Beyond Direct Instruction: Modeling the Effects of the 5-I Instructional Model on Academic Performance in Biology Through Scientific Creativity and Affective Pathways

Imagine science class not as a quiet room where a teacher talks and students take notes, but as a bustling workshop where ideas are built, broken, and rebuilt. This is the world of Biology Education, a field trying to figure out how to help students truly understand the living world, not just memorize it. For a long time, scientists have known that learning isn't just about stuffing facts into a brain; it's also about how a student feels about learning. Two big ideas drive this: Self-Efficacy (which is just a fancy way of saying "I believe I can do this") and Creativity (the ability to mix old ideas to make something new). Think of self-efficacy as the fuel in a car's tank and creativity as the engine's design. If you have a great engine but no fuel, you go nowhere. If you have fuel but a broken engine, you also go nowhere. The big question researchers have been asking is: Does the way a teacher teaches change the fuel and the engine, and does that actually help the car drive faster (get better grades)?

This study dives into that question by testing a new teaching recipe called the 5-I Model (Inspect, Integrate, Instruct, Instill, Investigate) against the old-school "Direct Instruction" method (where the teacher lectures and students listen). The researchers wanted to see if this new, more interactive style would boost students' creativity and confidence, and if those boosts would eventually lead to better test scores in Biology. They didn't just look at the test scores; they looked at the whole journey, including how much students liked the class and how motivated they felt.

The Experiment: A Tale of Two Classrooms

The researchers set up a fair fight between two groups of Grade 9 students. One group was taught using the Conventional Method, which is like a traditional lecture: the teacher delivers the content, and students absorb it. The other group was taught using the 5-I Instructional Model. This new model is more like a detective story or a construction project. It has five steps:

1. Inspect: Checking what students already know (and what they might be getting wrong).
2. Integrate: Working together in groups, mixing in ideas from other subjects, and looking at visual aids like infographics.
3. Instruct: The teacher steps in to clarify tricky concepts and fix misunderstandings.
4. Instill: Students create their own infographics to show what they learned, forcing them to organize their thoughts creatively.
5. Investigate: Testing what they actually learned.

The researchers measured everything: test scores, creativity levels, confidence, attitude, and motivation. They used a special kind of math called Path Analysis to trace the "roads" between these variables. They wanted to see which path was the main highway to success.

The Findings: The Direct Road vs. The Scenic Route

Here is where the story gets interesting. The study found that both teaching methods worked, but they took very different roads to get there.

The Conventional Road (Direct Instruction):
The traditional lecture style had a strong, direct effect on test scores. It was like taking a straight, paved highway. If the goal was to get students to pass a specific test quickly, the teacher-centered approach was very efficient. The data showed that this method directly improved academic performance.

The 5-I Scenic Route (Indirect Effects):
The 5-I model also influenced performance, but the study found its strength lay in indirect effects rather than a strong direct push. Instead of taking the highway, it took a winding, scenic route that built up the students' internal skills first. The study found that the 5-I model influenced performance primarily through a chain reaction:

1. The 5-I model significantly boosted Creativity. Students who made their own infographics and solved problems in groups became more creative thinkers.
2. This boost in creativity then built up Self-Efficacy. When students successfully created something new, they started to believe, "I am capable of doing this."
3. Higher self-efficacy improved their Attitude toward biology. They started to enjoy the subject more.
4. A positive attitude then fueled their Motivation.

Finally, this whole chain—Creativity $\rightarrow$ Self-Efficacy $\rightarrow$ Attitude $\rightarrow$ Motivation—led to better academic performance. The study suggests that the 5-I model is like training an athlete: it doesn't just give them a medal immediately; it strengthens their muscles and confidence first, which leads to better performance later.

What the Study Clarified About Attitude and Motivation

It is important to note what the study found regarding Attitude and Motivation. In the initial analysis, the direct paths from these variables to test scores were found to be weak or negligible when compared to the stronger effects of teaching type, creativity, and self-efficacy. In the final, refined model, the researchers determined that attitude and motivation function primarily as indirect pathways rather than direct drivers of achievement. This means that while making a student "like" biology is valuable, the data suggests that this liking alone doesn't automatically translate to higher grades unless it is supported by the underlying development of confidence and creative thinking. Motivation was found to be a result of the process (driven by attitude and self-efficacy), not the primary starting engine for performance on its own.

The "ICAPe" Framework: A New Map

Based on these findings, the authors propose a new framework called ICAPe (Instruction–Cognition–Affection–Performance). Think of this as a new map for teaching.

• Instruction (the teaching method) is the driver.
• Cognition (thinking skills like creativity) and Affection (feelings like confidence and attitude) are the passengers.
• Performance (the grades) is the destination.

The study suggests that for sustainable, long-term learning, you can't just drive straight to the destination. You have to stop and pick up the passengers (creativity and confidence) along the way. The 5-I model does exactly this: it uses the "Instill" stage (making infographics) to turn passive listeners into active creators.

What the Students Said

To make sure the math matched reality, the researchers also talked to the students. The students described the 5-I experience as a "challenging but enjoyable journey." At first, they were confused ("It was hard to understand at first"), but as they worked in groups and made their own creative outputs, they felt a sense of ownership. One student noted, "It stays in the brain longer because we made it." Another said, "I realized I was wrong about how blood flows, and that helped me understand."

The students confirmed that making mistakes and getting feedback was a huge part of learning. They felt that creating their own infographics allowed them to express their creativity, which made them feel more capable (self-efficacy) and more interested in the subject.

The Bottom Line

This study suggests that there isn't just one "best" way to teach. If you need quick, direct results on a specific test, the traditional lecture has its place. However, if you want to build students who are creative, confident, and deeply engaged in science, the 5-I Instructional Model is a powerful tool. It works by transforming the classroom into a space where students build their own understanding, which in turn builds their confidence and love for the subject, eventually leading to better academic results. The authors conclude that while the 5-I model takes a more indirect path, it builds a stronger foundation for the future, turning students from passive receivers of information into active, creative scientists.