See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327594672

Effectiveness of Constructivist Teaching Method: An Experimental Study

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

8 7,026

2 authors:

Pranab Barman Dibyendu Bhattacharyya

Raiganj University University of Kalyani
40 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Differently Abled Children and Their Psycho-Social Problems View project

Job Satisfaction and Teaching Effectiveness of Teacher Educators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pranab Barman on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSTRUCTIVIST
TEACHING METHOD: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Pranab Barman, Dr.Dibyendu Bhattacharyya
Research Scholar; Dept.of Education; University of Kalyani.
Associate Professor and HOD; Dept.of Education; K.U.

ABSTRACT

In the present study an attempt has been made by the researcher to study the effectiveness of
Constructivist Teaching Method on students’ academic achievement in the subject of Physical Science
at secondary level. A sample of 50 (fifty) VIII th grade students of Bengali medium school were
selected by using the random sampling technique for the present study. For the analysis of data, the
researcher has used‘t’ test in the present study. The result shows that the teaching through
Constructivist method is more effective and meaningful as compared to the traditional teaching
method.

Keywords: Effectiveness, Constructivist Teaching Method, Traditional Teaching Method and

Academic Achievement.

INTRODUCTION

Learning without meaningful understanding is more or less valueless in our life. That’s why
teachers should always taught their students by using a fruitful teaching method so that
students can learn meaningfully and applied their learned experiences in their daily life.

Constructivist teaching method is such a method which draws on students' existing

knowledge, beliefs, and skills. With a constructivist approach, students synthesize new
understanding from prior learning and new information. In constructivist teaching, a teacher
sets up problems and monitors student exploration, guides student inquiry, and promotes
new patterns of thinking. Constructivist teaching asks students to work with their own data
and learn to direct their own explorations. Ultimately, students begin to think of learning as
accumulated, evolving knowledge.

Constructivist teaching poses a question to the students, who then work together in small
groups to discover one or more solutions (Yager, 1991). Students play an active role in
carrying out experiments and reaching their own conclusions. Teachers assist the students
in developing new insights and connecting them with previous knowledge, but leave the
discovery and discussion to the student groups (VAST, 1998). Students are able to develop
their own understanding of the subject matter based on previous knowledge, and can correct
any misconceptions they have.

69

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

But, in the Traditional teaching method, classes are usually dominated by lecture or direct
instruction. The idea is that there is a fixed body of knowledge that the student must come
to know. Students are expected to blindly accept the information they are given without
questioning the instructor (Stofflett, 1998). The teacher seeks to transfer thoughts and
meanings to the passive student leaving little room for student-initiated questions,
independent thought or interaction between students (VAST, 1998). This teacher-centered
method of teaching also assumes that all students have the same level of background
knowledge in the subject matter and are able to absorb the material at the same pace (Lord,
1999).

ROLE OF A TEACHER IN CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM

In the constructivist classroom, the teacher’s role is to prompt and facilitate discussion.
Thus, the teacher’s main focus should be on guiding students by asking questions that will
lead them to develop their own conclusions on the subject. David Jonassen identified three
major roles for facilitators to support students in constructivist learning environments:
Modelling; Coaching and Scaffolding.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE TERMS USED

Traditional Teaching Method:

In the present study, the researcher has used the term ‘Traditional Teaching Method’ in the
sense of instruction only through lecture method, assisted by chalk board or text book.

Constructivist Teaching Method:

One of the primary goals of using constructivist teaching is that students learn how to learn
by giving them the training to take initiative for their own learning experiences. Here the
researcher has used the Term ‘Constructivist Teaching Method’ in the following ways:

 A teaching where all learners are actively involved.

 A teaching where classroom environment is democratic.
 A teaching where all activities are interactive and student-centered.
 A teaching where the teacher facilitates a process of learning in which students are
encouraged to be responsible and autonomous.
 A teaching where students work in a groups through practical experiences.
 A teaching where teacher taught his students by giving many practical examples.
 A teaching where students can learn their subject matter individually through
experiment.

70

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

In the present study ‘Academic Achievement’ refers to the marks obtained on the
achievement test in Physical Science developed by the researcher related to the units taught
through the constructivist teaching method as well as traditional teaching method.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To compare mean scores on the achievement test in Physical Science of the two groups
of students of class VIII to be taught Physical Science with the use of constructivist
teaching method and traditional teaching method before the experimental treatment.

2. To compare mean scores on the achievement test in Physical Science of the two groups
of students of class VIII to be taught Physical Science with the use of constructivist
teaching method and traditional teaching method after the experimental treatment.

3. To study the effectiveness of constructivist teaching method and traditional teaching

method in relation to academic achievement of VIII grade students in Physical Science.

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

Ho.1.There is no significant difference in the mean scores on the achievement test in

Physical Science of VIII grade students to be taught Physical Science with the use of
constructivist teaching method and traditional teaching method before experimental
treatment.

Ho.2.There is no significant difference in the mean scores on the achievement test in

Physical Science of VIII grade students to be taught Physical Science with the use of
constructivist teaching method and traditional teaching method after experimental
treatment.

Ho.3.There is no significant difference in the mean scores on the achievement test in

Physical Science of VIII grade students to be taught Physical Science with the use of
constructivist teaching method and traditional teaching method.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Method: The experimental method was used in the present study.

71

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

Sample:

The sample of the present study was confined to 50 students of class VIII from Bengali
medium schools of Burdwan district in West Bengal.

Tools used:

Academic Achievement Test in the subject of Physical Science for Class VIII developed by
the researcher herself was used in the present study.

Statistical Techniques Used:

In the present study‘t’ test was used to analyse the data.

Design of the Study

Stages Control Group Experimental Group

Measurement of achievement in Measurement of achievement in
Physical Science before the Physical Science before the
1. Pre-Test treatment. treatment.

