Abstract
Two large sections of introductory biology for nonmajors were given the same course information with two different teaching styles. One group (N=86) was presented material in the traditional teacher-centered manner of lecture and laboratory while course information was given to the second group (N=98) in the student-centered, constructivist format. Learning was assessed in both groups with the same evaluative instruments and the results compared. This analysis revealed that the experimental (constructivist taught) population did significantly better than the control (traditionally taught) population. Furthermore, the students in the experimental group maintained a better attitude throughout the semester and enjoyed the introductory course more than the students in the control population.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978).Educational psychology: A cognitive view, (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bybee, R. (1993). An instructional model for science education,Developing Biological Literacy. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
Caprio, M. (1994). The SCST position paper,Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 143–144.
Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992).Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching,Synthese, 80, 121–140.
Glasson, G., & Lalik, R. (1993). Reinterpretation of learning cycle from a social constructivist perspective.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 187–207.
Good, R. (1993). The many forms of constructivism.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1015.
Halyard, R. (1993). Introductory science courses: the SCST position statement.Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 29–31.
Kyle, W. & Shymansky, J. (1989). Enhancing learning through conceptual change teaching.NARST News, 31, 7–8.
Lawson, A., McElrath, C., Burton, M., James, B., Doyle, R., Woodward, S., Kellerman, L., & Synder, J. (1991). Hypothesis-deductive reasoning skill and concept acquisition: Testing a constructivist hypotheis.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 953–970.
Lorsbach, A. & Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching.NARST News, 34, 9–11.
Lorsbach, A., Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & LaMaster, S. (1994). An interpretation of assessment method in middle school science.International Journal of Science Education (in press).
Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1993, April). Enhancing undergraduate student learning of cell biology: Moving away from the lecture podium. Presentation at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for understanding.The American Educator, 17, 28–35.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education.The Science Teacher, 9, 53–57.
Additional information
Thomas Lord is a professor in the Biology Department at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He has delivered over 75 presentations at professional science and education meetings and has published manuscripts in the journal of the National Science Teachers Association, National Association for Research in Science, and the National Association of Biology Teachers. Professor Lord has been working with constructivist models in science instruction since 1993 and has offered over a dozen presentations and workshops on the use of constructivism in the teaching of college courses.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lord, T.R. A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innov High Educ 21, 197–216 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01243716
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01243716