This article was downloaded by: [Charles Sturt University]

On: 24 August 2014, At: 04:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Essential Criteria to Characterize

Constructivist Teaching: Derived from
a review of the literature and applied
to five constructivist‐teaching method
articles
a a a
Sandhya N. Baviskar , R. Todd Hartle & Tiffany Whitney
a
Idaho State University , USA
Published online: 11 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Sandhya N. Baviskar , R. Todd Hartle & Tiffany Whitney (2009) Essential
Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and
applied to five constructivist‐teaching method articles, International Journal of Science Education,
31:4, 541-550

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014
 International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 31, No. 4, 1 March 2009, pp. 541–550

RESEARCH REPORT

Essential Criteria to Characterize

Constructivist Teaching: Derived from
a review of the literature and applied to
five constructivist-teaching method
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

articles
Sandhya N. Baviskar*1, R. Todd Hartle and Tiffany Whitney
Idaho State University, USA
bavisand@isu.edu
Taylor
02007
00
Ms.
000002007
SandhyaBaviskar
& Francis
International
10.1080/09500690701731121
TSED_A_273047.sgm
0950-0693
Research
andReport
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
JournalLtd
of Science
(online)
Education

Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of new
teaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learning
and not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe the
four essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance,
application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteria
we developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and test
constructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere to
the constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can be
employed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be a
useful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teaching
methods.

Introduction
Constructivism is an important and driving theory of learning in modern education.
However, the difficulty in defining and implementing constructivism as a practical
methodology has created misconceptions because lesson plans that claim to be
constructivist do not have all the elements that are required by constructivism and
also often include elements that deviate from constructivist theory. The goal of this

*Corresponding author. Department of Biological Sciences, Gale Life Science Center, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007, USA. Email: bavisand@isu.edu

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/040541–10

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701731121
 542 S.N. Baviskar et al.

article is to generate a list of constructivism-defining criteria, and to demonstrate

their use by evaluating five representative papers whose stated goals were to
describe and test a constructivist course design in secondary or post-secondary
science courses.
The descriptive and theoretical literature on constructivism is fragmented
(Crowther, 1999; Jenkins, 2000). Some articles explore the basic tenets of
constructivism (Richardson, 2003; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991), but the
descriptions are often theoretical without illustrating how these tenets can be put
into practice. Some authors present specific constructivist teaching methodologies
that require certain elements such as group work (Lord, 1994). Although group
activity may be necessary for the described teaching method, it may not be essen-
tial for the method to be considered constructivist, but often this element is
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

mistakenly considered one of the essential elements of constructivism. Other

articles provide rich descriptions and examples of constructivist practice without
stressing the elements that make them constructivist (Vermette et al., 2001). These
descriptions could be useful to practitioners looking for teaching tips, but do not
reveal the essence of constructivism.
There is also confusion between personal constructivism, the theory of individual
learning, and social constructivism, a theory concerning the origins of knowledge in
a culture. Social constructivism states that cultures or groups construct their
knowledge bases through the discourse and interactions among their members
rather than through the discoveries of individuals or the dictation of authorities
(Marin, Benarroch, & Jimenez-Gomez, 2000; Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002).
Many educators assume that if their students are working in groups, the lesson
must be constructivist because ‘social constructivism’ states that knowledge is
negotiated through interactions. However, social constructivism does not say
anything about how an individual acquires the knowledge for passing a college
biology course. The personal constructivist theory that is the topic of this paper
(also called psychological or cognitive constructivism) does not say that learning
occurs only in groups or even that learning necessarily occurs best in groups.
Consequently, group work may be a constructivist educational tool, or it may not
be, depending entirely on the implementation.
Constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of curriculum design
(Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Richardson, 2003). Therefore, when a lesson is said to
be constructivist, it does not necessarily follow a specific formula. Instead a
constructivist lesson is one that is designed and implemented in a way that creates
the greatest opportunities for students to learn, regardless of the techniques used.
Implementation of the theory is the crux of constructivism. Large lecture halls are
often held up as the antithesis of constructivism. However, if an instructor needs to
transmit a large amount of information to a large group of expert learners, and the
lesson is properly implemented, a lecture is probably the most efficient constructiv-
ist tool possible (Richardson, 2003). In this paper, we have distilled the required
characteristics of constructivism and formalized them into four criteria required to
designate a methodology as constructivist.
 Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 543

Definitions: Four constructivist criteria

The theory of constructivism states that the knowledge possessed by an individual is

connected in a comprehensive ‘construct’ of facts, concepts, experiences, emotions,
values, and their relationships with each other. If the construct is insufficient or
incorrect when compared with the information the individual is gathering from the
environment, the individual will experience a form of cognitive dissonance that will
act as a motivation (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1993). The individual will be motivated to
reject the new information or incorporate it into his or her construct (Berger, 1978;
Novak & Gowin, 1986; Sewell, 2002). In order to make any changes to the knowledge
construct permanent, the learner must be able to apply the changed construct to novel
situations, receive feedback about the validity of the construct from other sources, and
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

establish further connections to other elements in the construct.

