of the
possible gain, the raw average gain scores of 17 percent and 28 percent suggest that student
learning gains in high or medium fidelity classrooms are, on average, nearly twice that of low
fidelity classrooms (see Table 18).
Low
(N = 118) Medium or High
(N = 516)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Test Means
Pre-Test
Post-Test

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 39
Table 18. Normalized Gains According to Level of Fidelity
Level of Implementation Fidelity Average Raw Gain Average Normalized Gain
Low 17% 0.21
Medium or High 28% 0.40
NIH Modules: BSCS has developed a number of NIH-funded curriculum modules. Each
module closely follows the 5E structure and is intended to immerse students in a special topic for
one to two weeks. During the development phase of the modules, a field test takes place in which
teachers and students provide feedback to BSCS about how the module works in the real-world
classroom environment.
In 2000, Von Secker conducted an evaluation study to estimate the extent to which the first three
NIH modules promoted student achievement, reduced inequity, stimulated student interest, and
encouraged students to take responsibility for their own health. Von Secker sampled 17 pairs of
biology teachers in New York City and randomly assigned them modules to use. She found
overall positive results among those using the modules, but also found that the closer the teacher
followed the 5E instructional model, the better the results were. In this study, only 60 percent of
the teachers used more than two of the five activities in the module. Von Secker’s findings are
summarized in Table 19.
Table 19. Summary of Results for Students Using NIH Modules
Category Overall Result Breakout by 5E Phase
Overall Achievement 15% higher 9% higher if engagement emphasized
6% higher if exploration emphasized
6% higher if explanation emphasized
1% higher if elaboration emphasized
17% higher if evaluation emphasized
Minority Achievement
(Equity) 16% higher 18% higher if engagement emphasized
13% higher if exploration emphasized
12% higher if explanation emphasized
14% higher if elaboration emphasized
12% higher if evaluation emphasized
Student Interest 96% higher No data
For the most recent modules under development, we used a pre-test–post-test design to obtain
data on student learning. Before the materials were covered in the classroom, a pre-test was
administered to the students. At the conclusion of the materials, the students completed the same
test, as a post-test. Table 20 illustrates the changes in the mean student score, as well as the
results of a t-test for each module during the field test. Each of the BSCS modules listed in table
20 shows significant gains in student knowledge from pre-test to post-test. The observed gain in
student knowledge stems from the use of a BSCS 5E Instructional Model.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 40
Table 20. Effectiveness of NIH Modules Using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Module Mean Pre-
Test Score Mean Post-
Test Score t-Test, Degrees of Freedom,
and p Value
The Brain: Our Sense of Self
(29 Possible Points) 15.74 18.85 t = 13.83, df = 426, p < 0.001
The Science of Energy Balance:
Calorie Intake and Physical
Activity (21 Possible Points) 9.73 13.51 t = 20.01, df = 400, p < 0.001
Using Technology to Study
Cellular and Molecular Biology
(15 Possible Points) 6.51 9.57 t = 27.77, df = 517, p < 0.001
The Science of Mental Illness
(13 Possible Points) 6.88 9.84 t = 44.58, df = 1,249, p < 0.001
Looking Good, Feeling Good:
From the Inside Out
(22 Possible Points) 12.12 16.39 t = 22.60, df = 309, p < 0.001
Doing Science: The Process of
Scientific Inquiry
(19 Possible Points) 11.23 13.52 t = 18.03, df = 597, p < 0.001
The Science of Health Behaviors
(21 Possible Points) 12.07 14.29 t = 19.71, df = 929, p < 0.001

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 41
Summary and Conclusion
The BSCS 5E Instructional Model is grounded in sound educational theory, has a growing base
of research to support its effectiveness, and has had a significant impact on science education.
Although encouraging, these conclusions indicate the need to conduct research on the
effectiveness of the model, including when and how it is used, and continue to refine the model
based on direct research and related research on learning.
The uniqueness of the BSCS 5E Instructional model is related to its alliterative nature. Every
stage of the model begins with the same letter—in this case, an E. When we compare this model
of 5Es with Herbart’s (1901) models of preparation, presentation, generalization, and application
or Atkin & Karplus’ (1962) model of exploration, invention, and discovery, it becomes apparent
why those models did not “catch on.” 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 five phases of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model are designed to facilitate the process of
conceptual change. The use of this model brings coherence to different teaching strategies,
provides connections among educational activities, and helps science teachers make decisions
about interactions with students. The 5E model had its origins with the work of others especially
the SCIS learning cycle. The research reinforced the effectiveness of the learning cycle:
• All three phases of the model must be included in instruction, and the exploration phase
must precede the term introduction phase.
