Assignment-2- Action Research in

teaching
Group topic- Constructivism teaching and learning
approach
Sub-topic-
Constructivism approach in Science Classrooms
Part A: Literature review-

Learning with understanding is the most highlighted concern in science classrooms for which
contemporary and concrete teaching methods are essential for students to see the world as
rational and intelligible place (Cakir, 2008). Teachers in Science classroom make emphasis
on student-centred instructions and constructivism is an established and widely espoused
theory of ‘knowing and learning’ which advocates the experimental and active methods
reflected in the work of famous theorists Ausubel (1968), Bruner (1961, 1966), Dewey
(1933), Piaget (1954), Vygotsky (1978) and Rousseau (1762, 1979).This research focuses on
some misconceptions enlightened in the studies in the science classroom with evidence of
academic improvements and attitudes of students in the class. Also, focus is made on the 5E
model which is one of the constructivism based instructional strategy widely used in science
classroom.

Misconception of constructivism

Constructivism theory is adopted in science classrooms in many countries and this theory
pertains to be student-centred with teacher as a facilitator (Khan, 2018). As per Ausubel’s
(1998) the focus is only on what learner knows already which was further advocated by the
Zone of Proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky under which student undertake learning
tasks independently, sharing knowledge, reflecting on tasks with minimal intervention of the
teacher (Rowe, 2006). Wilson (2005) points that the generation of professional experience
and knowledge is often ignored characterising the misuse of the term constructivism. The
main barrier arises when presumptions are made by teachers about students as having
adequate knowledge to engage and work effectively, that is constructivist learning activities
replaces or precedes explicit teaching (Rowe, 2006). This theory more justifies the non-
interventionist pedagogy of teachers who challenge students’ misconceptions without
structuring an experience to challenge those misconceptions (Wilson,2006).

Science understanding is perceived as ‘making sense’ of the world (Wolpert,1992 as cited in

Jenkins, 2000), ‘common sense’ (Jenkins, 2000), ‘knowledge in context’ (Jenkins, 2000), and
the claim of progressivists that ‘children are natural scientists’ are not beguiling but in actual
misleading the science teaching. All this devalues the actual scientific concepts to be taught
in the classroom and the importance of scientific theories which clearly points a question on
this fashionable paradigm shift in the instructional practices (Jenkins, 2000). With all this,
eliciting students’ ideas become difficult as concepts like force, energy could be understood
well naturally but ion, electromagnetism, inertia, chemical equilibrium are some of the
concepts which demands scientific understanding and validation for which teacher is the best
resource (Jenkins, 2000). Despite the misconceptions and notions among teachers which
becomes a barrier, yet the benefits for students in science classroom are much more than that.

Increased pupil success and retention

The first benefit is the increased student’s academic achievement and retention. Sridevi
(2013) reported that constructivist approach had positive impact in improving the
achievement of science, scientific attitudes, and process skills of year 8 students. Further,
Manisha (2016) claims that this instructional practice in science teaching and learning
improves students achievement and retention capacity, for instance as seen in senior
secondary Biology students in the study of Bolajoko (2014). As per the meta-analysis study
done by Ayaz & Sekereci (2015) on the “Effects of constructivism approach on students’
academic achievement” it was found that this approach improved the academic achievement
of students which was advocated by undertaking 53 studies with a suggestion to implement it
in classes irrespective of their sizes and level, though best results were achieved in higher
classes (Ayaz & Sekereci 2015). Differentiating strategies incorporated in science class via
constructivism facilitates students’ access to science content consistent with the framework
for K-12 Education (NRC, 2011 as cited in Singh & Yaduvanshi, 2015), and increases
student’s achievement and engagement (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2009). For the low achiever
students who learnt via constructivist approach a significant higher score has been reported as
compared to their counterparts who worked and learnt via traditional methods (Saran, 2011 as
cited by Adak, 2011). Bogar et.al (2012) as cited by Manisha (2016) also recorded that the
experimental group students in her study scored higher in achievement test for retention.

It has been proven in diverse studies conducted on constructivist learning that orderly
arranged ambient and positive attitude is advantageous for the learning process and enables
the student to learn better (eg. Cruickshant et.all, 1995 as cited in Dogru & Kalender, 2007).
Subsequently, students get engaged and maintain their eagerness for longer period in
arguments participation and group activities (Dogru & Kalender, 2007). Adak (2017)
reported that constructivist approach as a learning tool significantly improves the
achievement in scientific concepts among all psychological and all IQ levels students as per
his study done on year 9 science class.
Change in students’ attitude

Student’s attitude is connected to their learning that is enduring positive or negative feelings
which are regarded as the outcome of the learning (OH & Regay, 2005). As per Simpson &
Oliver (1990) positive feelings towards science makes a lifelong commitment with science
learning so emphasis should be made on students’ attitude, as the result of which Project
2061 a multiple year project in science suggests “Science education should contribute to
the…the development in young people of positive attitudes towards learning science”
(AAAS, 1990, p.184 as cited in OH and Regay, 2005). Constructivism develops the ability of
analysis, divergent thinking and scientific attitude towards science education and even low
ability students gets better opportunity to comprehend and acquire knowledge (Adak, 2017).
To develop all these scientific attitudes in class teachers plays the main part for which a need
to address the confidence of teachers and providing theme methods of developing happy
science classrooms was made by Birse (1996).