The fact that constructivism is learner oriented is essential to any constructivist
lesson plan or curriculum (Richardson 2003; Vermette et al., 2001; Yager, 1991). It
is not considered one of the four criteria because it is a basic and pervasive concept.
The constructivist teacher’s role is to create a context where the learner is motivated
to learn, which includes providing content and resources, posing relevant problems
and questions at appropriate times (Wheatley, 1991, p. 14; Windschitl, 2002,
p. 137), and linking these resources and questions to the students’ prior knowledge.
There are four critical elements that must be addressed in the activities, struc-
ture, content, or context of a lesson for it to be considered constructivist. The first
criterion is eliciting prior knowledge. Constructivism presupposes that all knowledge
is acquired in relation to the prior knowledge of the learner (Naylor & Keogh,
1999; Sewell, 2002; Vermette et al., 2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). If the
educator does not have a mechanism for eliciting the prior knowledge of the
students, the new knowledge cannot be gainfully presented in a way that can be
incorporated into the learner’s construct. Likewise, if the learner’s attention is not
drawn to their prior knowledge, the learner will either ignore or incorrectly incor-
porate the new knowledge.
Prior knowledge can be elicited in different ways: formal pre-tests, asking informal
questions, formal interviews with students, or setting up activities such as concept-
mapping that require basic knowledge to be applied. The key element in the criterion
of eliciting prior knowledge is to make sure that the activity assesses the learner’s prior
knowledge and relates it to the new knowledge. For example, having successfully
completed a unit on the process of meiosis does not imply that the students under-
stand genetic segregation. Also, merely checking the completion of an activity by
students (e.g., having done assigned readings) will not give sufficient information to
the instructor about their prior knowledge. On the other hand, an activity like having
the students create a concept map of their prior knowledge on a topic is an excellent
method of eliciting prior knowledge. The students are required to present everything
they know about the topic in the form of a network of concepts and the relations
among them. The combination of both eliciting and organizing the information in the
form of a map that resembles the student’s own cognitive construct allows the
 544 S.N. Baviskar et al.

student and the teacher to assess any misconceptions and target the implementation
of the lesson plan accordingly.
The second criterion is creating cognitive dissonance. The learner must be made aware
of a difference between his/her prior knowledge and the new knowledge (Inch, 2002;
Sewell, 2002). Wheatley (1991, p. 15) states that ‘in preparation for a class, a teacher
selects tasks which have a high probability of being problematical for students—tasks
which may cause students to find a problem’. If students are presented with new knowl-
edge in a way that assumes they should acquire this knowledge independent of their
prior knowledge, the lesson is deterministic and cannot be considered constructivist.
The third criterion is application of the knowledge with feedback (Vermette et al.,
2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Misinterpretation or rejection of new knowl-
edge is likely if the learner does not interpret and modify prior knowledge in the
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

context of new knowledge. Application of the new construct could be in the form of
quizzes, presentations, group discussions, or other activities where the students
compare their individual constructs with their cohorts’ or with novel situations. In
addition to checking the validity of their constructs, application allows the student to
further define the interconnectedness of the new knowledge to a greater variety of
contexts, which will integrate the new knowledge permanently.
The fourth criterion is reflection on learning. Once the student has acquired the new
knowledge and verified it, the student needs to be made aware of the learning that
has taken place (Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Constructivist lessons will provide
the student with an opportunity to express what he or she has learned. Reflection
could be attained using traditional assessment techniques such as presentations,
papers, or examinations, if the questions on the examinations fostered reflection on
the learning process (Saunders, 1992). Activities that are more meta-cognitive in
nature might include a reflexive paper, a return to the dissonance creating activity,
or having the student explain a concept to a fellow student (Lord, 1994). Although
the reflection criterion does not necessarily have to be a formal part of the lesson
plan, its presence makes the lesson considerably more constructivist.

