_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuestFebruary 11 2014 22:19_______________________________________________________________

Search StrategySet# Searched for Databases Results

S3 (constructivist learning ANDscience) AND ftany(yes)

ProQuest Education Journals 11672*

S2 (constructivism AND science)AND ftany(yes)

ProQuest Education Journals 6334*

S1 (science education) ANDftany(yes)

ProQuest Education Journals 421443*

* Duplicates are removed from your search, but included in your result count.

Document 1 of 1 How Constructivist-Based Teaching Influences Students Learning Science Author: Seimears, C Matt; Graves, Emily; Schroyer, M Gail; Staver, John ProQuest document link Abstract: The purpose of this article is to provide details about the beneficial processes the constructivistpedagogy has in the area of teaching science. No Child Left Behind could possibly cause detrimental effects tothe science classroom and the constructivist teacher, so this essay tells how constructivist-based teachinginfluences students and their learning of science. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Full text: Headnote Abstract The purpose of this article is to provide details about the beneficial processes the constructivist pedagogy has inthe area of teaching science. No Child Left Behind could possibly cause detrimental effects to the scienceclassroom and the constructivist teacher, so this essay tells how constructivist-based teaching influencesstudents and their learning of science. Key words: curriculum and instruction, elementary education, science education. Educators face important decisions regarding the education of children that will affect countless millions, sothese choices need to be contemplated systematically and thoroughly. As educators, we must be aware thatmembers of diverse groups will evaluate these decisions in different ways. These issues will be filtered throughthe screens of divergent experiences, group histories, educational problems, and present situations. Thedebates over which direction our society should go in education are not likely to be meaningful or even mutuallyintelligible without some understanding of the complex learning needs of diverse learners in the United States,Canada, and American schools in other countries today. These choices about the future of our society andeducation are especially urgent because we are, currently, in a period of increasing demands for excellence ineducation. The Mandated Change The No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] (U.S. Department of Education 2002) requires states to establishchallenging academic science content standards for all students. NCLB requires districts schools that receivefederal funding to test students in science, a mandate that curriculum and instruction officials say could forceschools to consider cutting back on some of the in-class experiments many teachers value. With this process,all students are expected to understand the content of the science curriculum and then demonstrate thatunderstanding on state exams. Unfortunately, this is likely to cause the constructivist pedagogy to become anextinct way of teaching as teachers favor its old arch-rival, the transmission model for putting a lot of specificinformation in front of students with the hope they will memorize it and feed it back on tests. Reform in Science Education According to Mestre (1991), there are two main instructional practices found in American education. One is thelong-prevalent practice, termed the transmission model of instruction. In this model, students are introduced tocontent through lectures, presentations, and readings, and then they are expected to absorb the transmittedknowledge in ready-to-use form. Although it is not a model of learning per se, the transmission model doesmake a pivotal assumption about learning, namely that the message the student receives is the message theteacher intended. Within this model, students' difficulties in grasping a concept are interpreted as indicators thatthe presentation was not clear or forceful enough to be understood or that the student was not able or preparedto understand the information. Tishman, Jay, and Perkins (1993) maintained that many users of thetransmission model believe that if they make the presentation coherent or persistent by, for example,transmitting at a slower speed or in a louder voice, then students eventually will understand, or at least

