Investigating the Effectiveness of Localized Context-Based Stem Approach Using 5e Lesson Plan in Teaching Science 3

This study employed an experimental research design, specifically the one-group pre-test and post-test design, to investigate the effectiveness of the 5E Lesson Plan integrated within a localized context-based STEM approach in improving the conceptual understanding and engagement of the Grade 3 – Plato pupils of Sultan Naga Dimaporo Memorial Integrated School (SNDMIS). The respondents of the study were 34 pupils from Section B, officially enrolled during the Academic Year 2025–2026. A 20-item multiple-choice pretest and posttest aligned with the Science 3 curriculum, together with an engagement survey, were administered before and after the intervention to measure pupils’ learning and participation. Data were analyzed using frequency and percentage distribution, weighted mean, Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results revealed that pretest scores were relatively low, with only a few pupils demonstrating higher achievement, while posttest results showed a remarkable improvement, with most respondents shifting to the “Very Highly Achieved” category. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test confirmed a significant difference between pretest and posttest scores (p = 0.001), indicating that the intervention was effective. Furthermore, survey findings showed that learners were highly engaged during the lessons, enjoying the use of local materials, hands-on group activities, and inquiry-based tasks. The study concludes that integrating the 5E instructional model with localized, context-based STEM instruction significantly enhances pupils’ conceptual understanding, engagement, and problem-solving skills in Science lessons.

