 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 3, Issue 1, Article 1(June, 2002) Winnie Wing-Mui SO Constructivist Teaching in Primary Science
|
Findings
Enactment of constructivist teaching during microteaching
This study aimed to find out to what extent constructivist teaching was utilized in primary science lessons. Lesson observations allowed the identification of salient features of student teachers' approaches to teaching in an appropriate setting. The evaluation approach used during the lesson observation pertained to a constructivist view of teaching and learning. Sections of the student teachers' teaching and classroom events were compared and contrasted with reference to researchers' work which advocates learners' active learning. The components listed in Figure 1 were used as a guide for evaluating and categorizing teachings in classrooms by rating teachers' teaching.
Table 1 presents a summary of teachers' teaching during micro-teaching in the early stage of teacher education. It was not common for student teachers to be judged as utilizing constructivist teaching at this stage with a mean rating of 0.83 (1 is considered to be an indicator of a slight use of constructivist teaching). Only a few features of constructivist teaching were observed in the micro-teaching of four student teachers (Teachers K, O, R, and V), who were consequently given ratings below 0.5. Some features of constructivist teaching were found with twenty-one student teachers (with ratings between 0.5 and 1.5). None were observed to have more features of constructivist teaching (i.e. ratings over 1.5).
Table 1. Student teacher's constructivist teaching performance during micro-teaching at Stage 1 of the study. Teaching is rated according to the above features, and is accompanied by a four-point rating, ranging from strongly agree (3), agree (2), slightly agree (1) to not observed.
Lesson features Student Teacher A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Mean 1. Use learners' existing knowledge to guide teaching 1.15 1.1 teacher's awareness of learners' existing ideas 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 1.20 1.2 elicit learners' ideas before presenting teacher's own 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1.16 1.3 challenge learners' initial ideas 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0.72 1.4 make new ideas accessible to learners 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1.52 2. Guide learners to generate explanations and alternative 0.86 2.1 learners observe phenomenon 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.44 2.2 learners describe phenomenon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.28 2.3 learners generate explanations and interpretations 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.60 2.4 probe learners' responses for clarification & justification 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.80 2.5 learners explain contradictions & misconceptions 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 3. Devise incisive questions 0.97 3.1 a question-rich learning environment 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1.28 3.2 questions based on learners' responses 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1.12 3.3 learners expand on their questions & justify their response 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.52 3.4 accept and value learners' answers & suggestions 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0.96 4. Choose materials and activities for learners to test ideas 0.45 4.1 learners work with materials & activities 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.28 4.2 learners engage in scientific inquiry 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.32 4.3 minimal help from the teacher 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.28 4.4 learners put their ideas to test 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.36 4.5 learners' suggestion about the direction of the activities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 5. Provide a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion 0.74 5.1 learners put forward and discuss ideas with teacher 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.80 5.2 learners put forward and discuss ideas with peers 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0.68 6. Provide opportunities for learners to utilize new ideas 0.96 6.1 relate current teaching points to previous knowledge 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1.04 6.2 learners apply knowledge to new situations or real-life problem 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0.88 Total 15 12 26 24 20 19 13 23 31 18 7 17 24 13 6 30 27 6 23 20 17 6 16 32 16 0.73 Mean 0.68 0.55 1.18 1.09 0.91 0.86 0.59 1.05 1.41 0.82 0.32 0.77 1.09 0.59 0.27 1.36 1.23 0.27 1.05 0.91 0.77 0.27 0.73 1.45 0.73 0.83 Rank order 18 21 5 6 10 12 19 8 2 13 22 14 6 19 23 3 4 23 8 10 14 23 16 1 16
The student teachers' performances as judged in six areas of constructivist teaching were as follows:
Using learners' existing knowledge to guide teaching
The average rating in this area was 1.15, the highest found among the six areas. Student teachers were more able to make new ideas accessible to their peers acting as learners, they were aware of learners' existing ideas and had tried to elicit learners' ideas before presenting their own, but quite a number of student teachers did not attempt to challenge learners' initial ideas during teaching.Guiding learners to generate explanations and alternative conceptions
