Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 7–19

The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies

Articles And Reports

Abstract

The effects of a constructivist approach on academic achievement, self-concept and learning strategies, and student preference were investigated. The 76 six graders were divided into two groups. The experimental group was taught using the constructivist approach while the control group was taught using the traditional approach. A total of 40 hours over nine weeks was used to implement the experiment. The instruments used were as follows; mathematics tests administered by the teacher, self-concept inventory, learning strategies inventory, and a classroom environment survey. The results are 1) constructivist teaching is more effective than traditional teaching in terms of academic achievement; 2) constructivist teaching is not effective in relation to self-concept and learning strategy, but had some effect upon motivation, anxiety towards learning and self-monitoring; 3) a constructivist environment was preferred to a traditional classroom.

Key Words

Constructivist teaching Academic achievement Self-concept Learning strategies Teaching preference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASCD (1995).Constructivism facilitator’s guide. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks, J.G., Brooks, M.G. (1993).The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  3. Dewey, John (1916).Democracy and education. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  4. Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Chaos in Instructional Design.Educational Technology. 30(2), 32–34.Google Scholar
  5. Kant, Immanuel S. (1781). Rev.(1999).The critics of reason. London: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, Hibae (1993). Telesis Investigations I for Academic Identity of Educational Technology.Korean Educational Technology, 8(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  7. Kim, Jongsuk (1997).Constructivist teaching workshop. Taejon: Educational Technology Workshop Center, Chungnam National University.Google Scholar
  8. Kim, Jongsuk (2002), The effects of teacher training as constructivist on teacher behavior and student achievements.Faculty Research Papers on The Study of Education. 18(2) Educational Development Research Institute, Chungnam National University.Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn, Thomas (1962).The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Piaget, Jean (1976). To understand is to invent: The future of the education. New York: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  11. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching.Syntheses. 80(1), 121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993), Learning and adaptation in the theory of constructivism,Communication and Cognition, 26(3), 393–402Google Scholar
  13. Weinstein, C.E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock, M.C. (Eds.)Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan, 315–327.Google Scholar
  14. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978)Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Yager, R.E. (1991). The Constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education.The Science Teacher, 56(6), 52–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationChungnam National UniversityKorea
  2. 2.DaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations