Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
u
"
e
n
s
A
e
n
"
i
n
g
#
a
$
Consrucivis Class
!ra"iional Class
Figure ! Wee4ly attendan0e in te t3o la2 se0tions.
Finally, videotapes of te la2 se0tions 3ere analy6ed -sing a 7ystemati0
=2servation Geport 2ased on a form developed 2y Ded Flanders ":;#9&. Tis data 3as
analy6ed -sing a t3o)3ay analysis of varian0e, after te data 3as transformed -sing te
ar0sine form-la. Te analysis of varian0e so3ed a signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een te
t3o la2s in many 0ategories, in0l-ding amo-nt of time spent le0t-ring, amo-nt of st-dent
intera0tion, st-dent parti0ipation "as4ing or ans3ering 1-estions& and silen0e or time
3en no dis0-ssion or a0tivity is ta4ing pla0e. =ter 0ategories tat 3ere analy6ed
in0l-ded time spent 2y te instr-0tor giving dire0tions, time te instr-0tor spent
1-estioning te st-dents, praise and en0o-ragement given, ands)on la2 or field 3or4 and
time spent off)tas4 2y st-dents. Do signifi0ant differen0e 3as fo-nd in tis latter gro-p
of 0ategories, indi0ating tat te t3o la2 se0tions spent appro>imately te same
proportion of teir 0lass time engaged in tese a0tivities.
"iscussion
7everal statisti0ally signifi0ant differen0es 3ere fo-nd 2et3een te t3o la2
se0tions. Te 3ee4ly 1-i6 s0ores 2et3een te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p and te traditional
gro-p so3ed a 0lear trend. As a 0lass, te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p s0ored signifi0antly
iger over te 0o-rse of te semester tan teir traditional 0o-nterparts every 3ee4,
even to-g 2ot gro-ps 0overed te same material, did te same a0tivities and too4 te
same 1-i6. As noted earlier, te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p too4 te 1-i66es 2efore te
traditional gro-p and 0onse1-ently did not ave an opport-nity to dis0-ss test 1-estions
prior to te 1-i6. Te st-dents in te 0onstr-0tivist la2 spent time 3or4ing tro-g
0allenges and dis0-ssing vario-s alternatives in small gro-ps, rater tan simply
listening to te material presented 2y te instr-0tor and ta4ing notes. For e>ample,
definitions of terms 3ere not simply givenE instead te st-dents ad to 0reate teir o3n
definitions as a team and ten e>plain tese to te 0lass. Be0a-se te st-dents in te
e>perimental gro-p 3ere more a0tively involved in teir learning e>perien0e, tey
retained more information and 3ere a2le to re0all and apply tis information 2etter tan
te 0ontrol gro-p.
Te res-lts of te 70ien0e Attit-de Inventory also demonstrated tat te st-dents
in te 0onstr-0tivist la2 ad a 2etter attit-de a2o-t s0ien0e tan tose in te traditional
la2. Tis 3as s-pported 2y st-dent 0omments at te end of te semester. 7t-dents in te
Wednesday 0lass 0ommented repeatedly tat tey really en5oyed tis s0ien0e 0lass, and
stated tat tey learned more in te la2s tan tey ad in teir le0t-re se0tions. Teir
ent-siasm d-ring la2 a0tivities 0o-ld 2e 0learly o2served, as 3ell. Many st-dents in te
e>perimental pop-lation also as4ed 3eter Dr. Lord 3o-ld 2e tea0ing d-ring te
se0ond semester, 2e0a-se tey 3anted to get into is la2 se0tions. Tis 3as ig praise
indeed, sin0e tese st-dents 3ere non)ma5ors and often didnCt need to ta4e any more
s0ien0e 0o-rses.
Analysis of te attendan0e data for te t3o la2 se0tions yielded interesting res-lts
tat 0oin0ided 3it 0lassroom o2servations. As determined 2y te t)test, tere 3as a
signifi0ant differen0e in st-dent attendan0e 2et3een te 0onstr-0tivist la2 and te
traditional la2. Attendan0e 3as 0learly iger in te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p. Tis 3o-ld
seem to indi0ate tat interest 3as iger in te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p, sin0e tey made a
greater effort to 2e in 0lass tan st-dents in te traditional gro-p. It appeared tat
mem2ers of te traditional la2 se0tion 3ere not as interested in te 0lass and didnCt 0are if
tey made it to la2. 7t-dents in te traditional 0lass 3ere less motivated, sin0e tey did
not 2elong to a IteamJ 3o 0o-nted on teir parti0ipation, and terefore so3ed a
de0rease in overall attendan0e.
