Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 418–431 | Cite as

Do Junior High School Students Perceive Their Learning Environment as Constructivist?

  • Asely Moustafa
  • Orit Ben-Zvi-AssarafEmail author
  • Haim Eshach


The purpose of this study is to examine the manner in which the features of a constructivist learning environment, and the mechanisms at its base, are expressed in junior high school students’ conceptions. Our research is based on an integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, deigned to provide a wider ranging and deeper understanding. Eight hundred and forty eighth- and ninth-grade students from over 15 schools participated in the study. Of the 840 students who completed the questionnaire, the explanations of 200 well-written questionnaires were further analyzed qualitatively. The findings of the study are presented in terms of the four scales employed in the CLES, namely the autonomy scale, the prior knowledge scale, the negotiation scale, and the student-centeredness scale. The quantitative results achieved here concur with parallel studies conducted around the world. The findings indicate that a considerable portion of the students perceive their learning environment as a constructivist one and report positive attitudes toward the way they are being taught. In terms of the qualitative results, however, it appears that in some cases, the students’ explanations reveal that in fact, and contrary to the bare quantitative results, some students do not perceive their learning environment as being constructivist. This raises the question of whether the fact that students recognize the factors associated with constructivist teaching is indeed an indication that such teaching exists in practice. This finding emphasizes the importance of combining qualitative and quantitative methods for arriving at a balanced view of classroom occurrences.


Constructivist learning environment Junior high school Qualitative and quantitative methods 


  1. Aldrich J (1995) Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule. Stat Sci 10:364–376Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel DP (1968) Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Zvi Assaraf O, Orpaz I (2009) The development of junior high school students’ understanding of earth systems and the human role as a learning outcome of the “life at the poles” study unit. Res Sci Educ 40(4):525–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boddy N, Watson K, Aubusson P (2003) A trial of the five Es: a referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Res Sci Educ 33(1):27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21Google Scholar
  6. Creswell JW, Tashakkori A ( 2007) Editorial: differing perspective on mixed methods research. J Mixed Method Res 1:303–308Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Measur 64:391–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duffy TM, Jonassen DH (1992) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  10. Eshach H, Dor-Ziderman Y, Arbel Y (2011) Scaffolding the “scaffolding” metaphor: from inspiration to a practical tool for kindergarten teachers. J Sci Educ Technol. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9323-2
  11. Fraser BJ (1998) Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning Environ Res 1:7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gijbels D, van de Watering G, Dochy F, van den Bossche P (2006) New learning environments and constructivism: the students’ perspective. Instr Sci 34(3):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gijbels D, Segers M, Struyf E (2008) Constructivist learning environments and the (im) possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instr Sci 36(5–6):431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glynn SM, Taasoobshirazi G, Brickman P (2009) Science motivation questionnaire: construct validation with nonscience majors. J Res Sci Teaching 46(2):127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greeno JG, Collins AM, Resnick LB (1996) Cognition and learning. In: Berliner DC, Calfee RC (eds) Handbook of educational psychology. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, pp 15–46Google Scholar
  16. Harris KR, Alexander PA (1998) Integrated, constructivist education: challenge and reality. Educ Psychol Rev 10:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hathaway RS (1995) Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative research: implications for institutional research. Res High Educ 36(5):535–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong Zuway-R, Lin Huann-shyang (2011) An investigation of students’ personality traits and attitudes toward science. Int J Sci Educ 33(7):1001–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirch SA, Siry CA (2012) “Maybe the algae was from the filter”: maybe and similar modifiers as mediational tools and indicators of uncertainty and possibility in children’s science talk. J Res Sci Educ 42(2):261–280Google Scholar
  20. Loyens SMM, Gijbels D (2008) Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: introducing a multi-directional approach. Instr Sci 36:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mantzicopoulos P, Patrick H, Samarapungavan A (2008) Young children’s motivational beliefs about learning science. Early Childh Res Q 23:378–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mortimer E, Scott P (2003) Meaning making in the secondary classroom. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  23. Nix RK, Fraser BJ, Ledbetter CE (2005) Evaluating an integrated science learning environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learn Environ Res Int J 8:109–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Novak JD (2002) Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (liphs) leading to empowerment of learners. Sci Educ 86:548–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins D (1992) Smart schools. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Perkins D (1999) The many faces of constructivism. Educ Leader 57(3):6–11Google Scholar
  27. Philips DC (1995) The good, the bad and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educ Res 24(7):5–12Google Scholar
  28. Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rani G (2003) Growth in students’ attitudes about the utility of science over the junior high and high school years: evidence from the longitudinal study of American youth. J Sci Educ Technol 12:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salomon G (1998) Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be concerned with. Res Dial Learn Instruct 1:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H, Huang T-Y, Lee Y-H (2007) A meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. J Res Sci Teaching 44:1436–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shkedi A (2005) Multiple case narrative: a qualitative approach to studying multiple populations. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Taber KS (2006) Beyond constructivism: the progressive research programme into learning science. Stud Sci Educ 42(1):125–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor PC, Fraser BJ (1991) CLES: an instrument for assessing constructivist learning environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching. Lake Geneva, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  35. Taylor PC, Fraser BJ, Fisher DL (1997) Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. Int J Educ Res 27:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tenenbaum G, Naidu S, Jegede O, Austin J (2001) Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: an exploratory investigation. Learn Instruct 11:87–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tobin K, Tippins D (1993) Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. AAAS Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Topping KJ, Thurston A, Tolmie A, Christie D, Murray P, Karagiannidou E (2011) Cooperative learning in science: intervention in the secondary school. Res Sci Technol Educ 29:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsai CC (2000) Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research 42(2):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tuan H, Chin C, Shich S (2005) The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. Int J Sci Educ 27:639–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Zee E, Minstrell J (1997) Using questioning to guide student thinking. J Learn Sci 6(2):227–269Google Scholar
  42. Von Glaserfeld E (1993) Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In: Tobin K (ed) The practice of constructivism in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson B (1996) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright JM (2008) The comparative effects of constructivist versus traditional teaching methods on the environmental literacy of postsecondary nonscience majors. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno. Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyGoogle Scholar
  46. Zohar A (1996) Transfer and retention of reasoning skills taught in biological contexts. Research in Science and Technological Education 14(205–219):78Google Scholar
  47. Zohar A (2004) Higher order thinking in science classroom: students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Science & technology educational library, vol 22. Kluwer, DorchrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asely Moustafa
    • 1
  • Orit Ben-Zvi-Assaraf
    • 1
    Email author
  • Haim Eshach
    • 1
  1. 1.Science and Technology Education DepartmentBen-Gurion University of the NegevBe’er ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations