A study of the effects of constructivist practices on ...

A study of the effects of constructivist practices on teaching and learning of science in elementary school

Nasir Mahmood R01-2002

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of doctorate course The United Graduate School of Education Tokyo Gakugei University Tokyo, JAPAN. March 2004

To my parents, for their love, affection and prayers & To my wife and children (Fahad and Zarish) for their care, support and allowing to use their time for my research

Acknowledgement

There is a popular saying that raising a child takes a village and I learned during this research that it takes a community of insightful persons to make a research project through. I feel myself a blessed to be surrounded by many people of opinion and insight. I am extremely indebted to Professor Kono Yoshiaki for his thorough support, matchless guidance and providing relaxed friendly environment needed to work with full concentration and dedication. His wide experience in research and school teaching and administration served an enormous role in development and progression of this research work. My thanks are also due to Professor Kishi Manabu, Professor Morimoto Shinya, Professor Shimojo Takashi, Professor Fushimi Yogi and Professor Shinohara Fumihiko for their insightful ideas, review and time through out this research. The collaboration, free access and flexibility offered by Mr. Fujita Rumimaru, the science teacher, to his science class and his research oriented thinking was a invaluable contribution to this work. His long experience was priceless factor in refining research instruments and understanding classroom dynamics. The relentless help of Ms. Nakajima Chisato, Ms. Miwa Tsuchida, Mr. Murayama Teppei and Ms. Tassaneeya Salee in collecting, processing and translating data made me overcome my insufficiency in Japanese language skill and manage the huge volume of data to be ready for analysis. I am also grateful to all those undergraduate students who helped in preparing classroom protocols from a bulk of video lessons. I will never forget the love and affection of hundreds of students from Setagaya elementary school who were the source of results your vision will encompass through

out

this

thesis.

They

always

enthusiastically

filled

research

Performa’s,

questionnaires and worksheets in addition to their class work. I am also thankful to the staff of all schools, especially Setagaya elementary school for their warm welcoming attitude that was helpful in quickly adjusting and becoming a part of the school environment. Finally, my appreciations for MONBUKAGAKUSHO for providing me the opportunity to work in competitive Japanese research environment and my parent university (The University of Punjab) for relieving me from my duties to study in Japan.

N.M.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication Acknowledgment Summary

PART I

Review of Literature

CHAPTER 1: Conceptual Framework 1.1 Articulating philosophical and theoretical perplexities 1.2 Funneling variety of philosophical positions 1.2.1 What is knowledge? 1.2.2 How knowledge is arrived at? 1.2.3 What constitutes learning? 1.3 Contemporary research efforts 1.4 Research problem 1.5 Methodology 1.6 Significance of the study

1 4 6 10 12 14 15 20 23 25

PART II: Teacher’s beliefs and teaching of science CHAPTER 2: Elementary School Science Teachers’ Beliefs about Science and 28 Science Teaching in Constructivist Landscape 2.1 Developments in research on teacher’s belief 29 2.2 Purpose and research question 31 2.3 Method 32 2.3.1 Data source 32 2.3.2 Description of the belief domains 33 2.3.3.Participants 34 2.4 Data Analysis 35 2.5 Results 35 2.6 Discussion 43 2.6.1 Nature of scientific knowledge 43 2.6.2 Effects of technology on teacher’s role 44 2.6.3 Student participation in lesson 44 2.6.4 Teaching and learning of science 45 2.6.5 Nature of student evaluation 46 CHAPTER 3: Constructivist Practices and Consequent Transformation in Beliefs Towards Science: A Case Study of Elementary School Science 47 Teacher 3.1 Teacher Profile 48 3.2 Objectives 49

3.3 Method

49

3.3.1 Sources of data 3.3.2 Procedure of study 3.4 Data analysis 3.5 Results 3.5.1 Comparison of changes in beliefs through score on science teacher’s beliefs questionnaire 3.5.2 Conformity between Mr. Fujita’s beliefs and constructivist principles 3.5.3 Match between perceptual change and practice 3.5.4 Perceived changes vs. Actual changes: analyzing class video 3.6 Discussion

50 50 51 52 53 59 68 71 75

PART III Measures of aptitude as the tools of constructivist learning CHAPTER 4: Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) as Informant of 77 Constructivist Teaching and Learning 4.1 Development of Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) 78 4.1.1 Related research 78 4.1.2 Objectives 81 4.1.3 Method 81 4.1.3.1Participants 81 4.1.3.2 Item construction. 82 4.1.3.3 Procedure 83 4.1.4 Method of data analysis 83 4.1.5 Results 83 4.1.5.1 Factor analysis 83 4.1.5.2 Reliability and validity 86 4.1.6 Discussion 87 4.2 Longitudinal study of SSAS for long term change 89 4.2.1 Rationale 89 4.2.2 Data collection 89 4.2.3 Method and data analysis 90 4.2.4 Results 91 4.2.5 Discussion 96 CHAPTER 5: Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) as Informant for 100 Constructivist Teaching and Learning 5.1 Development of Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) 100 5.1.1. Related research 100 5.1.2 Rationale 104 5.1.3 Method 104 5.1.3.1 Item Construction 104 5.1.3.2 Participants 106 5.1.3.3 Procedure 106 5.1.4. Results 107 5.1.4.1 Factor Analysis 107

5.1.4.2 Description of CLS

5.1.4.3 Reliability and validity 5.1.5 Discussion 5.2 Longitudinal study of CLS for long term changes 5.2.1 Rationale 5.2.2 Data Analysis 5.2.3 Method and data analysis 5.2.4 Results 5.2.5 Discussion 5.3 Correlation between CLS and SSAS 5.3.1 Results 5.3.2 Discussion

109

110 112 116 116 116 117 117 122 125 125 127

PART IV Perspectives from classroom practices CHAPTER 6: Focusing on Practice Related Issues: A Reflective View from Inside the Classroom 6.1 Issued addressed 6.2 Method 6.2.1 Context of the study 6.2.2 Data collection 6.2.3 Data analysis 6.3 Reflections from classroom 6.3.1 Creating the context and exploring the student’s pre-constructs 6.3.2 Connecting to curricular activities 6.3.3 Addressing individual needs of students by extending supportive activities 6.3.4 Using presentation as a method of construction 6.3.5 Conducting the unit 6.3.6 Time utilization pattern 6.4 Discussion 6.4.1 Time management 6.4.2 what a constructivist teacher is expected to do? 6.4.3 Nature of student involvement to ensure active learning

129 130 131 131 132 132 133 133 135 135 140 145 145 146 147 149 151

CHAPTER 7: Changes in the Students’ Understanding of the Phenomenon of 154 ‘Burning’ 7.1 Objectives 155 7.2 Method 156 7.2.1 Development of pre- posttest 156 7.2.2 Participants 156 7.2.3 Class arrangement and schedule 157 7.2.4 Formation of lessons 157 7.3 Results 157 7.3.1 Question wise analysis 157 7.4 Trends in individual reasoning across the questions 172

7.5 Discussion

CHAPTER 8: Vulnerabilities of Constructivist Practice: Precautions and Remedies. 8.1 Objectives 8.2 Method 8.3 Results 8.3.1 Reliance on experimental experiences for knowledge construction can play either way 8.3.2 Conceptual change can go either way 8.3.3 Interesting lesson not necessarily result in construction of knowledge 8.3.4 Activity learning is necessary but not sufficient condition for learning 8.3.5 The concentration of class talk among few willing may isolate the students less motivated 8.4 Discussion CHAPTER 9: Relationship between Student Self-assessment, Note Taking and Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) Score 9.1 Self-assessment and CLS score 9.1.1 Objectives 9.1.2 Method 9.1.2.1 Data analysis 9.1.2.2 Description of the self-assessment sheet 9.1.3 Results 9.1.3.1 Overall results from the whole class analysis 9.1.3.2 Results for high CLS and low CLS groups 9.1.4 Discussion 9.2 Note taking and CLS score 9.2.1 Objectives 9.2.2 Method 9.2.1.1 Participants 9.2.2.2 Data collection 9.2.2.3 Data analysis 9.2.3 Results 9.2.3.1 Results of class notes analysis 9.2.3.2 Results of CLS analysis 9.2.3.3 Correlation between CLS score and total number of class notes lines 9.2.3.4 Correlation between CLS score and percentage of self- thought class notes 9.2.4 Case Analysis 9.2.5 Discussion

174

177 178 179 180 181 188 192 195 198 199 203 203 204 204 206 207 208 208 211 220 222 223 223 223 223 224 225 225 226 227 227 228 231

CHAPTER 10: Constructivist Classroom: Elements of Class Discourse as 234 Measure of Constructivist Practice 10.1 Objectives 235 10.2 Method 236

10.2.1 Participants 10.2.2 Data collection

236 236

10.2.3 Data analysis 10.2.3.1 categorizing the class discourse 10.2.3.2 Analysis of teacher questions by level and type 10.3 Results 10.3.1 Comparison of time management 10.3.2 Comparative analysis of classroom discourse 10.3.3 Comparative analysis of monitoring talk 10.4 Discussion

PART V

236 237 239 241 241 243 246 248

Conclusions 251

CHAPTER 11: Conclusion, Implications and Further Research Questions 11.1 A look through sub-studies 11.1.1 Implications of philosophical and theoretical constructivism on teaching and learning practice 11.1.2 Science Teachers’ beliefs and science teaching

251 understanding

of 251 253

11.1.3 Relevance of attitude and learning approach to constructivist learning 254 practices 11.1.4 Classroom practices and science learning 255 11.2 A look through overall objectives

259

11.3 Further research questions

266

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ANNEXTURES

List of Tables Table No 1.1 2.1 2.2

2.3 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Title Summary of Ontological, epistemological standings of different variants of constructivism and process of learning Description of the constructs inquired in five domains of science teacher’s beliefs Results of One-way ANOVA & Between-Group Difference Analysis by using TUKEY HSD test for Four Groups of Practicing/Prospective Science Teachers on Five Domains of Teacher Beliefs Inter-group d-score between Teacher Types on Five belief domains Changes in the teacher’s beliefs about science in two years and comparison of with mean score of other teachers on five domains of teacher beliefs Sample distribution by grade and gender Description of Factor used a measure of Science Study Attitude Scale Factor analysis of the Science Study Attitude Scale Factor item mean, reliability and inter-factor correlation Mean and Standard Deviation for all Factors of SSAS gender-wise Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘interest’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘confidence’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘career choice’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on all three factors Number of Participants by Grade and Gender Factor Loadings of the 18-item Version of the CLS Description of scales of CLS Factor item mean, reliability and inter-factor correlation The nominative validity Mean and Standard Deviation for all Factors of CLS gender-wise Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘active participation’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘collaboration’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘Self-responsibility’ factor Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘Total’ mean score Correlation between CLAS and SAS scores on all factors Students Responses to Question 1(i) Overall Conceptual Patterns found in question 1 (b) Students Responses to Question 2(i) Overall Conceptual Patterns found in question 2 (b)

Page 7-9 34

37 42 53 81 82 85 86 92 95 95 96 96 106 108 110 111 112 118 120 120 121 121 126 158 164 165 167

7.5 7.5

Table No 7.7 8.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 10.1 10.2 10.3

Students Responses to Question 3(i) Overall Conceptual Patterns found in question 3 (ii)

Title Overall Conceptual Patterns found in question 3 (iii) Extent of students’ participation in class talk/discussion The scheme of lesson showing the content covered and lesson number for each class of grade 5 Description of questions in the self-assessment sheet Difference in the quality of students’ prior knowledge between high CLS and low CLS group Difference in the quality of students’ prior knowledge between high CLS and low CLS group Difference in the quality of students’ prior knowledge between high CLS and low CLS group Difference in the quality of students’ prior knowledge between high CLS and low CLS group Framework for constructivist class discourse analysis Level of classroom questions Categories of teacher questions by level and type

169 170

Page 172 199 205 207 213 215 218 220 238 240 247

List of Figures Fig. No 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

Title Positioning constructivism(s) on the basis of ontological belief Organizational lay out of research report Box-plots for each of five belief domains and teacher types Comparison of Means pattern among Japanese practicing & prospective science teachers, and Pakistani practicing science teachers on five beliefs domains. Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of teacher talk 2001and2003 Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of student talk 2001and2003 Normal distribution of the total score of Grade 5 & 6 students on SSAS Timings and frequency of SSAS data collection Comparison of median and range of student scores on all factors of SSAS Comparative changes in mean scores for each factor over a period of one year Timings and frequency of CLS data collection Comparison of means score over four times of CLS score Comparison of median and range of scores over four times data collection Correlation between CLS and SSAS Pattern of Data Analysis Lamp with holes shown Excerpt taken from student class work notes-I Excerpt taken from student class work notes-II Apparatus showing two candles inside the jars; one open at top and other open at the bottom Sample of students’ responses from class discussion (before demonstration) A student keenly observing the activity and watching flame going off in jar having in-let at bottom while flame in other jar is still lighted Sources of information identified by the group of students Air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane, krypton, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and Xenon One of the models of state of air build by the student Comparison of time distribution in the traditional lessons Pretest Posttest Comparison of Students Response in Question 1(i) Examples taken from pre and posttest-I Examples taken from pre and posttest-II Examples taken from pre and posttest-III Pre-test Post-test Comparison of Students Reasoning in Question 1 (i) Examples taken from pre and posttest-IV Pretest Posttest Comparison of Students Responses in Question 2 (i)

Page 10 24 38 40 73 74 87 90 93 94 117 119 122 126 133 134 134 134 136 137 139 141 143 144 146 159 160 160 161 162 165 166

7.8 7.9 7.10

Fig. No 7.11 7.12 7.13 8.1

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 10.1 10.2 10.3

Pretest Posttest comparison of Student Reasoning in Question 2 (ii) Pre- Posttest Comparison of Students Reasoning in Question 3(ii) Examples taken from pre and posttest-V

Title Pretest Posttest Comparison of Students Reasoning in Question 3 (iii) Examples taken from pre and posttest-VI Examples taken from posttest-VII The teacher explaining the method to use the vacuum jar (right) and experimental setting drawn on the white board (left) by the group of students to perform the experiment. Experimental results of change in weight when 10gms of salt is dissolved in 50-ml of water Five methods suggested for students to create vacuum (air free condition) to investigate necessity of air for germination. A model for pre-activity/experiment preparedness Opening made between logs No opening made Comparison of percentage of students’ responses on questions of self-assessment sheet Phase-wise comparison of percent responses of among three classes of grade 5 Question-wise comparison of percent responses of among three classes of grade 5 at different phases Question 1-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Question 2-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Question 3-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Question 4-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Question 5-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Question 6-Comparison of percentage of High and Low CLS on Self-assessment Normal distribution curve for number of lines in class notes Normal distribution curve for the percentage of self-thought class notes Normal distribution curve for the CLS score Correlation between CLS score and number of lines in class notes Correlation between CLS score and percentage of self- thought class notes Class notes of student no. 14 (CLS= 64) Pie graph for the class notes of student no. 14 (CLS= 64) Class notes of student no. 5 (CLS= 84) Pie graph for the class notes of student no. 5 (CLS= 84) Comparison of lesson management during 2001 and 2003 Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of teacher talk 2001and2003 Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of student talk 2001and2003

166 169 171

Page 171 173 173

282 185 189 191 197 197 208 209 210 212 214 214 216 217 219 225 226 226 227 228 229 229 230 231 242 244 255

Summary

Constructivism in education is a nascent phenomenon yet to make its place in the science classroom and still a lot is desired to make it a popular practice in actual classroom. Most of the practicing teachers see constructivist-learning theory as natural and obvious in its explanation of the process of learning and seems to be enthusiastic in using supportive pedagogies in their classroom. Despite this willingness, there was hardly any data available to support these natural and obvious looking constructivist principles. Therefore, it is important to see what will emerge or what kinds of difficulties are to be faced when these very ideal looking principles are put into practice. This research investigated classroom issues related to teaching and learning of science in grade five and six students to help understanding the practicability of the constructivist principles in the actual classroom situation. Chapter one lays out the theoretical parameters of this research by reviewing the philosophical and psychological aspects facing constructivism. Fourteen variants of constructivism were found on the basis of their respective positions on question like existence of ontological reality, construction of knowledge, the means to arrive that knowledge and learning process. On philosophical ground this study assumed the knowledge of science as external reality same as Piaget’s personal constructivism and on

i

account of knowledge, the social relevance of knowledge in science was taken as undeniable but still finally this is individual who is ultimately responsible for the construction, under the influences from the social and cultural environment. Learning was assumed as active process in which learner’s active mental participation along with physical involvement is essential. This study contributed to the present body of knowledge on constructivism by addressing the old issue of conceptual change using constructivist perspective in that length, with a focus on its potential of respecting individual differences. It also equipped teachers with instruments like Constructivist Learning Scale (CLS) and Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) to know about the learning and attitudinal traits of individual students in manageable time. Therefore making quantitative and quantitative information available to researchers and teachers to build confidence in constructivist practice and at the same time have awareness of the probable difficulties of constructivist classrooms. In all, the study addressed nine research questions, each of which is discussed in the following paragraphs. Chapter two addressed the question of identification of practicing/prospective Japanese and practicing Pakistani teachers’ beliefs for proximity with constructivist principles and Chapter three followed the process of teacher’s professional development through exposure to constructivist learning. The questionnaire used for this purpose comprised of 28 statements covering five domains of beliefs about science and science teaching (Nature of scientific knowledge, effects of technology on teachers, student participation in lesson, ii

teaching and learning of science, nature of student evaluation). It was found that Japanese practicing/prospective teacher’s beliefs were quite in conformity with constructivist principles except the beliefs on effects of technology. The case study found that continuous practice of constructivist approach in the class over a long period of time resulted in pro-constructivist changes in the practices in all domains but ‘teaching and learning of science’. The highly structured result oriented school system, and administrative mind-set was assumed as reason of negative change in the above-mentioned domain. The change perceived by the teacher in his teaching was supported by comparative analysis of the lessons recorded during 2001 and 2003 on the same unit of content. Chapter four and five discussed the development and validation of Science Study Attitude Science (SSAS) and Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) respectively. In addition, the long terms effects of constructivist instruction on both SSAS and CLS and correlation between the two was also determined. SSAS comprised of three factors i.e. Interest, confidence and carrier choice, while CLS had active involvement, collaboration and self-responsibility as factors. The instruments can be effective tool for constructivist teachers to have basic information necessary to meet individual needs of students. This study found no significant change in student score on any of the measures over a period of one year during which constructivist teaching was used. On the CLS, also no significant change was observed except some increase in self-responsibility. The reason for no change was the high initial score (73%), and partial conformity of current teaching practices and iii

constructivism. The stability in the SSAS score was contrary to results of most of the studies reporting decline in attitude, thus can be assumed as positive effect of constructivist approach. The two measures i.e. SSAS and CLS had a correlation of .703 in total and intra-factor correlation between career choice (SSAS) and all factors of CLS was weak. Thus leading to the conclusion that higher attitude ensures the students interest and potential willingness to get involved in the learning of science but doesn’t ensure the correct approach of learning leading to the development of understanding. A student highly willing to learn science may not know the suitable method of learning. The next five chapters (six to ten) dealt with effects of constructivist practice on the various aspects of classroom dynamics. Chapter six took three issues for which constructivist practice is mostly criticized; time management, what it takes to be constructivist teacher and nature of students’ active involvement by analyzing qualitative data from the unit of Burning in grade 6. The results showed that time schedules could be met if the content is taught by taking larger concepts as base of lesson rather than teaching topics by topic. Constructivist teaching demands teacher to be able to help students find out the insufficiencies in their concepts, channeling students knowledge, connect student talk, guide students to the consensus on what they found. As far as active students involvement is concerned, active in constructivist perspective means ‘mentally active’ in addition to ‘physically active’. Chapter seven dealt with changes in students understanding resulting in constructivist iv

learning environment by analyzing the changes in the quality of scientific reasoning among learners during the lessons on phenomenon of burning by using pretest-posttest data. An improvement in the student reasoning was recorded through sophistication of expression and depth in reasoning. In addition, students showed wider variety of reasoning because of wider participation in class discussion but encouragingly were also able to reach agreed upon understanding during discussion with class fellows by the help of teacher mediation. The change towards accepted reasoning was observed for most of the students, which showed wider appeal of constructivist approach to individual learners. It was also observed that student reasoning is quite context dependent. A student using correct reasoning in one context failed to reason correctly in other context requiring similar reasoning. Alongside these encouraging observations it is cautioned that as constructivism exposes to wider options thus has the potential that students are misled if not monitored correctly and/or made to tackle problems involving multiple concepts. The next chapter took the above-mentioned vulnerabilities of constructivist instruction and tracking of the means used by the teacher to deal with such vulnerabilities. The data was basically classroom protocols, pre-test & post-test, and teacher’s reflection of lessons after each lesson in the form of unstructured interview. The results showed that heavy reliance on experimental results conducted by students to verify their own suppositions can easily lead to logically consistent misconception if not thoroughly thought out and discussed before embarking on an activity. Also knowledge of experimental error and v

methods of minimizing it was very vital for avoiding creation/strengthening misconception. Furthermore, it was seen that higher interest in lesson does not necessarily mean higher understanding. The lesson driven by students’ interest only may not always lead to the constructivist learning. The teacher needs to remind and keep the students focused on their objectives to translate their interest into constructive learning opportunity. The participation of whole class in any class activity is not for granted result of constructivist instruction but should be a part of teacher’s strategy. Chapter nine discussed the differences in the ability of self-assessment and class note taking between the high CLS (30 students) and low CLS (30 students) groups of grade 5 students (115 students). The results showed that students scoring higher constructivist learning scale (CLS) have responded more frequently and exactly to the questions on the self-assessment sheet and have more originality and compactness in the class notes as compared to the students of low CLS score. The differences may prove a resource for the teacher while planning for developing the self-assessment ability in the students of varying learning approach by addressing individual needs, thus increasing the effectiveness and reliability of students’ self-assessment and note taking. Chapter ten analyzed the classroom discourse form year 2001 and 2003 for the all lessons of solution using lesson protocol to assess the shift towards constructivist practice. The analysis to teacher and student talk showed significant improvement in student involvement

in

lesson

and

quality

teacher

questioning

by

type

indicating vi

pro-constructivist shift but at the same time decline in reliance on exploring student’s previous knowledge and increase in lower level questions raised doubt. Thus indicating the need for continuous self-assessment by the teacher to keep check on all aspects of compatibility with constructivist practice. The study investigated nine classroom related issues and concluded that constructivist teaching and learning has potential to improve quality of science learning by changing the present mind-set. Most of the criticism levied is based on theoretical reservations of the researchers and teachers and falsely high expectation in the first place. Using the foundation provided through results of this study, further investigation can be launched into each of the questions in different social and cultural set up to add to the validity of the results.

vii

Chapter 1

Conceptual Framework If he (teacher) is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind. Kahlil Gibran (p.56)

The dialogue below is one of many scenarios observed during the science lessons

repeatedly in the course of last three years while collecting data for this research

Context: students were supposed to find out that whether air is necessary condition for the germination of seeds or not. They suggested five different methods for observing germination of seeds in the air free condition. They performed the activity in groups made on the basis of their selection of method. The following extract is from the discourse that took place in lesson following this activity discussing the results of one of the groups. T: The students who used method ‘O’ (the students dipped the seed inside the water assuming there is no air in water) S6: yes T: yes, (your result ) S6: Air is not needed as germination happened (even without it).. T: It is not necessary condition? Not needed? Not condition? S7: But I think little differently. (Another student from the same group) T: I see, Is it different? S7: Some air………. T: Wasn’t that the water from which air was extracted. S7: Unnn, but some air was still left inside. T: Unnn, got it. From where got in? S7: Probably, while extracting from water. T: You mean it was still left inside …………………………………….. T: So, you are saying although you made air free condition but still air left inside and because of that bud came out. S7 Nod T: So, it means it is necessary. Can you give the reason? S7: pause…..no reply T: From your result it cannot be said. Are you saying this from the results of the others? S7: Unnn…I don’t know T: It means you cannot say anything it is needed or not. Do you want to do the experiment again? So it is still question, not solved. Original conversation was in Japanese as follows: T:………

1

S6: T: S6: T: S7: T: S7: T: S7: T: S7: T: …………………………………….. T: S7:---------------T: S7: pause…..no reply T: S7: T: question question T= Teacher S6= student and the following number (6) shows student number

The degree of students’ engagement, openness of sharing results and arguing, self-questioning, indulging in interactive inter-student and teacher-student dialogue, challenging inconsistent experimental results, teacher building upon students findings and knowledge etc. etc., are some of the features depicting the changing nature of science classroom’s teaching-learning dynamics. All these indicators negate the traditionally held imagery learning as a result of transfer of knowledge and corresponding roles of teacher and student in the learning episode. All these indicators lead towards the progression of constructivism into the classrooms, contrary to the tradition, science classroom is no more a place where students are sitting in very properly arranged rows, ready to receive and supposedly accept whatever is spoken at

2

them. It is no more taken for granted that students develop replicas of what is poured into their ears by the teacher or surroundings. A classroom dominated by teachers is not anymore assumed as an ideal place for learning of science to happen. Although this kind of linear approach to science teaching lost its appeal to a large number of theorists decades ago but it is not scarce to find classrooms still practicing dogmatic pedagogies for reasons like simplicity of use, grade oriented evaluation, use of student results as criteria of teacher’s performance among school authorities, easy to show qualitative improvement in student learning etc. etc. Windschitl (2002: pg. 131-175) identified four teacher related dilemmas hampering the penetration of constructivist practices to the classroom learning i.e. conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political. The conceptual dilemma spurs out of bulging theoretical variations and philosophical confusions resulting from various positions taken by constructivists and making it difficult for the teachers to develop a resonant understanding of constructivism and their respective philosophical beliefs. An attempt will be made in this chapter to bring an organization to varying constructivism(s) to develop a framework for the present research and facilitate the practicing teacher to make sense of it. But the intellectual activity of establishing harmony between constructivist principles and teacher’s personal philosophical, theoretical and psychological beliefs alone is insufficient to bring any practical change in student learning in the class unless bridged with rest of the three dilemmas mentioned above. Without belittling the importance of political dilemma, which is 3

most of the time beyond the control of the teacher, this research will dominantly deal with rest of the two dilemmas i.e. pedagogical and cultural (used strictly in terms of classroom culture; relationship between teacher and students, among students) for their direct relation to classroom practices. In addition the issue of development of understanding in a class environment providing ample chances of free speech, collaboration, furnishing and executing methods of choice to experience scientific constructs to cherish possible dimensions needed for enriched learning.

1.1 Articulating philosophical and theoretical perplexities: Anyone can argue the need of having a separate section on the philosophical articulation as irrelevant to the overall scope of this research. Historically, this criticism is valid as previously (behaviorist instruction, even cognitive instruction to large extent) held influential instructional theories proceeded on simple principles (stimulus-response practice only need fostering an certain behavior by repeating a certain stimulus, Information-processing model demands following a step-wise processing of information once learner is exposed to it) of learning and rarely required any deeper understanding of philosophical tenants of the respective theory to be a successful practitioner in matching depth as constructivism. What make the case of constructivism entirely different are the deep roots of constructivism in philosophy and poor/no understanding of those roots simply unable the practioners/teachers to fruitfully implement it and benefit from its premises. This section is to clarify the constructivist position on basic questions like, what is truth, 4

what (if) are the means to know that truth? what are knowledge and its relationship to truth? what is reality? and what is knowing? These questions will be addressed from various standpoints (may be called types or variants) from within the constructivist philosophy to clarify the position taken in the rest of this research. As a framework it will be easier to follow if different types of constructivism (which fortunately or unfortunately apparently have many variants) are put in order first and then compare or contrast their respective standing on the questions above. Lawson has pointed out fifteen variants of constructivism referring to a paper presented by Good at thirteenth conference on curriculum theory and classroom practice in 1991, but no further details were found in his papers (Lawson, 1993; p. 805). Some other authors have attempted to discuss variants of constructivism as well as Geelan reported six types of constructivism (Geelan, 1997: pp. 15-28) and Matthews quoted different authors for naming seventeen variants. (Matthews, 2000; pp. 161-192). But like Lawson, Matthews did not describe each one of them thus leaving it unclear how to differentiate between stated variants for their standings on basic questions. This review has made an effort to clear the mess by arranging the variants mentioned by different authors to bring a sense for the readers. Table 1.1 briefly summarizes the position taken on various philosophical and theoretical questions by different constructivism(s). The variants included in the table are those having a clear standing on the questions used as criteria for differentiation because there are many so called variants in literature which are merely prefixes representing an individual researchers 5

thinking but too narrow to be referred as a variants.

1.2 Funneling variety of philosophical positions: The list in Table 1.1 by no means is an exhaustive list but at most covers the popular contemporary variants frequently found in the literature and fitting the criteria used in this research for differentiating between constructivism(s) for this research. Anyone reviewing constructivist literature definitely find many more qualifiers attached to constructivism in use (Good, 1993; p. 1015, Good, Wandersee. & Julien, 1993; pp.71-90, Matthews, 2000; p. 169, Irzik, 2000; p. 621) and their writers may claim them to be a variant of constructivism but it was found difficult to observe any significant difference except the luxury of words.).For example, contextual constructivism (Cobern, 1993; pp.51-69) and cultural constructivism (Cole and Wertsch, 1996; pp.250-256) philosophically built on same argument but differ in scope of the meaning associated to social (the later considering social in broader perspective of culture). It makes very essential to layout the conditions used to differentiate among variants to bring some organization to the ontological and epistemological confusion regarding the relative standing of each of the variants (Coll and Taylor, 2001; p. 215). The framework used for this review in first place explores the beliefs about the nature of reality (truth) and possibility to reach reality. The second criterion was what is assumed to be knowledge and how that knowledge can be arrived at. Finally, what are the means to learn that knowledge?

6

Table 1.1: Summary of Ontological, epistemological standings of different variants of constructivism and process of learning Genre

Prominent Exponents

Philosophical Standing Existence of Reality & possibility to know it

What is Knowledge?

How knowledge is arrived at?

What results in learning?

1. Trivial

S. Papert R. J. Spiro E. Glasersfeld

-Accept the ontological reality of the external world. -Possible to know it through collection and processing of inputs coming from outside.

Knowledge representation reality

is of

-Knowledge is personal construction based on prior knowledge. -There is a realm of objective knowledge like rules of mathematics. (Contradictory to first axiom in principle)

-Learning results from stretching information based on the prior knowledge (also constructed), is active in nature -Information-processing paradigm is the mean of learning.

2. Cognitive

R. Grandy

-Accept the ontological reality of the external world. -Internalization by cognitive processes and structures that corresponds to the processes and structures that exist in real world.

Knowledge is the result of accurate internalization and (re) construction of external reality.

Through adaptive process and active cognizing of the individual.

-Learning occurs by using mental representation of the real world that they have constructed -Methodology relies on Information processing and its component processes.

3. Exogenous (world centered)

R. Rotery D. Moshman

-Accept the ontological reality of the external world. -Emotionless keen observation reflects the state of external world.

Knowledge is the accurate representation of existing state of external world.

When the inner state of individual accurately represents or reflects the external world.

-Learning is individual ability to mirror the nature. -Exercises requiring learners to be cognitively active to form knowledge representation, which can be later, applied to realistic situations.

4. Meta-physical

R. E. Grandy

-There exists a world of entities, events and processes independent of the cognizing subject, which is knowable in principle.

Knowledge is faithful and accurate representation of world.

Knowledge is the correspondence of our representation of world and reality.

Leaning is an individual’s effort of cognizing the blue print of the world already laid down.

Continued…

7

Genre

Philosophical Standing

Prominent Exponents

Existence of Reality & possibility to

What is Knowledge?

How knowledge is arrived at?

What results in learning?

know it

5. Personal

J. Piaget G. A. Kelly

-Accept the ontological reality of the external world. -But it is not possible to know it

Knowledge is not a representation of reality but at best is collection of viable experiences within the knower.

Results from adaptation and assimilation and inclined ideally to gain equilibration.

-Learning is primarily individual act influenced by social interaction in second place. -Experiences is vital in learning.

6. Radical

V. Glasersfeld J. Piaget L. P. Steffe

-No ontological reality exists; at minimum there is no mean to access it. -Thus no question to find it out.

There is no ultimate true knowledge possible about the state of affairs in the world.

Through adaptive organization of individual’s experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality.-

All knowledge being constructed actively through cognitive process in dialogue with experiential world.

7. Epistemic

V. Glasersfeld David Bloor

There is no existence of reality and truth is at maximum viability (Glasersfeld) or socially endorsed beliefs (Bloor)

Knowledge is conceptual structures of epistemic agents (Glasersfeld) or collectively endorsed social constructs (Bloor)

Knowledge is constructed out of mental representations or individual experiences or sense data.

Learning involves social interaction and individual have to make sense of newly introduced ways of looking at world.

8.Constructi -onism-

K. Gergen

It is ontologically “agnostic” (Mccarthy, 2000; 54), obviously leaves no way to look for reality

Knowledge is in fact a repository of linguistic artifacts; text, documents, journals

Social process of community leads to knowledge rather than individual or any internal process.

Dialogue and discourse in the communities are the only mean to learn knowledge.

9. Social

J. -Solomon

-There is no ontological truth. -Reality is invented through the interaction of the members of the society.

The knowledge has two domains; socially acquired life world knowledge and symbolic school knowledge.

Knowledge is created by individuals through creating meaning by interacting among them and environment they live in.

Learning occurs when individuals engaged in social activities., external to individual and not passive in nature.

10. Critical

P. C. . Taylor

-Falls in the camp of relativism -Reality is constituted in us through Culturally and socially constructed worldviews are the maximum that can be known.

Knowledge results from dialogue leading to contextual social realities

Knowledge is arrived at through promotion of communicative ethics i.e. establishing dialogue towards achieving mutual understanding.

Engaging students in the cultural sensitive dialogue using their own vernacular language in collaborative small group environments. Continued…

8

Genre

Prominent Exponents

Philosophical Standing Existence of Reality & possibility to

What is Knowledge?

How knowledge is arrived at?

What results in learning?

know it

11. Contextual (Referred as Cultural by some authors)

W. W. Cobern

An extension constructivism dimension of knowledge.

of Personal by adding sociology of

Culture as context and worldview is the main sources of knowledge.

Through adaptation and assimilation but happens only when individual finds the knowledge culturally contextual.

Providing opportunities in a culturally diverse environment to develop individual’s world view workable in the cultural context the subject belongs to.

12. Endogenous (mind centered)

I. Kant N. Chomsky

There is no ontological reality. Truth is likely to be different for each individual.

Knowledge is enhanced state of reasoning.

Enhancing intrinsic capacities of reason, logic or conceptual processing develops knowledge.

Results from creation of new mental frameworks based on engagement, examination of relationship among ideas and concepts.

13. Dialectical

Bruning Schraw Ronning

-Reality (truth) is submerged in the cultural beliefs, tools and artifacts. -It is knowable absolutely by negotiating through internal and external mental interactions.

Knowledge is the individual’s interpretation and those have social influence in the learner’s environment.

Through the experiential extraction of meaning from the encounters within external world.

Interaction/ engagement with the external world through the use of physical & sociological tools, and symbol systems at the disposal of individual.

14. Ecological

F. Steier

There is no stable reality, but looks for building stable realities. (In essence similar to viable in Radical constructivism and invention in Constructionism).

9

A bi-polar division separates the constructivism(s) if placed on a horizontal bar of beliefs about the existence of ontological reality (truth). Arranging of constructivist variants on ontological criteria is selected to facilitate later discussion of popular science education research programs. Most of them started with a presumption of existence of external reality at least as far as scientific knowledge is concerned.

Ontological Reality Horizon External world exist

External world does not exist

Trivial (Ernest, 1995; Dougiamas, 1998)

Radical (Glasersfeld, 2000; 1998; 1996;

Matthews, 2000; Riegler, 2001; Bettencourt, 1993) Cognitive (Grandy, 1997;1998; Irzik, 2000)

Epistemic (Grandy, 1997;1998; Irzik,

2000) Exogenous (Gergen, 1995; Richard, 1995;

Endogenous (Gergen, 1995; Richard,

Dalgarno, 2001)

1995; Dalgarno, 2001)

Personal (Geelan, 1997; Chiari, 1993;

Constructionism (Gergen, 1998; Parker,

Kelley, 1991)

1998; McCarty & Schwandt, 2000)

Meta-physical (Grandy, 1997;1998;

Social (Oldfather et al, 2000; Golinski, 1998)

Irzik, 2000)

Solomon, 2000;1994; 1987)

Dialectical (Dalgarno, 2001; Bruning et al, 1999)

Critical (Geelan, 1997; Taylor, 2003; 1993)

Contextual (Geelan, 1997; Cobern, 1993) Ecological (Steier, 1995; von Foerster, 1984)

Figure 1.1: Positioning constructivism(s) on the basis of ontological belief

This difference clears the pictures to a large extent but when looked inside each group, further segregation are observed in their respective point of view on the nature of knowledge and consequently, means to arrive at that knowledge. 1.2.1 What is Knowledge? It is directly a function of the end at which a certain variant of constructivism appears on the ontological horizon in Figure 1.1. If knowledge is external and objective, obvious effort 10

will be to discover/construct representations (trivial, exogenous, and metaphysical) of it as accurate as possible, or accurately internalize and reconstruct (Cognitive) the external world. It may be a matter of collecting viable experiences within each subject (Personal) or individual interpretations under the influence of social environment (dialectical). In any of the case, knowledge is the mean in pursuit of existing reality. On one extreme, when everything is built upon the denial of any objective reality, logical destination left is the “viability” (term coined by Glasersfeld, 1989) of constructs in making the subjects cope successfully with the social and individual needs. This position of radical constructivism stirred a lot of critique (which later on modified to an extent by Glasersfeld himself that even it exists there is no way of knowing it; Glasersfeld, 1993; p. 25). The opposite extreme in the same group is held by Gergen’s constructionism; knowledge is a mere repository of language artifacts (1995). The rest of the variants (epistemic, social, critical, contextual, endogenous, and ecological) settle between these to extremes without sharing the radical position held by both but making a compromise of willing e.g. Rosalind Driver, although camped with social constructivists but repeatedly used some elements of Glasersfeld philosophy. The researchers working in science education, especially in the area of developing understanding, or conceptual change among students, abundantly work with a presupposition of already existing scientific body of knowledge (documented in forms of textbooks, resource books used in the science classroom) and same is the position taken 11

during this research work that puts this research in line with personal constructivism and Piaget’s notation of existence of external reality (Piaget, 1954; pp. 92-93, Gurber & Voneche, 1977; p. 853, Piaget, 1971; pp. 361-362, Furth, 1981; pp. 81-82). 1.2.2. How Knowledge is arrived at? The processes leading to the generation of knowledge are clearly demarcated between socially oriented and individually oriented constructivists more clearly than ontological affiliations (because whatever they regard knowledge to be, construction of knowledge is idiosyncratic or unique and is arrived at by means of the tools at the disposal of knowing subject and there is no otherwise). Adaptive cognition (Cognitive), personal construction (Trivial), search for correspondence between individual’s inner and external world (Exogenous, metaphysical), adaptation and assimilation (Personal, Radical, Dialectical, Contextual: but claims it to happen only when individual finds knowledge culturally contextual) through experiences and experiential extraction of meaning (Dialectical) are mostly talked about means in the context of individual’s construction under secondary influence of society and culture. In contrast, socially oriented constructivist, social interaction/process (Constructionism, Social), community dialogue (Critical) for reaching mutual understanding, and enhancement of intrinsic capacities of reason and logic (Endogenous)[for detail see Golinski, 1998; pp. 27-46]. The difference only rests in the comparative influence of social forces or individual being the central in the process of knowledge construction. But it is very difficult to deny the 12

influence of either of them in totality. The influential personalities, from whose work most constructivists originally draw on, duly recognized the influence of social and individual processes in their work. Vygotsky in his book, “Thought and language” talks about experimental results of his studies indicating transition from social, collective activity in child to his more individualized (1999;p.228) and Piaget in his work “Psychology and Intelligence” explains the role of social factors in the intellectual development (2001;pp.171-190). There is no disagreement on the influence of both society and individual in the construction of knowledge with variation in the comparative share of each of them in the total process. In science education, traditionally prevailing concept is that the development of scientific knowledge is a result of continuity of processes over a long period of time through discoveries by the scientists and with little relation to the social forces. The knowledge thus arrived is independent of the societal limitations. It is very recently in the postmodernist tradition that the relevance of social and cultural forces (Solomon, 2000) is recognized as relevant factor in the development of scientific knowledge leading to integrated social and personal consideration in science class. The social relevance of knowledge in science is hard to deny but it is still most likely that finally this is individual who is ultimately responsible for the construction, under the influences from the social and cultural environment. 1.2.3. What constitutes learning? 13

The premise all constructivists are unanimous about is the active nature of act of learning irrespective of the philosophical beliefs held about reality, knowledge and means to arrive at knowledge. The active participation here involves students taking charge of their learning (Brooks and Brooks, 1999; p. 21) from thinking activities which can result in desired learning, executing, sharing the learned and transforming it into useful body of knowledge, having the value to serve their lives. This forms the common bases for the educationists interested in the classroom research. When this “activeness” is transformed into practice by socially oriented constructivists, it shapes a classroom having students engaged in dialogue (Applefield et al., 2001; p. 38), and discourses in a culturally diverse and enrich environment developing a worldview workable in the society they live in. For individually oriented constructivists, the “active” means active in internalizing or transforming new information (Holloway, 1999; p.85) through the process of adaptation, and assimilation (Fosnot, 1996; p. 13) in a classroom providing ample opportunity to the learners for doing so. With an understanding of underpinnings of various types of constructivism, their respective positions on the above-mentioned key issues, and clarifying philosophical position taken for this research, it is suitable to circumscribe some of the major research work/projects intended at illuminating the pros and cons of the constructivism when used in the science classroom. This will bring to the main concern of this research, to investigate the effectiveness of constructivist instruction in developing the understanding of the science 14

among the students.

1.3 Contemporary research efforts aiming at applying constructivism in science classroom: Constructivism being a catch phrase recently, there is probably thousands of researchers working in the field all around the globe as the number of studies increased exponentially since their start in 1970’s. The development of WWW (World Wide Web) has increased the access of the researchers to know the research being done in any part of the world and share their own research finding with others. In the last five years the number of websites relating to constructivist learning has increased by at least 20 times (in 1999, when I started reading about the subject there were less than 5000 sites when searched with key words ‘constructivism & learning’ and now in 2003 the same search through same search engine results in more than 100,000 websites). Historical review not being the objective of this research, only popular research programs that have significantly influenced the class practices in science classroom will be reviewed with a view to guide the present research. There are many research projects going on studying the development of classroom environment suitable for constructivist learning in the context of technological developments and many such theoretical models are abundantly available in books, journals and websites (for example see Jonassen, 1999). Another type of researches engaged in the exploration of the conceptual constructs regarding the nature of scientific concepts held by the students and teachers or attitude towards the scientific knowledge are also quite

15

famous in the recent research literature of constructivism. One of the such studies using the constructivist learning model in science was CRESS- project (Cooperative Research & Extension Services for Schools) conducted by Pam Castori and Wendell Potter at university of California Davis during 1995-1997. This study had some similarities with one part (related to attitude towards science) of the present study. The focus of the project was on finding relationship between the use of teaching strategies consistent with the Constructivist Learning Model (CLM) in secondary science classrooms and the attitudes of students toward science. The use of teaching strategies consistent with the Constructivist Learning Model, it was predicted, would result in a significant increase in positive student attitudes toward science, generally. Alternatively, it was supposed that students who were exposed to more traditional teaching strategies would not show a similar increase in their positive attitudes toward science. During the first year of the study an instrument was developed for the measurement of attitude and during second year the change in attitude was

measured

by

using

that

instrument

in

a

'pre-test,

post-test,'

'control

group-experimental group' design. The researchers found positive effect in attitude of the experimental group in the post-test but this study did not have anything about the effects of constructivist supportive teaching on the development of understanding of the students (Castori, 1997). Like many other such studies, this study too fell short of the investigating the classroom learning or effects of enhanced constructivist attitude on the understanding of science. 16

The studies directly dealing with the understanding of science or conceptual change revolve around the researchers involved in three famous research groups (at University of Leeds lead by Rosalind Driver, Roger Osborne’s group at University of Waikato, New Zealand and Gunstone’s group at Monash University Australia) involved in classroom research for more than three decades. Gunstone (2000) analyzed the orientation, focus and development of these research groups in science education during the previous three decades. He observed that constructivism was not the initiating motivation behind any of the studies carried out by these groups. “Two significant and interrelated points will be shown to be common to all three groups and, because of the influence of these groups on the field, to have influenced much of this research over the last twenty years: (1) constructivism as it is elaborated today was not the central initiating theory for any of these groups; (2) The motivation of these researchers were derived from classroom concerns with the quality of student learning in science.” (Gunstone, 2000; p.257)

Gunstone’s observation is quite obvious because the work of these groups’ roots back in 1970’s and constructivism in education was hardly on the horizon at that time. Gradually, they explored the ground similarities in their respective research questions and relevance of constructivist principles of learning leading to a tilt towards considering increased use of pro-constructivist strategies and efforts to formulate coherence between theoretical position of constructivism and possibilities in classroom practices. But it is quite recently that main figures in these groups aligned themselves to some constructivist position in terms of ontological and epistemological views regarding the scientific knowledge and practice. In case of Leeds group, Rosalind Driver first used the word constructivism in her 17

writings in 1986, in her research paper, Students’ thinking and learning of science: a constructivist view, (Driver and Bell, 1986; pp. 443-456) and reflected on the practices need to support constructivist learning in science classroom by taking examples from studies already elaborated in her book, “The pupil as scientists” (Driver, 1988). Waikato group, which was lead by Roger Osborne, was also involved in studies related to the conceptual change in science education by using his famous IAI (Interview about Instances) technique (Osborne, 1985). He elaborated his ideas about constructivist methodology in his paper, Learning Science: a generative process, with Wittrock in 1983 (Osborne and Wittrock, 1983; p.482) while elaborating the generative learning model as.

…brain is not a passive consumer of information. Instead it actively constructs its own interpretation of information and draws inferences from them.

Monash group is lead by Gunstone and they were more concerned with implication for the classroom learning instead of epistemological issues (Gunstone, 2000; p. 272) except some occasional references made to Piaget while referring to epistemology. The focus remained on the development of classroom learning in science; appropriate sequencing of the content, purposes of teaching science and evolving a theory of content (Gunstone, 2000; p. 273). A comparison across the research of these groups from the “constructivist” angle can easily notice the similarities in questions focused upon and frequent cross references can be found while reading the research reports, books or journal articles written by the members 18

of these research groups. 1.

They all showed a little concern towards constructivism in the beginning but gradually it emerged directly or indirectly in the later part of 1980’s.

2.

Students’ prior knowledge was regarded as of primary importance for further learning.

3.

Active participation of students in learning was emphasized.

4.

Individual’s construct their own understanding with due regard to social forces influencing the development of these understandings.

5.

Learners are responsible for their learning.

6.

The topic of existence of external world was rarely taken up but from various discussion about the nature of science learning it is evident they believed in the physical world and recognized it as reference to science constructed by students in classroom.

These presumptions are compatible to those described in constructivist literature frequently; (1) Learning takes as its starting point the knowledge, and interests students bring to the learning situation, and (2) learning results from the interaction between these characteristics and experience in such a way that learners construct their own understanding, from the inside, as it were (Howe & Berv, 2000; p. 30). The methods suggested and approaches taken by these researches presumed activity learning, problem-solving or discovery as the sufficient mean of learning science and 19

understanding in science. Gunstone quoted Driver herself mentioning the insufficiency of activity alone for understanding science unless coupled with thinking allowing making sense of those activities (Gunstone, 2000; p. 277). The present research takes into account the fact that physical activity is necessary for the development of understanding in science but may not be sufficient. Mental activities like thinking, self-questioning and reflections are important to scaffold the action into understanding. Physical activity alone cannot generate conceptual change unless thoroughly mentally thought out successfully by the learners’ before entering into any science activity itself.

1.4 Research Problem: Constructivism in education is a very nascent phenomenon yet looking to make its place in the science classroom and not surprisingly, still a lot is desired to make it a popular practice in actual classroom. Most of the practicing teachers see constructivist-learning theory as natural and obvious in its explanation of the process of learning and seems to be enthusiastic in using supportive pedagogies in their classroom (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; pp.101-102). Despite this willingness, there is hardly any data available to support these natural and obvious looking constructivist principles. Therefore, it is important to see what will emerge or what kinds of difficulties are to be faced when these very ideal looking principles are put

20

in practice. There may be a variety of issues to be addressed when it comes to looking inside constructivist classroom. Many critiques agree on the premises that implementation of constructivist principles has proved much more difficult than understanding and appreciating theory itself. This research will address the following issues to help understanding the practicability of the constructivist principles in the actual classroom situation in the form of inter-related sub-studies: i. Identification of teachers’ beliefs for proximity with constructivist principles and follow the process of teacher’s professional development through exposure to constructivist learning. ii. Exploring students’ attitude towards studying science and examining probable changes as a result of learning in a constructivist classroom. iii. Determine the individual differences among students by investigation their respective learning approaches against constructivist principles and probable relationships to the learning of science. iv. Relationship between extent of constructivist learning approach and science study attitude v. Addressing three most important classroom issues using qualitative information from a series of constructivist lessons; adaptations teachers and learners have to

21

make to become constructivist practitioner, and dealing with the time management versus school schedule. vi. Conceptual change ingrained by the learning environment based upon the freedom to choose, perform and share the learned by analyzing the changes in the quality of scientific reasoning among learners. vii. Classroom discourse as a source for determining the shift towards constructivist practice by identifying the changes in the teacher talk and students talk over a sustained period of time. viii. Find out the additional vulnerabilities constructivism exposes the teachers and learners to if not dealt responsibly with the freedoms offered to the learner. ix. Effectiveness of self-assessment and students’ class notes as valid tools of following the extent and dimensions of constructivist learning. Understanding these dynamics of classroom in constructivist classroom will help the teachers to make their classroom a place supportive to students for construction of knowledge.

1.5 Methodology This research project can easily be divided into two parts for the better understanding of the methodology. In the first place, it involved survey type methodology to collect data for the development of instruments i.e. Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS), Science Study

22

Attitude Scale (SSAS), and Questionnaire for finding science teachers beliefs about science and science teaching to be used in the study. The samples involved more than 500 students from 5 public schools during the process of development of CLS and SSAS. For investigation of teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching, a sample included more than 200 practicing and prospective teachers from both Japan and Pakistan. Detailed distribution of sampling for both teachers and students is given in respective chapters dealing with related studies. In the second place, the research dealt with classroom practices by carrying out a series of related qualitative investigations spread over a period of three years in the science class of an elementary school with students of grade 5 and 6. The data collection was spread over four content units (three from grade 5; germination and growth, levers, and solutions, grade 6; burning) of which the three units involving grade 5 were studied during same academic year. The selected organization of the chapters is shown in the figure 1.2, to address the questions as directly as possible and arranging the results in an easy to follow manner.

Chapter 1: Conceptual Framework

Teacher related studies

Student related studies

CHAPTER 2: Elementary School Science

CHAPTER 4: Science Study Attitude

Teachers’ Beliefs about Science and Science

Scale (SSAS) as Informant of 23 Constructivist Teaching and Learning

Teaching in Constructivist Landscape

CHAPTER 3: Constructivist Practices and Consequent Transformation in Beliefs Towards Science: A Case Study of

CHAPTER 5: Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) as Informant for Constructivist Teaching and Learning

Elementary School Science Teacher CHAPTER 6: Focusing on Practice Related Issues: A Reflective View from Inside the Classroom

CHAPTER 7: Changes in the Students’ Understanding of the Phenomenon of ‘Burning’

CHAPTER 8: Vulnerabilities of Constructivist Practice: Precautions and Remedies.

CHAPTER 9: Relationship between Student Self-assessment, Note Taking and Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) Score

CHAPTER 10: Constructivist Classroom: Elements of Class Discourse as Measure of Constructivist Practice

CHAPTER 11: Conclusion, Implications and Further Research Questions Figure 1.2: Organizational lay out of research report

1.6 Significance of the study: Constructivism is quite established in terms of its philosophical appeal among educationists and science teachers. Despite theoretical confusion, its pedagogical appeal charms for the potential of enhancing our understanding of learning process. There is no 24

shortage of work on researches investigating the conceptual change, or alternative conceptions in the children. What we lack is the an effort to find the potential of constructivist practices in bringing desired conceptual change and deal effectively with alternative concepts in science class. The point has already been made in the sections 1.3 above that the studies most often referred in current constructivist literature hardly initiated with constructivist orientation from the beginning (Gunstone, 2000; p. 257). Instead the primary objective was to take up directly the problem related to students understanding and conceptual change to improve the classroom practices. Although we have seen some later adjustment in theoretical position of those studies to accommodate constructivist principles (Driver, 1994Driver, 1994; pp. 5-8). This study has six points, which make it different from the previous studies and determine the significance for the constructivist classroom research. i) Present study was initiated from the beginning, intending to determine the role of constructivist pedagogical strategies to tackle the old problem of conceptual change and/or alternative concepts with focus on its potential of respecting individual differences and taking account of such differences deal with the need of all students. ii) Development of Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) and Science Attitude Scale (SAS) during the course of this research is also unique for their value to constructivist teacher and students to know proximities and deficiencies towards constructivist learning principles to enable the adaptation of the means necessary to improve quality of learning. This has 25

equipped teachers with practical instruments enabling them to understand students and facilitate learning in constructivist environment. Such knowledge about the learning capabilities and attitude of students can enable teacher to utilize student’s strength optimally and guide toward overcoming/minimizing their weaknesses to become a constructivist learner. At present no such instrument is available which is easy to use and manageable in normal classroom routine. Therefore, iii) The studies carried out in constructivist context were mostly of theoretical nature (particularly concerning the use of technology in education) and predictive of the possible positive implication resulting in better learning. The models laid out were rarely practically implemented with the exception of few one-shot individual efforts limited in scope. This study has added to our understanding of constructivism in practice by providing insights drawn through basically empirical supported by qualitative analysis data rather than speculations and made relatively clearer the dimensions to be focused in the future. iv) Although creation of experimental conditions and treatments make relatively ensure the desired results easy to produce but limits the scope of application and usability in wider sense, thus in terms of design, intentionally no experimental conditions were used during this study to increase the applicability of the results. The intended results were pursed by making improvements in the capabilities of teacher through teacher-researcher collaboration over long period of time, improvisation in the use of available material resources and students were empowered through granting them liberty to take charge of their thinking, 26

experiencing, and reflecting on learned in responsible manner. v) The use of qualitative data in support of quantitative analysis was also typical to this study. It helped in addressing some of the methodological concerns of reliability and validity attached to qualitative research traditionally. Qualitative data (pre-test, post-test, CLS, and SSAS) was used to assess the overall trends in sample and then identified trends were studied in depth by selecting representative cases among them. vi) The series of studies addressing all important actors in the classroom i.e. teacher, student, and classroom learning environment helped to bring comprehensive coordinated images of classroom experiencing constructivist learning. The results of this particular research may not be substantially radical like most initial inquiries but it explicatively guides the future researches in more desired direction.

27

Chapter 2

Elementary School Science Teachers’ Belief about Science and Science Teaching in Constructivist Landscape

To understand teaching from teacher’s perspectives, we have to understand the beliefs with which they define their work. (Nespor, 1987, p.323)

The research on teacher’s beliefs has sufficient evidence to support the notion that teacher beliefs have direct influence on the teacher’s objectives, lesson planning, approach towards students, and evaluation of learning in the classroom (Richardson, 1996; Pajares, 1992; Munby, 1982; Levitt, 2002; Brickhouse, 1990, Prawat, 1992). For sure this is not the only factor influencing the teaching and learning but its importance, as single most important element in determination of classroom dynamics is undeniable. It becomes even important, when we are talking about constructivist compatible teaching as constructivism distinguishes itself from the predecessors in its position on epistemological questions (Matthews, 1998:p. 8) discussed in chapter one and some of the constructivists even call it more a theory of knowledge (Taylor, 1993: p 268) than theory of instruction. In this context, teachers can only make students’ construct knowledge for themselves, if he/she understands and appreciate constructivist principles. Therefore knowledge about Japanese teachers’ beliefs will help in forecasting the prospects of constructivist instruction for Japanese students, which indirectly implies better understanding of science (Matthews, 1998:p. 7). 28

This chapter is meant to explore the beliefs of Japanese practicing/prospective elementary school science teachers about nature of scientific knowledge and science teaching by inquiring, how a challenging innovation like constructivist instruction will likely be dealt by the teachers through looking into their beliefs as suggested by Munby, (1984; p.28). To conclude about the relative state of constructivist-compatibility of Japanese Practicing/prospective science teachers, their results will be compared to Pakistani practicing science teachers. The supposition is that Japanese teacher practices some of the constructivist principles in their lessons without being necessarily aware of constructivist principles. Before getting into the review of the current status of research on science teachers’ Beliefs, it seems very appropriate to define the term “beliefs” as used in this research to avoid and confusion as the term is traditionally used for variety of constructs by different researchers (Pajares, 1992;p. 313). For the purpose of this research “Beliefs” are assumed as tacit, often unconsciously held assumptions about nature of knowledge, classroom practices, and the academic material to be taught (adapted from Kagan, 1992;pp. 65-66).

2.1 Developments in research on teacher’s belief: These tacit, unconsciously held, held to put in words but deep-rooted beliefs need a purposely-designed questionnaire, an interview, or careful and patient observation to bring forth. But once explored successfully, they can prove to be very precious psychological constructs, as put by Pintrich (1990), for the improvement of teaching and learning.

29

Kagan (1992) has summarized more than twenty-five qualitative and quantitative research studies carried out in last two decades for exploring practicing and prospective teachers’ beliefs in varied regards like sense of self-efficacy, convictions about teaching methodology, teacher’s role in the classroom, student behaviors, classroom discipline, and process of learning. Direct proportionality of self-efficacy to student achievement, nature of instruction to student participation, and teacher’s orientation of teaching to types of classroom practices was reported in these studies (pp. 68-71). One domain not included in the Kagan’s (1992) analysis was the studies on relationship of teacher’s epistemological beliefs about science as a body of knowledge and implications for school teaching. The studies explicitly addressing this rather philosophical issue are very few (Tsai, 2002; p.772) but researchers have showed that epistemological beliefs play a key role in the way they interpret scientific knowledge and in turn teach it in classroom (Pajares, 1992; p. 325, Gallagher, 1991; p.132, Hashweh, 1996; p.61). Moreover, there is a lot to be desired when it comes to investigating adjacency of science teacher’s beliefs with the constructivist principles. In the rare studies available, Hashweh (1996) has revealed that constructivist teachers are better prepared to use more effective strategies for inducing conceptual change (pp.61-62) but Tsai (2002) found that majority of the science teachers still lack the proper conceptual framework needed for addressing the issues of science and science teaching (p. 775). Encouragingly, this lack of conceptual framework is amendable with proper exploration of beliefs held by the science teachers and suitable 30

training as reported by Peterman (1993) through a case study reported following change in a teacher’s beliefs during a training course. Building upon the limited researches available, it can be said that exploring the teacher’s beliefs compatibility with constructivist principles will be a good indicator of type of classroom practices more likely to occur in the schools where such teachers teach.

2.2 Purpose and research questions This study is done to explore the proximity of the teacher’s beliefs (both practicing and prospective science teachers and Pakistani elementary school science teachers) to the constructivist principles of learning for 1)

Finding the Japanese practicing/prospective elementary school science teachers’ beliefs about science and science teaching against the constructivist principles as the supposition is that pro-constructivist beliefs in practicing teachers will ensure the establishment of constructivist practices for now and similar beliefs in prospective science teachers will be encouraging sign for the future of constructivist instruction. [Please see the introduction section for relation between teacher’s belief and classroom practices]

2)

A comparison of Japanese practicing/prospective science teachers and Pakistani practicing science teacher’s beliefs about science and science teaching; Comparison with another countries teacher will inform about the relative positioning of Japanese

31

teachers and will help in determination of the extent of constructivism- compatibility of instructional practices currently.

2.3 Method In conformity with the objectives of the research, five domains were identified in which teacher’s beliefs were more likely to affect the classroom practices. Ideas were collected from the constructivist literature to formulate the question statements, which can address the compatibility of science teacher’s beliefs to the constructivist principles in each of the five domains. 2.3.1 Data source: A questionnaire was made based upon the questions prepared in each of the domains above to collect the data. The questionnaire initially comprised of 32 question but only 28 statements were used finally for the purpose of analysis. The four questions excluded were alternative questions included as reworded version of already present conceptual construct to offer the respondents alternative statements to ensure the quality of the data collected. The distribution of the remaining statements was as; 4 statements related to each domain except teaching and learning science, which had 12 items. The respondents were to select one of the options on a 5-point scale between 1(completely disagree) and 5 (completely agree).

2.3.2 Description of the Belief Domains:

32

Table 2.1 briefly describes the content of the questionnaire by elaborating each of the belief domains through explaining the constructs forms included in the respective domains. First domain is “Nature of scientific knowledge” and it is meant to address the teachers’ beliefs about science as a body of knowledge and the process of development of scientific knowledge and, cultural and social relevance of science. Second domain includes questions regarding the perception of likely changes due to the advancements and increased access of both teachers and students to the technological tools in and outside the classroom, particularly due to increased use of voluminous resources on World Wide Web (www).

Third domain is

addressing one of the main (in some respects unique) premises of constructivist instruction, which is the depth of students’ participation. The questions are addressing the students’ participation in decision making of what and how of learning activity and other classroom matters. Fourth domain is to inquire teacher’s perception of the meaning associated to learning; it’s dynamics, and subsequently what teacher can do to make learning happen. The perceptions teacher holds about the act of learning undoubtedly is reflected in the approach he /she takes in teaching. Therefore, most of the question address the meaning attached to learning process in terms of the approach adopted by the teacher to make learning happen. Finally, teachers are asked about the concept of effective and useful evaluation. Their views are explored to find out the place they assign to students in the process of evaluation (i.e. as a partner in evaluation). Issues like who, when, through what

33

Table 2.1: Description of the constructs inquired in five domains of science teacher’s beliefs Belief Domains addresses a) Nature of scientific knowledge

Constructs inquired -Process of generation of scientific knowledge, - Nature of science as a body of knowledge, - Social and cultural context of science, and - Responsibility of developing scientific knowledge b) Effects of technology on - Relationship of technology (like introduction of teaching software, teacher internet etc.) to the capacity of teacher - Effect on the role of teacher - Challenges form more aware students (in terms of the access to other resources compared to textbook only in the past) c) Student participation in lesson - Students’ role in decision making of the objectives of learning. - Student-centered approach in teaching - Listening and valuing students’ experiences. - Participation of Student in evaluation of learned by getting their self-evaluation. d) Teaching & learning of science - Intent of teaching and learning - Teacher’s role in the classroom - Place of previous knowledge and experience of students in teaching and learning. - Selection of methodology - Contribution of classroom environment of teaching and learning. - Structuring of learning around concepts - Relationship of science to other subjects. e) Nature of student evaluation - Purpose of assessment - Modes of assessment - Timings of assessment Note: for examples of these domains please refer to the Annexure 1

means, and for what, assessment should be carried out were also included.

2.3.3 Participants: All the participants were elementary school science teachers, either practicing or prospective. In sum, the data was collected form 314 teachers/prospective teachers, which include 159 [35 science teacher who graduated with science as major subject (will be called ‘science teacher’) while 124 are those who majored in subject other than science (will be referred as ‘class teacher’)] Japanese practicing teachers from nine different districts of Japan, 85 students (will 34

be referred as prospective science teachers) studying in teacher training undergraduate course in Tokyo Gakugei University, and 70 Pakistani science teachers from Lahore metropolitan area.

2.4 Data Analysis: The collected data was grouped into five domains for all four categories of the science teachers as described in the methodology section. The data analysis was as follows: 1. A one–way analysis of variance was conducted to investigate the difference between teacher types (Japanese practicing science teachers, Japanese practicing class teachers, Japanese prospective science teachers, and Pakistani science teachers) on each of the five domains of teacher’s beliefs. 2. Pattern of item (question) means (x) within each domain was explored to further clarify the areas on which, different types of teacher have varied opinion. 3. ‘Difference size’ was calculated between teacher types on each of the five domains of teacher beliefs for closer understanding of the exact domain(s) on which a particular teacher type differs from the other.

2.5 Results: When subjected to one-way ANOVA, significant difference was found for the between subject analysis on each of the five belief domains and total score. Teacher Types was treated as fixed factor while belief domains were taken as dependent variables. The results 35

of the F-test and degree of significance are shown in Table 2.2. It is evident that the assumption about different types of science teachers’ having different beliefs about science and science teaching was valid. One-way ANOVA only ensured the presence of significant difference between various teacher types on belief domains but to locate the bi-group difference between all possible combinations of groups Tukey test was applied. It was found that there is no significant difference between the beliefs of Japanese practicing science teachers (G1) and class teachers (G2). Also, Japanese prospective science teachers (G3) hold almost same beliefs as teachers in G1 and G2 except about the nature of evaluation. In addition, Japanese prospective science teachers (G3) differ from Japanese practicing science teachers (G1) regarding the students’ participation in the lesson too. All three groups of Japanese teachers have significant difference on all domains of beliefs compared to their counterparts in teaching science in Pakistani elementary schools (G4). This finding becomes even clearer in the box-plots shown in Figure 2.1. The median for the two groups of Japanese practicing teachers lies almost at the same level in all five domains but the range of scores is wider for the G2 teachers, which reflects more within-group variation compared to G1. In case of Japanese prospective science teachers (G3), although the overall median is quite similar to G1 and G2 but visible difference can be observed when monitored through each belief domain. 36

Table2.2: Results of One-way ANOVA & Between-Group Difference Analysis by using TUKEY HSD test for Four Groups of Practicing/Prospective Science Teachers on Five Domains of Teacher Beliefs

Group1

Group2

Group3

Group 4

Total

N= 35

N=124

N= 85

N=70

N=314

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

(SD)

a) Nature of scientific knowledge (4)

16.6 (2.6)

15.8 (2.3)

16.2 (2.5)

9.0 (3.2)

14.5 (3.9)

136.3*

b) Effects of technology on teacher (4)

11.9 (1.0)

12.0 (1.2)

12.2 (1.6)

14.2 (3.0)

12.5 (2.1)

c) Student participation in lesson (4)

15.6 (2.6)

15.8 (1.8)

14.6 (2.0)

13.1 (2.8)

d) Teaching & learning of science (12)

40.1 (3.6)

39.9 (4.0)

39.6 (3.8)

e) Nature of student evaluation (4)

16.3 (1.8)

16.1 (2.2)

100.5 (6.8)

99.5 (7.6)

Total score (28) *P< .001

**p< .01

***p< .05

F

Between- group difference (Tukey HSD) : significant difference G: Group A G1-G2

B G1-G3

E G2-G4

F G3-G4

* >

* >

* >

25.4*

*


33.5 (4.0)

38.4 (4.7)

48.0*

* >

* >

* >

15.2 (1.7)

12.3 (2.3)

15.1 (2.6)

53.1*

* >

* >

97.7 (7.2)

82.2 (7.3)

95.3 (10.2)

97.2*

*** >

C G1-G4

* >

D G2-G3

* >

** >

() Number of questions.

Group 1: Practicing Science teachers (Major sc.) Group 2: Practicing Science teachers (Others) Group 3: Prospective Science Teachers Group 4: Practicing Pakistani Science Teachers

37

Place of Technology in Class

Nature of Scientific Knowle

30

20

10

0 N =

22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6

35

124

85

71

1

2

3

4

N =

35

125

85

70

1

2

3

4

teacher type EffectiveTeaching learning Me

teacher type

Student participation

22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 N =

60

50

40

30

20 35

125

85

71

1

2

3

4

N =

35

125

85

71

1

2

3

4

teacher type

22

130

20

120

18

Total score

Nature of Student Evaluatio

teacher type

16 14 12

100 90 80

10

70

8

60

6 N =

110

35

125

85

71

1

2

3

4

teacher type

N =

35

124

85

70

1

2

3

4

teacher type

Figure 2.1: Box-plots for each of five belief domains and teacher types 1: Practicing Science teachers (Major sc.) 2: Practicing Science teachers (Others) 3: Prospective Science Teachers Practicing Pakistani Science Teachers

38

4:

Most significant of the differences is observed between Japanese practicing/prospective (all three groups) science teachers (G1, G2, G3) and Pakistani science teachers (G4) in terms of both median and range of scores on all five domains of teacher beliefs. Another noticeable result is the similarity of the pattern in the beliefs of Japanese practicing/prospective science teachers, which is shown in Figure 2.2. Although some difference in mean (x) is found if looked upon question by question, which indicates a degree of correspondence in the beliefs of the respective groups. On the other hand, a clear difference between Japanese practicing/prospective science teachers (G1, G2, and G3) and Pakistani practicing science teachers (G4) in favor Japanese groups of teachers indicate more congruity of Japanese teachers to the constructivist principles on total score. But when it comes to each of the five domains, both practicing and prospective Japanese science teachers showed pro-constructivist beliefs about nature of scientific knowledge in comparison to Pakistani counterparts. It is reversed, when it comes to effects of technology on teaching practices. Pakistani practicing teacher (G4) believe that technological advancements and access to web resources have facilitated their job, and changed their role but Japanese practicing/prospective teacher (G1, G2 and G3) does not see IT advancements causing any considerable change in their role.

39

Question-wise Mean score Practicing ( ajor sc.) Teacher Types/

1

2

3

4

5

Practicing (others) 1

2

3

4

5

Prospective 1

2

3

4

5

Pakistan 1

2

3

4

5

Question No Nature of

21

scientific

22

(4.1)

knowledge

23

(4.3)

(4.2)

(4.2)

(2.4)

24

(4.4)

(4.3)

(4.3)

(2.4)

(3.7)

(3.5) (3.8)

16.5

Domain Mean

15.8

Effects of

25

technology

26

on teacher

27

(4.0)

(4.0)

30

(4.1)

(4.0)

(2.2)

7

student

10

participation

11

(4.0)

(4.0)

15

(3.8)

(3.8)

(4.3)

1 2

(2.9)

3 Teaching &

4

learning of

5

science

(4.0)

Domain Mean

9

student

12

evaluation

(4.2)

(1.5) (3.6)

(4.3)

(4.4)

(2.6)

(3.7)

Practicing (others)

1

1

3

(1.6)

(3.1)

Practicing (major sc.)

2

33.5

(3.9)

16.1

5

(2.2)

39.7

(3.5)

14

(3.6) (3.3)

(4.0)

13

(2.7)

(3.3) (3.5)

39.9

4

(3.5)

(4.0) (3.0)

(4.2)

3

(4.8)

(2.4)

(4.2)

2

(2.7) (1.5)

b (3.3)

16.3

(4.3) (1.9)

(4.2)

(3.8)

(3.5)

(1.2)

(2.1)

(3.5)

(4.3)

Domain Mean

Categories/

(4.0)

(3.7)

40.1

Nature of

(2.8)

(3.4)

31

13.1

(4.3)

(3.4)

(3.3)

29

14.6 (2.6)

(3.9)

20

(4.5) (3.1)

(2.6)

(3.7) (3.2)

17

(4.2)

(2.4)

16

(3.9)

(3.7)

(4.1)

(2.5)

8

(3.1)

(2.8)

6

14.1 (1.6)

(4.0)

(2.3) (4.3)

(3.4)

12.2

(2.3)

(4.1)

(2.4)

(3.6)

15.8

(2.5)

(4.1)

(4.1)

(3.6)

15.6

Domain Mean

(4.2)

(3.9)

(4.4)

(3.5)

9.1

(2.0)

12.1

Extent of

(2.1)

(2.2)

(1.8)

12.0

Domain Mean

(2.2)

(4.0)

16.2

(2.3)

(1.7)

(3.7)

4

5

(3.8)

(4.5)

(4.4)

15.2

12.4

Prospective 1

2

3

4

5

Pakistan 1

2

3

4

5

Question No Reverse Questions no.: 1,3,4,5,7,8,9,12,20,21,22,23,24,27,30,31

Questions no. excluded : 18,19,28,32

Figure 2.2: Comparison of Means pattern among Japanese practicing & prospective science teachers, and Pakistani practicing science teachers on five beliefs domains.

40

Japanese practicing science teachers (G1) are more convinced about the increased students participation in the classroom activities as compared to both Japanese prospective science teachers (G3) and Pakistani practicing science teachers (G4). Pakistani practicing science teacher’s lower support for student involvement is because of the traditional trend of using lecturing as most popular teaching methodologies (Nasir & Shinohara, 2002; p.193). All four types of teachers have pro-constructivist beliefs when it comes to practice of teaching and learning of science. This shows a clear indication of more probability of constructivist

compatible

instruction

in

Japanese

science

classes.

Japanese

practicing/prospective science teachers (G1, G2 and G3) approach toward students’ evaluation is more constructivist-compatible than Pakistani counterparts. Even some difference between Japanese practicing teachers (G1 and G2) and prospective teachers (G3) in favor of G1&G2 is observed. Higher d-scores shown in Table 2.3, between Pakistani practicing science teachers (G4) and rest of the three (i.e. G1, G2, and G3) groups of teachers reflect the extent of difference in the Pakistani and Japanese (all three types) teachers’ belief regarding the five domains under investigation. The difference is least in the beliefs about teaching and learning science but wider when comes to nature of scientific knowledge, effects of technology on teacher, students’ participation in lesson and nature of evaluation.

41

Table 2.3: Inter-group d-score between Teacher Types on Five belief domains

Belief Domains Science

Nature

Teachers Type

knowledge (4) G1

Group 1 (G1)

Group 2 (G2)

of

scientific Effects of technology Student on teacher (4)

G2

G3

G4

.04

.01

3.47

.02

2.86

Group 3 (G3)

3.18

G1

Teaching & learning Nature

participation (4)

G2

G3

G4

.01

.03

3.2

.02

2.96

G1

G2

G3

G4

.01

.17

2.05

.24

2.17

2.97

Group 4 (G4)

G1: Japanese Practicing Science Teacher

of science (12) G1

G3

G4

.04

.06

.79

.10

.75 .73

.

G2: Japanese Practicing Class Teachers

G3: Japanese Prospective Science Teachers G4: Pakistani Practicing Science Teachers

student

evaluation (4)

G2

1.27

of

G1

G2

G3

G4

.03

.15

2.07

.11

1.68 1.39

42

2.6 Discussion: Implication of the results can be followed on two different lines; comparison of the teachers’ beliefs on five inquired domains among the four types of teachers and standings of each of the teacher type for constructivist-compatibility of beliefs 2.6.1 Nature of Scientific knowledge Majority of Japanese teachers (G1, G2, and G3) does not perceive scientific knowledge as revealed truth but liable to error thus students’ should not to be taught to blindly believe it. Moreover, they view scientific knowledge as embedded in the social and cultural context of society, thus for recognizing it’s relevance to daily life being important element of science teaching. This consequently strengthens the assumption that elementary school science education in Japan is quite compatible to constructivist principles in its existing form. These findings are very encouraging and radical in nature, as traditionally it is believed that science teachers mostly see science as body of fixed and unchallengeable facts. This traditional description holds well for Pakistani teachers, who on contrary align more with the science as a body of fixed, culture free and undeniable discipline of knowledge. This research does not provide any evidence to attribute this unorthodox revelation about Japanese teachers’ belief any particular element except that it is by virtue of quite flexible and socially integrated elementary school education setup. This needs further study by extending the exploration of scientific beliefs of junior high school and high school science teachers, which is known for it’s more structured and traditional framework. 43

By comparison, all three (G1, G2, and G3) types of Japanese science teachers hold similar beliefs that this approach toward the nature of scientific knowledge may have been a result of teacher training imparted on the lines to view science as a socially relevant progressive body of knowledge. 2.6.2 Effects of technology on teacher’s role This is the only domain in which Japanese science teacher’s belief; particularly practicing teachers’ beliefs are less constructivist-compatible than Pakistani science teachers. Japanese practicing teachers (G1 and G2) does not perceived developments in IT as a source of change in their role in the classroom instead they think that it has minimized their role. This different in perception is due to the difference of “theory and practice”. Pakistani practicing science teachers (G4) and Japanese prospective science teachers (G3) scored higher as none of them has yet used the IT in actual practice and their beliefs are based on perception rather than practice, while Japanese practicing teachers (G1 and G2) are actually passing through this experience (although at very early stage of experiencing that shift) and this shift is seemingly hard for them adapt. 2.6.3 Student Participation in lesson Getting students involved in sharing decision making of lesson objectives, activities, and assessment needs experience, skills and self-confidence in addition to favorable administrative and social support. Japanese practicing teachers (G1 and G2) have shown more positive approach in this domain compared to Japanese prospective science teachers (G3). All three 44

types of Japanese teachers beliefs are in favor of more students’ participation than Pakistani science teachers (G4), which reflects difference in the frame of mind between Japanese and Pakistani teachers and their respective beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge. 2.6.4 Teaching and Learning of science In general, all four types of teachers have pro-constructivist beliefs when comes to teaching and learning of science but Japanese teacher (both practicing and prospective) particularly are more in conformity with constructivist approach as compared to Pakistani teachers. Science teaching is seen as best learned through hands-on activities, and students involvement

in

deciding

the

method

of

learning

are

surely

indicators

of

constructivist-compatible beliefs. Despite this compatibility in most of the beliefs the idea of teacher being responsible for making student memorize the knowledge given in textbook is not quite in coherence with constructivist principles because still in most of the schools the efficiency of teacher is gauged by the stuffing more and more information in students and performance is assessed by grades on term tests rarely asking for any application of learned but simple facts. Correspondingly, teachers still lay more emphasis on transfer of knowledge. The amenability in the beliefs can only be achieved by harmonizing every sphere of school and community practices towards more practical and usable science education by introducing constructivist approach in overall thinking. 2.6.5 Nature of Student Evaluation Once again, Japanese teachers (G1, G2 and G3) differ positively from Pakistani science 45

teachers in terms of purposes, modes and timings of student evaluation. The system of no formal examination for the promotion to next grades in elementary schools of Japan has probably contributed to more comprehensive evaluative approaches among Japanese teachers. In contrast to Pakistani teachers, Japanese teachers perceive evaluation as more than just assigning grades to students by making it a continuous activity; a part of lesson by observing students working, having interactive dialogue with them, and reviewing their daily notes. In view of the pro-constructivist nature of beliefs of Japanese teachers, it is very likely that Japanese elementary school students are being exposed to constructivist learning in many respects and a conscious effort in this regard will not be that hard to implement. The inference need further qualification because exploring beliefs can be very deceptive at times if not carried about by following the initial responses of the teachers. A questionnaire is a good source for gathering information from wider sample but has its limitation that follow up investigation cannot be carried out. In case of research like exploration of beliefs, it becomes inevitable to follow up for getting to the true perception of the teachers. After having an idea of the trend set of Japanese science and class teachers in general, following chapters will present a case study of one Japanese practicing science teacher to further understand meaning attributed to each of the domains.

46

Chapter 3

Constructivist Practices and Consequent Transformation in Beliefs Towards Science: A Case Study of Elementary School Science Teacher Beliefs can be strengthened or modified with more evidence gained by classroom practice

(Levitt, 2002:p. 5)

Beliefs are usually deeply embedded inside the holder and not easy to expose or amend. The data collected by comparatively larger samples through questionnaires has its benefits for knowing the general trend among teachers for the purpose of generalization. It is not to undermine the importance of quantitative information for the mass guidance of educational practices but traits like attitude needs deeper investigation to realize the sources, strength and depth of thought systems leading to a certain set of beliefs. In actuality, quantitative investigations provide a lot of linear information and leave a lot to be desired in terms of depth, essential for reforming teachers to embrace progressive pedagogies like constructivist teaching. Therefore, genernalizability of results is not for sure the objective of such case studies but to get deeper understanding of roots of belief systems and development of effective means to identify and study belief systems for paving the way to change. Therefore, it was assumed essential to devote this chapter to the study of the experiences of one teacher, who worked as an agent in this research for a shift from his earlier views about

Note: The chapter has been got reviewed from the concerned teacher for validity of ideas presented

47

aspects of teaching-learning to more constructivist compatible principles. The study spreads over a period of two years from September 2000 to April 2003. Before the final stage of data collection, the researcher worked with Mr. F for more than one year during the piloting stage in order to develop the framework and mutual understanding about the intent of the research. During that time we worked on the practicability of constructivist principles. The thought out framework was applied for almost one academic year in the science classroom of grade five. This long trial period helped in bring about improvements and practicability of constructivist principles in the classroom practice, in addition to our understanding of constructivism itself.

3.1 Teacher’s Profile Mr. F was 46, at the beginning of this study in 2000. He is a university graduate in science teaching and is one of the comparatively few specialized science teachers in Japanese elementary school. Generally, elementary school in Japan only have class teachers, who teach all subjects and majority of teachers taking science classes do not possess any relevant qualification in the subject. He has more than 23 years of experience of teaching science in elementary schools and was working in this school for more than two decades. This school being an attached school of Tokyo Gakugei University has a research supportive environment requiring teachers to participate in science teacher’s meetings to share their experience and present their work on classroom practice. Mr. F has membership of science education society and is member of the team, which wrote science textbook for elementary school. His interest in

48

research is quite evident from participation in many research forums mentioned and contributions for science education periodicals. He was also invited occasionally, by the faculty of science in Tokyo Gakugei University for lecturing to the undergraduates from his personal experience in practical teaching. He is open to change and outward in experiencing new methodologies and ideas in his teaching. He assumes science as a dynamic body of knowledge combined with skill of inquiry, developed and nurtured to address the social needs of the community.

3.2 Objectives: The purpose of the study is to make evident the process of amenability in the beliefs of science teacher, F, when involved in constructivist practice for long period of time. Being an experienced teacher (more than 18 years), what kind of changes, he himself realized in his way of teaching and how far these perceived changes were evident in his practice. The guiding questions will be: 1. What beliefs did he held about science? 2. To what extent the held beliefs are constructivist-compatible 3. What kind of changes occurred during the course of study? 4. How far these beliefs transformed his teaching practices?

3.3 Method: The study was conducted addressing the same five domains (Nature of scientific knowledge, 49

Effects of technology on teacher, Student participation in lesson, Teaching & learning of science, Nature of student evaluation) that were addressed in the science teacher’s beliefs questionnaire (Chapter 2). 3.3.1 Sources of data: 1. Questionnaire about teachers beliefs towards science 2. Interview: a) Unstructured interview at the end of each lesson session b) Semi-structured interview immediately after the intervention and c) Semi-structured follow-up interview after six months. 3. Classroom Observations in the form of video recordings 3.3.2 Procedure of the study: Teachers beliefs in each of the domains were collected twice; once at the beginning of the study in 2001 and later at the end of the study in 2003. Comparing both scores in each belief domain identified change in beliefs. The Semi-structured interview immediately after the intervention focused, particularly on the changes found in the teacher’s beliefs in his own opinion without informing him in advance of the changes observed through questionnaire analysis. It is also attempted to match these changes with the teacher immediate response after each class in an unstructured interview during last year of the study (April 2002 to March 2003). Another interview was conducted after, six months of the study to find out the permanence 50

of the changes in teacher beliefs. In order to investigate the correspondence of changes in beliefs and practice in the classroom, classroom protocol analysis was carried out. For this purpose, classroom video recording for the same unit of science (Solution) was recorded in year 2001 and 2003. The analysis focused upon the changes in the teaching practice based on the perceived changes in the beliefs and compatibility with constructivist principles.

3.4 Data Analysis: Data was analyzed initially by comparing the Mr. F’s score on Science Teacher’s beliefs questionnaire for each of the five domains of teacher’s beliefs under investigation with the mean score of the rest of the Japanese practicing science teachers (Teachers majoring in science and not majoring in science will be included in the mean score because of no significant difference observed in their beliefs; see chapter 2 for details) in the sample. Probable changes in the Mr. F’s beliefs over a period of two years was determined by changes in scores on the same questionnaire in the beginning and end of the study. The focus will be on determination of interrelation of changes observed in beliefs to look for consistency or contradictions in change areas. In the next stage, interview, which was intentionally conducted in the same framework as questionnaire i.e. domains of beliefs, will be utilized to match with the changes observed in the questionnaire to reflect upon the causes of change or beliefs system, which lead to the change. This is to ensure the trustworthiness of the conclusions. Cross matching with the after the class,

51

short interviews will also be done to further ensure the credibility of the results and add contextual elaboration to the extent, timing and mode of change. In the final stage, these perceived changes would be compared with the actual changes in the classroom practice by analyzing the classroom videos, recorded during each lesson. Video analysis will be carried out for the selected videos. During the course of two years, videos of classroom lesson were recorded for five curriculum units; each spread over 8-12 class lessons (each lesson had 40 min.) on average. Considering the volume of the data, it was decided to compare lesson recorded during the unit titled, “Solutions”, in 2001 and 2003. Same content area will make the comparison easier and valid. Again, the same framework will be used for analysis as in interview and questionnaire (five belief domains) to ensure the consistency and sound basis for comparison.

3.5 Results: The logical format of moving from broader to specific will be adopted for explaining the results of the study. The changes in the teacher’s beliefs will be funneled, starting from change on scores in the science teacher’s beliefs questionnaire, followed by self-perception of the teacher about the observed changes (through interviews) and finally, permanence of changes (interview) and changes in practice will be described (Classroom video protocol analysis).

3.5.1 Comparison of changes in beliefs through scores on science teacher’s beliefs

52

questionnaire: The questionnaire comprised of five belief domains addressing the teacher’s beliefs about different aspects of beliefs about science. Table 1 articulates the scores on each of the domains in comparison to the mean of other practicing science teachers in Japanese elementary schools.

Table 3.1: Changes in the teacher’s beliefs about science in two years and comparison of with mean score of other teachers on five domains of teacher beliefs

Belief Domains

Mean of

Mean of other

Mean of

Mr. F

teachers

Mr. F

March 2001

N=159

March 2003

Total

Per item

a) Nature of scientific knowledge (4)

14

3.5

16.2

4.1

16 [+2]

4.0

b) Effects of technology on teacher (4)

13

3.3

12.0

3.0

14 [+1]

3.5

c) Student participation in lesson (4)

15

3.8

15.7

3.9

18 [+3]

4.5

d) Teaching & learning of science (12)

38

3.2

40.0

3.3

33 [-5]

2.8

e) Nature of student evaluation (4)

17

4.3

16.2

4.1

19 [+2]

4.8

97

3.5

100.0

3.6

100 [+3]

3.6

Total score (28) () Number of question

Total

Per item

Total

Per item

[] difference in mean score of Mr. F between 2001-03.

Range of score is 4-20 for a, b, c & e and 12-60 for d.

The mean for other teachers in the Table 3.1 is inclusive of both types of teachers (Practicing science teacher including both majored in science in university and those who did not major in science but are teaching science) because of failure to demonstrate any difference between the beliefs of both categories in chapter 2. The mean score of Mr. F was lower than the mean of

53

other science teachers on, ‘nature of scientific knowledge’, ‘students participation in lesson’ and ‘teaching & learning of science’ at the beginning of the research in 2001. After two years, a positive difference can be seen in all domains except ‘teaching & learning of science’, where a further decline (-5) was observed. Most noticeable improvement occurred in Mr. F’s beliefs about the students participation is the lesson and the way we should evaluate students’ progress. An improvement in these measures indirectly implies constructivist compatibility but contradiction, or at least instability arises when it is reversed in beliefs about how to teach science. 3.5.1.1 Teaching and Learning of science: The domain related to investigation of ‘teaching & learning of science’, consisted of 12 questions and for Mr. F, negative change is observed (in an already below mean score) in four questions. His believes were further strengthened that practice and revision is key to learning, teacher is in the best position to select teaching method, it is not necessary to have real life situation for effective teaching and learning of science, and science taught in isolation of other subjects is valid idea. One common thread in all these beliefs implies the complexities of practicing constructivist instruction in the already existing school structure and mind-set. In this research, the constructivist instruction was carried out without creating any experimental condition within the class and in administrative aspects. Therefore, the prevailing system in schools, which is heavily inclined towards quantitative measures to assess teacher’s efficiency and effectiveness, 54

makes it very hard to redundant those practices. For example, the belief that practice and revision is key to learning is reflective of the importance of pressure on teachers to produce high achievers on the criteria presently in use in schools, which very much demands practice rather than understanding. Similarly, thinking that teacher is in the best position to select teaching method, and it is not necessary to have real life situation for effective teaching and learning of science is more a result of tightly structured time constraints imposed on teachers to rush through the syllabus and spend remaining time to ensure the practices leading to produce good quantitative results. All these negative (with reference to compatibility with constructivism) effects lead us to need of reforming whole set of classroom practices and redefining the mind-set to have full benefits of constructivist pedagogy. Mr. F being the member of the same evaluative system, could not deviate in practices challenging his credibility as a good teacher on the yardstick used by students, parents and school administration. 3.5.1.2 Nature of scientific knowledge: Beliefs about the generation and process of development of scientific knowledge guide the way science as a body of knowledge is seen and dealt with in classroom, while teaching. Four question included in the questionnaires were meant to explore teacher’s belief about the relationship of science and society, science as body of progressive knowledge and not the ultimate truth in itself, being verified by authorities (scientists) don’t need to be questioned in the class, and where the responsibility regarding the exploration of new knowledge lies. 55

Overall mean of the science teachers showed compatibility with the present intellectual thought of science community (16.2 from maximum possible 20; 4.1 rating per question, while Mr. F being below that mean (14; 3.5 per question) in 2001 and gained two points (16; 4.0 per question) to become almost at par with the rest of the science teachers. 3.5.1.3 Effects of technology on teacher: Technology as tool and WWW (World Wide Web) has been widely accepted as global resource opening possibilities and challenges for the science teachers.

Teachers need to

reconsider their role in the classroom with respect to recognizing the change, opening students mind in how to use these tools and resources effectively, and getting in grip with infinite possibilities at the door of the classroom. Four questions, addressing these issues were asked in the questionnaire. Mr. F seems undecided about the place of technology like most of the Japanese teachers. A mean of 12; rating of 3.0 per question, exactly depicts the indecisive situation. The reason may be, that the Japanese teachers are actually experiencing the use of WWW in the class as almost all Japanese school have computers, and most of them are connected with Internet. They are still in the process of learning to efficiently use this resource. The optimism about Internet revolutionizing the classroom has turned to pessimistic attitude in absence of any efficient guideline of when and how of use. Mr. F is also one of those teachers, who are in the process yet, although he showed more positive inclination (13; rating of 3.3 per question in 2001 and 14; rating of 3.5 per question in 2003) than others but difference just nominal and cannot be termed 56

as any meaningful difference. 3.5.1.4 Student participation in lesson: This is the area which constructivists distinguish themselves from other contemporary instructional theories. This does not mean that higher students participation in the lesson is unique to constructivism only but it is about the wider sense (from the lesson objective to modes, means and evaluation of learning) of valuing the students’ experiences, and preferences while conducting class. Fujita has shown great deal of change (15; rating of 3.8 per question in 2001 to 18; rating of 4.4 per question in 2003) in the area. At the beginning, his mean lied almost at the mean of the other science teachers (15.7; rating of 3.9 per question). The question circumscribed the beliefs like share of time for teacher and students in the lesson, listening to students’ experiences and their role in deciding the objectives of lesson, students’ role in suggesting content, selection of activities/means to investigate or experiment, and student self-assessment. 3.5.1.5 Nature of student evaluation: Reformation of beliefs and practices about classroom evaluation is a subsequent indicator of transformed beliefs about science and science teaching. If a teacher, observe his beliefs changed for pro-constructivist teaching and learning, he/she will find the current practices of evaluating students’ progress deficient in scope and quality. In some cases teacher may believe in the effectiveness of wider range of evaluative activities but cannot practice because of the school policy. Thus despite the inquiry of beliefs showing 57

dissatisfaction about current practices but actual practice limited only to evaluative practices conforming with the school policy. The questions included in this domain asked about the class observation, discussion and students class notes as sources of evaluation, evaluation as continuous activity, student self evaluation as valid source of evaluation, effectiveness of merely term tests as actual measures of students’ abilities. Japanese science teachers have showed a very pro-constructivist approach towards means of effective evaluation (16.2; rating of 4.1 per question) and likewise were the beliefs of Mr. F (17; rating of 4.3 per question) even in 2001. After practicing constructivist instruction for two years, his openness for the consistent evaluative practices increased (19; rating of 4.8 per question) even more. In sum it can be said that despite differing beliefs about the teaching and learning domain his willingness and commitment to change, is clear from the pro-constructivist improvements in the belief domains that are concerned with innovations in the practices inside the classroom in his jurisdiction like students’ participation in conduct of lesson, and widening the base of evaluative activity by including class notes, his observation, discussion with students, monitoring of students work during class as valid sources of evaluating students learning.

3.5.2. Interview: Two interviews were conducted; first immediately at the end of the intervention, primarily focusing on the classroom practice related issues, second after six months of the completion of 58

the data collection to explore permanency of the change in the belief domains inquired through Science Teacher’s Belief Questionnaire (STBQ) and clarify further some of the expressed beliefs in need of such explanation found in questionnaire. Most of the questions asked in first interview were relating to the classroom practice and were resonant with the Teaching and learning domain of Science Teacher’s Belief Questionnaire; therefore they will be used during of that part of second interview. The results are analyzed put Mr. F’s believes on constructivist horizon and determine the coherence of inter-domain beliefs for any contradictions or correspondences. 3.5.2.1 Nature of scientific knowledge Mr. F believes that science is the study of nature; science and is developed while dealing with the variety of questions inherent in the nature and clarifying (implies the external existence) the mysteries of the world around us. Scientific knowledge is arrived at due to explorative activities, human being used to fulfill their desires.

I-Interviewer: If asked to explain what is science, what will be your response. T-Teacher: … question

…

Isn’t the “nature”, subject of science? To enjoy the world of nature. There are many questions in nature and science is to solve the mystery of those questions… more than that I think get involved in natural phenomenon and enjoying understanding them is science. (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

The conversation above reflects the dominance of the beliefs that science is to explain the 59

already existing phenomenon. Looking from constructivist perspective, Mr. F believes in the ontological reality of the external world and science is to explore that already existing world. This is different than the radical constructivists (who don’t believe in any objective reality) but close to the many constructivist practitioners (Driver &Oldham, 1986; Fosnot, 1993; Pines & West, 1986) working especially in the area of ‘conceptual change’ in science education. 3.5.2.2 Intent of teaching science But when it comes to the means of knowing the realities of external world, Mr. F believes that teaching of scientific rules is important but some time it is beyond the children’s thinking ability. It is best if they can discover the rules behind the phenomenon under investigation by themselves but if they cannot teacher should explain to them. His belief about the limitation of student’s scope of thinking may have roots in the limited experience students bring to the class or any other reason.

I-Interviewer:

what do think about the teaching of scientific facts and rules? Mean should they be

taught as fixed, proven and unchallengeable or open to change.. T-Teacher: …

near side

Basically I wish the students should think (about rules). But it is not possible given their ability (as young child). Thus, it is better if children make up from the things in their immediate surrounding I. By themselves (independently) T.

training

Obviously, its continuous training is important I.

limit

limit

class

Children have a limit of thinking (to pick teacher’s point), Therefore, in such situation in the class what is the role of the teacher? Or what did you do in you’re your class?

60

T.

object

object rule

rule explain

rule Yes, in this case it is must to make objectives clear. If objective is to teach rule, then teacher can explain accordingly, may be can explain the rule, may be let the students perform the experiment and if they cannot understand leave it as it is, or explain. But it is only when teaching rule is the objective I.

rule In this case, learning rules in not necessary for the elementary school students.

T.

rule

get

get

present

rule

lever system

rule No, it is the way of learning. They will get it by their self or someone will present to them. Obviously, finding (the rule) by them is best…like they found the lesson on Lever… (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

But it can be argued that delivery of rules by simple words, when students fail, is non-constructivist inherently. Instead, preferably teacher should think about the methods to maximize the chances of self-discovery as he himself explained by taking the example from lessons on ‘Levers’, when students discovered the principle of lever by experimental method.

3.5.2.3 Classroom Practices (Student participation, teacher’s role, technology, and evaluation) Following the above beliefs, his views were explored about the classroom dynamics. He was asked about what type of class is best suitable for learning, what are pre-requisites for such class, and how it can be managed.

I. …

61

… What type of lesson (class) can ensure good learning in the students looking from teacher’s role? T. agreement agreement

feedback

agreement Any lesson ending with students’ agreement on the outcome of the lesson is good, if mistaken (probably cannot get the desired outcome) then all students agree on that they are mistaken and if understood all of them agree that they understood. In case of mistaken, if agreed to look back into mistake and have feed back and finally agree (on results). (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in March 2003

He explained his use of word “Agreement” in later interview as a loose parallel of students’ participation in the lesson and owning the responsibility of the results by the students in either case; success or failure. In case of failure, looking back at methodology and drawbacks to eradicate them and decide for the next step. The extent of students’ participation is explained as:

I.

student participation activity

teaching- learning

participation

Thus, what do you think, how much (by extent) student’s participation is possible freely in your classes. T.

pause Hoe much id it!

I.

lesson

lesson

plan

element For example, if we think about one lesson, it has planning, content, and conclusion. If we take them as elements, how much (far) student participation can make good lesson. T. pause In every thing I. Every thing! T.

Plan

all

component

plan

plan

62

plan

plan

plan

experiment

discussion It is ideal to have students participating in all components from lesson plan to end. But to reach a stage to be able make plan, they need a lot of training (study). They need such experience, if not it is hard to participate in good planning. But finally, it is good if they make learning plan, do experiments, record results, and discuss results too (among themselves). (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

It shows that Mr. F believes are quite compatible to constructivist principles, when it comes to the relying on students and importance of necessity of individual/group experiences in the activity of learning. Also recognition of student participation at each level of lesson shows the awareness of important place of ownership for adaptation and assimilation of newly learned scientific phenomenon. If the students are able to do all that by themselves then, what the teachers is supposed to do or how has this changed the teacher’s role in the class.

I. If students can do all this, what is the job of teacher? T Supervise.

miss

discussion

miss! miss!

you, change!

change

change because

discussion

To supervise, because time is fixed and if student miss something (during the preparation of plan), discuss that with them and convince them to change with their consent. It can be easy to tell them for change where needed but that is not good for them, thus it takes time but still I think it is very important. This has become the job of teacher. To encourage them to (make such changes) through group discussion among themselves by themselves is best. If they are doing such thing by themselves, just get into their discussion and… I.

63

You (teacher) will jump in… T. (nodding)

miss

because

change Yes, jumping in and (listening) if not needed just let them decide between them, (otherwise give hint), where they were wrong and wrong because… thus let us change to…. (How to rectify that mistake) (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

Teacher is the supervisor, to look after what students are doing and jump in only when they need it. The best way is to let hem explore the mistakes and rectify them at their own. But if managed at the planning stage through teacher supervision, it can save already tight time of school schedule. The teacher’s role, in Mr. F opinion is moving around the class from group to group (particularly in class where students are working in groups, as was the case in this study) and listening to the direction in which students discussion/activity/experiment is leading them and interfere only when needed. This brings him in line with the role a constructivist teacher is expected to play in the class, where student see teacher as a resource not as a source responsible for transferring his knowledge to them but bringing them to the state of mind where they can develop their own understanding. When it comes to the impact of advancements in technology, especially World Wide Web (WWW), following views were expressed;

I.

available resource internet

professional software

Till now textbook and teacher was the only resource at students’ disposal for classroom learning but now they have a variety, like Internet and professional software etc. What change you feel whether your role

64

has become easier or more difficult? T.

environment

teaching method

teaching method

create

create It has become difficult. The environment surrounding children has changed and it is must to change our teaching method. I think it will be very hard to continue the method of past but creating (new method) is delightful interesting. But if teacher have no ability to create new methods, it will be really hard (for him/her). I. What do you feel? Is it delightful or difficult in your case? T. I think it is difficult but if I don’t change it will not be interesting. Thus obviously I am changing. But it is not easy to change very easily. I. When we talk about change, what change do you feel in yourself? T. Concerning myself, I feel students lack the ability to select the (useful/needed) information and teaching should focus on teaching such ability. I. How can we teach the ability of select the (needed) information? T.

computer room

It is needed for me also to look beforehand some information that I will ask students to find out. Thus going to computer room earlier and look for the information. Also teacher can help the children to some extent in organizing the information found by the students in the given time. I. Did you tried this in the classes during last two years? T.

computer hit

(Yes). In the beginning I thought putting students in front of computers finished my job and now students will find out the information they need. But it takes a lot of time for the children to hit the right information needed for them. (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

It is evident in the above excerpt that in the beginning, teacher was quite optimistic about the use of technological advances in the classroom but when used practically, he found it time consuming and hard for the children to filter through the piles of information to the exact information they are looking for and teacher need to develop in the ability of selection among 65

the students and himself as well, to make the efficient use of WWW practicable in the class. This change of role in his perception about the teacher’s place in the class marks the shift from himself being source of information to a guide leading towards the source of information. Thus advancements in technology have forced the modes of teaching and teacher to reform his/her role, which is what constructivists expect from the teacher. Now I will move to the last part of this analysis, which is in a sense litmus test to judge the credibility of all previous demands because teacher evaluates students for what he/she believes is the learning for. The selection of modes of evaluation reflects the kind of evaluation intended. Following are the views held by Mr. F about the nature, purpose, modes and timings of evaluation.

assessment

I.

assessment

You do students assessment as others, what are your objectives while assessing students? T.

assessment

assessment no good

assessment

feedback The objective of evaluation is to verify if the students are ready to enter in the next stage of their learning or study. Obviously, it is know whether the students have understood or not what is taught. Assessment should not finish at finding understood or not only but should proceed to find the reason of that. Thus I think assessment is to find the readiness of students for next stage of learning rather is simple feedback. I. It means to see if a student is ready to enter next stage or not? T.

66

Assessment means that (Student) should be able to know about his/her own level, understanding, the things he/she can do. Thus being able to see own strength/ ability. I think this is very important for the self-confidence of students. I. Thus, what kind of assessment can ensure that students have achieved what you are saying? T.

paper

observation

observation It depends on the content, but can be done through paper test, or in my case can be done while I am observing students during class… I. In everyday lesson! T.

40

interview

40

evaluation

interview

interview

Yes in my class, the only problem is the large numbers (40) of students. It is not possible to evaluate all of them. But looking at what students are doing, talking (interviewing) to them is very important. During interview it is easy to feel what students have understood, where they have problem, what interests them, what seems strange to them, and where they have difficulty. I.

class

observation

evaluation Is it correct to day that you do assessment in daily lessons when students are doing experiments or busy in any other activity by observing and talking to them? T. I.

(yes) timing

Thus, you don’t have any specific time for assessment like at the end of first term or so? T.

assessment No. But I went through such assessment when I was student.

Note: Due to high degree of agreement between the views on all issues in both interviews (in March 2003, and September 2003 excerpt is taken of latest one for avoiding repetition. (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

The beliefs expressed in the excerpt above reflect clear deviation from traditional views of assessment. Belief in assessment as continuous activity, in the context of classroom learning activities, through more relevant and active modes like observation and interview is clearly in 67

agreement with constructivist principles. The excerpt above doesn’t mention student’s class notes as source of assessment but he mentioned it in the interview in March 2003 as useful in knowing about what students have produced as important to them. Reviewing class notes before going to next lesson is very helpful in addressing more directly the needs of students.

3.5.3 Self-perception of change in teaching style The results in the first two sections portray some changes in the beliefs of the teacher to some extent. This section is to know about, how far he perceives himself to be changed and in what respects.

I. Do you think any change in your teaching methods or conduct of the lesson over the period of two years? T.

I feel that I have changed in having more interest in finding out what children are thinking. Also through the notes they write. T. interview

There are many thing with they (students) think beyond what they write in notes, and I think I am tended more to know that by doing interview with them, as I mentioned before. Thus, I ask them to explain what they learned in the class, or asking them to talk in more detail etc. I think the use of such words have become more in my class than before. My class has more (words) like why? How? Asking question like, what do you think about this? Have increased. T:

group

class

It is not only with individuals but with whole group as well or sometimes in the class as a whole too. T: …

68

Usually when asked what do you think in the class as a whole, student tend to say yes, yes or agree, then I ask about (specific) event of learning during the class…Asking like this is a change (compared to before). This may make some of the children pounding. T:

If we take it otherwise, it means there may be some students who are not fully involved (but feel they may be called anytime). (This translation from Japanese is not word-by-word). Taken from interview in September 2003

The beliefs quoted in the above excerpt are taken from various parts of the interview relating directly and indirectly to the teacher’s self-reflection about the type of changes he perceivably went through during the two-year period of intervention. The major change was in the form of realizing greater students participation in the lesson as essential ingredient for the learning. He feels that the manifestation of this change is portrayed in his practice by asking more questions, reasoning, respecting what students say, exploration of students knowledge, involving students in the planning of lesson, trusting the abilities of the students to handle their learning, helping students to connect their results to their previous learning, and by encouraging students to harmonize ideas among themselves about the results reached through individual/group activities of choice. He also has started using class notes, more than before, of students as resource for knowing about students’ strengths and inadequacies as the base for the next lesson. Reviewing these notes not as the evaluative tool (for grading purpose) only but as a resource to get insight about the dimensions of progress before the start of the next class session helps him in improving his

69

teaching and organizing his lesson better. It also provides motivation to the students when they realize that their immediate concerns are addressed when they need. Teacher also realize that he pays more attention to roam about in the class while students are engaged in the experiments or any class activity and pick up some work they are doing to discuss the progress at that moment. This help’s him in knowing what students are doing and students in gaining confidence and knowing the direction of their activity in terms of intended goals. He labeled this kind of talk as “interviews” during the activity to encourage the perpetual provocation of the mental part of the physical activity, equally important for the learning act. Students who are not that active participant and social by nature may find his insisting policy for probing reasons and understanding more vigorously a little upsetting at time as they are not used to this kind of teaching but still he refers it as positive change in his methodology. Perceived changes may some be illusions only, thus next section of this chapter is for looking into the actual lesson analysis for finding the reality of the perceived changes. The lessons analyzed were taken from the data collected in final phase of the research to truly investigate the final state of changes after using constructivist practices for two years in the class.

3.5.4 Perceived changes vs. Actual changes: analyzing class video It can be concluded from the Mr. F’s score on Science Teacher’s Belief Questionnaire (STBQ), two semi-structured interviews and unstructured interview after every lesson that he

70

perceived some changes in his teaching practice regarding the students’ involvement in the lesson and approach to evaluating the student progress or understanding of science. He started relying more on the students’ own ability to decide about the mean and method of study. He also realized that he gives more attention to listening individual students progress in the lesson by visiting them while they are busy in their work. He regarded reviewing student class notes as a useful resource for the teacher to know about student learning and plan for the next lesson. At the same time he also saw greater involvement with students during their activities as a source of continuous monitoring. In this section, these perceived changes will be compared the results from the actual analysis of classroom protocol for assessing the extent of change by comparing the lessons conducted by Mr. F with grade 5 science students for the unit of solution (for more details about data collection and method see chapter 10). The data was analyzed by taking a single utterance as the basic unit of analysis instead of counting words or sentences. An utterance was defined as a complete meaningful segment of conversation dealing with single continuous idea. It can be comprised of one word or one small paragraph depending on the context and demand of the situation. The rationale for using an utterance as the unit of analysis was constructivist focus on the content of talk rather than the quantity of talk. It was observed during review of the data that sometimes a long sentence does not convey the meaning, which a single word can. Thus mere counting of words can mislead the reader about the actual value of classroom discourse. 71

The results showed a substantial increase in the student participation in 2003 as compared to 2001 i.e. 33 percent (235/711 utterances) in 2001 to 43 percent (456/1071 utterances) in 2003. Thus consequently squeezing the teacher talk from 67 percent (476/711 utterances) in 2001, to 57 percent (615/456 utterances) in 2003. It confirms the authenticity of teacher perception of change in his teaching practice. If looked in different sub-categories of the talk, an increased percentage of connecting talk showed greater teacher communication during the activity/experiment with students while

Percentage of untte

they are engaged in learning. Figure 3.1 shows more than 10% increase connecting talk.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

45.4 34

32.2 22.5

25.2

18.3

2001 2003

14.3 8.1

Tuning

Connecting M onitoring Sub-category ofteacher talk

Directions

Figure 3.1: Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of teacher talk 2001and2003

A similar pattern was observed in monitoring talk (evaluative) confirming the compatibility of teacher perception and practice. Decrease in the tuning talk (10.2%) is contradictory to the teacher’s perception that he puts high value in exploring students’ idea, sufficiency of previous

72

knowledge for the future learning. Thus the claim for greater student participation can be regarded as partially correct. He increased the student participation by allowing more opportunities to express their reasoning, cause, thinking and judgment about the on-going activity but reduced their opportunity to share their previous knowledge, experiences and observations to utilize it effectively for their current learning. The improvement in the students’ willingness to participate can also be judged by an increase in the student self-initiated talk shown in Figure 3.2. Although it shows some decrease in the over all percentage of student responses but it is well compensated by the increase in more desired self-initiated talk.

90 Percentage of utte

80

82.1 73.2

70 60

2001 2003

50 40 30

22.4

20

10.2

10

7.7

4.4

0 Reponse

Self-initiated talk Question Sub-categories ofstudent talk

Figure 3.2: Comparison of percentage of sub-categories of student talk 2001and2003

The students’ self-initiated talk here includes only those utterances which reflected student 73

volunteering an idea, observation, experience, opinion or lead to address the issue in discussion. It was in the form of a question setting direction for thought or adding new dimension to the point in discussion. The provocation some time did come from the teacher’s talk or class fellows but the respondent was not obliged or expected to contribute the shared information. It was some time in the form of an addition to other student comments or clarification of own position.

3.6 Discussion: Mr. F’s beliefs about the five domains of science teaching showed constructivist compatibility as a result of continued practice of constructivist principles in the classroom except in one domain i.e. teaching and learning of science. Therefore it leads to the deduction that despite being theoretically inclined to constructivist principles [changed beliefs about nature of scientific knowledge to comparatively more pro-constructivist stance (from 14/20 in March 2001 to 16/20 in March 2003)] his practice does not corresponds fully with this positive change. The reason lies in the rigid traditional school set-up, where ultimately the students’ score on the term tests is the measure of teacher’s efficiency. Thus, forcing teachers to work in contrary to their beliefs some times. It once again reiterates that constructivist practices cannot be implemented in piecemeal style but needs an overall change of approach and mind-set in all departments of school and community. Our beliefs are very strongly embedded in our personality and are not easily changeable. But the perceived and observed changes in the teacher’s beliefs in some of the domains once again (few other studies also showed the change; see review part of chapter 2) established that 74

teacher’s beliefs are amenable, if amenability is initiated from inside the teacher rather than external forces. In this case continuous practice of constructivism revealed its benefits to the teacher and self-realization of those benefits on the part of the teacher motivated him for changes in his teaching beliefs and consequently classroom practice. In his interviews he accepted that he found it useful to talk to students about their learning during the lesson to understand better what is going on inside the student’s mind. Therefore he decided to communicate more frequently and pay more value to their opinion. In sum, it can be said that constructivism provided the context for change but it was ultimately the practice that caused the change in the beliefs of teacher. The theoretical appreciation of constructivist principles encouraged teacher to try out some plausible looking principle in classroom and they were able to bring change in practice only when matched the expectation of the teachers. The gap between the perceived and actual change suggests the difficulty of translating shift in beliefs to actual practice. It needs conscious and continuous effort to make the perceived changes a part of the practice because long practice makes our actions a part of our spontaneous response to a certain situation. For example, even a teacher believing in vitality of letting students to discover a certain scientific principle/rule from their experiment or peer discussion about the experimental results finds it difficult to hold back himself/herself from telling the rule directly when he/she finds students not being easily able to do so by themselves. The same was observed in this case, when Mr. F perceived that he had changed his practice towards valuing students previous experiences and knowledge more than before but actual 75

practice shows that the percentage of tuning talk (from 18.3% in 2001 to 8.1% in 2003) reduced by more than 10% overtime. Therefore, a change in belief does not automatically transform into practice but teacher need to consciously implement it till it becomes a part of his/her natural instinct.

76

Chapter 4

Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) as Informant of Constructivist Teaching and Learning “Attitudes are learnt and not inherited” Shrigley (1988; p.659)

Keeping in view the vitality of student’s attitude towards studying science and approach towards learning outcomes (Koballa, 1988: p.115, Koballa, 1990: p.369-381), this chapter is devoted to study the probable relationship between the two in constructivist learning environment. An effort is made to develop two separate instruments to effectively measure these characteristics and help teacher to utilize them in his/her constructivist learning practices. The ease of use and productivity in daily class lesson time at will were kept in mind while developing these instruments. Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) is made to inform teacher about the students’ attitude towards science as subject and Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) is to guide teacher about the student’s approach towards phenomenon of learning for its compatibility with constructivist principles. The process of development and validation of both of these instruments is discussed in the following sections of this chapter followed by reporting the changes in each of them over a period of one-year time. The interrelationship between the two measures will also be discussed.

A research paper titled, “Development of Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) for elementary school students (

)” using the data from chapter has already been accepted for

publication in Educational Technology Research, 27(suppl.).2003.

77

4.1 Development of Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS)

4.1.1 Related Research Attitude is one of the most important concepts in affective domain, and its importance for the learning of science is an established phenomenon. Investigating attitudes scientifically (as psychological construct rather than physical) started in 1918 and the first such study was by Thomas and Znaniecki’s, about the Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Prior to this study attitude was considered more physical than affective (Shrigley, 1988; p. 662, Koballa, 1988:p.369). In science education, it was only in 1970 when research on attitudes gained momentum. Inter-relationship of attitude and range of variables (like achievement, gender differences, age factor, peer influence, intelligence etc. etc.) has been studied in length since then. A great volume of the results are produced but many in the field have reservations about the contribution of these studies in explaining the true implication for the classroom learning and clarifying the ambiguity, vagueness, and inconsistencies in the meaning associated with concept of attitude in science education and (Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982; p. 557, Germann, 1988; p. 689). The stability and consistency of results is also questioned, thus raising the demand of more serious efforts and clear focus. The state of inconclusiveness came out even stronger through the findings of some massive synthesis conducted by Shibeci (1984), Munby (1983b), and Haladyna & Shaughnessy(1982). Shibeci’s (1984) reviewed 200 studies conducted between 1976 and 1983 certified the instability of the results reported in these studies, Haladyna and Shaughnessy’s (1982) 78

meta-analysis included 49 research studies collected from research journals in science education, dissertations and conference reports. He found that research on attitude is “disorganized and chaotic” having methodological bugs, which were made up to some extent in the studies conducted in 1980’s (p. 557)[for further details read Shibeci, 1984 and Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982]. They continue to argue that complexities are added to by variety of definitions attached to the concept (p. 548) and are multiplied by the poor quality of attitude instruments (Munby, 1983b: p.143). Therefore, it is important to clearly differentiate among studies investigating scientific attitude, and attitude toward science. Munby (1983a) characterize scientific attitude as process through which one thinks about the steps to be followed to reach scientific conclusions. But attitude towards science is reflected through showing like or dislike, interest, choosing scientific carrier etc. (p. 50) Present study is limited to student’s attitude towards science to avoid and confusion and complexity of getting more than one area involved. In the area of attitude towards science specifically, Munby (1983a) identified only 56 attitude instruments out of total 204, which address attitude towards science and remaining were addressing scientific attitude. Furthermore, only 21 of 56 identified were used in more than one study and have sufficient reliability and validity. Despite all this strong criticism it is fair to say that these studies guided every future researcher in focusing to the subject, and rectifying the deficiencies of the past studies. Some of the important results noticed in different studies involving elementary and high school 79

students included in this review (which is not exhaustive by any means but majority of commonly referred studies are included) can be summarized as; 1. Males have more positive attitude towards science than females (Simpson and Oliver, 1985: p. 521, Schibeci, 1984: p.46, Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982: p. 552). Morrell & Lederman’s (1998:pp. 81-82), Ebenezer’s (1993: p. 182), and Barrington and Hendricks’s (1988: p. 686) study reported otherwise. 2. Attitude towards science is inversely related grade level is the most consistent result reported (Morrell & Lederman, 1998:pp. 80, Oliver & Simpson, 1988: pp.146-147, Simpson and Oliver, 1985: p. 521, Schibeci, 1984: p.46, Simpson and Oliver, 1990: p. 12) 3. Achievement in science is in direct proportion to attitude towards science (Barrington and Hendricks, 1988: p. 685, Germann, 1988: p. 699, Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982: p. 556, Oliver & Simpson, 1988: p.147). 4. Students of the teacher, who is good at instructional methods have positive attitude towards science (Germann, 1988: p. 700, Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982: p. 558). The results compiled above are only those, which have relevance to traits investigated in this study to give a better comparison about the historical trend and results of the present study. Being a comparatively new field of study, the evidence for interplay of attitude towards science and constructivist instruction is still very hard to find (Nasir et. al, 2003; in press). In the limited research published, it is important to mention here that Ebenezer (1993) study 80

have noted that no significant impact on the students of grade 10 in their attitude towards science over a period of 3 years even in presence of constructivist practices (p. 175).

4.1.2 Objectives This study aims at 1. Developing a science attitude scale for the elementary school students to provide teachers with a valid instrument for knowing about the attitude of their students towards the science and use it for designing effective constructivist learning. 2. Investigating the effect of constructivist instruction on the students’ attitude towards science over long span of time.

4.1.3 Method 4.1.3.1. Participants The sample included grade 5 (11+ years) & 6 (12+ years) students from three elementary schools in Tokyo metropolitan area.

Table 4.1: Sample distribution by grade and gender School 1

Grade Boys

Girl

School 2 Tota

School 3

Total

Boys

Girls

Total

Boys

Girls

Total

Boys

Girls

Total

l 5

33

38

71

11

15

26

12

11

23

56

64

120

6

53

57

110

13

13

26

15

14

29

81

84

165

86

95

181

24

28

52

27

25

52

137

148

285

Total

81

The total number of students was 309 but only 285 completed all entries on the science attitude scale. Thus data analysis was performed for 285 students. The distribution by gender and grade was as given in Table 4.1. 4.1.3.2 Item construction SSAS is comprised of twelve items divided evenly in three factors. These factors are interest, confidence, and career choice. Originally, it comprised of 22 items derived and modified from various available tools, mainly from Diana Doepken’s (1993) science attitude scale but after analysis only 12 were found suitable for the inclusion in final instrument. The factors were chosen in correspondence with the review of the literature and objectives of the research. Table 4.2 describes the scope of these factors in the context of the present study.

Table 4.2: Description of Factor used a measure of Science Study Attitude Scale Factor Interest

Description It includes not simply the inquiry of interest in science but based on the interest in science class practices to imply the interest in science as subject.

Confidence

Confidence refers to feeling of self-efficacy in producing better results in the subjects.

Career Choice

Does the attitude is shaped by the prospective profession choice or higher attitude towards science work as a force in selection of future career.

Note: for example of each of factors see the SSAS in Annexure 2

The language, selection of words, and sentence structure was continuously discussed with science teachers of the respective grades and updated throughout the item construction 82

process to match with the language ability of the students of grade 5 and 6. 4.1.3.3. Procedure The instrument was carried out under the supervision of the class teacher. The teacher read all item statements one by one and students responded to each statement on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) at the end of each statement. Thus enabling all students to finish at the same time and avoid any unnecessary confusion. The same procedure was followed in all three schools and in different sections of the same school. A meeting about the purpose of the data collection and procedures to conduct SSAS was discussed with principal and concerned teacher in advance.

4.1.4 Method of Data Analysis SPSS 10.0 package was used for the analysis of data. Data analysis was done to identify the factors and ensure the reliability and validity of the items included in each factor. For carrying out factor analysis, extraction method of principal component analysis was used with Varimax rotation. Item reliability was determined by calculating α-value. Inter-item correlation and inter-factor correlation was found to show the relative independence of factors but strong coherence with the total scale.

4.1.5 Results 4.1.5.1. Factor analysis Principal component analysis method was used to reduce the data in three factors using 83

Varimax rotation. Due to the expectation of difference between the attitude of girls and boys first, factor analysis was performed separately for both genders but the results revealed the extraction same factors in either case. Although minor changes in means scores and SD were notices between boys and girls but they did not affect the factor distribution. Thus final analysis is gender free. All those cases were excluded from analysis, which had more than five missing entries leaving the total valid cases to 285. For the cases having less than five missing entries, the missing value was replaced by mean. Initially analysis was conducted for all 22 items in SSAS with Eigenvalues over 1, and three factors were clearly identified along with some other indecisive factor loading for various items. Limiting the numbers of factors to three, analysis for performed again.

84

Table 4.3: Factor analysis of the Science Study Attitude Scale Item

F1

F2

Q18.

Science class is interesting because it has more activity in it

0.877

0.128

0.047

Q17

I like science class because it gives me more freedom to work in 0.827

0.084

0.095

0.731

0.061

0.226

0.718

0.302

-0.023

0.096

0.838

0.078

0.047

0.807

0.000

collaboration with my friends. Q19

In science class, unlike other classes, I have more freedom to do the things by myself.

Q12 Q3

Taking science is a waste of time. R Science is hard for me. R

Q8

F3

I can get good grades in science.

Q4

I am not the type to do well in science. R

0.235

0.731

0.152

Q2

I am sure I can learn science.

0.214

0.553

0.330

Q14

I will select science when I go to high school or university.

-0.061 0.211

0.789

Q16

I will need good understanding of science for my future job.

0.094 -0.022

0.767

Q11

I like job, which are related to science.

0.180

0.368

0.674

0.121

0.013

0.671

Variance

2.67

2.49

2.32

% Variance

22.28

20.77

19.30

Cumulative Variance %

22.28

43.05

62.35

Q9

I Know science will help me earn better living.

Factor loadings larger than 0.55 are taken only. Extraction Method: Principal component Analysis Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization F1: Interest F2: Confidence F3: Career Choice

(R) reverse item

The items having factor loading less than 0.50 were excluded. Table 4.3 shows the details about the finally selected 12 items with original number of items from the first version of SSAS. All three factor account for 62.35% of the total variance with interest, confidence, and 85

career choice accounting for 22.28, 20.77, and 19.77 percent of variance respectively. 4.1.5.2. Reliability and Validity Table 4.4 shows the overall reliability of the SSAS is .814, which is statistically acceptable. α-value by factor is .666, .770, and .774 for interest, confidence and career choice respectively. Inter-factor correlation has comparatively lower values for between factor correlations, which indicated the mutual independence of the factors. But higher correlations of each factor to the total scale show greater coherence in factors as measures of the same scale. On each factor the student score can be range between 4 and 20. The mean score of 4.08/item on the interest factor indicates higher degree of interest but it hardly seems to impact confidence (3.25/ item) and career choice (2.94/ item) of the students.

Table 4.4: Factor item mean, reliability and inter-factor correlation. Scale

Inter-factor correlation

No. Of

Reliability

items

(α-value)

Interest (F1)

4

.666

Confidence (F2)

4

.770

.376*

Career choice(F3)

4

.744

.243*

.363*

Total

12

.814

.727*

.759*

F1

*. Correlation is significant at p< 0.01 (2-tailed)

F2

F3

.740*

Factor

Factor

item mean

item SD

16.30

3.24

12.98

2.95

11.77

3.42

41.05

7.13

N=285

86

The normal distribution curve shown in Figure 4.1, for the total score of all (n=285) students reveal quite a normal distribution to make the data suitable for correlation with the other instrument. 50

40

30

20

10

0 20.0

25.0

22.5

30.0

27.5

35.0

32.5

40.0

37.5

45.0

42.5

50.0

47.5

55.0

52.5

60.0

57.5

Figure 4.1: Normal distribution of the total score of Grade 5 & 6 students on SSAS

4.1.6 Discussion SSAS is developed to facilitate classroom teachers to know more about the measures potentially helpful in understanding students’ attitude towards science and plan his/her teaching accordingly to address the needs of the students. The statistical results revealed the sufficiency of reliability, and validity for an instrument to be acceptable and even distribution of student scores is enables the future researchers to correlate the results of this study with their work.

87

Another important thing to mention is that the instrument is specifically meant for the students of elementary schools science students, therefore, factors like concentration span of grade 5 & 6 students, ease of administration within the lesson time without effecting the normal class lesson at the facility of teacher were kept in mind while developing SSAS. It is very relevant to mention here the broader context and objectives for which this instrument is used (as explained in the objectives and related research section) are parameters to determine the relevance of the scores. When used in different cultural and social perspectives, the appropriateness of the results may vary in degree and can depict attitudes not directly relevant to the study. Therefore, future researchers are cautioned to look thoroughly the suitability of the items when using in another context.

88

4.2. Longitudinal study of SSAS for Long-term changes

4.2.1 Rationale The research studies over a long span of time are very rare in the field of attitude investigation (Oliver & Simpson, 1988; p. 143). Long time span studies are well recognized for observing changes in affective domain in social sciences. This study aims at finding the changes in the students of grade-5 science class over a period of one academic year in a constructivist-learning classroom. This change will be studied indirectly by finding change in three variables; interest in subject, confidence in performing good, and career choice in practical life. The assumption was that the students’ attitude towards students is influenced positively in an independent, student-centered, activity oriented (both physical and mental), and collaborative classroom environment. Students’ will develop further interest in the subject when they will have more inviting classes in constructivist context. This interest will help them to become more confident about their success and favorable behavior towards opting a profession related to science.

4.2.2 Data Collection Data was collected between March 2002 and March 2003, students of grade 5 in one of the attached elementary school of Tokyo Gakugei University from 97 students (boys= 49, girls=48) of science using Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS). There were 115 students in 89

total but only 97 of them participated in all five data collections. The data was collected five times in the whole academic year roughly at an interval of three months each, except the last time when the time gap was only one month. The students were exposed to constructivist instruction and the timing of data collection was always at the start and end of the unit of study under observation. For example the data collected in March-April 2003 was at the time when students started the study of unit, Germination and Growth.

Timing of data collection Unit of curriculum

2002 3

4

5

6

7

8

2003 9

10

11

12

1

2

3

*

Germination and Growth1

1

2 3

Lifting weight by Lever2

4

Solutions3 * All number are the number of months

1

2(

)

3

5 Marks the

data collection performed. And numbers on it represent the order.

Figure 4.2: Timings and frequency of SSAS data collection

At the end of the unit again data was collected to find any change in the attitude toward science in term of three construct mentioned before. In case, when two units of curriculum were observed continuously, the data collected at the end of one unit was assumed valid for the initial attitude score at the start of the next unit.]

4.2.3 Method and data analysis: The administration of the instrument was carried out in the guidance of the science teacher, who read all the statements and students were asked to proceed together to avoid 90

any lapse in data and confusion. As the investigation is about the probable effects of constructivist instruction on the students’ attitude toward science in terms of three variables i.e. interest, confidence, and career choice. GLM (General Linear Model) analysis method for repeated measures for between-groups and within-group was used to find any gender difference and change in individual scores on variables over a period of one year for each factor and in total as well. Gender analysis was performed to find out any significant difference between two sexes as some studies have reported gender, as a differentiating variable (Simpson and Oliver, 1985: p. 521, Schibeci, 1984: p.46, Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982: p. 552).

4.2.4 Results The results were analyzed using the mean score of students on each of the five times, for each factor of the scale and for overall SSAS score. Table 4.5 shows the total and factor-wise mean and standard deviation for all five data collections gender-wise. A visible trend observed is the net decline of attitude in all three factors except marginal increase in girls’ interest in science. Other than this marginal difference in interest factor, there seems to be no gender difference as for as confidence and career choice is concerned.

91

Table 4.5: Mean and Standard Deviation for all Factors of SSAS gender-wise Frequency of data collection

Interest Boys

Girls

Confidence Total

Boys

Girls

Career Choice Total

Boys

Girls

Total Total

Boys

Girls

Total

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

X

SD

First- Mar-Apr’02

17.1

2.3

16.7

2.7

16.9

2.5

13.8

2.9

14.0

2.8

13.9

2.8

13.7

3.3

13.1

3.1

13.4

3.2

44.7

6.8

43.7

6.8

42.2

6.7

Second-May-Jun’02

16.6

3.0

17.0

2.4

16.8

2.7

13.0

2.9

13.2

3.3

13.1

3.0

12.7

3.4

13.4

3.0

13.0

3.2

42.2

7.6

43.6

6.5

42.9

7.1

Third- October ‘02

16.6

2.1

17.3

2.5

16.9

2.3

11.8

3.1

12.4

3.2

12.1

3.1

11.1

3.5

12.5

3.1

11.8

3.3

42.2

6.4

39.5

6.4

40.8

6.5

Fourth-January ‘03

16.5

2.4

17.1

2.9

16.8

2.6

12.1

3.1

12.2

3.2

12.1

3.1

12.2

3.1

12.5

3.3

12.4

3.1

40.9

6.9

41.9

7.0

41.3

7.0

Fifth- Feb-Mar ’03

16.1

3.0

17.2

2.7

16.6

2.9

12.1

3.0

12.3

3.0

12.2

3.0

12.5

3.0

12.1

2.9

12.3

2.9

40.7

6.6

41.5

6.2

41.1

6.4

N= 97 (Boys=49, Girls=48) X = Mean

92

Individual score could range between 5-60 in total, while 4-20 in each factor on the five-point scale as the SSAS have 12 items and each of the three factors have 4 items. The students in the sample have reasonably high (more than 4) interest level in science. On the other two factors i.e. confidence and career choice, the mean score reflect indecision (around 3) 30 28 26 24 22 20

Score

18 16 14 12

First

10

Second

8

Third

6 4

Fourth

2 0 N =

Fifth 97

97

97

97

97

Frequency of measure-Interest

24 22 20 18 16

Score

14 12 10

First

8

Second

6 Third

4

Fourth

2 0

Fifth

N =

98

98

98

98

98

Frequency of measure-confidence

24 22 20 18 16

Score

Score

14 12 10 8

First

First

Second

Second

Third

Third

Fourth

Fourth

6 4 2 0 N =

Fifth

Fifth 98

98

98

98

Frequency of measure-career choice

98

N =

97

97

97

97

97

Frequency of measure-total

93

Fig. 4.3: Comparison of median and range of student scores on all factors of SSAS

In the box plots in Fig. 4.3 it is clear that the range of students’ score on interest is very narrow; between 12 and 20, which shows that students were highly interested in the science as subject from the beginning thus making it hard to expect further rise. For the rest of the factors, the range is comparatively wide (confidence, 4-19; career choice, 4-19, for most of data collections). This wider range reflects the indecisiveness, and instability of attitude towards these two factors. The graphs in Fig. 4.4 show the pattern of changes in the mean scores for each factor and total from five times data collection in one academic year. 20.0

Estimated Marginal Means

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0 1

2

3

4

5

Interest

94

20.0 18.0

Estimated Marginal Means

16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1

2

3

4

5

Confidence

60

20.0

55

18.0

50 45

14.0

Estimated Marginal Means

Estimated Marginal Means

16.0

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0

35 30 25 20 15 10

2.0

5 0

0.0 1

40

2

3

Career choice

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Total (All three factors)

Fig. 4.4: Comparative changes in mean scores for each factor over a period of one year. Note: Numbers (1,2,3,4,5) on x-axis represents the frequency of data collection in order

All graphs represent the decrease in scores to varying degrees. None of the factors have continuous decrease or increase but we see fluctuation in the mean scores on all factors. Although these fluctuation are very small in quantum but again reinforce the instability of scores. The insubstantiality of the difference in mean scores between any two consecutive data collection raise the possibility that changes are caused by temporary factor on that particular day. GLM analysis was used for fining significance of between-group & with-in-group 95

differences. 1. No gender difference is recorded on any of the factors. Table 4.6: Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘interest’ factor Factor

SS

df

Between-group

1387.967

96

Gender

24.970

1

Error

1362.997

95

Within-group

1895.045

388

Interest

4.888

Interest*gender Error Total

MS

F

p-value

-

-

24.970

1.740

n.s.

14.347

-

-

4

1.222

.250

n.s.

31.544

4

7.888

1.612

n.s.

1858.613

380

4.891

-

-

3283.012

484

p< .05 2. No significant difference on measures for interest.

Table 4.7: Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘confidence’ factor Factor

SS

df

Between-group

2741.578

97

Gender

7.766

Error Within-group Confidence Confidence*gender Error Total p< .05

MS

F

p-value

1

7.766

.273

n.s.

2733.812

96

28.477

-

-

1908.576

392

249.470

4

62.367

14.477

Sig.*

4.784

4

1.196

.278

n.s.

1654.322

384

4.308

-

-

4650.154

489

*p< .01

3. Significant within-group difference was observed in confidence, career choice and total.

Table 4.8: Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on ‘career choice’ factor Factor

SS

df

Between-group

2702.368

97

Gender

9.981

Error Within-group Career choice

MS

F

p-value

1

9.981

.356

n.s.

2692.387

96

28.046

-

-

2277.504

392

150.953

4

37.738

7.035

Sig.* 96

Career choice*gender Error Total **p< .05

66.512

4

16.628

2060.039

384

5.365

4979.872

489

3.100

Sig.**

*p< .01

4. Significant difference was also observed for within-group interaction between career choice and gender.

Table 4.9: Within- and between-group ANOVA for repeated measures on all three factors Factor

SS

df

MS

F

p-value

Between-group

13151.778

96

Gender

116.198

1

116.198

.847

n.s.

Error

13035.580

95

137.217

-

-

Within-group

9382.583

388

Total

791.557

4

197.889

8.924

Sig.*

Total*gender

165.000

4

41.250

1.860

n.s.

Error

8426.026

380

22.174

-

-

22534.361

484

Total p< .05

*p< .01

4.2.5 Discussion The decline in students’ attitude towards science is in line with the finding of the many researches (some of which are reviewed in “related research” section of this chapter) but this result has far more implications as the study in carried out in constructivist perspective, which acknowledge the importance and claims to attend the affective behaviors more than its predecessors. The students included in the sample come from an attached school of Tokyo Gakugei University and it was observed that even before this intervention the practices in the science class were quite in accordance with the constructivist principles (Nasir & Kono, 2003), when it comes to students’ participation in the lesson, freedom of expression and choice. Thus, 97

the baseline measures should not be regarded as a result of purely traditional instruction. Students did not felt any radical change in terms of conduct of class. There was a change of approach, which was reflected in the nature of participation expected from the students. The students were allowed to think and decide about the means of learning and not forced to go through same type of activity pre-decided by the teacher, rather device their own method of examining any given phenomenon provided that it makes sense to them even after discussion with peers and teacher. Therefore, we see that the level of interest (for girls the rating improved from 4.2 to 4.3, and for boys the rating dropped from 4.3 to 4.0 on five-point scale on five-point scale) in practical terms in maintained with insubstantial changes in decimal points. The intriguing result is that this higher interest has not proved effective in increasing students’ confidence in self-efficacy. Despite being reasonably interested they don’t feel confident in performing better in the subject and consequently don’t look favorably when asked about selecting science as subject in higher education or opt a career related to science. Concerning the confidence in performing well in science the teacher’s assessment is in contrast with students’ low confidence is themselves as only 18/117 (15%) were evaluated below the required standard. The evaluation took in account the knowledge, understanding, , abilities to think scientifically and express logically, and attitude, interest & willingness towards learning science. The decline in confidence may be brought about by probable dual impact of constructivist practices; on one hand allowance of more students’ participation and 98

freedom of choice may result in improved quality of learning but at the same time holds the risk putting students in a challenging situation which they are not used to and in turn confuses them especially those students who are traditionally passive. When these students face more challenging class environment, they may find it interesting but feel difficulty in adjusting in short run at least. The problem is perplexed when they have to revert back to traditional learning environment in other classes. They may find their selves unable to this random transition many times a week. The inconsistency in results may be a reflection this conflict. The situation can only be assessed truly when all classes and school environment in general is favorable for constructivist learning. A gradual decrease, although in small increments, is observed that may be caused by the increase in the depth and volume of the course studied through the course of year. Students do feel burdened and gradually find it difficult to cope with. This is quite same as the finding in almost all attitude related studies that attitude towards science is inversely related to age (grade level). The decline in selection of science as a subject for higher studies and opting a career related to science is an obvious result of decline in confidence and needs to be addressed in the same context. In the presence of interest and improvement in the confidence in self-efficacy, it is likely to have improved behavior towards studying science to higher level and selecting career related to science. The results of all ANOVA repeated measures showed that gender is not a significant 99

variable for differentiation for attitude towards science on all the factors under investigation Finally, at least to the extent of this study it can be concluded that constructivist practices could not bring any positive change in the three measures of attitude. The reasons may/may not be among the few discussed above. The question is wide open to further research into each of the probable causes. But still the measures of attitude are valid mean to understand students’ behavior toward science and can help teacher in improving instructional practices. The results are encouraging if seen in context of the previous researches (discussed in section 4.4.1), which explicitly proved inverse relation between attitude and grade (more exposure to science instruction). In this research at least students maintained same degree of attitude towards science on observed measures of interest, confidence and career choice. Although, this indirect deduction is materially not of very high value but it is encouraging and future studies can be built upon it.

100

Chapter 5

Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) as Informant of Constructivist Teaching and Learning "I entered the classroom with the conviction that it was crucial for me and every other student to be an active participant, not a passive consumer...[a conception of] education as the practice of freedom.... Bell Hooks,1994. This chapter will discuss the development and validation of Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS) and long term effects on the CLS score among the students who experienced constructivist teaching and learning. The correlation between the constructivist learning scale and Science Study Attitude Scale (SSAS) will also be discussed in the last section of this chapter.

5.1 Development of Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS)

5.1.1. Related research: Growing understanding of the learning process have strengthened the need of focusing on the individual differences among the learner more than ever before because learning is now increasingly perceived as an individual act demanding active participation of learner (Kershner, 2000; pp.235-255,) in which, the role of the teacher is to facilitate the learner in the process of knowledge construction (Duffy, 1996; p. 174, Driver, 1995; p. 399).

A research paper titled, “Development and validation of Constructivist learner Scale (CLS) for

There exists research using evidence support that the actions approaches elementary school enough science students” the to data from chapter has alreadyand/or been accepted for publication in Educational Technology Research, 27(1-2). 2003.

100

adopted by a learner are a function of his/her personal understanding and perceived objectives/outcomes of the learning task (for details Kember, 1998: p. 396-397). In it’s most limited form the learner may approach learning as an act, as narrow as, merely a mean to achieve higher grades in the examination (Entwistle, 1987: p.16) or on the contrary a source of personal enrichment, enabling him/her to understand the complexities and possibilities of world around him/her facilitating his/her adjustment as an effective member of the society. This flexibility in the student’s behavior puts teacher under higher obligation of adjusting himself/herself to this by developing a more compatible set of skills than the one traditionally linked to effective teaching. The teacher definitely needs to know more about the thinking, perception, means (approaches, strategies, skills), processes and preferences that every individual learner employs while going through the act of learning (Winn, 1992:p. 178). Teachers are under pressure to allow more flexibility to their students in the classroom to enable them to take charge of their own learning. Consequently, modern day teaching does not demand mere mastery of content area but expects teacher to develop the skill of understanding the whole dynamics of learning process, developing skill of manipulation during the lesson and successfully collecting and utilizing the information about their students to enable them to utilize their potential capabilities to the optimum. Development of CLS (Constructivist Learner’s Scale) is an effort to equip teacher with a classroom tool to 101

know and understand about his students learning process with reference to constructivist learning principles. It is relevant to review the instruments developed and used in the past to make the case for the need of CLS. Entwistle & Waterston (1988) identified two theoretical bases for the existing students learning inventories; centered on IP (information processing) position emerging from cognitive psychology and build on SAL (student approaches to learning) taking in account the student self-reporting of study process (for examples of both IP and SAL based inventories see Entwistle, 1988: pp. 258-259). But Biggs (1993) noted that in development of SPQ (Study Process Questionnaire), which originated from an IP model, in its final form increasingly shifted towards SAL framework as included scales like cognitive style, personality and values, ultimately manifesting the academic contexts forming the basis of IP model (Biggs, 1993: p. 4). Since early 1970’s SAL has served as a theoretical base for the instruments developed to know about student’s learning processes rather than IP. Instruments like Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) by Lancaster group (Entwistle, Hanley, & Hounsell, 1979, Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983); Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) for university students and Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ) for school students developed by Biggs (Biggs, 1987); Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Zimmerman, & Palmer, 1988) were widely accepted and frequently used by researches. The developers of all these instruments divided learning approaches in two parts; 102

Surface Learning Approach (SLA) and Deep Learning Approach (DLA). Generally, SLA being limited to knowing and understanding level, while DLA demands application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation level. But many ambiguities and differences were observed among the researchers about the strategies leading to SLA and DLA. Biggs (1993) notes that strategies usually attributed to SLA may be equally applicable to DLA in certain contexts, environments and learning tasks (Biggs, 1993: p. 6). As exhaustive review of the literature is out of the scope of this research, thus to conclude it can be said that the popular trend emerged from the study of SAL instruments is the use students self-reporting on scales like motivation, attitude, cultural-context, personality, values etc. to label the learners as surface learners or deep learners. In contrast, the distinguishing feature of CLS is it’s outright reference to a criterion i.e. the learning practices most likely to assist the learner in construction of knowledge. The student score on different factors of the CLS will help the teacher and the student to know his/her proximity to the constructivist principles of learning. Therefore it can provide teacher with the presage about the learning behaviors of his/her students that in turn will help in lesson planning, presentation, and using the natural amenability (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991: pp. 251-266) of children’s learning behavior to guide them towards developing a higher degree of proximity with constructivist learning principles and ultimately becoming a constructivist learner. In addition, another unique characteristic is the convenience in usability of the 103

instrument, which was lacking in the previous tools (Biggs, 1993: p.4). The length of the scale is kept manageable for the class teacher to use in classroom without disturbing the daily class routine. Also, the age factor and concentration span of elementary school students was also kept in mind, while deciding the number of items, complexity of statements and experiences involved.

5.1.2 Rationale As mentioned above knowledge and understanding of learning processes of students has become a pre-requisite for effective learning. Therefore, the present study was aimed at developing a valid and reliable tool for constructivist teachers for use in their classroom to gather primary data to know the student’s preference of learning against the constructivist principles. In turn, this primary information will guide the teacher to meet the demands of the individual learner by addressing their strengths and discrepancies and building upon them the learning behaviors which will help the students to make their learning meaningful and compatible to constructivist learning principles.

5.1.3 Method: 5.1.3.1 Item Construction: The theoretical base of the items included in CLS came from the constructivist learning principles. Therefore it seems in context to have a brief look into the premises of constructivist learning, which provided the framework of Constructivist Learner Scale (CLS). 104

A constructivist learner is likely to be an autonomous thinker (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: p. 13), who can appreciate uncertainty (Brooks & Brooks, 1999: p. 6) as a source of developing understanding and meaning making, recognizes and uses the tool of dialogue within the community of learners (classroom and outside the classroom) to his satisfaction for defending, proving, justifying and communicating ideas (Fosnot, 1996: pp29-30), assumes construction of meaning as a continuous and active process (Gunstone, 2000: p. 263; Fosnot, 1996: p-30), likes to take upon himself/herself the responsibility of learning (Brooks &Brooks, 1999: p. 13; Gunstone, 2000: p.263), prefers learning through direct experience to seek rational explanation and understanding (Newton, 2002: pp.51-53), and feels at ease when learning is focused on “big ideas” and integrated understanding of scientific concepts (Brooks &Brooks, 1999: p. 13). The items appearing in the present CLS are combination of newly developed items and items taken as such from previously developed learning style inventory (Nasir & Kono, 2001: pp. 823-824), which were relevant to the aim of the instrument and proved reliable and valid on the criteria of item analysis. It should be noted here that CLS is broader in its scope and concept rather than merely an upgraded version of above mentioned learning style inventory. New items were included to envelope the broadened scope, meet the classroom needs and match the objectives of the development of CLS, thus bringing the total number of items to forty. 5.1.3.2 Participants: To make the instrument more generalizable, a wide range of 105

students from different schools was included in the sample. The total number of the students was 601, comprising of elementary school science students from grade 5 (11+ years) and 6 (12+ years) from Tokyo. The list of schools is as follows: 1) Setagaya Elementary School attached to Tokyo Gakugei University (TGUS) n=226, 2) Koganei City Elementary School No.2 (KC2) n=110, 3) Koganei City Elementary School No.4 (KC4) n=149, and 4) Koganei City Honcho Elementary School (KCH) n=116. Grade-wise and gender-wise information is given the Table 5.1

Table 5.1. Number of Participants by Grade and Gender School Gender

TGUS

KC2

KC4

KCH

Total

Grade

5

6

5

6

5

6

5

6

5

6

Boys

56

55

21

30

36

36

36

27

149

156

Girls

57

58

32

27

44

33

25

28

150

146

Total

111

115

53

57

80

69

61

55

299

302

School Total

226

110

149

116

601

5.1.3.3 Procedure: The Instrument was conducted under the supervision of the class teacher. Teacher read all the statements one by one and at the end of each statement students were given time to encircle the number corresponding to their thinking/practice on a 5- point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) against each item. Therefore, all the students finished at the same time. While transforming the theoretical principles into item statements, it was intentionally taken into account to keep the language (vocabulary) and sentence structure easily

106

comprehendible for the students of elementary school. The language was revised number of times in light of the written comments and direct consultation with the elementary school science teachers from various schools. For ensuring the relevance and clarity, items were discussed personally and amended in consultation with experts in the area of constructivism.

5.1.4. Results Various methods are used to ensure the reliability, validity and quality of item included in this version of CLS. 5.1.4.1 Factor Analysis Items appearing in this version of CLS are extracted using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation to generate the factors. Factor analyses supported 23 items, which included 5 items aiming at same objective, but were included in the scale with different wording to make it more comprehendible for children, therefore they were excluded and finally the scale comprises of 18 items. Table 5.2 shows the factor loadings with the serial number of each item appearing same as in the original CLS form.

107

Table 5.2. Factor Loadings of the 18-item Version of the CLS No

Statement

AI

18

Learning of science becomes easier when I have opportunity to touch, see,

.709

Coll.

SR

observe or experience the actual thing by myself. 26

I think there can be more than one correct methods of solving a problem in

.636

science.

17

I like working in small groups in my science class.

.604

Understanding of objectives of a learning activity before performing it makes

.529

understanding easier. 11

I prefer learning through performing experiments/activities.

.518

25

I can find the answers of some previously not understood topics/concepts while

.442

learning new topics. 20

Discussion with class fellows and teachers is must for deciding the learning

.627

activities. 22

If the newly learned knowledge is different than already learned knowledge I

.608

discuss with my teacher/friends till I understand. 6

Discussion with my class fellows helps me in developing understanding of

.514

science. 23

I accept that teacher’s role is to help me when I feel difficulty in understanding

.512

rather than doing every thing for me. 32

I feel more confident in science class when teacher listens and understand my

.467

point of view in class. 8

I take notes, when teacher speaks something important in the class.

.445

30

I read books other than textbooks to have better understanding of my science

.629

lessons. 2

I like to take up problems, which other students say are difficult.

.617

21

I think learning (studying) is my responsibility and I should do it myself.

.586

24

I understand better by looking for solution to my problems by myself instead of

.553

just listening it from my teacher. 12

I feel shy in discussing my problem related to science lessons.

-.534

31

I like finding material on the topics I feel interested in, during my science class.

.503

Variance

2.60

2.37

2.33

% Variance

14.49

13.8

12.95

Cumulative Variance %

14.46

27.6

40.58

Factor loadings larger than 0.44 are taken only.

Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization AI: Active Involvement Coll.: Collaboration SR: Self-responsibility

108

5.1.4.2 Description of CLS In the finally selected 18 items, three factors emerged as shown in the Table 5.2. They are named as, Active involvement, Collaboration and Self-responsibility based on the common characteristics of the items included in each factor. Active involvement here refers to the learner’s willingness to get involved in inter-group activities and direct experiences of real life phenomenon (as much as possible) to develop his/her personal judgment. It also demands students to look at every problem from multiple perspectives and acknowledge the importance of all facets of the problem. It can also be judged by student’s preference of classroom environment, which is more demanding and suitable for the active involvement like opportunities for working in small groups. Abilities like linking the previously learned concepts to the newly learned and feeling at ease while dealing with bigger concepts rather than parts of a concept also indicate the active involvement in the learning process. Collaboration here refers to the learner characteristics demonstrating his/her comfort level in working together in a team. Inter-personal behavior, readiness to accept and honor others point of view, asserting his/her thinking logically, and flexibly and using discussion as a tool of building understanding are used as indicators of learner’s collaborative ability in this scale.

Table 5.3: Description of scales of CLS

109

Factor

Description

Sample Item

Active

It is meant to measure the extent

Involvement

to which students are willing to actively

engage

in

different It can learn best when I can touch, see,

facets of classroom learning.

observe and/or experience the actual things in reality.

Collaboration

This is to find out the extent of students

characteristic

,

of

working with other classmates To understand the science lesson it is and teacher during class as a very important to discuss it with the class part of his/her learning strategy. Self-

This is to find out the realization

responsibility

of the sense of responsibility

fellows.

among the students with regard I to their own learning.

think

learning

(studying)

is

my

responsibility and I should do it myself.

Items developed to determine the learner’s Self-responsibility are based on the indicators like willingness to take responsibility of his/her own learning, acknowledging the role of teacher as facilitator and guide, importance of supplementary material for furthering understanding and knowledge construction, tendency of accepting challenges, and openness in discussing the problem to overcome barriers in learning. Table 5.3 gives a general description of each of the factor with one example of each to demonstrate the content of the factor. 5.1.4.3 Reliability and Validity Table 5.4 shows theα-values (Cronbach Alpha value) factor-wise and for overall scale determining the reliability of the scale. The overall reliability of the scale is α=.81, while α -value on each of the reliability of the Scale. The factor independently varies between 0.65

110

and 0.70. Inter-factor correlation was also calculated, which shows low co-relation between factors while high correlation of each factor to the overall scale. It ensures independence among the factors but still have coherence with the overall scale.

Table 5.4: Factor item mean, reliability and inter-factor correlation No. Of

Reliability

Inter-factor

Factor

Factor

Scale

Items

(α-value)

Correlation

Item Mean

Item SD

Active Involvement

6

.7012

.455

4.148

3.79

Collaboration

6

.6628

.438

3.735

3.88

Self- responsibility

6

.6516

.373

3.213

4.38

Total

18

.8072

.783

3.698

9.43

N= 601 p