• The specific instructional format may be less important than including all phases of the
model, but laboratory work (typical in the exploration phase) is more effective for many
students, provided it is followed by discussion (term introduction).
• Finally, student attitudes toward science instruction are more positive when they are
allowed to explore concepts through experimentation or other activities before discussing
them.
Using a learning-cycle approach to teaching and learning continues to be supported in significant
reports, such as How People Learn (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999). Bridging theory and
practice can be accomplished by implementing the three major findings from this report through
curriculum materials and professional development sessions designed on the instructional
sequence to 5Es.
Findings from How People Learn can be implemented by curriculum developers and
professional development providers by following these principles:
1. Learners preconceptions about how the world works will be engaged so
that they may grasp new concepts and information in a meaningful
manner.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 42
2. Learners will develop a deep foundation of factual knowledge that is
understood in the context of a conceptual framework and they will know
how to organize that information in ways that facilitate retrieval and
application.
3. Learners will be in control of their own learning by defining goals and
monitoring their progress in achieving them.
Following the original work of Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, the National Research Council
published America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Sciences (2006). In their
examination of the status of science laboratories the committee was very clear that science
education should include both learning about the methods and processes of scientific research
and the knowledge derived from those processes. They developed a vision for the future of high
school science education that includes laboratory experiences that emphasize the following:
• Enhanced mastery of subject matter
• Development of scientific reasoning
• Understanding of the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work
• Development of practical skills
• Understanding of the nature of science
• Interest in science and interest in learning science
• Development of teamwork abilities
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the authors of America’s Lab Report also support the concept
of “integrated instructional units.” These units are carefully designed to integrate laboratory
activities and other experiences into units focused on student learning.
Table 13 emphasizes the relationship between the evidence from lines of research about the
BSCS 5E Instructional Model and the goals for integrated instructional units from America’s Lab
Report.
Table 13. Comparison of the Effectiveness of the BSCS 5E Instructional Models with
Integrated Instructional Units
Goal of America’s
Lab Report Integrated Instructional
Units BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Mastery of Subject
Matter Increases mastery compared
with other modes of instruction Shows some evidence of increased
mastery compared with other modes
of instruction
Scientific Reasoning Aids the development of more-
sophisticated aspects Shows some evidence of the
development of more-sophisticated
aspects
Understanding of the
Nature of Science Shows some improvement
when explicitly targeted at this
goal
Has inadequate evidence
Interest in Science Has greater evidence of
increased interest Has greater evidence of increased
interest

Copyright © 2006 BSCS 43
Goal of America’s
Lab Report Integrated Instructional
Units BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Understanding of the
Complexity and
Ambiguity of
Empirical work
Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Development of
Practical Skills Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Development of
Teamwork Skills Has inadequate evidence Has inadequate evidence
Studies of the 5E model conducted by the internal and external evaluators conducted showed
positive trends for student mastery of subject matter and interest in science. The most significant
finding, however, is that there is a relationship between fidelity of use and student achievement.
In other words, the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is more effective for improving student
achievement when the teacher uses the curriculum materials the way they were developed.
Without fidelity of use, the potential results of the program are greatly diminished. This is a line
of research that should be pursued. In addition, the research base around the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model should be elaborated on through additional studies that compare its effect on
mastery of subject matter, scientific reasoning, and interest and attitudes with other modes of
instruction. The widespread use of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model warrants a commitment to a
line of research that rivals that of the learning cycle.
While earlier sections of this paper indicated that there is compelling research on the learning
cycle suggesting that it can have a positive impact on mastery of subject matter, scientific
reasoning, and interest and attitudes toward science there are still many areas need further
research to fully understand how to most effectively use learning cycles and instructional models
to maximize student learning. The most noticeable void in the literature is research exploring the
utility of both the learning cycle and BSCS 5E approach in helping students develop an
understanding of the nature of science and the complexity and ambiguity of empirical work, as
well as practical and teamwork skills.
