Learning Cycle Approach (lca) for Effective Teaching and Learning of Glycolysis and the Krebs Cycle

Author(s): Y. Ameyaw

This study is an inquiry into the outcome of Learning Cycle Approach (LCA) on Senior High Students’ understanding of Glycolysis and the Krebs cycle at the Odorgonno Senior High School of the Ga South District in the Greater-Accra Region of Ghana. The two concepts were explained using either Conventional Teaching Approach (CTA) or Learning Cycle Approach (LCA). The investigation was to find out whether the LCA could enhance students’ academic achievement better than the CTA mostly used by some SHS Science teachers. A design involving two cohorts assigned as Group A and B with a total population of 80 was used for the study. Group ‘A’ was the quasi-experimental group upon which the LCA was applied in teaching glycolysis and the Krebs cycle whereas group ‘B’ was used as the control group taught using the CTA. Data gathered from both pre- and post-interventional tests were analysed using SPSS version 18. The pre-interventional test revealed that both groups lacked conceptual understanding of the processes involve in cellular respiration, particularly, glycolysis and the Krebs cycle. The outcome of the analysis conducted on the post-interventional scores of the two cohorts revealed that the experimental group achieved higher conceptual understanding than the control group. Hence, the LCA is a good teaching and learning approach for facilitating lessons in glycolysis and the Kerbs cycle.

Krebs cycle, Glycolysis, SHS, Learning Cycle Approach (LCA), Conventional Teaching Approach (CTA)

1. Abimbola, I. O. (1987). Cognitive science and its implications for science curriculum and instruction. Journal of Applied Research in Education, 1(1), 38-46.
2. Akpan, B. B. (1996). Towards a reduction in the contents of our primary and secondary science curricula. Journal of The Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 31(1&2), 1-5.
3. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
4. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
5. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A sample Guide & reference Boston; Allyn & Bacon.
6. Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L. & Marrick, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teach-ing procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (5), 535-549. Glasgow, N.A. (1997). New curriculum for new times.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
7. Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of person-ality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.). A model for personality. Berlin: Springer – Verlag. Pp. 246-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_8
8. Hanuscin, D. L. & Lee, M. H. (2008). Using the Learning Cycle as a model for Teaching the Learning Cycle to Preserv-ice Elementary Teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Edu-cation. Pp. 51-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf03173670
9. Holmes, F. L. (1993) Hans Krebs: architect of intermediary Metabolism 1933-1937. Vol.2. Oxford Press: New York http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/418436
10. Jegede, O. J. (1992). Factors enhancing meaningful learning in science. Paper presented at the Faculty of Education Seminar, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos-Nigeria.
11. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N. & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
12. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/4349235
13. Karplus, R. & Thier, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.37305201101
14. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R. & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills [Monograph, Number One]. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Ks: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
15. Okebukola, P. A. O. (1997). The state of science education in Nigeria. Paper presented at the ELLSA-British Council Primary Science Forum, Kaduna, Nigeria.
16. Ramsey, J. (1993). Developing conceptual storylines with the learning cycle. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 1-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf03173540
17. Rubba, P. A. (1992). The learning cycle as a model for the design of science teacher preservice and inservice education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3, 97-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02614776
18. Salau, M. O. (1996). The effect of class size on the achievement of different ability groups in mathematics. Journal of The Science Teachers Association of Nigeria, 31(1&2), 55-61.
19. STAN (1992). Raising the standard of performance in public examinations in science, technology and mathematics. Position paper No. 4. Ibadan: STAN
20. Ross, P. M., Tronson, D. A. & Ritchie, R. J. (2008). Increasing Conceptual Understanding of Glycolysis & the Krebs cycle Using Role-Play. The American Biology Teacher, 70 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[163:icuogt]2.0.co;2
21. Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Time. San Fran-cisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.