Implementation: Review of published articles using constructivist criteria

Although, there are specific teaching methodologies that are strongly constructivist,
such as inquiry-based teaching methods, it is not necessary to use one of these
methods to be constructivist. Likewise, simply following a methodology in a cook-
book fashion will not guarantee constructivism. In this section, five articles whose
authors specifically claim to have implemented constructivist-teaching methods are
evaluated according to the four criteria defined above.

Article 1: ‘Using computers to create constructivist learning environments: Impact on

pedagogy and achievement’
Huffman, Goldberg, and Michlin (2003) asked: To what extent can computers be
used to help teachers create a constructivist learning environment in the science
 Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 545

classroom? They used a project called Constructing Physics Understanding (CPU).

CPU is a curriculum designed to meet the US National Science Education
Standards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). It has computer-based
modular activities, software, and curricula to help teachers create a learning environ-
ment. The study examined three groups of teachers: (1) teachers who fully adopted
the new pedagogy and computer-based materials (termed ‘Lead CPU teachers’); (2)
teachers who were newly trained and modified some of the CPU pedagogy (‘Begin-
ning CPU teachers’); and (3) the comparison teachers who used traditional instruc-
tional methods. In all, 13 teachers were examined to determine the extent to which
computers can alter pedagogy and student achievement.
The authors describe three vignettes as representative of classroom teaching of each
of the three groups. The lead CPU teacher’s class did not meet any of our criteria for
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

constructivist teaching. The authors claimed that because the lead CPU teacher knew
the students had performed a specific experiment prior to the lesson, the teachers were
aware of the students’ prior knowledge. We did not find any evidence of dissonance
being created by the teacher in students’ minds. Neither was there any specific
application of new knowledge nor review of the learning process. The students and
teachers seemed to be following the procedures and activities step-by-step as
described in the CPU curriculum project.
Huffman et al. (2003) state that their data suggest computers help teachers create
more constructivist learning environments. We think the comparison done in the
study is not appropriate to address the research question. There were several
confounding factors including the experience levels of the teachers and differential
access to properly working computers by different groups of teachers. It is not
possible to determine which factors were responsible for students’ higher achieve-
ment. Without further experimental probing, it could even be argued that the
experienced teachers would create a more constructivist-learning environment
without computers than less experienced teachers could with computers.

Article 2: ‘Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study’

Stephen J. Bostock (1998) describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of a
web-based course and claims that it is based on constructivist educational principles.
Lectures were conducted by the author once per week for one hour and laboratory
sessions were presented by two demonstrators for two hours per week. Instructional
methods also included a computer-assisted learning package and other resource-
based learning including videos and web pages. Students were required to demon-
strate practical skills in the laboratory and to generate summaries and concept maps
based on the tasks.
The author summarizes five principles that make an environment rich for what he
calls ‘active/constructivist’ learning: authentic assessment, student responsibility and
initiative, generative learning strategies, authentic learning contexts, and cooperative
support. According to our criteria, authentic assessment, authentic learning context,
and cooperative support are not essential features of constructivist teaching. The
 546 S.N. Baviskar et al.

type of assessment can only affect constructivist learning if it offers opportunities for
application of new knowledge that was not demonstrated by the author. Authentic
learning contexts may or may not create dissonance or provide opportunity for
application of knowledge depending on their application. Finally, as stated earlier,
group activities are not necessarily constructivist (Richardson, 2003).
The article fails in meeting most of our criteria of constructivist paedagogy. The
teacher neither elicits prior knowledge of the students nor creates any dissonance in
their knowledge structure with the result that the students lost interest in the course
as confirmed by the author (Bostock, 1998, p. 230). The students were allowed to
choose their research topics and create their own web pages in consultation with the
teacher, which is an example of application of knowledge with feedback (the only
constructivist technique we found). The author considers cooperative learning an
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

important principle of constructivist teaching but admits that the cooperative group
work failed. He reasons that the attendance was thin, and with very little teacher–
student and student–student interactions the students found it more convenient to
work alone than in groups. Finally, students were required to reflect on their own
learning by maintaining a diary, but only 13% participated.
The author states that the content of the course was not decided by the instructor
alone but was negotiated with the students, which, according to the author, is a
student-centred approach, and hence constructivist. But negotiation on course
content with the students has no relevance to constructivism. In reading this article,
one gets the impression that the author had no control over the implementation of
the course. He admits his failures on various fronts, but draws consolation by saying
‘… it is cheering to think that a partial implementation of constructivist principles
may actually be optimal for the majority of students’ (Bostock, 1998, p. 236).