The range of applications of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is one way to gauge the impact of
the model. (See Appendix D for details on areas of impact.) In addition, it serves as an indicator
of its success as an instructional model in science education. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model
has become the foundation for a vast number of curriculum materials used in science education
and, consequently, has had a large impact on the teaching and learning of science throughout the
United States and internationally.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Appendix A
Effectiveness of SCIS Learning Cycle–Based Teaching,
Effectiveness of Non-SCIS Learning Cycle–Based Teaching,
Effectiveness of BSCS 5E Instructional Model–Based Teaching,
and
Connections to Research on Integrated Instructional Units

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Table A.1. Effectiveness of SCIS Learning Cycle–Based Teaching: Connections to Research on Integrated Instructional Units
Goal of Integrated
Instructional Units
(America’s Lab Report,
NRC, 2006, p. 100)
Study Reviewed Summary of Findings for SCIS Learning Cycle
Instructional Model
Findings from
America’s Lab
Report (NRC,
2006, p. 100)
Mastery of Subject
Matter
No comparative studies that
investigated subject matter
learning gains among
elementary students using the
SCIS materials found
Increases mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction
Thier, H. D. (1965) First graders who experienced the SCIS program had
superior skill in describing objects, experiments, and
forms of the same substance than those who experienced a
non-SCIS program.
Allen, L. R. (1971) First graders who used SCIS materials were superior to
non-SCIS students in using property words to describe an
object.
Allen, L. R. (1973) SCIS students were more skilled than non-SCIS students
in identifying experimental variables and recognizing
change.
Renner, J. W., Stafford, D. G.,
Coffia, W. J., Kellogg, D. H., &
Weber, M. C. (1973)
Compared with a textbook program, the SCIS program
was superior in
Æ helping students develop and use observation,
classification, measurement, experimentation,
interpretation, and prediction skills and
Æ improving the performance of first graders on
conservation tasks.
Brown, T. W., Weber, M. C., &
Renner, J. W. (1975) SCIS students attained higher levels of scientific process
skills than non-SCIS students.
Aids the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
TaFoya, M. E. (1976) SCIS materials had greater potential for developing
inquiry skills than textbook approaches.
Scientific Reasoning
Linn, M. C., & Thier, H. D.
(1975) Students who experienced the SCIS curriculum
substantially outperformed those who did not on the
identification and compensation of variables.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Malcolm, M. D. (1976) Use of the SCIS curriculum among third to sixth graders
produced higher levels of self-concept in intellect and
school status than a non-SCIS textbook-based program.
Hendricks, J. I. (1978) Rural, disadvantaged fifth graders in a SCIS program had
more positive attitudes, greater preference toward science,
and greater curiosity toward science than comparable
students in a non-SCIS program.
Allen, L. R. (1973) Third graders in a SCIS program had slightly better
motivation than those in a non-SCIS program.
Brown, T. W. (1973) Six years of exposure to the SCIS program was superior to
a non-SCIS, textbook-based program in developing
positive attitudes toward science.
Krockover, G. H., & Malcolm,
M. D. (1978) Elementary students in SCIS classes had more positive
self-concepts than those in non-SCIS classes.
Interest and Attitudes
toward Science
Lowery, L. F., Bowyer, J., &
Padilla, M. J. (1980) After six years of SCIS, attitudes of students toward
science and experimentation were more positive than for
students in a textbook program.
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Understanding of the
Nature of Science
No studies found Shows some
improvement when
explicitly targeted
at this goal.
Understanding of the
Complexity and
Ambiguity of Empirical
Work
No studies found Has inadequate
evidence.
Development of Practical
Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence
Development of
Teamwork Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Table A.2. Effectiveness of Non-SCIS Learning Cycle–Based Teaching: Connections to Research on Integrated Instructional
Units
Goal of Integrated
Instructional Units
(America’s Lab Report,
NRC, 2006, p. 100)
Study Reviewed Summary of Findings for Learning Cycle
Instructional Model
Findings from
America’s Lab
Report (NRC,
2006, p. 100)
Bishop, J. E. (1980) There was greater post-test and delayed post-test
achievement for eighth graders who had learning cycle
versus traditional instruction.
Renner, J. W., & Paske, W. C.
(1977) College physics students taught with learning cycles
performed better on content exams than students taught
with traditional instruction.
Saunders, W. L., & Shepardson,
D. (1987) There was greater science achievement for sixth graders
taught with learning cycle activities than with oral and
written language activities.
Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J.
W. (1980) Immediate and delayed post-test scores showed content
achievement for ninth graders taught with the learning
cycle approach than those taught with a traditional
approach.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E.,
Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S.
(1993)
Meta-analysis of 47 studies on conceptual change revealed
the superiority of learning cycle instruction for correcting
misconceptions in science.
Lord, T. R. (1997)
College biology students taught with learning cycles
performed better on subject matter exams than students
taught with traditional instruction.
Musheno, B. V. &
Lawson, A. E. (1999)
Immediate and delayed post-test scores of reading
comprehension showed better comprehension for high
school students who read a text passage structured with
the learning cycle than students who read a text passage
structured traditionally.