remember. Too often teachers make the assumption that by speaking in shorter words and sentences, they canteach the big ideas like relativity to ninth-graders. Perry (1970) argued that teachers should consider thatstudents' intellectual development may not be at a level where they can understand the subtleties of abstractconcepts (Hill 2000). Childhood psychologist, Jean Piaget (1972), described a mechanism by which the mindprocesses information. Piaget argued that a person understands whatever information fits into his or hercurrently established view of the world. Piaget asserted that when information does not fit, he or she must re-examine or re-adjust his or her thinking to accommodate the new information. According to Piaget, teachersneed to be conscious of their students' cognitive development and strategically plan or develop curriculum thatcomplements logical growth. The transmission model often is used because it is the instructional method by which the teachers have beentaught and because it may be the only instructional method some teachers know how to use. Not only does itlack theoretical justification, but also there is mounting evidence that it is not the most efficient or effectivemodel of instruction in science education. Unlike the transmission model, the second major instructionalpractice, which has emerged over the last decade, begins with what is commonly termed the constructivistmodel of learning, constructivist epistemology, or simply constructivism (Mestre 1991). This model contendsthat learners actively construct knowledge. The construction of knowledge is a lifelong process and at any time,the body of knowledge individuals have constructed makes sense to them and helps them interpret or predictevents in their experiential worlds. This view of learning contrasts with the view tacitly assumed in the transmission model. Constructivismcontends that students are not sponges ready to absorb and use transmitted knowledge; the knowledge alreadywritten on their mental slates affects how they interpret new observations and how they accommodate newlyconstructed knowledge. If, during the course of instruction, teachers are not cognizant of students' priorknowledge, then the message offered by the teacher likely will not be the message constructed by the student(Mestre 1991). At the elementary level, the constructivism vs. transmission debate has included a discussion of the benefits ofactivity-based science instruction built on constructivist concepts as opposed to the benefits of more directinstructional methods based on textbooks. Research on activity-based science programs, primarily from the1980s, indicated great value in their use (Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworm 1990). The Elementary ScienceStudy (ESS) originated as a post-Sputnik science curriculum and is now Delta Science Models. Development ofESS began in the early 1960s at Harvard University, with more than 100 scientists and educators involved. Thecore thesis behind ESS was to give students hands-on learning experiences without pushing them toward aparticular application. ESS took a radical approach by encouraging open-ended activities for students. ESSfound that "things" encourage children to ask questions and find their own answers. Educators such as Hunt, Piaget, Bruner, and Almy capitalized on the learning potentials of children. Theseeducators conducted research that illustrated the importance of concrete experiences. According to Sund, thedesigners of the Science Improvement Curriculum Study (SCIS) looked closely at these educators' findings todevelop an effective program of science instruction within an elementary education framework (Sund 1973, 37): The SCIS program allows children to learn science in an intellectually free atmosphere where their own ideasare respected, where they learn to accept or reject ideas, not on the basis of some authority, but on the basis oftheir own observations. Ideally, some of these experiences will carry over to other areas of life and incline thechildren to make decisions on a more rational basis after weighing the factors or evidence involved moreobjectively. Constructivism Constructivist Epistemology According to Phillips (2000), the term constructivism has been used extensively by such a large number ofpeople and for a wide variety of purposes that there is almost no consensus as to its meaning. Constructivism is

a theory of "knowing" and the nature of knowledge. Constructivism is not a new concept; it has deep roots inphilosophy, education, psychology, and anthropology. Within constructivist theory learners actively constructnew meaning and connect it to previous knowledge (Driver 1989). According to Lorsbach and Tobin (1992), constructivist epistemology asserts that the only tools available to aknower are the senses. A person interacts with the environment through seeing, hearing, touching, smelling,and tasting. With raw data from the senses, the individual actively constructs meaning. Martin describes theconstructivist view as grounded in the notion of subjective reality (Martin 2006). Individuals construct their ownreality from their own observations, reflections, and logical thought. Reality must be built by each individual.Constructivists then set out to understand their experiential world by organizing their experiences throughcoherence (Staver 1998). According to Staver, there are two main forms of constructivism. In social constructivism the focal points are thelanguage and the group. In radical/psychological constructivism the focal points are cognition and the individual.Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and language based social interactions andknowledge at a group level. Radical/psychological constructivism emphasizes the importance of cognition inunderstanding how an individual builds and uses knowledge (Staver 1998). Foundation for Modern Cognitive Science Perspective of Learning The goal of the Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice (CLREP) was to bring togetherpractitioners, policymakers, and researchers to react to a report called "How People Learn." The committee wasorganized in 1995 by the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. Department of Education's Officeof Educational Research and Improvement. The CLREP described the early foundations of learning and howcognition emerges from the culture and community of the learner (Bransf ord, Brown, and Cocking 2000). Thecommittee delineated three findings: 1. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions. 2. Students need to develop competence in inquiry and understand facts in the context of a conceptualframework. 3. A metacognitive approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning. In constructivism, knowledge does not represent reality; rather, knowledge represents the dynamic coherentorganization of individual or group thinking. A metacognitive design or approach monitors a student's memory intwo ways: conscious/factual knowledge and unconscious/implicit knowledge. In constructivism, the mind isconstantly constructing new knowledge from experiences; therefore, implicit knowledge is seen as lifeless. Ametacognitive approach to instruction may serve as constructivist-based teaching in two ways: 1. Students must be lucid or conscious to take control of their own learning. 2. The teacher functions as a facilitator while students consciously construct new knowledge. Teaching and learning are interactive processes that support metacognitive development in which both theteacher and the student need opportunities to talk through and check out developing understandings. Studentsneed help changing their ideas about a concept in ways that make sense to them. This change can only beachieved with the help of a teacher or mentor guiding the student through the construction of a new and deeperunderstanding of the concept. According to Bell and Linn (2000), the ideas of science are often counter to a person's intuition of commonsense; unguided experiences with natural interpretations of phenomena can result in misunderstandings.Teaching for meaningful learning takes time. For this reason, the pressure to cover the entire curriculum mayresult in little comprehension on the part of the students. According to Danielson (1996), it is better tounderstand a few key concepts than to memorize pages of facts without in-depth understanding. Unintended learning outcomes occur when students construct understandings that diverge from the teacher'sinstructional goals. A demonstration or explanation that seems clear to the teacher can take on entirely differentmeanings in the eyes of the students (Annenberg Learner 2006, 7):