5E model- a promising approach

The 5E model is a constructivist science learning model developed by Roger Bybee is most
conductive among several other models (Singh & Yaduvanshi, 2015). This model was
developed under the Biological Science Curriculum study (BSCS) project. The 5 ‘Es’
employs for Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate. The lesson plans based on
this 5Es prove helpful in realizing the primary goal of science classroom, that is helping
students to learn science both inside and outside the class (Singh & Yaduvanshi, 2015). As
per the study by Bybee (2009) the BSCS 5E model falls under the concept of integrated
instructional units which connects laboratory experience with other science learning
activities. Coulson (2002) found that teacher who taught with medium or high levels of
fidelity to the 5E model experienced learning gains almost double than that of students with
low levels of fidelity, evidently students gained significantly higher scores. For better
adaptability and efficacy of the model the professional development of teachers is necessary
for better understanding of the curriculum materials and instructional models (Bybee, 2009).
Most studies based on the 5E model supports its efficacy to enhance students’ mastery of
subject matter (see e.g., Bybee et al., 2006; Coulson, 2002; Taylor et al., 2007; Akar 2005;
and Wilson et al., in press). This widespread acceptance of 5E model suggests its use in
designing curriculum material for 21st century skills which can further enhance adoption of
those material by science teachers (Bybee, 2009).

Conclusion

My examination on constructivism method in science classrooms revealed many noteworthy

themes. Most significantly there are many misconceptions about constructivism leading to
some difficulties for students and teachers. Another insight is the increased student’s attitude,
retention, behaviour, and academic achievement in the classroom. Also, the positive
influence of 5E model on academic achievement of students, so the major question is how to
best support the teachers professionally to remove the above-mentioned misconceptions and
providing appropriate student-centred approach. Likewise, administrators and policy makers
should handle the plethora of challenges faced by science teachers in using this student-
centred approach effectively. This communication can further enhance the enactment of
constructivism approach in science classroom making students understanding and learning
more meaningful.
Part-B: Data Collection Protocol

The following data collection method is based around observational protocol constructed by
the researcher. It is outlined as follows:

Field notes method will be used for temporal periods which are of one hour duration. Field
notes summarizes the presence of constructivism within the lesson of science. In this case
descriptive field notes will be used in which the classroom setting, class description, teaching
strategies, student’s behaviors, retention, and attitudes will be observed. Further proper field
notes will be made by using template given below taken from an example given by Richards
& Farell(2011). A coding technique will be used to save time in the class while writing notes.
Along with coding comments will be noted down easily.

Further few key points were considered while taking notes like-

Purpose of interaction- eliciting ideas, generating ideas, assisting students, making

clarifications, participating in arguments and discussions.

Teacher Questions: Open-ended, guided, yes/no

Student participation: Active, permissive, reluctant

Class…… Duration…..
Class teacher…… Time…..
Student demographic:-
Number of students……, Male….,
Instructional method used……. Female……
Subject….
Lesson topic….

Lenses Coding
Students’attitude A
o Positive A+
 o negative A-
Students’ behaviour B
o Engaged B+
o Disengaged B-
o Making choices B1

Retention (sharing R
knowledge from previous
lesson)
Teacher’s use of language TI
o Type of instructions
o Language used

Academic achievement ( in AA
terms of classroom
participation, discussion,
group work, answering
questions correctly, making
arguments, etc.)
TIME Field notes Pupose Question Participation

8:30

8:40

8:50

9:00

9:10

9:20

9:30
The field notes will give the brief description and the key events occurred in the classroom
(Richards & Farell, 2011). The focus will be on the use of constructivist approach in the
classroom for teaching lesson for instance 5E model used, and the response of student with
respect to the above-mentioned lenses.

Example suggestion of what to record in field notes-

The instructional mode used by teacher is constructivist then further observations will be
made.

Note teacher’s way of assigning inquiry-tasks and students’ perceptions and understandings.

Note students and teacher’s reaction to implementing teaching strategy.