7t-dents in te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p did, in fa0t, say tat tey en5oyed 0oming to
la2 2e0a-se tey 3ere a2le to intera0t 3it oter mem2ers of te team, ma4ing la2 more
interesting. /omments from te st-dent eval-ations at te end of te 0o-rse in0l-ded
Ima4es -s tin4, not 5-st loo4 in te 2oo4J and II li4ed te intera0tionJ. =ter val-a2le
feat-res of te 0o-rse noted 3ere te ands)on 3or4 3it oter st-dents and te open
dis0-ssion of te la2 material. 7t-dents in te traditional la2 se0tion eiter didnCt
0omment on te 0lass at all, or 0omplained tat te la2s 3ere 2oring. /onse1-ently, it
seems tat 0onstr-0tivist tea0ing did elp alleviate te 2oredom often asso0iated 3it
non)ma5ors s0ien0e 0lasses and instilled more appre0iation for te material tat 3as
0overed.
Te video analysis so3ed some very 0lear differen0es 2et3een te traditional
0lass and te 0onstr-0tivist 0lass. Ten different a0tivities 3ere monitored d-ring te
analysis and te statisti0al tests r-n on tese so3ed many differen0es 2et3een te t3o
gro-ps. 7ome a0tivities, o3ever, did not ave statisti0ally signifi0ant differen0es. Tis
indi0ated tat 0ertain a0tivities 3ere 0arried o-t at similar levels in 2ot gro-ps,
demonstrating tat tere 3as not favoritism or spe0ial assistan0e given to one gro-p or
te oter 2y te instr-0tor. =f te five tea0er 0ategories analy6ed, only one so3ed a
signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een te t3o gro-ps "Ta2le :&. Tis 0ategory 3as te amo-nt
of time spent le0t-ring, 3i0 3o-ld 2e e>pe0ted to 2e different, sin0e tat is one of te
primary fa0tors separating 0onstr-0tivist tea0ing from te traditional 0lassroom. =ter
tea0er 0ategories analy6ed 3ere giving dire0tions, 1-estioning st-dents, giving praise or
en0o-ragement and la2 or ands)on a0tivities. Te la04 of a signifi0ant differen0e in
tese 0ategories demonstrates tat 2ot gro-ps ad similar opport-nities in te t3o
0lasses. Do more en0o-ragement or dire0tion 3as given to te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p, in
oter 3ords, to improve teir performan0e, and te la2 a0tivities played a similar part in
2ot 0lasses.
Table 1 Per0entage of 0lass time spent on tea0er 2eaviors in te la2 se0tions.
Teacher Beha#iors $%ideo Analysis&
Teaching
Method
'i#ing
"irections
Lecturing( )uestioning
Students
*raise or
+ncouragement
Lab or
,ands
-n
Constructi#ist :*.( :%.% ::.* $.( $9.:
Traditional :(.$ $H.* :$.H '.' $(.H
K 7tatisti0ally signifi0ant differen0e
Fo-r st-dent 2eaviors 3ere analy6ed in te videos "Ta2le $&. =f tese, tree
so3ed a signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een te traditional 0lass and te 0onstr-0tivist 0lass.
Tese 0ategories in0l-ded st-dent 1-estions or 0omments initiated 2y te tea0er,
1-estions or 0omments initiated 2y te st-dents and st-dent)st-dent intera0tion. Te
res-lts of te statisti0al analysis indi0ated tat te st-dents in te 0onstr-0tivist la2
se0tion 3ere more li4ely to ans3er 1-estions 3en prompted 2y te professor, and 3ere
more li4ely to as4 1-estions or parti0ipate in 0lass dis0-ssions on teir o3n. Tey also
spent more time 3or4ing 3it teir teammates dis0-ssing 0on0epts and rea0ing
0on0l-sions. Te only st-dent a0tivity tat did not so3 a signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een
te t3o gro-ps 3as te amo-nt of time spent off)tas4 or Ifooling aro-ndJ. Tis n-m2er
3as a0t-ally very lo3 in 2ot gro-ps. Tis does indi0ate tat, alto-g te st-dents in
te 0onstr-0tivist gro-ps spent a large part of teir time intera0ting 3it ea0 oter, te
generally remained fo0-sed on te a0tivities in 0lass and did not display te 2eavior
pro2lems often 0ited as a pro2lem asso0iated 3it 0onstr-0tivist learning sit-ations.
