Constructivist Methods

From Eduwiki

Jane Pafundi

Summary

Research in science education indicates that an effective method of teaching includes the use of constructivist learning theory to promote student learning (Boddy, Watson & Aubusson, 2003). Constructivist theory allows students to construct their own knowledge about a concept by integrating their prior knowledge views with new information that is being presented. Through this method of instruction, student learning is inquiry-based as students are more actively engaged in doing science, they are more motivated to learn and they develop higher-order thinking skills. In their research Boddy et al. (2003) presented a constructivist model known as the Five E’s (Engagement, Exploration, Explanation, Elaboration and Evaluation) to be used by primary teachers who felt the constructivist method was difficult to implement. Orgill and Thomas (2007) described the use of analogies for each of the steps of the Five E model. They argued analogies motivate and help students visualize abstract concepts by comparing a familiar concept or the analog with a new concept referred to as the target. By design, the Five E model is an inquiry-based approach to learning which has been suggested by curricular reform.

Analysis

The main claim that Boddy et al. (2003) showed through their research was that the Five E model was a successful constructivist strategy for primary teachers to promote student learning. They found those students who were taught with this model used more higher-order thinking skills and that they were motivated because they enjoyed what they were learning which lead to further learning. They stressed that this is not the only model for constructivist learning nor can it be used comfortably by all educators or for all curricular areas. Orgill andThomas (2007) agreed with these claims. Additionally they claimed that analogies provided a powerful tool for the successful implementation of the Five E’s strategy. According to Orgill and Thomas (2007) analogies can be used during each of the five phases to promote constructivist thinking. Both of the articles focused on the Five E model but worked with different grade levels. Boddy et al. (2003) worked with primary educators and Orgill and Thomas (2007) focused their work on secondary students. However, in both cases the results were successful which demonstrated that this is an effective model for all students.

Conclusion

I would agree with the authors of both articles that the Five E model can be a successful model for educators to use to implement constructivist learning theory (Boddy et al., 2003; Orgill & Thomas, 2007). What was very interesting was the use of the analogies for each of these phases. I have used analogies in my classroom but not extensively and Orgill and Thomas (2007) gave specific examples of science analogies that were used for each of the five phases for different purposes. Their findings have inspired me to incorporate analogies more often in my lessons. Due to the methods used in their research I believe the Boddy et al. (2003) study to be both reliable and valid. They used student interviews and taped video footage as primary data sources and then checked for consistency in their findings with the teacher field notes. Triangulation of results in this way increases the reliability of the findings. Additionally, the results were valid because their findings showed the primary teachers were successful using the Five E model. As I continue to learn and improve my teaching methods, turning from a more traditional teacher directed learning environment to a constructivist model I am encouraged by the research I read and the success shown in the research studies. I believe the Five E model and the use of analogies are strategies that will improve student learning in my classroom.

References

Boddy, N., Watson, K., & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the Five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27-42.

Orgill, M. & Thomas, M. (2007). Analogies and the 5E Model. The Science Teacher, 40-45.

By Scott Holloway

Kromhout argued that critics of a constructivist approach to science teaching are concerned that students will learn fewer basic science concepts and that general science achievement will suffer (as cited in Yager & Akcay, 2008, p.3). Yager acknowledged this problem in middle school science and conducted a study to determine if achievement using a constructivist model, Science-Technology-Society (STS), can compare to achievement within a classroom using a textbook as a class organizer (2008). Yager’s research concluded five major findings.

Major findings indicated that middle school students experiencing the STS format with constructivist teaching practices: (1) learned basic concepts as well as students who studied them directly from the textbook, (2) achieved as much general concept mastery as students who studied in a textbook dominated way, (3) applied science concepts in new situations better than students who studied science in a more traditional way, (4) developed more positive attitudes about science, (5) exhibited creativity skills that were more individual and occurred more often, and (6) learned and used science at home and in the community more than students in the typical textbook dominated section. Further, the STS approach coincided well with the kind of teaching across the curriculum that is (recommended as) central to teaching in middle schools. (Yager & Akcay, 2008, p. 1)

Another researcher, Geelan, investigated the effect of constructivist based classroom practices on student achievement in physics education. Geelan found that many advocates of constructivist based learning, ‘teaching for understanding’ view teacher centered based learning, ‘teaching for the exam’ in direct opposition to constructivist based learning (2004). Geleen’s research demonstrated that students were confused by the lack of structure in a constructivist model and felt more comfortable in a teacher lead learning style. Further, in the case of physics, ‘teaching for the test’ met desired outcomes, that being students scoring well on the Western Australian TEE system exams (Geleen, Wildy, Louden & Wallace, 2004).

Yager studied two different middle school science sections taught by two different teachers over the course of one full semester (2008). Research data was gathered in several areas including: results from ten quizzes, results from the semester exam, student responses to daily questions, video tape of instruction and classroom response, a parent response questionnaire and a community questionnaire (Yager et al., 2008). The types of data and frequency of samples combined with pre and post instruction results yield reliability to the study. Unfortunately, the small sample size and the use of only two instructors offer little validity. The Geleen study is also lacking validity as it was a single case study (2004). Geleen acknowledges the weakness of this research and suggests that it is reason to continue further study of the complexities of constructivist based learning and teacher centered learning (2004).

"References"

Yager, R., & Akcay, H. (2008). Comparison of student learning outcomes in middle school science classes with an STS approach and a typical textbook dominated approach. Research in Middle Level Education, 31(7) p. 1-16.

Geleen, D., Wildy, H., Louden, W. & Wallace, J. (2004). Teaching for understanding and/or teaching for the examination in high school physics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), p. 447-462.