Note how students shared their knowledge developed with other peers in group activities or
tasks (Oh& Rager, 2004)

Note students enjoying their science lessons or not- depicts students’ attitude (Oh & Rager,
2004)
Attached below is the WSU consent form which will be used and given to participants
involved in either and or both data collection processes.
Part C : Data Collection Protocol(Explanation)
The above protocol incorporates a data collection methodology which is qualitative in
nature and can be used in action research (Kervi, Vialle, Howard, Herrington& Okley, 2016,
p. 95). In the field notes the participants are mainly students and teachers of science
classroom, preferably high school students as the teaching methodology considered is
mostly used in middle and high school science classrooms (Singh & Yaduvanshi, 2015). The
observation method is designed for researcher to overview the use of constructivist
methodology used within a single school. Particularly this observation method will generate
the idea and practicality of the theories in the classroom for the researcher as discussed in
the literature, further they are precise and targeted (Efron & Ravid, p.87). The data collected
can be categorized and grouped together for further analysis. Moreover, this method can be
useful for the other research subtopics used and together they can be analyzed by coding
and triangulation method (Kervin et.al, 2016).
The main goal of the field notes is not to make judgement of the teaching but to make
distinction between the positive and negative actions, describing and understanding, so to
better understand the complexities of the classroom and the effective practices used
(Richards & Farell, p. 94-95). The chosen method of data collection will allow to make
deeper analysis of the broader issues faced by educators in the science classroom related to
their pedagogies, especially the focus will be on the themes aroused from the literature.
Further, analyzing based on school context and teaching styles it will show up the barriers
and misconceptions in the application of the constructivist approach in the teaching
pedagogy.
In regard to the chosen sub-topic within the overarching research topic, it supplements the
research on constructivism used in the classroom making a focus especially on the science
classroom for which this method is considered to be the best instructional strategy for
improving students’ attitude and academic achievement (Ayaz, 2015).The other three topics
are dealing with the impacts on students engagement, classroom management, so, this sub-
topic t will help in analyzing the pedagogical approach, its success, barriers in science
classroom as a part of the overarching topic, as it discussed the misconceptions teachers
make and the actual application and benefits to students. This sub-topic shows the insights
of the teaching methodology so that future teachers can make it as a part of their teaching
for benefits of students so that they can make better understanding of the scientific
concepts, terminologies and not only this other KLA teachers can also opt it for making their
classroom active and engaged.
References

Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in

science at secondary level, 12(22), pp. 1074-1079, 23 November, 2017 DOI:
10.5897/ERR2017.3298 Article Number: 8584D6D66651

Ayaz, F.M. (2015). The Effects of the Constructivist Learning Approach on Student’s
Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study

Ayaz, M. F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The Effects of the Constructivist Learning Approach on
Student's Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study. TOJET: The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 143-156.

Birse, M. (1996). The Constructivist Approach to Science and Technology. Australia and
New Zealand Conference, 9-11

Bogar, Y., Kalender, S.& Sarikaya, S. (2012). The effects of constructive learning methods
on students‘academic achievement, retention of knowledge, gender and attitudes towards
science course in matter of structure and characterstics unit. Procedia- Social and Behavioral
Sciences 46, 1766-1770

Bybee, R., Taylor, J. et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and
effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and their Implication for
Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International of Environmental & Science
Education. Vol 3. (4). 193-206

Coulson, D. (2002). BSCS Science: An inquiry approach—2002 evaluation findings. Arnold,

MC: PS International

Dogru, M. & Kalender, S. (2007). Applying the Subject “Cell” Through Constructivist
Approach during Science Lessons and the Teacher’s View. Journal of Environmental &
Science Education, 2007, 2 (1), 3-13 ISSN 1306-3065

Jennifer L. Maeng & Randy L. Bell (2015) Differentiating Science Instruction: Secondary
science teachers' practices, International Journal of Science Education, 37:13, 2065-2090,
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1064553

Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in School Science Education: Powerful Model or the
Most Dangerous Intellectual Tendency? Science & Education 9: 599–610, 2000

Sridevi, K.V. (2013). Effect of constructivist approach on Student’s perception of nature of

science at secondary level. Artha J Soc Sci, 12, 1, 49-66.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2016). Collecting Data :
techniques and principles. In Research for educators(2 ed.), pp. 71-102

OH,S.P. & Yager, R.E.(2004).Development of Constructivist Science Classroom and

Changes in Student Attitudes toward Science Learning. Science Educational Journal,
15(2), 105-113
Rowe, K. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning
difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching?. Effective
Teaching Practices, 1-23

Singh, S. & Yaduvanshi, S. (2015). Constructivism in Science Classroom: Why and How.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2015
ISSN 2250-3153

Wilson, B. (2005). Unlocking potential. Paper presented at the 2005 ANZSOG conference,
University of Sydney, 29 September 2005