Mastery of Subject
Matter
Billings, R. L. (2002)
High school physics students learned more subject matter
from learning cycle–based instruction than from
traditional approaches.
Increases mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Ebrahim, A. (2004)
Fourth-grade science students in learning cycle–based
classrooms experienced gains in subject matter knowledge
that were significantly larger than those in classrooms
where traditional approaches were used.
Ates, S. (2005)
University physics students in learning cycle–based
courses experienced gains in subject matter knowledge
that were significantly larger than those in courses where
traditional approaches were used.
Lawson, A. E., Blake, A. J. D.,
& Nordland, F. H. (1975) The learning cycle approach was superior to the traditional
approach for teaching the skill of controlling variables to
high school biology students.
McKinnon, J. W., & Renner, J.
W. (1971) College freshmen in course sections that used the learning
cycle approach had significantly greater gains in reasoning
than those in sections that did not.
Renner, J. W., & Lawson, A. E.
(1975) Prospective elementary teachers enrolled in physics
sections that used the learning cycle approach had greater
gains in reasoning than those in traditional sections.
Wollman, W. T., & Lawson, A.
E. (1978) Seventh graders who experienced learning cycles plus
manipulatives outperformed those who used only verbal
instruction on tests of proportional reasoning.
Carlson, D. A. (1975) The learning cycle approach was more successful than the
traditional approach in leading to gains in formal thinking
skills for college students in an introductory physical
science course.
Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J.
W. (1980) The learning cycle approach led to greater gains than the
traditional approach in both immediate and delayed
assessments of formal reasoning among ninth graders in a
physical science course.
Saunders, W. L., & Shepardson,
D. (1987) There were greater percentage gains from the concrete to
formal stages of learning for sixth graders in learning
cycle classes than traditional classes.
Scientific Reasoning
Curtis, K. D. (1997) High school chemistry students in a learning cycle–based
course experienced gains in subject matter knowledge that
were statistically significant.
Aids the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Johnson, M. A. &
Lawson, A. E. (1998) University biology students in a learning cycle–based
course experienced gains in scientific reasoning that were
statistically significant while those in a course where
traditional approaches were used did not experience
statistically significant gains in reasoning.
Lavoie, D. R. (1999) High school biology students in both learning cycle and
augmented learning cycle–based courses experienced
gains in subject matter knowledge that were statistically
significant.
Campbell, T. C. (1977) College students in learning cycle laboratory sections of a
beginning physics course had more positive attitudes
toward laboratory work and were less likely to withdraw
from the course than those enrolled in traditional
laboratory sections.
Renner, J. W., & Paske, W. C.
(1977) College students enrolled in physics laboratory sections
that used a learning cycle approach enjoyed their
instruction more than those enrolled in the traditional
section.
Davis, J. O. (1978) Learning cycle lessons resulted in more positive attitudes
toward science among fifth and sixth graders than either
lecture-discussion lessons and verification laboratory
lessons.
Bishop, J. E. (1980) Eighth graders who experienced learning cycle lessons in
a planetarium unit had more positive attitudes and enjoyed
the lesson more than those who experienced the traditional
unit.
Curtis, K. D. (1997) High school chemistry students in a learning cycle–based
course experienced positive changes in attitudes about
science.
Lord, T. R. (1997) College biology students taught with learning cycles
maintained better attitudes toward science than students
taught with traditional instruction.
Interest and Attitudes
toward Science
Lavoie, D. R. (1999) High school biology students taught with a learning cycle
and augmented learning cycle approach experienced
significant positive changes in attitudes toward science.
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Billings, R. L. (2001) High school physics students taught with a learning cycle–
based approach experienced significant positive changes
in attitudes toward science.
McDonald, D. M. (2003) Elementary school science students taught with a learning
cycle–based approach experienced larger positive changes
in attitudes toward science than did students taught with a
traditional approach.
Ebrahim, A. (2004) Fourth-grade science students in learning cycle–based
classrooms experienced positive changes in attitudes
toward science that were significantly larger than those in
classrooms where traditional approaches were used.
Understanding of the
Nature of Science
No studies found Shows some
improvement when
explicitly targeted
at this goal
Understanding of the
Complexity and
Ambiguity of Empirical
Work
No studies found Has inadequate
evidence
Development of Practical
Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence
Development of
Teamwork Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Table A.3. Effectiveness of BSCS 5E Instructional Model–Based Teaching: Connections to Research on Integrated
Instructional Units
Goal of Integrated
Instructional Units
(America’s Lab Report,
NRC, 2006, p. 100)
Study Reviewed Summary of Findings for the BSCS 5E Instructional
Model
Findings from
America’s Lab
Report (NRC,
2006, p. 100)
Coulson, D. (2002)
Students whose teachers taught with medium or high
levels of fidelity to the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
experienced learning gains that were nearly double that of
students whose teachers used the model with low levels of
fidelity.