Students who have not achieved meaningful learning will often incorporate the language and forms of a lessoninto their old ideas without making a fundamental change in their old frameworks. Since each student constructs knowledge in her or his own unique way, fitting new ideas among the old, onlythe student can take accountability for her or his own learning. However, teachers can lead, coach, advise,mentor, and provide rich learning opportunities (Annenberg Learner 2006). The first step to being successfulwithin these roles includes understanding constructivism and the implications of constructivist application to thescience classroom. Constructivism in Science Education According to Mintzes and Wandersee (1998), the history of science education is often categorized by large-scale shifts and emphases in curricular and instructional practices (Masson and Vázquez-Abad 2006). Sciencehistory is full of many examples of debates concerning reality and the nature of science. From a constructivistperspective, science is not the search for truth. It is a process that assists us to make sense of our experientialworld. Using a constructivist perspective, teaching science becomes more like the science that scientists do; itis an active, social process of making sense of experiences, as opposed to what we now call school science.Actively engaging students in science is the goal of most science education reform. Lorsbach and Tobin (1992)embraced this goal as an admirable one and advocate that using constructivism as a referent can assist inreaching that goal. According to Driver (1989), constructivist-based teaching allows students to become actively engaged inrelevant real- world topics through a step-by-step process: (1) Students use prior knowledge to achieve multiplesolutions when solving science problems, (2) students share social significance through social interactions inthe classroom, (3) science is accessible to students at many levels, (4) science becomes fun and interesting forboth students and teachers in the classroom, (5) technology is or may be integrated in a meaningful way, (6)science is or can be communicated to a wider audience, and (7) instruction emphasizes science as an inquiryusing science process skills. A Foundation for Standards-Based Teaching and Learning Constructivism is a theory of what "knowing" is and how students "come to know." Many constructivists believethat the learner creates his or her own knowledge, and the teacher is simply a facilitator. Teachers working asfacilitators with their students provide an excellent framework for improving science education (Bambach 2000).With the teacher as the facilitator, students enter a classroom with their own experiences and prior knowledge.Often these experiences are perceived to be invalid or incomplete. Students must be able to process newinformation without the teacher forcing the information and the content on them. The teacher's job is to createan environment in which the student can actually explore the content. In a constructivist classroom, the role ofthe teacher is to organize the information and concepts using a variety of strategies such as (1) questioning, (2)examining, (3) engaging, (4) exploring, and (5) developing new insights. In addition to these strategies, theteacher needs to break down concepts and allow students to (1) answer their own questions, (2) conduct theirown experiments, (3) analyze their own results individually or in a group setting, and (4) return to the group withtheir own conclusions. In the past decade, educators have shown a rapid movement towards constructivism. Results from a studypublished in the American Scientist showed that the past few decades have not been kind to the behavioristschool. Several studies support the idea that constructivism works best in fact-based, problem-solving learning.Teachers have praised constructivism for its pedagogical design (Hillary 1998). Educational theorists andresearchers are constantly examining constructivist-based instructional methods primarily in the context ofteaching cognitive content. In summary, constructivism can serve as a philosophy and a referent for science teaching (Lorsbach and Tobin1992). Although constructivism is an epistemology, it also can be understood as a theory of learning. Studentsactively construct knowledge in the process of learning through interactions with phenomena; they build up