The average rating for this category was 0.86. Most of the student teachers were able to guide learners to observe a phenomenon before describing it. However, few student teachers were able to guide learners to give explanations and interpretations and probed learners' responses for clarification. The common reaction to learners' unclear responses was to pass questions to other learners in the class to answer, without going back to that learner who obviously had difficulty in understanding. Only four student teachers (those with ratings 1 and 2) attempted to guide learners to explain misconceptions.Devising incisive questions
The average rating here was 0.97. Many student teachers were able to use questions to guide learners' thinking and their questions were generally based on learners' responses. They were able to accept and value learners' answers. But it was not common for the student teachers to guide learners to expand on their answers and to justify their responses.Choosing materials and activities for learners to test ideas
The average rating here was 0.45. Student teachers were able to choose materials and activities for learners to work with during micro-teaching. Most of the activities did not require learners to engage in scientific inquiry nor to put their ideas to the test. No student teacher asked learners (fellow classmates acted as learners during micro-teaching) to suggest the direction of the activities.Providing a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion
The average rating was 0.74. It was not common to have learners put forward and discuss ideas with their teacher and their peers. In most of the lessons, it was the teacher who put forward questions in class.Providing opportunities for learners to utilize ideas
The average rating was 0.96. Some student teachers were able to relate current teaching points to learners' previous knowledge but such instances were not frequent. Only three student teachers (with rating 2) were able to relate current teaching points to previous knowledge. Though seven student teachers (with rating 2) were agreed to have provided opportunities for learners to apply knowledge to reality, ten others were at the another end of the spectrum that they did not even provide any opportunity for learners to apply what they had learned.The overall performance of the student teachers in each of the features of constructivist teaching provided some insights into student teachers' strengths and weaknesses in performing constructively when using this model of analysis.
Table 2 shows the student teachers' micro-teaching performance. Their performance in each of the items were arranged in a descending order of score. During micro-teaching, student teachers were often observed with constructivist teaching in one item: to make new ideas accessible to learners. They were occasionally observed to show features of teaching in 16 items. And they very infrequently or were not observed at all to show the features of teaching in 5 items.
Table 2. Teaching performance observed during micro-teaching
Feature Rating Constructivist Teaching Make new ideas accessible to learners 1.52 Often Guide learners to observe phenomenon 1.44 Occasionally Learners describe phenomenon 1.28 A question-rich learning environment 1.28 learners work with materials and activities 1.28 To be aware of learners' existing ideas 1.20 Elicit learners' ideas before presenting teachers' own 1.16 Questions based on learners' response 1.12 Relate current teaching points to previous knowledge 1.04 Accept and value learners answers and suggestion 0.96 Learners apply knowledge to new situations or real-life 0.88 Probe learners' responses for clarifications 0.80 Learners put forward and discuss ideas with teacher 0.80 Challenge learners' initial ideas 0.72 Learners put forward and discuss ideas with peers 0.68 Learners generate explanations and interpretation 0.60 Learners expand on their questions and justify their responses 0.52 Learners put their ideas to test 0.36 Infrequent Learners engage in scientific inquiry 0.32 Minimal help from the teacher 0.28 Learners explain contradictions and misconceptions 0.20 Learners' suggestion about the direction of the activity/experiment 0.00 Not observed A more detailed analysis of student teachers' performance in the six areas (of features of constructivist teaching) showed that the overall performance of student teachers in the six areas of features of constructivist teaching was moderate. Student teachers during their micro-teaching had paid some consideration to learners' prior understanding in their teaching. Comparatively, student teachers were more able to: use pupils' existing knowledge to guide teaching and, devise incisive questions; provide opportunities for pupils to utilize ideas and guide pupils to generate explanations; and, alternative in a micro-teaching setting. They made frequent use of questioning to guide learners to understand new ideas. However, student teachers seemed quite satisfied with the short answers provided by learners and they seldom required learners to further elaborate on their responses.
Only some student teachers provided opportunities for learners to make use of the new ideas learned. Discussion and interaction between learners were occasional: it was always the teacher who led the discussion. Moreover, though it was not difficult to find materials and activities provided by student teachers to involve learners in the lesson, the activities mainly provided opportunities for learners to observe some phenomena or changes, without engaging learners in scientific inquiry, and learners were merely following teachers' instructions without any input on the suggestions and directions of their work. Micro-teaching may be regarded by some as a less intense teaching situation compared to school experience as the learners are the peers of the teacher, it is fully understood that the nature of micro-teaching may have some affect on the performance of some student teachers.
Copyright (C) 2002 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 3, Issue 1, Article 1(June, 2002). All Rights Reserved.