Mastery of Subject
Matter Akar, E. (2005)
High school chemistry students in a 5E-based course
experienced gains in subject matter knowledge that were
significantly larger than those in a course where traditional
approaches were used.
Increases mastery
compared with
other modes of
instruction
Scientific Reasoning
Boddy, N. K. (2003) Elementary school students showed increases in scientific
reasoning as a result of instruction based upon the BSCS
5E Instructional Model.
Aids the
development of
more-sophisticated
aspects
Tinnin, R. K. (2001) Elementary school teachers who taught science with a 5E
approach experienced significant positive changes in
attitudes toward science.
Boddy, N. K. (2003) Elementary school science students taught with a learning
cycle–based approach experienced positive changes in
attitudes toward science.
Interest and Attitudes
toward Science Akar, E. (2005) High school chemistry students in a 5E-based course
experienced positive changes in attitudes toward science
that were significantly larger than those in a course where
traditional approaches were used.
Has greater
evidence of
increased interest
Understanding of the
Nature of Science
No studies found Shows some
improvement when
explicitly targeted
at this goal

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Understanding of the
Complexity and
Ambiguity of Empirical
Work
No studies found Has inadequate
evidence
Development of Practical
Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence
Development of
Teamwork Skills No studies found Has inadequate
evidence

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Appendix B
A Closer Look at the 5E Instructional Model in BSCS Instructional
Materials

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
A Closer Look at the BSCS 5Es in Samples of BSCS Instructional Materials
Science for Life and Living: (First edition, © 1987; no longer in print) The overarching theme
for grade one curriculum materials is order and organization. Unit 3 is a technology-based unit,
which follows an exploration of objects and properties. First, the students are engaged by the
story of “Three Little Pigs,” which they know well. The purpose of this lesson, however, is to
consider what materials cannot be blown over. Next, the students explore this idea in more depth
by conducting a fair test using a “puffing machine.” Then they explore a different property—that
of absorbency—and conduct fair tests to see which materials absorb water and which do not. To
help students make the connection between properties of materials and the function of various
objects, student sort objects according to properties and play games designed to make this
connection. The students then begin to develop an explanation for the ideas they have been
exploring by reading a story about building a store. To elaborate their understanding of these
ideas, the students apply what they have learned to the classroom setting as they search for
structures that are used to store things and discuss the materials and structures that make them
useful for storage. Students continue to extend their understanding by building and testing
different materials as they make mattresses for the three bears. At the end of the unit, the
students evaluate their own understanding and provide opportunities for the teacher to evaluate
the students’ understanding by planning, designing, and testing structures to protect a puffy pig
from wind and water.
BSCS Science Tracks: (© 2003, 2006) Investigating Life Cycles is the grade three life science
unit for this program. In this unit, the students are engaged in thinking about what mature plants
and animals might have looked like when they were much younger. This experience allows the
students to share what they currently know about life cycles. In the next set of lessons, the
students make observations of brine shrimp and sweet peas to explore the life cycles of very
different organisms. Next the students observe other organisms and compare those life cycles
with ones they have already studied. Students use their experiences from the exploration phase as
a foundation to develop an explanation for life cycles. In this explanation phase, they create a
model for an organism’s life cycle. The students then elaborate their understanding by applying
what they have learned about life cycles to the human life cycle. Finally, in the evaluation phase,
students demonstrate what they have learned by revising some of their earlier work to show what
they now understand and by making a paper film strip of the life cycle of the team’s organism.
BSCS Science & Technology: (© 2004; originally published as Middle School Science &
Technology, © 1994, 1999) This program is a three-year, thematic-based program in integrated
science that also incorporates technology. The first year focuses on earth systems, the second
year on life systems, and the third year on physical systems. In the physical systems book, the
second unit focuses on the question, “Why are things different?” In the first chapters of the unit,
students consider how things are different by exploring a range of properties of matter. After
these experiences, the students begin to explore why they are different, using models to help
them think about things they cannot observe directly. Through these experiences, students are
introduced to the particle model and explore some criteria of scientific models.