5E Lesson Plan, Localized Context-Based STEM, Conceptual Understanding, Science

1. Acesta, A. (2020). Analisis kemampuan higher order thinking skills (HOTS) siswa materi IPA di sekolah dasar. Quagga: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Biologi, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.25134/quagga.v12i2.2831 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agustina, R., Huda, I., & Nurmaliah, C. (2020). Implementasi pembelajaran STEM pada materi sistem reproduksi tumbuhan dan hewan terhadap kemampuan berpikir ilmiah peserta didik SMP. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v8i2.16913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aminoto, T. (2020). Changes in students’ cognitive structure on the concept of light. Physics Education Research Journal. https://journal.walisongo.ac.id/index.php/perj/article/view/13658/4689 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anif, S., Sutopo, A., & Prayitno, H. J. (2020). Lesson study validation: Model for social and natural sciences teacher development in the implementation of the national curriculum in Muhammadiyah schools, Indonesia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ardianti, S. D., Sulisworo, D., Pramudya, I., & Raharjo, T. J. (2020). Innovating STEM education: Teacher reflections on challenges and strategies. Journal of Education and Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Astawan, I. M., Putri, N. K., & Septiana, D. (2022). The effect of STEM-based scientific learning on students’ critical and creative thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jpii [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st-century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), 955–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bybee, R. W. (2010). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. NSTA Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bruce, W., Funmilayo, B., & Favour, K. (2025). Community-based programs and their influence on literacy skills of elementary learners in the Philippines. https://www.researchgate.net [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bolanio, J. C. R., & Mendaño, R. V. (2025). Simplified wave energy converter: An apparatus for teaching energy transformation. International Journal of Open-Access, Interdisciplinary & New Educational Discoveries of ETCOR Educational Research Center (iJOINED ETCOR), 4(4). https://doi.org/10.63498/etcor471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cakmakci, G., Aydeniz, M., Brown, A., & Makokha, J. (2020). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship learning. In Science education in theory and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Canales, A., Vásquez, C., & Paredes, S. (2024). The 5E instructional model is used for the meaningful learning of science and technology. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1435530 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Casad, B. J., Petzel, Z., & Ingalls, E. (2019). A model of threatening academic environments predicts women STEM majors’ self-esteem and engagement in STEM. Sex Roles, 80, 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0942-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cimpian, J. R., Kim, T. H., & McDermott, Z. T. (2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1488195 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Corlu, M. S. (2014). Call for STEM education research in the Turkish context. Turkish Journal of Education, 3(1), 4–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide – Science (Grade 3–10). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Science-CG_with-tagged-sci-equipment_revised.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Deveci, İ., & Karteri, İ. (2020). Context-based learning supported by environmental measurement devices in science teacher education: A mixed method research. Journal of Biological Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1821083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Dewi, N. L., Dantes, N., & Sadia, I. W. (2013). Pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing terhadap sikap ilmiah dan hasil belajar IPA. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Ganesha, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.19184/jpf.v6i2.5020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Dianal, Turmudi, & Yohannes. (2021). STEM education is an interdisciplinary and integrated approach to teaching. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370229578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Educational Technology. (2024). 5E instructional design model. https://educationaltechnology.net/5e-instructional-design-model/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Emembolu, I., Padwick, A., Shimwell, J., Sanderson, J., Davenport, C., & Strachan, R. (2020). Using action research to design and evaluate sustained and inclusive engagement to improve children’s knowledge and perception of STEM careers. International Journal of Science Education, 42(5), 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1729442 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2022). The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Fitriyanti, F., Farida, & Zikri, A. (2020). Peningkatan sikap dan kemampuan berpikir ilmiah siswa melalui model PBL di sekolah dasar. Jurnal Basicedu. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v4i2.376 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Fraser, S., Attard, C., & Holmes, K. (2021). The place-based STEM-alignment framework: A tool for observing and documenting place-based STEM discourses in rural, regional, and remote (RRR) communities. Frontiers in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Han, J., Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2021). Factors influencing student STEM learning: Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, 21st-century skills, and career awareness. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00053-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Harianti, A., Malinda, M., Nur, N., Suwarno, H. L., Margaretha, Y., & Kambuno, D. (2020). Peran pendidikan kewirausahaan dalam meningkatkan motivasi, kompetensi, dan menumbuhkan minat mahasiswa. Jurnal Bisnis dan Kewirausahaan, 16(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.31940/jbk.v16i3.2194 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Hewitt, T., & Forcino, F. (2025). The influence of a STEM unit on the interest in and understanding of science and engineering among elementary girls and boys. Discover Education, 4, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00404-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Holmes, K., Berger, N., Mackenzie, E., Attard, C., Johnson, P., Fitzmaurice, O., O’Meara, N., & Ryan, V. (2021). Editorial: The impact of place-based contextualised curriculum on student engagement and motivation in STEM education. Frontiers in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Holmes, K., Mackenzie, E., Berger, N., & Walker, M. (2021). Linking K–12 STEM pedagogy to local contexts: A scoping review of benefits and limitations. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 693808. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693808 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Johnson, A., & Elliott, S. (2020). Culturally relevant pedagogy: A model to guide cultural transformation in STEM departments. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.2097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Kang, H., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Simpkins, S. D., Rhee, H., & Turner, C. (2018). How do middle school girls of color develop STEM identities? Middle school girls’ participation in science activities and identification with STEM careers. Science Education, 103(2), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21492 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Kartal, B., & Tasdemir, A. (2021). Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards STEM: Differences based on multiple variables and the relationship with academic achievement. International Journal of Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.58 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Koyunlu Ünlü, Z., & Dökme, İ. (2022). A systematic review of the 5E model in science education: Proposing a skill-based STEM instructional model within 21st-century skills. International Journal of Science Education, 44(15), 2404–2428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2114031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kuba, M. R., Meha, A. M., & Blegur, J. (2020). Pengaruh model pembelajaran bersiklus (learning cycle 5E) terhadap kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa. Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00053-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Lin, T. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). The impact of STEM learning on learning achievement and interest: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Maine Department of Education. (2021). Conceptual understandings. https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/II/conceptualunderstandings [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Maison, M., Haryanto, H., Ernawati, M. D. W., Ningsih, Y., Jannah, N., Puspitasari, T. O., & Putra, D. S. (2020). Comparison of student attitudes towards natural sciences. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20394 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. McLeod, S. (2018). Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Mendaño, R. V., & Laceda, R. J. T. (2025). 7E’s learning model in teaching kinematics for senior high school STEM. Ignatian International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15034388 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Melgarejo, T. F. V., Atanacio, L. M. M., Leandro, A. I. C., Faustino, L. K. B., Rivarola, M. M. C., López, J. R. A., & Chávez, J. T. G. (2024). The 5E instructional model is used for the meaningful learning of science and technology. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1435530 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Montero, J., et al. (2022). Improved conceptual understanding in learning biology through localized and contextualized learning activities. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research (IJMABER). https://ijmaberjournal.org/index.php/ijmaber/article/view/523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities (NSF 23-315). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Nguyen, T. D. (2024). The supply and quality of STEM teachers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04648-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Nguyen, T. P. L., Nguyen, T. H., & Tran, T. K. (2020). STEM education in secondary schools: Teachers’ perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(21), 8865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics, and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child (H. Weaver, Trans.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1966) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Picardal, M., et al. (2022). Effectiveness of contextualization in science instruction to enhance science literacy in the Philippines: A meta-analysis. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358201544_Effectiveness_of_Contextualization_in_Science_Instruction_to_Enhance_Science_Literacy_in_the_Philippines_A_Meta-Analysis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. ProctorEdu. (2025). Pre-assessment: Definition and meaning. https://proctoredu.com/glossary/pre-assessment [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Psych Educ. (2023). Contextualized and localized science teaching and learning materials and their characteristics to improve students' learning performance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Pozas, M., Löffler, P., Schnotz, W., & Kauertz, A. (2020). The effects of context-based problem-solving tasks on students’ interest and metacognitive experiences. Open Education Studies, 2(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2020-0118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Putra, F., Kholifah, I. Y. N., Subali, B., & Rusilowati, A. (2020). 5E learning cycle strategy: Increasing conceptual understanding and learning motivation. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 9(2), 195–206. https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/al-biruni/article/view/2898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Republic Act No. 10533. (2013, May 15). The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Official Gazette. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Setiawan, A., Suparman, S., & Suhandi, A. (2017). The effectiveness of the 5E learning cycle model on conceptual understanding: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895(1), 012130. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Suchman, J. R. (1964). Inquiry development program. Science Research Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Texas Education Agency. (2020). STEM instructional planning guide (Version 3). https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/STEM_Instructional_Planning_Guide_v3_FINAL_1134627_12-2020.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Post-test. In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). https://www.thefreedictionary.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. The Grove Center. (n.d.). The 5Es. Penn State University. https://grovecenter.science.psu.edu/technology/instructional-design/the-5es [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow. https://www.bls.gov [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Utamni, N. L. P., Maegala, A. A. A., & Purwadi, I. N. (2021). The implementation of Vygotsky’s theory in learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study