Article 3: ‘Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall’

Daniel Klionsky (1998) modified his teaching methods in an attempt to adopt a
constructivist teaching style. His first goal was to ‘alter the study habits of students’
by eliminating reading assignments from the textbook and instead supplying the
students with his lecture notes prior to class. Students were then quizzed on the
reading material at the beginning of each class session. He wrote that this method
would limit the amount of reading for which his students were responsible, while
encouraging them to come to class prepared. His second goal was to ‘create a
learning environment that fostered constructivism’. Group problem-solving activi-
ties were implemented in order to promote student interaction and a hands-on
problem-solving experience. The students were then quizzed on the material they
learned from the group activity.
Although, the group activities appear to have been a useful pedagogical tool, as
mentioned previously, group work alone does not define a lesson as constructivist.
The modifications made in teaching methods appear to have improved students’
performance as well as the students’ approval of the course and the instructor.
However, the new teaching methods did not meet the criteria for constructivism. The
 Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 547

author did not use a comprehensive evaluation of the prior knowledge of the students,
or give any evidence that cognitive dissonance occurred in the students. The quizzes
may or may not have given the students an opportunity to apply their new knowledge
and receive feedback, but they certainly were not a mechanism for reflection.
Klionsky (1998) did evaluate the effectiveness of his methods and he does appear
to have promoted an improvement in student performance. He used comparisons of
current quiz and test scores with those of previous years and noted a general
improvement. He also compared course evaluations from the two teaching methods
and found that the students preferred his new method. The new teaching methods
adopted by the author appear to have improved his students’ learning, but these new
methods were not entirely based on constructivist principles.
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

Article 4: ‘A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s
constructivist model put to a test’
Burrowes (2003) describes an experiment in which constructivism is tested in the
classroom. She had three major goals: to help students achieve better grades on stan-
dard mid-term examinations, to develop higher level thinking skills, and to modify
their attitude towards biology at this large, urban university. To meet these goals, two
different biology classes with approximately 100 students each were taught using
different methods. One class was taught using a traditional lecture and note-taking
method, and the other was taught using what the author describes as ‘experimental
teaching based on the constructivist learning model’.
In the experimental group the author followed Yager’s (1991) application of the
‘constructivist learning model’, Bybee’s (1993) ‘5E’ model, which is based on
constructivism, and Lord’s (Lord, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001) application of
‘cooperative learning’. She used a short lecture to ‘engage’ her students and then
had groups to formulate problems or exercises, which she considered the ‘explore’
step. The students then ‘explained’ what they had done. After students explained
their problems and solutions that the author ‘elaborated’ by addressing any
questions or misconceptions that may have arisen, she then introduced the new
material and referred it back to what was previously discussed.
Burrowes (2003) followed the criteria for constructivist teaching. The combina-
tion of the ‘explore’ and ‘explain’ steps satisfied the first criterion of eliciting prior
knowledge. The ‘explain’ and ‘elaboration’ steps created dissonance by explicitly
comparing the students’ new and prior knowledge. The ‘elaboration’ step satisfied
the third criterion of application of knowledge with feedback. Finally, the fourth
criterion was satisfied by the ‘elaboration’ and ‘evaluation’ steps in which the
instructor assisted the students in realizing their recent learning. Overall, the author
met the criteria for constructivist learning. In addition, the author showed that there
was more learning in constructivist classroom than the traditional classroom.
Although we question some of the techniques and statistical analyses used for
comparing the performance of the students of the two classes, she did demonstrate
greater learning in the constructivist classroom.
 548 S.N. Baviskar et al.

Article 5: ‘Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary

school’
Banet and Ayuso (2003) designed, implemented, and tested a constructivist
secondary school biology unit on inheritance and evolution. The unit had four
groupings of content goals. They elicited common misconceptions of the student
population through a series of surveys, assessments, and pre-tests of the general
student population as well as the students involved in their study. For each group
of content goals, the authors identified a schema from the pre-tests as the ‘correct’
conceptualization, as well as one to three schema based on common misconcep-
tions. In the classroom, the authors used problem-solving lesson plans designed to
explore the students’ misconceptions. Finally, the students were evaluated both in
a post-test and a ‘retention test’ (three months after the end of the lesson) using
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

similar schema-based methods to the pre-tests.