In chapter 11, Using Models to Test and Predict, the last chapter of the unit, students build on
their growing understanding of the particle model to develop a better understanding about the

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
criteria of scientific models. First students are engaged in the idea that the way particles are
arranged and interact with one another can influence the properties of materials. The students
then explore this idea by using what they know about the particle model to investigate how
predictions are useful in modeling. The students then further develop their explanations as they
read about the predictive quality of scientific models, about if-then statements, and about the
testability of models. The students elaborate on their developing understanding by conducting a
series of short investigations using if-then statements in different settings. The students end by
evaluating their understanding of scientific models and the particle theory by applying what they
have learned to a new setting and by evaluating other models to see whether they meet the
criteria of a scientific model.
BSCS Biology: A Human Approach: (© 1997, 2003, 2006) The first unit of this program
explores the unifying principle of biological evolution. In chapter 2, Evolution: Change across
Time, the students examine different types of evidence for evolution and consider a mechanism
for the process of evolution. First students are engaged by the story of Lucy, a hominid fossil
more than 3 million years old. In order to place Lucy in the greater context of the history of life
on Earth, the students explore the idea of deep time by using a very long rope to model the age
of Earth and discover how recently life first appeared. During this exploration, the students come
to realize that humans have been on Earth for a relatively short time. The students then go on to
explore different types of evidence for evolution (the fossil record, homologies, embryology, and
genetics). Following these experiences, the students use the ideas they have been exploring to
develop further their understanding by writing a new story that explains evolution. Next students
elaborate and deepen their understanding of evolution by modeling the mechanism of natural
selection in a simulated predator-prey relationship within different ecological settings across
several generations. The students explore the idea of evolution further by considering the nature
of cultural evolution in humans. This activity includes a close examination of the 5,000-year-old
iceman from the Alps and the artifacts that were found with him. The students evaluate their
understanding by considering, explaining, and justifying their ideas with respect to three
different scenarios involving a bacterial infection.
BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach: (Level 1, © 2006) The third unit of Level 1 of this
program is a core unit on earth and space science. The overarching focus of the unit is the origin
and evolution of the universe and the Earth-Sun system. In the first chapter of the unit, the
students learn about the stars, which is the basic unit of study. In the second chapter, they go on
to learn about gravity. At the conclusion of these two chapters, the students now have a
conceptual foundation with which to explore the origin of the universe and the origin the Earth-
Sun system in the last two chapters of the unit.
In chapter 11, Coming Attractions—Gravity! the teacher engages the students in the chapter by
finding out what the students’ current conceptions of gravity are. The students are left with
questions for which they need to find answers. In this chapter, the students experience two
exploration-explanation cycles. In the first cycle, the students explore how gravity plays an
important role in the formation of stars and consider other conditions that are prerequisites for
star formation. Using the ideas they have been exploring, the students then develop an
explanation for how gravity plays a significant role in the entire life cycle of stars. In the second
exploration-explanation cycle, the students explore the idea that galaxies are abundant in the

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
universe and that models are useful for studying them. The students then have the ideas they
need to develop an explanation for how gravity plays an important role in the formation, shape,
and distribution of galaxies in the universe. Students then elaborate on their understanding by
examining how mass and distance influence the force of gravitation. Finally, students evaluate
their own understanding and provide their teacher with a more formal opportunity to evaluate the
students’ understanding by developing in-depth answers to constructed-response questions about
gravity, stars, and galaxies and the important connections between them.
The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology Through the Study of Addiction: (© 2000) This two-
week-long module comprises one BSCS 5E cycle. In the engage lesson, the students’ curiosity
about the brain is piqued by a series of questions. Through discussions, the teacher is able to
assess what the students understand or do not understand about the brain. Next the students
explore the function of the brain both as a body organ and as a collection of interacting cells.
These lessons provide a common set of experiences that the students will draw on as they
develop a better understanding of the structure and function of the brain. In the next lessons, the
students examine the idea of neurotransmission more closely and develop an explanation by
considering how drugs affect different aspects of neurotransmission. In these lessons, students
also have the opportunity to compare what they understand now with what they thought at the
beginning of the module as well as to consider what their classmates think. At this point, the
students elaborate on their understanding by considering how physical, environmental, and
social factors influence a person’s experience with drugs. The final lesson asks the students to
consider addiction as a disease and think about what society might do about it. This lesson
provides both students and teachers with an opportunity to evaluate what the students now
understand about the brain and how drugs affect its function.
Open Wide and Trek Inside: (© 2000) This week-long module comprises one 5E cycle. In the
first lesson, the students are engaged in thinking about their mouths, what is inside them, and
what the different structures in their mouths do. In the next lesson, students further explore what
is inside the mouth and use an apple as a model of a tooth to explore the idea of tooth decay. In
the following lesson, students use the ideas they have been exploring to develop an explanation
for what lives inside their mouths and what really causes tooth decay. At this point in the module,
the students elaborate their understanding by considering ways to keep their mouths healthy. In
the final evaluate lesson, students demonstrate what they have learned about the mouth and what
causes tooth decay as well as ask new questions they still have about oral health.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Appendix C
Sample Applications of the 5E Instructional Model

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Sample Applications of the 5E Instructional Model
State Science Frameworks
State science frameworks are the official documents (print and Web based) that outline the
expectations for student achievement in science for a particular state. Such a document will
usually include content standards and benchmarks by grade level or grade-level band (e.g., K
through two, three through five, six through eight, and nine through 12); the role of assessment;
models of instruction; the role of professional development; and the role of technology.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
At least three states strongly endorse the BSCS 5Es, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Texas.
Other states, including Louisiana and Missouri, provide information about the 5E Instructional
Model on the state’s department of education Web site.
Example A: Connecticut
In Connecticut, the state department of education’s BEST program recommends the
BSCS 5E Instructional Model as a way to organize teaching and lesson and unit
development. The 5Es are found in Lesson 3, Building a Science Learning Community.
The online science seminar series is part of the BEST induction program for beginning
science teachers. The program was designed to support the work of beginning science
teachers and their schools’ mentors, and it has three major goals:
1. To provide information relevant to meeting the BEST portfolio-based licensure
performance standards
2. To provide teaching ideas and concrete examples to improve daily instructional
practices
3. To provide ideas for mentors on how to facilitate the work of beginning teachers
[http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/t-/best/seminarseries/online_seminars/science/3/print.htm]
Example B: Texas
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) encourages teachers to develop lessons using a 5E
format and to help colleagues understand and apply the 5Es. The TEA Web site includes
a section titled “Directions for a 5E Instructional Model Lesson,” as well as a survey of
teachers assessing how well they feel they can use and teach the 5E lesson approach.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us
School District Science Frameworks
School district science frameworks are usually derived from the related state science framework
and include similar sections related to the teaching and learning of science. Most district
frameworks outline specific content objectives or benchmarks to be met by specific grade levels,
incorporate expectations and a philosophy of what good science instruction should look like, and
describe the district’s approaches to the assessment of student learning.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Example A: Grand Rapids Public Schools, Grand Rapids, Michigan
The GRPS 5E Framework, adapted from the 5E Inquiry Model (Bybee, Achieving
Scientific Literacy, 1997. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann and BSCS Biology: A Human
Approach, BSCS, 1995), is based upon research of best practices and how students learn.
This framework is designed to increase student engagement, motivation, and achievement.
It provides a flexible yet consistent structure for developing and conducting effective
lessons. The GRPS 5E Framework encourages the teaching behaviors that best match
what we know about how students learn.
[http://web.grps.k12.mi.us/academics/5E/]
Example B: Jennings School District, Jennings, Missouri
This WebQuest will help you go beyond the basic definition of constructivism:
individuals building their own understanding, to a more thorough explanation of the
theory and its various aspects. Examples are provided via the 5E learning cycle. The 5E
model for designing lessons is just one method of instruction that supports constructivist
teaching/learning. After investigating these resources, you can make your own decision
as to the value of the constructivist theory.
[http://www.jenningsk12.net/success.html]
Institutes of Higher Education
General courses: This category includes college and university courses that are designed for
students who are not necessarily teacher education majors.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Our search of the World Wide Web revealed over 97,000 discrete examples of universities using
the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
Example A: University of Wisconsin—Madison
The BSCS 5Es are included as a reading assignment in a plant pathology course offered in fall
2005.
Example B: Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas
Professor M. Coe of Midwestern State University explores the use of the BSCS 5E Instructional
Model on her faculty Web page.
Teacher education: This category includes courses and programs specifically designed for
students who are enrolled in a teacher education program.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Our World Wide Web search found over 131,000 discrete examples of the 5Es used in teacher
education programs or resources for teacher education.
Example A: Methods of Science Teaching I

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
This course, at North Carolina State University, is designed for students who are majoring in
education. Students learn the BSCS 5E Instructional Model and develop a lesson using the model
that they will present to the class. [www.ncsu.edu/sciencejunction/2006ems375/]
Example B: Teaching Elementary School Science
This course at the University of Alabama School of Education has the specific student outcome
that students will “show skill in using the 5E Model (learning cycle) for lesson planning that
incorporates content objectives, process skills, hands-on exploration, and teacher questioning
techniques that foster individual ownership of learning.”
[http://elementary.ua.edu/syllabi/CEE_550.pdf]
Example C:
Using Technology to Teach Science and Math in the Elementary Classroom
This course incorporates the BSCS 5E model as an essential component of the topics to be
covered. Final projects developed by students must be developed using the 5E model.
[http://www.bcps.org/offices/oit/ProfessionalDevelopment/SyllabusElementary.doc]
Informal Science Education
Informal science education is generally described as that which takes place outside of the domain
of traditional K–12 schooling. Informal learning experiences are designed to increase interest,
engagement, and understanding of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
by individuals of all ages and backgrounds. Informal education includes after school programs
and those provided by nontraditional organizations, such as museums; outdoor education and
nature centers; government agencies, such as NASA; and online vendors.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Example A: Moments of Discovery exhibit by the American Institute of Physics (AIP)
AIP and the Center for History of Physics have two exhibits, The Discovery of Fission and A
Pulsar Discovery, which incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
[www.aip.org/history/mod/]
Example B: Miami Museum of Science
The Miami Museum of Science developed an online exhibit, The pH Factor, to introduce acids
and bases to elementary and middle school students using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
[http://www.miamisci.org/ph/index.html]
Curriculum
Textbooks, units, and modules: This category includes materials, both print and Web based, that
provide instruction or instructional guidelines for teachers. Curriculum can be in the form of
textbooks, stand-alone units or modules, or other packaged materials designed for use in formal
or informal educational settings.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Our search of the World Wide Web revealed over 73,000 examples of curriculum that
incorporate the 5Es in their designs.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Example A: CUES: Constructing Understandings of Earth Systems
The American Geological Institute (AGI) developed an earth science curriculum for middle
school students following the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
Example B: Active Physics, It’s About Time!
Active Physics, a widely used high school physics curriculum, employs the 7E model, which was
adapted directly from the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
Specific lesson plans: Lesson plans are documents that provide teachers with an instructional
sequence that guides a learning experience for students. Usually, teachers use lesson plans to
guide daily instruction; multiple lesson plans can make up a chapter or unit of instruction if those
lesson plans are designed to be used in sequence.
Examples That Incorporate the BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Our World Wide Web search found over 235,000 lesson plans that incorporate the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model.
Example A: Influenza Virus: A Tiny Moving Target
A lesson plan for high school science developed by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
(NESCent). [http://eog.nescent.org/InfluenzaVirus.htm]
Example B: Food Safety FIRST
A set of three modules, Bacteria Are Everywhere, Food Handling Is a Risky Business, and
Current Controversies in Food Science, for high school science classes developed by the UMass
Extension Nutrition Education Program in conjunction with the National Science Teachers
Association, UMass Amherst Departments of Nutrition and Food Science, STEM Education
Institute, and the Department of Computer Science. [www.foodsafetyfirst.org/fsf_about.html]
Professional Development Programs
Teachers need to continuously update their knowledge of both content and pedagogy. A number
of courses taught through universities as short-term workshops or offered online help teachers
understand the BSCS 5E Instructional Model or are developed using the model.
Example A: Teachers’ Domain Professional Development Courses
The WGBH Educational Foundation developed online professional development courses in the
life sciences and the physical sciences for teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school
levels using the 5E model as an integral framework for the courses.
[http://www.teachersdomain.org/courseinfo/]
Example B: WestEd’s Teaching-Learning Collaborative
This professional development opportunity is for teachers, teacher leaders, and curriculum
specialists to work collaboratively over a school year with professionals from WestEd. This
collaboration includes learning and implementing the 5E model.
[http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/71]

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Using the BSCS 5E Model in Other Disciplines
Although BSCS developed the 5E instructional model for improving science education, it is now
being adapted and used to improve instruction in other area, including technology education and
mathematics.
Example A: Virginia Society for Technology in Education (VSTE)
VSTE is using the 5E model in conjunction with its previous 5W model (who, what, when,
where, and why) to create a 5W/5E model for training educators about the options for and
advantages of technology in the classroom.
[http://www.vste.org/communication/journal/attach/vj_1901/vj_1901_04.pdf]
Example B: Math 350 at Texas A&M University–Commerce
This course incorporates the 5E model to improve understanding and instruction in mathematics.

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Appendix D
Effectiveness of Learning Cycle Based–Teaching:
Connections to Research on Integrated Instructional Units

Copyright © 2006 BSCS
Effectiveness of Learning Cycle Based–Teaching: Connections to Research on Integrated Instructional Units