Effects of a Constructivist Approach in Science Instruction and Learning
From Eduwiki
Summary By: Arpa Ghazarian
Summary
Constructivist theory of learning and teaching has been a topic under major study in education since the contributions of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky (Liang & Gabel, 2005). Constructivism states that learners construct the knowledge they have obtained by fitting new information into preexisting ones through experiences and reflection. In the study by Hardy, Jonen, Moller, and Stern (2006) and the study by Liang and Gabel (2005), a constructivist learning environment was created to demonstrate their support of this approach in the teaching and learning of elementary school science. Hardy et al. (2006) was interested in how conceptual change could prove successful in a constructivist learning environment, specifically by focusing on changing, or replacing, the misconceptions students have about why things float or sink. They studied the effects of high versus low instructional support during the various hands-on discovery activities and the class discussion that followed. The results showed that students in the group receiving the high instructional support not only obtained higher scores on the posttest, but also scored much higher on the transfer test, which was given one year later to measure students’ conceptual change. Liang and Gabel’s (2005) study investigated a new constructivist approach, Powerful Ideas in Physical Science (PIPS), on prospective elementary school teachers to see if they could help them adopt a science teaching method that would promote conceptual understanding and positive attitudes in their own learning. They found that the participants who were assigned to the PIPS group versus the traditional lecture-laboratory group were not statistically successful in improving students’ understanding of science or fostering a positive attitude.
Analysis
Similarities. The likeness in the claims made by both studies stems from some key principles of constructivism, such as the importance of conceptual change and student-student interactions. Hardy et al. (2006) and Liang and Gabel all agree that conceptual change is a crucial feature in a constructivist learning environment because, “learning occurs when the learner recognizes a need and becomes dissatisfied with existing ideas” (Liang & Gabel, 2005, p. 1145). In other words, as educators, we need to make sure that we are aware of our students’ misconceptions and preexisting knowledge when designing our instruction so that students successfully make adjustments to their conceptual understanding of science and gain an accurate knowledge base. Since constructivist learning and teaching focuses on student-centered activities, Hardy et al. (2006) and Liang and Gabel (2005) designed the activities and discussions so that the students were the primary leaders in constructing their own knowledge. Lastly, the researchers in both studies tested their claims by using triangulation throughout their investigations. For example, Hardy et al. (2006) used a pretest, posttest, a one-year transfer (follow-up) test, implementation checks, and videotape recordings. Liang and Gabel (2005) conducted a pretest, posttest, survey, interviews, and videotape recordings to ensure reliability.
Differences. An obvious dissimilarity between the study by Hardy et al. (2006) and that of Liang and Gabel (2005) is that the former examines the constructivist method of learning while the latter focuses on the teaching. For instance, Hardy at al. (2006) sequenced the discovery activities so that the preceding experiment could provide more conceptual understanding for conducting and examining the next activity. Liang and Gabel (2005) focused on scaffolding the teaching sequence so that the teacher could coach students from extracting and elaborating ideas, then applying those ideas, to finally discussing and resolving any conflicts. Second, even though student-centered learning played a key role in both studies, Liang and Gabel (2005) stated that developing cooperative teams is a necessary component in designing a constructivist lesson. Hardy et al. (2006) were able to find favoring results even though students were not grouped into teams. Finally, and the most interesting difference in the claims of the two studies, Liang and Gabel (2005) noted that under constructivism we need to be careful of making the faulty assumption that students are self-motivated and care enough to be active participants in their own learning, which is why this method can fail at times.
Conclusion
In my own teaching I have used some of the principles of the constructivist approach for certain activities. I feel that this method has been quite successful in dispelling some confusions and misconceptions that my own students have had. One of the lessons I do on density resembles the study by Hardy et al. (2006). I find that this is a unit that requires scaffolding since students at a young age already develop ideas as to why some things float and others sink, and their conclusions are usually premature and inaccurate. However, I feel that more instructional guidance is always needed in this approach because I worry that allowing activities to be more student-centered can also confirm or create more misconceptions than if the student-teacher interactions played an equal role. Thus, more prompting during activities and class discussions can make learning more effective in a constructivist environment.
References
Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307-326.
Liang, L.L. & Gabel, D. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1143-1162.