Banet and Ayuso (2003) used constructivism in a way that met all four criteria.
Their efforts at eliciting prior knowledge for the general population of students as
well as the individuals involved in their experimental unit were extensive. They
explored the current level of content knowledge, the cognitive abilities, and the
stages of cognitive development of the students. This comprehensive understanding
of the students’ prior knowledge was then used at all stages of the educational
process. It was made clear that prior knowledge is by far the most important element
in the authors’ considerations. The authors used problem-solving lessons based on
the students’ misconceptions in order to create dissonance in the minds of the
students. The problems presented in the lessons were designed to demonstrate how
the students’ current constructs were insufficient to solve the problems. These same
problems also provided the opportunity to apply and test the new information.
Banet and Ayuso (2003) also evaluated the success of their constructivist biology
unit and found its performance satisfactory. They compared their students’ perfor-
mance with their initial goals in the form of their schema. In all four content areas
the results of the post-test and retention test were considerably better than those of
the pre-test. In three of the four areas, the retention-test results were slightly less
than those of the post-test.
All in all, Banet and Ayuso (2003) presented a truly constructivist biology unit
and demonstrated that it was successful. As the purpose of the authors was not to
convince their readers that they used constructivist methods, they did not present all
the information that would have been helpful to judge their unit in terms of our
constructivist criteria as defined above. However, the details provided do show a
thorough and appropriate understanding of constructivism as well as the practical
issues involved in implementing the theory to actual science education. This paper is
an excellent example of the proper use of constructivist theory in science education.

Conclusion
Our study of the literature on science education has revealed that constructivism
and constructivist concepts are frequently mentioned, but essential elements of
 Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 549

constructivism are often lacking. The descriptive literature on constructivism can

be misunderstood by teachers and practitioners because the articles are esoteric
and technical with little emphasis on their practical application, or they are descrip-
tions of lessons that succeeded without emphasizing which elements made them
constructivist. In addition, many ‘constructivist lesson plans’ are transformed into
‘un-constructivist lessons’ through misapplication and deterministic implementa-
tion. We think that greater rigour in the implementation of constructivist lesson
plans and their proper presentation in the published literature are essential to the
overall validity and respect for educational research, thereby easing the implemen-
tation of new teaching methodologies.

Acknowledgements
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

The authors would like to thank Dr Rosemary Smith for valuable discussions,
advice, and mentoring throughout the writing process.

Note
1. Ms Baviskar is first author because the idea for a review paper exploring constructivism in
science classrooms launched the original collaboration and because she performed most of the
background and paper selection work. The ideas surrounding the four criteria of constructiv-
ism in the introduction were derived primarily from Mr Hartle’s background and training in
educational theory and practice. In all other aspects, each of the three authors contributed
equally to this work.

References
Airasian, P.W., & Walsh, M.E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 449.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, G.E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings
in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.
Berger, K.S. (1978). The developing person. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bostock, S.J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(3), 225–240.
Burrowes, P.A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works:
Lord’s constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491–501.
Bybee, R. (1993). Instructional model for science education in developing biological literacy Colorado
Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
Crowther, D.T. (1999). Cooperating with constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching,
29(1), 17–23.
Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., & Michlin, M. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist
learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathe-
matics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 151–168.
Inch, S. (2002). The accidental constructivist a mathematician’s discovery. College Teaching, 50(3),
111–113.
Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most
dangerous intellectual tendency? Science and Education, 9, 599–610.
Klionsky, D.J. (1998). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 31(4), 246–251.
 550 S.N. Baviskar et al.

Lord, T.R. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student learning in college biology. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 23(6), 346–348.
Lord, T.R. (1997). Comparing traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology.
Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–217.
Lord, T.R. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-
based activities to challenge student teams. The American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 580–588.
Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental
science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–28.
Lord, T.R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American
Biology Teacher, 63(1), 30–38.
Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. NARST
News, 34(3), 9–11.
Marin, N., Benarroch, A., & Jimenez-Gomez, E. (2000). What is the relationship between social
constructivism and Piagetian constructivism? An analysis of the characteristics of the ideas
Downloaded by [Charles Sturt University] at 04:17 24 August 2014

within both theories. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 225–238.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of
Science Teachers Education, 10(2), 93–106.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D.B. (1986). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.
Rodriguez, A.J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for
understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational
Research Journal, 39(4), 1017–1045.
Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for
science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–141.
Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal,
48(2), 24–28.
Vermette, P., Foote, C., Bird, C., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, S., & Battaglia, C. (2001).
Understanding constructivism(s): A primer for parents and school board members. Education,
122(1), 87–93.
Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science
Education, 75(1), 9–21.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiations of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education. The
Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.