Teaching Physical Science Teaching Physical Science

through Traditional method. through constructivist method.
2. Treatment

Measurement of achievement in Measurement of achievement in

Physical Science after the Physical Science after the
3. Post- Test treatment. treatment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table-1. Significance of difference between mean scores of pre-test of Control group

and Experimental group in respect to their Achievement test.

Groups N MEAN S.D. t-value Level of

significance
Control 25 32.50 4.53 Not
significant at
Experimental 25 32.09 4.19 0.33 0.05&0.01
level

df=25+25-2=48
72

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

Table value at 0.05 level =2.01

At 0.01 level = 2.68

Interpretation:

If we look at Table-1, it shows that the obtained t-value 0.33 which is less than the table
value both at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis no.-1 was
accepted. It means that there is no significant difference in the mean scores before the
experiment between the groups taught through traditional teaching method and
constructivist teaching method.

Table-2. Significance of difference between mean scores of post-test of Control group

and Experimental group in respect to their Achievement test.

Groups N MEAN S.D. t-value Level of

significance
Control 25 34.78 4.97 Significant at
0.05&0.01
Experimental 25 45.63 5.23 7.53 level

df=25+25-2=48, Table value at 0.05 level =2.01 and at 0.01 level = 2.68

Interpretation:

If we look at Table-2, it shows that the obtained t-value 7.53 which is higher than the table
value both at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis no.-2 was
rejected. It means that there is significant difference in the achievement test of the VIII
grade students taught through traditional teaching method and constructivist teaching
method.

Table-3. Significance of difference between mean scores of pre-test and post-test of

Experimental group in respect to their Achievement test.

Groups N MEAN S.D. t-value Level of

significance
Pre-Test 25 32.09 4.19 Significant at
0.05&0.01
10.18 level
Post-Test 25 45.63 5.23

73

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

df=25+25-2=48, Table value at 0.05 level =2.01 and at 0.01 level = 2.68

Interpretation:

If we look at Table-3, it shows that the obtained t-value 10.18 which is higher than the table
value both at 0.05 and 0.01 level of significance. Hence, the null hypothesis no.-3 was
rejected. It means that there exists significant difference between the mean pre-test and
post-test scores of VIII grade students of experimental group. It shows that the
constructivist teaching method is more effective on students’ achievement in the subject of
Physical Science than the traditional teaching method.

Graph-1. Comparison of Control Group and Experimental Group in the Achievement

Test of Physical Science.

Graph-1 shows that two groups of students were equal in their academic achievement before
the treatment and after the treatment control group significantly perform poor than the
experimental group. It explores that treatment has a positive effect on academic
achievement. Therefore, we can say that constructivist teaching method is significantly
better than the traditional method of teaching in the academic achievement of VIII grade
school students in the subject of Physical Science.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

1. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more effective and

fruitful in teaching Physical Science as compared to traditional method of teaching.
74

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

2. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more effective to

enhance the performance of students in their academic achievement in the subject
Physical Science as compared to traditional method of teaching.
3. The constructivist teaching method makes teaching learning process less abstract and
meaningful to the students.
4. The constructivist teaching method is found to be significantly more fruitful in the
formation of concept among the VIII grade school students as compared to traditional
method of teaching.
5. The constructivist teaching method motivates students better to their learning than the
traditional method of teaching.

CONCLUSION

The main conclusion of the study is that the Constructivist Teaching Method is more
effective and fruitful in teaching Physical Science than the Traditional Method of Teaching.
Different types of practical examples, experiments and cooperative activities made the
constructivist method of teaching effective and interesting to the students.

REFERENCES

R. Thomas Lord, Using Constructivism to Enhance Student Learning in College Biology.

Journal of College Science Teaching. 23 (6) (1994) 346-348.

R. Thomas Lord, A Comparison Between Traditional and Constructivist Teaching in

College Biology. Innovative Higher Education. 21( 3) (1997)197-216.

R. Thomas Lord, A Comparison Between Traditional and Constructivist Teaching in

Environmental Science. Journal of Environmental Education. 30( 3) (1999)22-28.

Julianne. Opalka, The Effects of Constructivist Teaching Methods on High School Science
Students [MSc Thesis]. Academic Library, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana,
PA. (1998).

Robert E. Yager, The Constructivist Learning Model. The Science Teacher. 58 (6) (1991)
53-57.

Uri. Zoller, Teaching Tomorrow’s College Science Courses-Are We Getting It Right?

Journal of College Science Teaching. 29 (6) (2000) 409-414.

A. Makanong, The Effects of Constructivist Approaches on Ninth Grade Algebra

Achievement in Thailand Secondary School Students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. (2000).

75

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences And Humanities http://www.ijrssh.com

(IJRSSH) 2015, Vol. No. 5, Issue No. I, Jan-Mar ISSN: 2249-4642

BW. Saigo, A Study to Compare Traditional and Constructivist-based Instruction of a High

School Biology Unit on Biosystematics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: University of
IOWA, IOWA City. (1999).

Z. Ye, The Use of Constructivist Teaching Model in Environmental Science at Beijing

Normal University, China Papers. (2003) 78-83.

SK. Jong, The Effect of Constructivist Teaching Approach on Students’ Academic

Achievement, Self Concept and Learning Strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review. 6
(2005) 7-19.

H. Brad, Teacher- Centered Instruction versus Student-Centered Instruction. Am.Sch. Board

J. (2000) Pp.1-5.

H. Kurt, & SM. Becker, A Comparison of Students’ Achievement and Attitudes between
Constructivist and Traditional Classroom Environments in Thailand Vocational Electronics
Programs. J. Vocational Educ. Res. 29 (2) (2004) 1-3.

76

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

View publication stats