Effect of Constructivist Learning on Student Achievement in Pre-service Teacher Education

The purpose of this study was to understand the impact of the social constructivist environment on student achievement in teacher education. An experimental design where the experimental group (n = 66) was subjected to social constructivist environments, and the control group (n = 59) was subjected to traditional learning instruction was used. All the participants were administered an achievement test as a pre-test, and post-test. The same test was also administered as a retention test after a three-month summer holiday. The findings showed that there were no significant mean differences in student achievement in pre-test and post-test scores, however, there was a significant difference in the students’ retention test scores in favour of the experimental group.

REFERENCES:

• Bischoff , P.J. , & Golden, C.F. (2003). Exploring the role of individual and socially constructed knowledge mobilization tasks in revealing preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of a triangle fraction task. School Science and Mathematics, 103(6), 266–273.
• Brooks, J.G. , & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search for understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
• Christianson, R.G. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 687–698.
• Cohen, L. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). London: Routledge.
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., van den Bossche, P., Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problembased learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568.
• Gergen, K.J. (1994). Social construction and the educational process. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.) Constructivism in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Green, S.B. , Salkind, N.J. , & Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Gronlund, N.E. , & Linn, R.L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (6th ed.) New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
• Jadallah, E. (2000). Constructivist learning experiences for social studies education. Social Studies, 91(5), 221–225.
• Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 21–32.
• Korkmaz, H. (2001). The effect of an active learning approach based on multiple intelligence theory on students’ achievement and attitudes. Science and Education, 26(119), 71–76.
• Leidner, D.E. , & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20, 146–163.
• Loyens, S.M. M., Rikers Remy M.J. P, / Schimdt H.G. (2007). The impact of students’ conceptions of constructivist assumptions on academic achievement and drop-out. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 581–602.
• Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, A.J. (2003). Teacher educators and student-directed learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 29–44.
• Kroll, L.R. , & LaBoskey, V.K. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a teacher education program. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 63–72.
• Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, in press revised version, pp. 1–13.
• Rodriguez, A. Jç, & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1017–1045.
• Shunk, D.H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Simons, P.R. J. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern & G.L. Huber (eds.) Active learning for students and teachers. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Stern, D. (1997). What are we learning? In D. Stern & G.L. Huber (eds.) Active learning for students and teachers. Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang.
• Tatto, M.T. (1998). Improving teacher education in rural Mexico: The challenges and tensions of constructivist reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 15–35.
• Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and instruction, 11, 87–111.
• Tynjälä, P. (1997). Developing education students’ conceptions of the learning process in different learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 277–297.
• Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357–442.
• Vygotsky, L. (1994). The development of thinking and concept formation in adolescence. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (eds.), The Vygotsky reader [pp.175–184]. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wilson, L., Andrew, C, & Sourikova, S. (2001). Shape and structure in primary mathematics lessons: A comparative study in the North-east of England and St Petersburg, Russia _ some implications for the daily mathematics lesson. British Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–58.
• Woolfolk, A.E. (2001). Educational psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Yildirim, Z., Özden, Y., & Aksu, M. (2001). Comparison of hypermedia learning and traditional instruction on knowledge acquisition and retention. The Journal of Educational research, 94(4), 207–214.
• Zozakiewicz, C., & Rodriguez, A.J. (2007). Using transformative constructivism to create multicultural and gender-inclusive classrooms: An intervention project for teacher professional development. Educational Policy, 21(2), 397–425.