The implementation and evaluation of a constructivist intervention in secondary school \nScience teaching in Seychelles
Year: 2008
Type: dissertation
Study design: Clinical Trial
Abstract: Recent studies on human cognition have presented credible \nevidence that learners are not tabula rasa as previously \nconceived by traditional theorists, rather they enter new \nlessons with some preconceptions, most of which are resistant \nto change in spite of teachers' efforts to assuage them. As \nsuch the challenges confronting science educators and \neducational psychologists are to understand the nature of \nlearners' preconceptions, designing and implement appropriate \ninstructional interventions that would enable the learners \nbecome aware of and reconcile their conceptions that are \ninconsistent with accepted views of science. \nSeveral perspectives have been advocated on how learners' \npreconceptions can be modified through instructions. While \ntraditional theorists subscribe to substitution of inaccurate \nconceptions with accurate ones, the constructivists identify \nwith giving the learners autonomy to inquire and re-evaluate \ntheir own ideas. The former has been confronted with \nwidespread criticism and is becoming less and less tenable. \nThis research identifies with the latter. \nConceptual change entails restructuring of ideas. It is a \ncognitive process that involves change in attitude toward \nlearning. Based on the theoretical assumption that learning is \nfacilitated through teaching that give the learners autonomy \nsearch to new ideas, verify them, and restructure existing \nideas, I developed a model of conceptual change from where I deduced the four sub variables of the conceptual change that \nthis study explored. The sub variables include formulation of \nideas, search for new ideas, review of meaning, and transfer \nof knowledge. My assumption was that conceptual change can be \nfacilitated through instructions that engage learners in \nexperiences relevant to the four sub variables that I have \nmentioned. This conceptual framework served as my reference \npoint for the designing of the Constructivist Teaching Model \nthat consists of four instructional phases. \nJudging that I was resident and working in Seychelles as a \nteacher trainer at a time I developed the Constructivist \nTeaching Model, I chose to implement and evaluate it first in \nSeychelles. Hence this study is titled `The implementation and \nevaluation of a constructivist intervention in secondary \nschool science teaching in Seychelles'. \nThe purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the \nconstructivist teaching model as an intervention to facilitate \nconceptual change. Basically, there are two main aims of this \nstudy. First, to investigate to what extent the constructivist \nteaching model facilitates conceptual change. Secondly, to \ninvestigate if the paradigms shift from the traditional method \nto the constructivist method of science teaching is welcomed \nin Seychelles. \nThis study was carried out in two phases Pretest and \nEvaluation. Pretest was aimed at identifying the weaknesses of \nthe initial version of my model of constructivist teaching with a view to eliminate those weaknesses to further \nstrengthen the model. In a nutshell pretest was a step taken \nto enhance the validity of the model. Evaluation on the other \nhand was aimed at making a judgment whether a difference \nactually exists between the learners that received \nconstructivist instruction and those that received traditional \nlecture instruction in terms of the four sub variables of \nconceptual change. To enable for this judgment necessitated an \nexperiment. \nThe experiment was conducted with a total of six secondary \nschools selected from the ten secondary schools on the island. \nThe participants included 178 learners, 6 science teachers and \n8 independent persons. The learners were constituted into \nthree Bands; 1, 2 and 3. Each Band consisted of a Control \ngroup and an Experimental group. Altogether six groups were \nformed, with 3 Control groups and 3 Experimental groups. There \nwere 59 learners in Band 1, comprising of 29 learners in the \nControl group and 30 learners in the Experimental group; Band \n2 comprised a Control group of 25 learners and an Experimental \ngroup of 28 learners; and Band 3 consisted of 33 learners in \neach group. The learners in Band 1 were used for pretest that \nlasted for five week. The learners in Bands 2 and 3 were used \nin the evaluation that lasted for thirteen weeks. \nThe groups were non-equivalent, suggesting that randomisation \nwas not possible as the learners were in intact classes. \nLearners in the experimental groups received constructivist \ninstruction while their counterparts in the control groups received traditional lecture instruction. Both groups were \nexposed to the same experimental conditions except in the \nmethods of teaching. Data was collected through teacher \ninterviews, independent observation, measurement of learners' \nachievement, and analysis of documents. Quantitative data was \nanalysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. \nQualitative data was analysed on the basis of content or \nmeaning of the information given by the respondents. Following \nthe design of this study the performance and achievements of \nlearners that received constructivist instruction were \ncompared with their counterparts who received traditional \ninstruction. \nGuiding this study are two main assumptions. The first is the \nassumption of equality of the variance, and the second is the \nassumption of normality of the distribution. The results of \nLevene's test of equality of variances indicated a violation \nof the assumption of homogeneity of the variances of TI and CI \ngroups while the results of test of skewness and kurtosis give \nthe indication of normality of distribution of scores in both \ngroups. \nThe results of descriptive statistics analysis showed that the \nlearners who received constructivist instruction performed \nbetter than the learners that received traditional instruction \nin terms of formulation of ideas, search for new ideas, review \nof meaning, and transfer of knowledge. The results of \ninferential statistics showed that the difference in the means \nof the two groups on each of the sub variables of conceptual change is significant. This evidence indicates that my model \nof constructivist teaching produced an effect measuring 0.86 \nand a power of 0.85 based on Cohen's Blueprint, and a \nreliability of 0.72 based on Cronbach's test of internal \nconsistency. Besides statistical evidence, analysis of the \nopinions of science teachers who implemented the \nConstructivist Teaching Model in their respective classes and \nthe independent persons who observed teaching and learning in \nboth the experimental and control groups showed a preference \nfor the constructivist approach over the traditional approach. \nOn the grounds of the evidence gathered through observation \nand measurement this study concludes that the constructivist \napproach to science teaching is more effective than \ntraditional lecture approach in facilitating the ability of \nsecondary school learners in Seychelles to reconstruct ideas. \nThis study also found that science educationists in Seychelles \nwelcome the paradigm shift from the traditional approach to \nthe constructivist approach.
Author: Anyanwu, Raymond Ndubisi
Language: English
Subfield: Education
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Quality education
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W6991745309