meaning of the phenomenon through interactions within a social framework (Laine, Lavonen, and Meisalo2004). Additionally, epistemological positions of constructivist theory often are challenged by philosophers andscientists, but researchers generally agree that students learn by making sense of phenomena as theyexperience them, evaluate their qualities, and attempt to make sense of them within a socially acceptablecontext in light of prior knowledge (Bell and Linn 2000). References References Annenberg Learner. 2006. Finding solutions that work. Los Angeles: The Annenberg Foundation. Available at:www.lmrner.org/workshops/privuniv/pup08.html. Bambach, R. 2000. NCTE session summaries. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Available at:www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ncte/summaryl.html. Bell, P., and M. C. Linn. 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Webwith KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8): 797-817. Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking J. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, andschool. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Danielson, C. 1996. Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development. Driver, R. 1989. The construction of science knowledge in school classrooms. In Doing science: Images inscience education, ed. R. Millar. 40-41. New York: Falmer. Hill, L. 2000. Theory, practice and reflection: A pre-service primary mathematics education programme.Teachers and Teaching 6(1): 23-39. Hillary, J. 1998. Using exploration to determine pattern significance. Journal of Southern Agricultural EducationResearch 56(1): 13-14. Laine, A., J. Lavonen, and V. Meisalo. 2004. Current research on mathematics and science education.Proceedings of the 21st annual symposium of the Finnish Association of Mathematics and Science EducationResearch, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Lorsbach, A., and K. Tobin. 1992. Research matters - To the science teacher: Constructivism as a referent forscience teaching. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Monograph 5(2): 21-27. Martin, D. 2006. Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach, 4th ed. Belmont, CA:Thomson/Wadsworth. Masson, S., and J. Vázquez- Abad. 2006. Integrating history of science in science education through historicalmicroworlds to promote conceptual change. Journal of Science Education and Technology 15(3/4): 257-68. Mestre, J. P. 1991. Learning and instruction in pre-college physical science. Physics Today 44(9): 56-62. Mintzes, J., and J. H. Wandersee 1998. Reform and innovation in science teaching: A constructivist view.Science Education 87(6): 849-67. Perry, W. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart,&Winston. Phillips, D. C. 2000. Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Ninety-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. 1972. The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Shymansky, J. A., L. V. Hedges, and G. Woodworth. 1990. A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-basedscience curricula of the 607S on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(2): 127-44. Staver, J. R. 1998. Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching.Journal of Research of Science Teaching 35(5): 501-20. Sund, R. B. 1973. Becoming a better elementary science teacher. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Tishman, S., E. Jay, and D. N. Perkins. 1993. Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to

enculturation. Theory Into Practice 32(3): 147-53. U.S. Department of Education. 2002. No child left behind. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Available at: www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml? src=pb. AuthorAffiliation C. Matt Seimears and Emily Graves Elementary/Early Childhood/ Special Education, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA M. Gail Schroyer Elementary Education, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA John Staver Science Education Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA AuthorAffiliation Address correspondence to C. Matt Seimears, Elementary/Early Childhood/Special Education, Emporia StateUniversity, 1200 Commercial St., Box 4037, Emporia, KS 66801, USA. E-mail: cseimear@emporia.edu Subject: Science education; Learning; Research & development--R & D; Students; Core curriculum; Theory;Federal funding; Elementary schools; People: Piaget, Jean (1896-1980) Publication title: The Educational Forum Volume: 76 Issue: 2 Pages: 265-271 Number of pages: 7 Publication year: 2012 Publication date: Apr-Jun 2012 Year: 2012 Publisher: Kappa Delta Pi Place of publication: West Lafayette Country of publication: United States Publication subject: Education--Higher Education ISSN: 00131725 CODEN: EDFOBX Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature Document feature: References ProQuest document ID: 1010620041

Document URL:http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/1010620041?accountid=42518 Copyright: Copyright Kappa Delta Pi Apr-Jun 2012 Last updated: 2012-11-20 Database: ProQuest Education Journals

BibliographyCitation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

C, M. S., Graves, E., M, G. S., & Staver, J. (2012). How constructivist-based teaching influences studentslearning science. The Educational Forum, 76(2), 265-271. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.library.uitm.edu.my/docview/1010620041?accountid=42518

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright 2014 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions