Student's Perception of their Learning Approach and Relationship with Level of Engagement in Science Lessons

The study focused on finding the relationship between students‟ proximity with constructivist principles of learning and their engagement in science lessons. Constructivist Learning Scale (CLS) by Mahmood (2004) was used to distribute students in two groups on the basis of their proximity to using constructivist learning approach for their science learning. In addition, a self-report engagement questionnaire comprising of six questions was used to record students‟ assessment of their own engagement at the end of each lesson while learning about “solution”. The comparison of two groups showed that students exercising greater proximity to the constructivist approach toward learning had more interest, collaborated well and exceedingly involved in discussion with class-fellow/teachers. Moreover, they were also more composed and meaningful in their style of writing as far as conciseness and communicability of language was concerned, as compared to students with less constructivist approach to learning.

PDF

___

Boddy, N., Watson, K. and Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27-42.
Brooks, G. J. & Brooks, G. M. (1999). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brooks, M. G. and Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.
Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-215.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach J., Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7). 5-12.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research. 59, 117-142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Finn, J. D. and Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82, 221-234.
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviours, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfield, P. C. and Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 59-109.
Gagnon Jr. W. G. and Collay M. (2001) Designing for Learning: six elements in constructivist learning, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Herman, K.C., & Tucker, C.M. (2000). Engagement in learning and academic success among at-risk Latino-American students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(3), 129-36.
Jordan, W. J. & Nettles, S. M. (1999). How students invest their time out of school: Effects on school engagement, perceptions of life chances, and achievement. US Department of Education: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).
Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164-187.
Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring on gains in achievement and engagement of early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
McIntyre, D.J., Copenhaver, R. W., Byrd, D.M. & Norris, W. R. (1983). A study of engaged student behaviour within classroom activities during mathematics class. Journal of Educational Research, 77(1), 55-59.
Munns, G. and Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: The REAL framework. Assessment in Education, 13(2), 193-213.
Mahmood, N. (2002) Constructivism in elementary school science education: a reflective view from inside the classroom, Journal of Educational Research, Tokyo Gakugei University, 6, pp. 1-12.
Mahmood, N. (2004). Development and validation of Constructivist learner Scale (CLS) for elementary school science students, Educational Technology Research, 27(1-2).pp.1-7.
Mahmood, N. (2003). Changes in the Students‟ Understanding of the Phenomenon of “Burning” in the Constructivist Classroom of Elementary School. Journal of Science education in Japan, 27(4), 270-281.
Mahmood, N. (2004). Articulating philosophical and theoretical perplexities of constructivism(s) for science teachers: Ontological and epistemological perspectives, Bulletin of Education and Research, 23(1-2), 1-18
Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14-24.
Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reforms. Educational Leadership, 46, 34-36.
Newmann, F. M. (1991). Student engagement in academic work: Expanding the perspective on secondary school effectiveness. In J.R. Bliss, W. A. Firetone, & C. E. Richards (Eds.), Rethinking effective schools: Research and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1992). Instructional discourse and student engagement. In D.H. Schunk and J.Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 149-179
Osberg, K. M. (1997). Constructivism in practice: the case for meaning making in the virtual world. [on line] Unpublished PhD. thesis submitted to University of Washington. Available at: http://www.hitl. washington.edu/publications/r-97-47/osberg.rtf as on: April 21, 2005.
Perkins, N. D. (1992) What constructivism demands of a learner. In M. T. Duffy, & H. D. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Peterson, P. L. & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 309-335.
Pintrich, P. R. and De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R. and Schrauben, B. (1992). Students‟s motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. S.Schunk and J.Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in classroom. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp.149-179.
Skinner and Belmont (1993). Motivation in classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behaviour and student engagement across the second year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 571-581.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why schools reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon and Schuster
Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2006). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement, High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE). Bloomington Indiana: Center for Evaluation & Education,Policy, Indiana University, USA