Changes in Learning Python Programming Concepts Following the Implementation of Instruction Based on the 7E Learning Cycle Model among Seventh-Grade Female Students: A Single-Group Study

Authors

1 PhD of Educational Psychology, Head of the Work and Technology Department for the First Secondary Period General Department of Education of Qazvin Province, Qazvin, Iran.

2 Integrated Bachelor’s student in Technology and Work Education Teaching, Farhangian University, Shahideh Bint al‑Huda Sadr Campus, Qazvin, Iran.

10.48310/jte.2026.22889.1227

Abstract

.Background and Objectives: Programming education has become increasingly important in school curricula because of its potential to develop students’ computational thinking, problem-solving skills, logical reasoning, and digital literacy. However, learning programming concepts can be challenging for lower-secondary students because many concepts are abstract and difficult to connect with everyday experiences. Traditional teacher-centered instruction may further limit opportunities for students to explore concepts, test ideas, identify errors, and construct meaningful understanding through practice. Python is considered a suitable language for beginners because of its relatively readable syntax, although fundamental concepts such as conditional statements and loops may remain difficult to understand. Learner-centered instructional approaches can help address these challenges by encouraging active exploration, feedback, and practical application. The 7E learning cycle, developed by Eisenkraft (2003) as an extension of the 5E model, comprises seven phases: eliciting prior knowledge, engaging, exploring, explaining, elaborating, evaluating, and extending. The model emphasizes the activation of prior knowledge and the application and transfer of learning to new situations. Although the model has been examined in various educational fields, particularly science education, empirical evidence concerning its application to programming education at the lower-secondary level remains limited. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effectiveness of 7E-based instruction in learning Python programming concepts among seventh-grade female students.
Methodology: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with a one-group pretest–posttest structure. The statistical population consisted of seventh-grade female students attending lower-secondary schools in Qazvin during the 1403–1404 academic year. Using convenience sampling, 27 students from one class participated in the study. The instructional intervention was implemented over four 70-minute sessions and structured around the seven phases of the 7E learning cycle. Initially, students’ prior knowledge and experiences related to programming were elicited. Engaging activities were then used to attract their attention and establish meaningful connections with the subject. During exploration, students investigated programming concepts through practical activities, experimentation, and interaction with the programming environment. The explanation phase focused on clarifying concepts and developing more accurate understanding. During elaboration, students applied their knowledge to additional examples and activities. Evaluation was integrated throughout instruction to monitor learning progress, while extension activities encouraged students to transfer and generalize their knowledge to new situations. Data were collected using a researcher-made 10-item assessment designed to measure students’ learning of the targeted Python programming concepts. Descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank nonparametric test were used to analyze the data. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26, with the significance level set at 0.05.
Findings: The results indicated an improvement in students’ performance following the 7E-based instructional intervention. The mean pretest score was 32.89, increasing to 41.56 on the posttest. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest scores (Z = -4.35, P < 0.001). The effect size was r = 0.84, indicating a substantial difference between the two measurement occasions. Individual performance results further showed that 24 of the 27 participants obtained higher posttest scores than pretest scores, whereas one student obtained a lower score and two students showed no change. These descriptive and inferential findings consistently indicated improved performance after participation in the instructional program.
Discussion and Conclusion:The findings provide initial empirical evidence of an association between 7E-based instruction and improved learning of selected Python programming concepts among the participating seventh-grade female students. The observed improvement may be related to the learner-centered structure of the 7E model, which encourages students to activate prior knowledge, explore concepts, engage in practical activities, clarify their understanding, and apply knowledge in different contexts. These opportunities may help students test their ideas, identify errors, and observe the consequences of their actions within the programming environment. Exploration and elaboration may be particularly valuable because programming requires students to move beyond memorizing definitions and develop the ability to apply concepts to practical problems. Similarly, the extension phase encourages the transfer and generalization of learning to unfamiliar situations. Nevertheless, the findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. The sample was relatively small and drawn from a single class, and the one-group pretest–posttest design did not include a control or comparison group. Therefore, the observed improvement cannot be attributed exclusively to the 7E instructional model. Furthermore, the assessment focused on selected Python programming concepts rather than comprehensively measuring programming competence. Overall, 7E-based instruction appears to be a potentially useful learner-centered approach for teaching selected programming concepts at the lower-secondary level. Future research should employ larger and more diverse samples, control or comparison groups, and longer intervention periods. Further studies should also investigate its effects on programming problem-solving skills, computational thinking, motivation, engagement, and the transfer of programming knowledge to new situations.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Adam, U. A., Lameed, S., & Ayodele, B. B. (2022). Attaining meaningful learning of ecological
 concept: A test of the efficacy of 7E learning cycle model. GPH-International Journal of
 Educational Research, 5(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6790327.
Afshari, M. (2022). Learning cycle approach in science education. Pazhuhesh dar Amoozesh-e
 Oloom-e Tajrobi, 2(6), 12–20. [In Persian].
Amani, V., Yaghoubi, M., Zareinejad, A., & Tatari, A. (2024). A review of creativity- and t
 echnology-based teaching strategies and methods in chemistry education. Pazhuhesh dar
 Amoozesh-e Shimi, 7(2), 91–119. [In Persian].
Balta, N., & Sarac, H. (2016). The effect of the 7E learning cycle on learning in science
 teaching: A meta-analysis study. European Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 61–72.
 https://doi.org/
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields
 more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35.
 https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
 Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Educational Research and Planning Organization. (2024). Work and Technology textbook for
 Grade 7: First cycle of secondary education. Ministry of Education. [In Persian].
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.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing
 critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement
 Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143.
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.
Ghasemi, S. (2025). Active learning: A novel approach to effective education. In Proceedings of
 the 3rd International Conference on New Research in Educational Systems and
 Educational Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia. [In Persian].
Gupta, A. (2011). Python for teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation.
 Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 10(1), 86–
 99. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2011.10010086.
Ilhami, R., & Laksono, E. W. (2022). 7E learning cycle model implementation: Students'
 activities and critical thinking skills towards online learning. Universal Journal of
 Educational Research, 10(5), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2022.100501.
Iqbal, M., Noreen, Z., & Hayat, K. (2024). Impact of 7E model on students' academic
 achievement: A comprehensive analysis in educational settings. Journal of Education and
 Social Studies, 5(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.52223/jess.2024.5115.
Jafari, N., & Fayyaznejad, Z. (2026). Examining the role of the Python programming language
 in teaching programming concepts to adolescent students. The 5th International Congress
 of Management, Economics, Humanities, Education, and Business Development. [In
 Persian].
Keane, T., & Fluck, A. E. (Eds.). (2024). Teaching coding in K-12 schools: Research and
 application. Springer.
Loyens, S. M. M., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning
 environments: Introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5–6),
 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4.
Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Programming experience
 promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child
 Psychology, 160, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013.
Moradipour, M. A. (2023). Investigating the effectiveness of the 7E learning cycle model on
 students' academic achievement in sociology. In Proceedings of the 14th International
 Conference on Management and Humanities Research in Iran, Tehran. [In Persian].
Najafi Dehkordi, P., & Ebrahimzadeh, A. (2025). Improving ninth-grade students' learning of
 similarity in mathematics using the 7E teaching model. Pazhuhesh dar Amoozesh-e Riyazi,
 5(1), 31–44. [In Persian].
Nemati, S. (2025). Teachers' lived experiences of inclusive education: Concepts, barriers, and
 solutions. Faslname-ye Tajareb-e Moallemi, 3(4), 36–50. [In Persian].
Porter, L., Lee, C. B., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really
 learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh International
 Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45–52). Association for Computing
 Machinery.
Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2022). Promoting the construction of intelligent knowledge with the
 help of various methods of cognitively activating instruction. Frontiers in Education, 7,
 Article 979430. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.979430.
Shaheen, M. N. U. K., & Kayani, M. M. (2015). Improving students' achievement in biology
 using 7E instructional model: An experimental study. Mediterranean Journal of Social
 Sciences, 6(5), 456–463.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking.
 Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev. .2017.09.003
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Which way of design programming activities is more
 effective to promote K–12 students’ computational thinking skills? A meta-analysis.
 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1042–1054.
 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12545.
Tagaeva, D., Talipov, A., & Saipbekova, S. (2024). Learning Python programming in middle
 school: An innovative path to digital literacy. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(6), 675–
 678. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/103.
Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in
 K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers
 & Education, 162, 104083.
Wodaj, H., & Belay, S. (2021). Effects of 7E instructional model with metacognitive
 scaffolding on students' conceptual understanding in biology. Journal of Education in
 Science, Environment and Health, 7(1), 34–49.
Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming
 teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Education and Information
 Technologies, 28, 6619–6644. 
  • Receive Date: 10 May 2026
  • Revise Date: 15 October 2026
  • Accept Date: 16 October 2026
  • First Publish Date: 16 October 2026
  • Publish Date: 23 August 2026