Table ! Per0entage of 0lass time spent on st-dent and general 2eaviors in te
la2 se0tions.
Student and 'eneral Beha#iors $%ideo Analysis&
Teaching
Method
)uestions
$Teacher
Initiated&(
)uestions
$Student
Initiated&(
Student.Student
Interaction(
-// Tas0 Silence(
Constructi#ist *.: '.$ $9.( 9.' 9.(
Traditional '.' :.' (.# 9.: H.$
K7tatisti0ally signifi0ant differen0e
Te final item analy6ed on te videotapes 3as te amo-nt of time spent in
silen0e, 3en no dis0-ssion or a0tivity 3as ta4ing pla0e "Ta2le $&. Tis item did so3 a
signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een te t3o gro-ps. It 3as iger for te traditional gro-p
tan for te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p, 2e0a-se te traditional gro-p 3as rel-0tant to ans3er
1-estions posed 2y te instr-0tor. Tey parti0ipated less in 0lassroom dis0-ssions, and
did not intera0t as m-0 3it oter st-dents at teir la2 ta2les, even 3en 3or4ing on
gro-p la2 a0tivities. Tis 3as one item noted 2y st-dents in te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p
3en as4ed to des0ri2e 3at tey li4ed most a2o-t te 0lass. Many st-dents 0ommented
tat 2eing a2le to 3or4 togeter and dis0-ss tings 3it oter mem2ers of teir team
made te a0tivities more f-n. /onse1-ently, tey spent less time doing individ-al 3or4,
and more time dis0-ssing te a0tivities in 3i0 tey 3ere involved. Tis so0ial aspe0t is
a primary strengt of te 0onstr-0tivist learning model.
Conclusions
Te res-lts of tis st-dy did s-pport te val-e of 0onstr-0tivist or st-dent)0entered
learning. It 3as anti0ipated tat te 0onstr-0tivist 0lass 3o-ld ave a iger average on
te 3ee4ly 1-i6 grades, and tis 3as s-pported 2y statisti0al analysis. We sa3 2etter
s0ores not only on o00asion, 2-t every single 3ee4 in te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p. Ges-lts of
te 70ien0e Attit-de Inventory also demonstrated tat te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p ad a
2etter o-tloo4 on s0ien0e at te end of te semester tan te st-dents in te traditional
gro-p. Attendan0e demonstrated a signifi0ant differen0e 2et3een te gro-ps 3en
0ompared -sing a statisti0al analysis, as 3ell. Tis indi0ated tat more st-dents in te
0onstr-0tivist 0lass made an effort to attend la2 on a reg-lar 2asis.
Analysis of te videos made of ea0 0lass so3ed tat te traditional 0lass
e>i2ited less st-dent parti0ipation and intera0tion tan te 0onstr-0tivist 0lass, 3ile
losing none of te ands)on a0tivities or instr-0tor s-pport. Tey did ave more le0t-re
time, 2-t tis is a defining fa0tor for a traditional 0lassroom. 7t-dent 0omments from
mem2ers of te 0onstr-0tivist gro-p indi0ated a ig level of satisfa0tion, and in0reased
st-dent parti0ipation 3as evident to any o2server. 7t-dents 3ere more 3illing to
vol-nteer ans3ers and as4 1-estions of te instr-0tor in order to 0larify material, and
team dis0-ssions res-lted in many ne3 points 2eing introd-0ed. Te data 3e 0olle0ted
from tis st-dy 0ertainly s-pported te 2enefits generally attri2-ted to 0onstr-0tivist
tea0ing.
