Advertisement

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AMONG PALESTINIAN SCIENCE STUDENTS

  • Afif ZeidanEmail author
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the constructivist learning environment among Palestinian science students. The study also aimed to investigate the effects of gender and learning level of these students on their perceptions of the constructivist learning environment. Data were collected from 125 male and 101 female students from the faculty of science in Al-Quds University. In order to assess the constructivist learning environment, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was used in this study; this version has five scales containing six items in each scale. In this study, CLES has been strongly supported by the factorial validity, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the instrument was found to be 0.90. The study revealed that the mean of the items in the CLES was 3.8 based on a five-point Likert-type scale. The result of the present study suggests that there is a statistically significant gender difference in students’ responses to the CLES, with female students’ perceptions of the constructivist learning environment being more positive than those of their male counterparts.

Key words

constructivism learning environment perceptions learning in Palestinian university science education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Akar, H. (2003). Impact of constructivist learning process on pre-service teacher education students’, performance, retention, and attitudes. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Turkey: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. & Chen, C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arizoy, N. (2007). Examining 8th grade students’ perception of learning environment of science classrooms in relation to motivational beliefs and attitudes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.Google Scholar
  4. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M. & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bukova, E. (2007). The effect of a constructivist learning environment on the limit concept among mathematics student teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(3), 1189–1195.Google Scholar
  7. Caprio, M. (1994). Easing into constructivism, connecting meaningful learning with student experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 210–212.Google Scholar
  8. Cavallo, L., Rozman, M. & Potter, H. (2004). Gender differences in learning construct, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhindsa, S. & Shahrizal-Emran (2011). Using interactive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. International Journal of environmental and Science Education, 6(4), 393–414.Google Scholar
  10. Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, M. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J. & Lee, S. S. U. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Korean high schools. Learning Environment Research, 12, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K. & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of ‘floating and sinking’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, B. & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environment, 7(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34–37.Google Scholar
  15. Kesal, F. & Aksu, M. (2005). Constructivist learning environment in English language teaching methodology II courses. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(1), 118–126.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, H., Fisher, H. & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environment in Korea. Research in Science and Technology Education, 17(2), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, H. S. & Butler, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, M. & Tsai, C. (2005). Exploring high school students’ and teachers’ preferences toward the constructivist internet-based learning environments in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 31(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Narli, S. (2011). Is constructivist learning environment really effective on learning and long-term knowledge retention in mathematics? Educational Research and reviews, 6(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
  20. Nix, R., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. (2003). Evaluation an integrated science learning environment (ISLE) using a new form of the constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Callaghan, B. R. (1998). Computer –intensive algebra and students’ conceptual knowledge of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C. & Cakiroglu, J. (2009). Investigating 8th grade students’ perceptions of constructivist science learning environment. Education and Science, 34(153), 38–46.Google Scholar
  23. Reeves, T. (1992). Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems. Invited Keynote paper presented address at the Information Technology for Training and Education Conference, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  24. Tafrova, A., Kirova, M. & Boiadjieva, E. (2012). Science teachers views on the constructivist learning environment in the Bulgarian school. Bulgarian Journal of Chemical Education, 21(3), 375–389.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, P., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). Development of an instrument for assessment constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, P., Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, P., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. (1994). The revised CLES: A questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  29. Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics. Journal of Curriculum studies, 35(1), 25–44.Google Scholar
  30. Tsai, C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Stage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Educational SciencesAl-Quds UniversityEast JerusalemPalestine

Personalised recommendations