Enhancing Philosophical Concept Acquisition Through The 5E Learning Cycle Model

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30983/educative.v11i1.11334

Keywords:

5E Learning Cycle Model, Philosophical Concept Acquisition, Constructivist Pedagogy, Secondary Education

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of the 5E Learning Cycle Model (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) in enhancing philosophical concept acquisition among eleventh-grade students in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Seventy-two male students from Sêmêl Preparatory School for Boys participated during the 2024–2025 academic year. Two intact eleventh-grade sections were randomly assigned to conditions, with the experimental group (n = 38) receiving instruction structured according to the five phases of the 5E model and the control group (n = 34) taught using conventional, textbook-centered methods. Instructional content covered three chapters from the Grade 11 Philosophy textbook: Introduction to Philosophy, Logic and Critical Thinking, and Ethics and Moral Philosophy. A 30-item philosophical concept acquisition test assessing definition, discrimination, and application levels (Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability = .83) was administered as both pre-test and post-test. Independent samples t-test revealed statistically significant differences (p < .05) favoring the experimental group in post-test performance (t = 7.214, df = 70). A paired samples t-test confirmed substantial within-group improvement in the experimental group (t = 18.936, df = 37). Large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 1.71 and d = 4.07) underscore the practical significance of these findings, although the magnitude of these effects should be interpreted in light of the single-site sample, the relatively small group sizes, and the nine-week intervention duration. These results support the integration of the 5E Learning Cycle Model into secondary philosophy curricula and highlight the need for professional development programs that equip teachers with constructivist pedagogical skills. A key limitation is the single-school, all-male sample and the nine-week intervention period, which constrain generalizability and preclude assessment of long-term retention. The study’s novelty lies in extending the 5E model—previously examined mainly within science and mathematics education—into philosophy instruction within a Kurdish secondary school context, an area in which empirical evidence has thus far been absent.

References

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? *The Science Teacher, 29*(5), 45–51.

Ben Messi, Z., & Khazar, W. (2011). Difficulties of teaching philosophy for scientific streams and ways to overcome them. In *Teaching philosophy in Algeria: Reality and prospects, Constantine Higher School of Teachers Conference Proceedings*.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). *How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school* (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). *In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms*. ASCD.

Bybee, R. W. (2015). *The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments*. NSTA Press.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). *The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness*. BSCS.

Cam, P. (2014). Philosophy for children, values education and the inquiring society. *Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46*(11), 1203–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.771443

Çepni, S. (2017). *The effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement, attitude and higher order thinking skills in science education*. Pegem Akademi.

Cohen, J. (1988). *Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences* (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). *Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches* (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

D’Olimpio, L., Pais, A., & Thompson, C. (2024). Philosophy, arts, and education: Cultivating aesthetic and ethical understanding. *Journal of Philosophy of Education, 58*(1), 127–145.

Dewey, J. (1938). *Experience and education*. Macmillan.

Duran, M., & Dökme, İ. (2016). The effect of the inquiry-based learning approach on student’s critical-thinking skills. *Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12*(12), 2887–2908. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.02311a

Dzaiy, A. H., & Abdullah, S. A. (2024). The use of active learning strategies to foster effective teaching in higher education institutions. *Zanco Journal of Human Sciences, 28*(1), 140–157.

Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). *Essentials of educational measurement* (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model: A proposed 7E model emphasizes “transfer of learning” and the importance of eliciting prior understanding. *The Science Teacher, 70*(6), 56–59.

Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). *Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice* (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111*(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? *Educational Technology Research and Development, 39*(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434

Kim, H., Baek, G., & Lee, E. (2025). A VR-based trauma nursing education program for clinical nurses: Integrating Jeffries’ model and the 5E learning cycle. *Healthcare, 13*(19), Article 2542. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13192542

Klausmeier, H. J. (1992). Concept learning and concept teaching. *Educational Psychologist, 27*(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2703_4

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. *Educational Researcher, 44*(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530

Le, H. V., & Nguyen, L. Q. (2024). Promoting L2 learners’ critical thinking skills: The role of social constructivism in reading class. *Frontiers in Education, 9*, Article 1241973. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1241973

Lin, C. H., Liu, Y. C., & Wang, M. T. (2023). Constructivist learning theory in the context of AI in education: Challenges and opportunities. *Educational Technology Research and Development, 71*(3), 845–862.

Lipman, M. (2003). *Thinking in education* (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Y., & Chen, X. (2022). A meta-analysis of constructivist teaching effects in Chinese education. *Educational Research Review, 35*, Article 100431.

Matthews, G. B. (1994). *The philosophy of childhood*. Harvard University Press.

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47*(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

Mohammad ALebous, T. (2025). Effectiveness of integrating the 5E’s learning cycle strategy and Stepans’ conceptual change model in enhancing second-grade students’ acquisition of scientific concepts and habits of mind. *Qubahan Academic Journal, 5*(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v5n1a1480

Murris, K. (2016). *The posthuman child: Educational transformation through philosophy with picturebooks*. Routledge.

Nasir, M., Rijal, M. K., & Primarni, A. (2024). The role of constructivism in modern educational philosophy: A comparative analysis. *International Journal of Educational Narratives, 2*(6), 421–438.

National Research Council. (2012). *Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century*.

Nguyen, T. H., Pham, V. L., & Tran, Q. K. (2023). How do constructivism learning environments generate better motivation and learning strategies? The design science approach. *Heliyon, 9*(12), Article e22623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22623

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). *Psychometric theory* (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Pala, F. (2022). The effect of philosophy education for children (P4C) on students’ conceptual achievement and critical thinking skills: A mixed-method research. *Education Quarterly Reviews, 5*(2), 112–128.

Piaget, J. (1970). *Science of education and the psychology of the child*. Orion Press.

Shahini Kevesk, R., Azad, M. A., & Manshaee, G. R. (2025). The impact of philosophy for children program on working memory and frustration tolerance in sixth-grade students. *International Journal of Education and Cognitive Sciences, 6*(2), 1–10.

Sulaiman, A. H., & Abdullah, S. A. (2024). Active learning strategies in higher education: A comprehensive review. *Zanco Journal of Human Sciences, 28*(1), 140–157.

Taber, K. S. (2024). Educational constructivism. *Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, 4*(4), 1847–1865.

Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2004). *Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy* (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). *Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes*. Harvard University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). *The aims of education and other essays*. Macmillan.

Wilder, M., & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). Cell inquiry: A 5E learning cycle lesson. *Science Activities, 41*(4), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.41.4.37-43

Young, J. R., Egan, T. E., & Wharton, M. D. (2024). Engaging classroom observation: A brief measure of active learning in the college classroom. *Active Learning in Higher Education, 26*(1), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241229421

Downloads

Published

26-06-2026

How to Cite

Ibrahim Ahmed, I. (2026). Enhancing Philosophical Concept Acquisition Through The 5E Learning Cycle Model . Jurnal Educative: Journal of Educational Studies, 11(1), 01–15. https://doi.org/10.30983/educative.v11i1.11334

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2026): Juni 2026

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Ismael Ibrahim Ahmed

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).