Appendi1 I
Systematic -bser#ation Report
/lassLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
DateLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
TimeLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Instr-0torLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Category Tallies Total *ercent
Teacher
Biving Dire0tions
Le0t-ring
A-estions 7t-dents
PraiseM+n0o-ragement
La2MHands =n
Student
A-estionM/omment
"Tea0er)Initiated&
A-estionM/omment
"7t-dent)Initiated&
7t-dentM7t-dent
Intera0tion
=ff Tas4
'eneral
7ilen0e
Total
Literature Cited
Adams, Pa-l +. and Berald H. Kro04over. :;;;. Stimulating Constructivist Teaching
Styles Through the Use of an Observation Rubric. No-rnal of Gesear0 in 70ien0e
Tea0ing. ?ol. 'H, Do. *!;(();#:.
Flanders, Ded A. :;#9. Analy6ing Tea0ing Beavior. Addison)Wesley P-2lising /o,
In0, Pilippines.
Ballager, N. and N. Par4er. :;;(. 7e0ondary Tea0er Analysis Matri> ) 70ien0e
?ersion.
Lord, Tomas G. :;;%. Using Constructivism to Enhance Student Learning in College
Biology. No-rnal of /ollege 70ien0e Tea0ing. ?ol. $', Do. H!'%H)'%*.
Lord, Tomas G. :;;#. A Comarison Bet!een Traditional and Constructivist
Teaching in College Biology. Innovative Higer +d-0ation. ?ol. $:, Do. '!:;#)$:H.
Lord, Tomas G. :;;*. Cooerative Learning That Really "or#s in Biology Teaching.
Te Ameri0an Biology Tea0er, ?ol. H9, Do. *!(*9)(**.
Lord, Tomas G. :;;;. A Comarison Bet!een Traditional and Constructivist
Teaching in Environmental Science. No-rnal of +nvironmental +d-0ation. ?ol. '9, Do.
'!$$)$*.
=pal4a, N-lianne. :;;*. The Effects of Constructivist Teaching $ethods on %igh School
Science Students OM70 TesisP. A0ademi0 Li2rary, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, PA.
70e-rman, Beoffrey. :;;*. &rom Behaviorist to Constructivist Teaching. 70ien0e
+d-0ation. ?ol. H$, Do. :!H);.
7ymans4y, Names A. :;;$. Using Constructivist 'deas to Teach Science Teachers
About Constructivist 'deas( or Teachers Are Students( Too) No-rnal of 70ien0e Tea0er
+d-0ation. ?ol. ', Do. $!(')(#.
7prag-e, De2ra and /ristoper Dede. :;;;. Constructivism in the Classroom* 'f '
Teach This "ay( Am ' +oing $y ,ob- Learning and Leading 3it Te0nology. ?ol. $#,
Do. :!H)$:.
7tofflett, Gene T. :;;*. .utting Constructivist Teaching into .ractice in Undergraduate
'ntroductory Science. +le0troni0 No-rnal of 70ien0e +d-0ation, ?ol. ', Do. $. Getrieved
De0em2er ':, $99: from ttp!MM-nr.ed-MomepageM50annonMe5seMstofflett.tml.
?irginia Asso0iation of 70ien0e Tea0ers, :;;*. "hat is constructivism and !hat does it
mean for science educators- /-rrent Topi0s in 70ien0e +d-0ation. Getrieved Nan-ary $,
$99$ from ttp!MM333.pen.4:$.va.-sMAntologyMPavM?aLAsso0L70iM0onstr-0t$.tml.
@ager, Go2ert +. :;;:. The Constructivist Learning $odel. Te 70ien0e Tea0er. ?ol.
(*, Do. H!(')(#.
@ore, Larry D. $99:. "hat is $eant by Constructivist Science Teaching and "ill the
Science Education Community Stay the Course for $eaningful Reform- +le0troni0
No-rnal of 70ien0e +d-0ation, ?ol. (, Do. %. Getrieved Nan-ary $, $99$ from
ttp!MM-nr.ed-MomepageM0ro3terMe5seMyore.tml.
8oller, Uri. $999. Teaching Tomorro!/s College Science Courses0Are "e 1etting 't
Right- No-rnal of /ollege 70ien0e Tea0ing, ?ol. $;, Do. H!%9;)%:%.