Teachers’ Perception and Implementation of Constructivist Learning


Teachers’ Perception and Implementation of Constructivist Learning


Lantbeye Wudeneh

Bahir Dar University


American journal of educational research and reviews

A special attention has been given to education system in Ethiopia especially in the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion design, Bahir Dar University after Educational Sector Development Program (ESDP I, 2003) was developed and implemented. Initially, before ESDP I, the ways of teaching and learning were mainly based on behaviorist approaches. This behaviorist approach to learning and teaching is gradually changed to cognitive and constructivist approaches which are mostly used in advanced education systems. These approaches to learning and teaching are mainly focused on learners themselves. Therefore, student-centered and active learning became the slogans in education system in Ethiopia. This study investigates the teachers’ perception and implementation of constructivist learning and teaching methods in Ethiopia specifically in the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion design Technology, Bahia Dar University. It is vast to investigate each and every aspect of constructivist learning. So, the researcher selected to investigate the mostly used methods (question-answer, individual and group-work) considering constructivism in the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Design Technology (EiTEX). The mentioned methods are investigated in the light of constructivism. The researcher investigated the methods considering four criteria of constructivist method given by Navistar et.al, (2009). The criteria are: assessing student’s prior knowledge, differentiating what is already known and what should be learnt, changing students pre-concept in the context of new knowledge and reflection on learning. To examine teachers’ use and implementation of constructivist learning and teaching methods, the questionnaire was employed. The findings showed that around half of the teachers have positively perceived and implemented the mentioned methods in line with constructivism, while remaining teachers still implement these methods as a traditional way of teaching. Moreover, teachers seem to be more constructivists in perception and applying individual work method as compared to group-work activities. In some cases, teachers who participated in pedagogical workshops answered questionnaire more in line with constructivism as compare to the teachers who did not participate in pedagogical workshops in the past.


Keywords: Constructivist learning; EITEX; Pedagogical workshop; Group-work

Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
Lantbeye Wudeneh.Teachers’ Perception and Implementation of Constructivist Learning: In the case of Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Technology, Ethiopia. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2020,5:68.


References:
1. Baviskar, N. S., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney,T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
2. Behar, A. (2014). Teacher education, not training.
3. Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
4. Black, P. et al. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press.
5. Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6).
6. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,Virginia, USA.
7. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University press.
8. Carrijo, G. A., Figueira-Sampaio, A. S., & Santos, E. F. (2009). A constructivist computational tool to assist in learning primary school mathematical equations. Computers & Education, 53, 484–492.
9. Chang, F. (2009) How teacher questioning behaviors assist and affect language teaching and learning in EFL classrooms in Taiwan [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Warwick.
10. Cohen, L. Manion, L., &Morrison, K. (2010). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
11. Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide for small-scale research projects. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
12. Fall. (2010). The use of constructivist teaching practices by four new secondary school science teachers: A comparison of new teachers and experienced constructivist teachers. Science Educator, 19 (2), 10-21.
13. Franzoni, A. L., & Assar, S. (2009). Student learning styles adaptation method based on teaching strategies and electronic media. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 15-29.
14. Gijbels, D., & Loyens, S. M. (2009). Constructivist learning (environments) and how to avoid another tower of Babel: reply to Renkl. InstrSci 37, 499–502.
15. Jones, M. J., & Araje, L. B. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5, 1-10.
16. Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar. J. (2011). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004-2027.
17. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306-314.
18. Loyens, M. M. S., Rikers, M. J. P., & Schmith, G. H. (2009). Students’ conceptions of constructivist learning in different programme years and different learning environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 501-514.
19. Mansory, A., & Karlsson, P. (2005). Assessment of teaching practice. 1-39.
20. Mauigoa-Tekene, L. (2006). Enhancing teachers’ questioning skills to improve children’s learning and thinking in Pacific Island Early Childhood Centers. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 3(1), 12-23.
21. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
22. Ministry of Education. (2010). National education strategic plan for Afghanistan 2010-2014. Kabul: Ministry of Education.
23. Olsen, D. G. (2000). Constructivist principles of learning and teaching methods. Education, 120 (2), 347-355.
24. Piaget, J. (1967). Biologist connaissance (Biology and knowledge). Gallimard, Paris.
25. Powell, C. K. & Kalina, J. C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130 (2), 241-250.
26. Schreiber, M. L., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395 –411.
27. Schunk, D.H. (2011). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Boston: Pearson Education.
28. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
29. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on campus and distance learning practice: an exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.
30. Uredi, L. (2013). The relationship between the classroom teachers’ level of establishing a constructivist learning environment and their attitude towards the constructivist approach, International Journal of Academic Research,5(4), 50-55.
31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman(Eds.), Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32. Wood, D. (2004). How children think and learn: The social context of cognitive development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
33. Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5).