Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional strategies and motivating factors: a mixed methods study of pre-service teachers’ perceptions

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is constructivist teaching still valuable and relevant in an era where standardized testing reigns supreme? If so, how do college students, who have been subject to a considerable amount of testing, respond to constructivist pedagogy that nurtures student autonomy? This QUAN-QUAL study, conducted at a mid-sized university in the United States (U.S.), describes preservice teachers’ evaluation of a range of strategies grounded in constructivist principles, to varying degrees, and the factors that influenced their interest and willingness to participate. The researchers used SPSS to analyze survey data from 57 preservice teachers, and Nvivo to analyze qualitative data from seven interviews, the course syllabi, and the participant-researcher’s instructional narrative. The quantitative data confirmed that participating preservice teachers showed a preference for constructivist-based strategies over strategies that were more traditional. Additionally, participants were motivated primarily by grades, future career plans, learning goals, course requirements, and course value. Qualitative data deepened our understanding of the relationship between these variables. This study contributes to a limited body of literature that describes how preservice teachers respond to different types of pedagogy, the learning experiences they value, and the factors that propel them to participate in these experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. ERIC Digest. [ED426986].Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED426986.pdf.

  • Ahmad, I., & Rana, S. (2012). Affectivity, achievement motivation, and academic performance in college students. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 27(1), 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, B. G. (1992). Project on scope, sequence, and coordination: A new synthesis for improving science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(1), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Taylor, P. C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, T. D., Kniola, D. J., Lewis, A. L., & Fowler, S. B. (2015). Evidence of self-regulated learning and academic motivation among undergraduate students. Journal of Geography, 114(4), 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimbola, O., & Daniel, O. I. (2010). Effect of constructivist-based teaching strategy on academic performance of students in integrated science at the junior secondary school level. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(7), 347–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, G. M. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive effect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606294235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J. M. (2014). Differences in eighth grade science students and teacher’s perceptions of students’ level of input into academic planning and decision making (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.

  • Chomsky, N., & Robichaud, A. (2014). Standardized testing as an assault on humanism and critical thinking in education. Radical Pedagogy, 11(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and Qualitative research (4th edn.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi, N. A. (2013). Constructivist translation classroom environment survey (CTLES): Development, validation and application. Translation & Interpreting, 5(2), 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi, N. A. (2015). Validation and application of the constructivist learning environment survey in English language teacher education classrooms in Iran. Learning Environment Research, 18, 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9176-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonson, S., & Irby, B. (2008). Ten tips for producing a top qualitative study. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8–38). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatlin, L. S. (1998). The effect of pedagogy informed by constructivism: A comparison of student achievement across constructivist and traditional classroom environments. (Ph.D Dissertation), University of New Orleans, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text Database.

  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50(1), 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granas, K. A. (2006). A comparative study of achievement results between teacher-centered and student-centered 9th-grade algebra classrooms. (Ph, D., Dissertation), C., & University, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text Database.

  • Gresalfi, M. S., & Lester, F. (2009). What’s worth knowing in mathematics? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 264–290). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist based teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry: Effects of evaluation and cue value on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, R., & Enochs, L. (2009). Accounting for preservice teachers’ constructivist learning environment experiences. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Ithaca: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, D. A., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2009). Methods for teaching: Promoting student learning in K-12 classrooms (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, L. (2004). Permission to forget: And nine other root causes of America’s frustration with education. Milwaukee: Quality Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julyan, C., & Duckworth, E. (2005). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning science. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 61–79). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalchman, M. (2011). Preservice teachers’ changing conceptions about teaching mathematics in urban elementary classrooms. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist based teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (2009). “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens”: What about direct instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 291–310). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, L. R., & LaBosky, V. K. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a teacher education program. Action In Teacher Education, 18(2), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, S. A. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Evaluating benefits and drawbacks from college instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(2), 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowman, J. (1990). Promoting motivation and learning. College Teaching, 38(4), 136–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luan, W. S., Bakar, A. R., Mee, L. Y., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2010). CLES-ICT: A scale to measure ICT constructivist learning environments in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 295–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mader, C. E. (2009). “I will never teach the old way again”: Classroom management and external incentives. Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makanong, A. (2000). The effects of constructivist approaches on ninth grade algebra achievement in Thailand secondary school students. (Ph, D., & Dissertation), University of Minnesota, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text Database.

  • Maranto, R. (2016). Testing patience. Academic Questions, 29(3), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-016-9575-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. A., & Paul, L. (2018). Education gone bad: Cautionary tales from the United States. Children’s Literature in Education, 49(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maypole, J., & Davies, T. G. (2001). Students’ perceptions of constructivist learning in a community college American History II survey course. Community College Review, 29(2), 54–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Child development and education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, M., & Perks, K. (2014). Motivation to learn: Transforming classroom culture to support student achievement. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson-Johnson, D. P. (2007). A mixed methods study of the effects of constructivist and traditional teaching on students in an after-school mathematics program. (Ed.D Dissertation), Fielding Graduate University, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text Database.

  • Nezvalova, D. (2008). Constructivism in science teacher education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 9, 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorthuis, A., Juvonen, J., Thomas, S., Denissen, J., Orobio de Castro, B., et al. (2015). Do grades shape students’ school engagement? The psychological consequences of report card grades at the beginning of secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 842–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, K. M., & Nelson, K. L. (2010). Planning effective instruction: Diversity responsive methods and management (4th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulfrey, C., Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Autonomy and task performance: Explaining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegler, A., & Quale, A. (2010). Editorial: Can radical constructivism become a mainstream endeavor? Constructivist Foundations, 6(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweinle, A., & Helming, L. M. (2011). Success and motivation among college students. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 14(4), 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirvani, H. (2009). Does your Elementary mathematics methodology class correspond to constructivist epistemology? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 245–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? Paper presented at the Educational Forum.

  • Stotsky, S. (2016). Testing limits. Academic Questions, 29(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudzina, M. R. (1997). Case study as a constructivist pedagogy for teaching educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for College and University Teachers (13th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), The Abbey, Fontane, Wisconsin.

  • Taylor, P. C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). A constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. R. (1994). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundation of mixed methods research. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topolovcan, T., Rajic, V., & Matijevic, M. (2017). Constructivist teaching: Theory and empirical research. Retrieved from https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/888871.Constructivist_teaching_theory_and_empirical_research_2017.pdf.

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. E. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P. (2016). Teachers’ implementation of constructivist teaching: Does career motivation make a difference? (Ed.D dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Indiana PA. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text Database

  • Wanpen, S., & Fisher, D. L. (2006). Creating a collaborative learning environment in a computer classroom in Thailand using the CLES. In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: World views (pp. 297–312). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zandvliet, D. B. (2012). Development and validation of the place-based learning and constructivist environment survey (PLACES). Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q., & Redifer, J. (2016). Expecting immediate grades: Impacts on motivation, effort, and performance. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Lin, H. (2018). The new developments of constructivism theory and its reflection on college English teaching in the era of new media―a case study of international textile trade English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(6), 649–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professional Studies of Education, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Davis 307, 570 S Eleventh Street, Indiana, 15705, USA

    Crystal Machado

  2. Elementary Education, Changshu Institute of Technology, Chengdao Building, Donghu Campus, Changshu, 215500, China

    Peizhen Wang

Authors
  1. Crystal Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peizhen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peizhen Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Machado, C., Wang, P. Instructional strategies and motivating factors: a mixed methods study of pre-service teachers’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 20, 407–422 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9569-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9569-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation