 |
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
|
Changes in enactment of constructivist teaching during school teaching experience
Table 3 shows the numerical data of each feature of student teachers' performance in the two stages of the study. A significant increase in performance was found with the features "pupils describe phenomenon", "questions based on pupils responses" and "accept and value pupils' answers". This indicated that during teaching practice, student teachers were more able to have pupils describe phenomena, to ask questions that built on pupils' responses, as well as taking on pupils' responses more seriously. Statistical analysis on the change of teachers' performance was conducted with the 20 student teachers who remained in the second stage of study.
Table 3. Teacher's constructivist teaching in the first two stages of study
Features of Constructivist Teaching Teaching Performance (Mean)
Micro-teaching
(Stage 1)School teaching experience
(Stage 2)Changes in Stage 1-2 With 20 teachers 1. Use pupils' existing knowledge to guide teaching 1.25 1.40 - 1.1 teacher's awareness of pupils' existing ideas 1.35 1.30 - 1.2 elicit pupils' ideas before presenting teacher's own 1.25 1.50 - 1.3 challenge pupils' initial ideas 0.80 0.95 - 1.4 make new ideas accessible to pupils 1.60 1.85 - 2. Guide pupils to generate explanations and alternative 0.86 1.11 - 2.1 pupils observe phenomenon 1.45 1.70 - 2.2 pupils describe phenomenon 1.30 1.80 *
2.3 pupils generate explanations and interpretations 0.55 0.95 - 2.4 probe pupils' responses for clarification and justifications 0.75 0.85 - 2.5 pupils explain contradictions and misconceptions 0.25 0.25 - 3. Devise incisive questions 1.00 1.34 - 3.1 a question-rich learning environment 1.30 1.70 - 3.2 questions based on pupils' responses 1.15 1.65 3.3 pupils expand on their questions and justify their responses 0.60 0.45 - 3.4 accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions 0.95 1.55 4. Choose materials and activities for pupils to test ideas 0.47 0.40 - 4.1 pupils work with materials and activities 1.35 0.95 - 4.2 pupils engage in scientific inquiry 0.30 0.55 - 4.3 minimal help from the teacher 0.30 0.25 - 4.4 pupils put their ideas to test 0.40 0.20 - 4.5 pupils' suggestion about the direction of the activities 0.00 0.05 - 5. Provide a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion 0.73 0.73 - 5.1 pupils put forward and discuss ideas with the teacher 0.80 0.90 - 5.2 pupils put forward and discuss ideas with peers 0.65 0.55 - 6 Provide opportunities for pupils to utilize new ideas 1.03 1.08 - 6.1 Relate current teaching points to previous knowledge 1.05 1.30 - 6.2 Pupils apply knowledge to new situations or real-life problem 1.00 0.85 - Mean 0.89 1.00
Improved performance with 0.05 level of significance
- Not much change in performance (changes that are not within the 0.05 level of significance)
* P<0.05
Use of pupils' existing knowledge to guide teaching: Minimal change in performance
Though there were apparent changes in every feature of this area, they were not statistically significant. Student teachers were able to make new ideas accessible to pupils, eliciting ideas before presenting the teachers' own and were aware of the pupils' existing ideas. However, student teachers still seldom challenged pupils' initial ideas.Guiding pupils to generate explanations and alternatives: Minimal change in performance
Change was evident in this area. Student teachers were, however, increasingly guided pupils to describe phenomenon (t = 2.24*, df = 19). As in Stage 1, there were occasions for student teachers to guide pupils to observe phenomenon, but there were still limited probing of pupils' responses for clarification. Moreover, it was still very uncommon to have student teachers ask pupils to explain contradictions and misconceptions.Asking incisive questions: Minimal change in performance
No overall statistically significant change was evident in this area. Nevertheless, student teachers provided more questions based on pupils' responses (t = 2.45*, df = 19), as well as to accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions (t = 2.85*, df = 19). But most student teachers still did not guide pupils to expand on the questions and justify their responses accordingly.Choosing materials and activities for pupils to test ideas: Minimal change in performance
No obvious change was evident in this area, and most of the student teachers were still not performing well in this area. There were not many opportunities for pupils to work with materials and activities, even less than that in microteaching. Pupils were seldom engaged in scientific enquiry. Pupils also did not have the chance to put their ideas to the test nor to suggest a direction for their activities. Even when there were activities, they needed help from their teachers.Providing a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion: Not much change in performance
No apparent change was observed in this area. Pupils could sometimes put forward and discuss their ideas with the teacher, but it was rare to have pupils discuss ideas among themselves.Providing opportunities for pupils to utilize new ideas: Not much change in performance
No change was found in this area. Student teachers were not frequently observed to be able to relate current teaching points to previous knowledge. It was not obvious for the student teachers to provide opportunities for pupils to apply knowledge to new situations or real-life. However, a significant correlation (r = .64*) was found in this aspect of teaching performance in the two stages of the study, showing that student teachers were fairly consistent over time.To summarize, among the twenty student teachers' teaching in their school teaching experience, three of them (B, F and R) had a few signs of constructivist teaching during their school teaching experience (with rating less than 0.5). The majority, fourteen student teachers performed at slightly agreed constructivist teaching (with rating higher than 0.5 but less than 1.5). Three others (Teachers P, U and Y) performed at agreed constructivist teaching (with rating between 1.5 and 2.5). None of the student teachers performed at a strongly agreed constructivist way during school teaching experience at their 2nd year of teacher education. The average rating of the teaching was 1.00 (the 'slightly agree' level), which did not differ significantly to their performance, a rating of 0.89 in the early stage of the study.
During school experience, it was apparent that the major strategies employed by the student teachers that were observed to have constructivist teaching in these two stages of the study mainly rested on: eliciting pupils' prior ideas and understanding of new ideas; engaging pupils in observing and describing phenomenon; questioning pupils' understanding and discussing the relation of current teaching points to pupils' previous knowledge. Detailed analysis found that most student teachers' teaching was only improving in the area of "devise incisive questions". No obvious change was shown in other areas but with individual features like "guide pupils to describe phenomenon", "with questions based on pupils' response" and "accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions".
Changes in beginning teachers' enactment of constructivist teaching
The beginning teachers were again rated according to the twenty-two features of constructivist teaching. Quite an encouraging performance was found among most of the remaining nine beginning teachers. Though none of them performed at a 'strongly agreed' level of constructivist teaching, six (Teachers I, L, P, S, X and Y) performed closely to an 'agreed level' of constructivist teaching (with a rating between 1.5 and 2.0); two (Teachers B and N) were observed to have slightly agreed constructivist teaching (with a rating between 0.5 and 1.5). Only Teacher F with a rating of 0.41 showed very few signs of constructivist teaching.
There was a statistically significant correlation between performance of constructivist teaching throughout the different stages of the study: Stage 1 with Stage 3 (r = .64*) and Stage 2 with Stage 3 (r = .76*). This indicated that those nine teachers who used constructivist methods more at the early stage of teacher education and school teaching experience were also rated more highly in this respect at their beginning teaching year.
Teachers' performance of constructivist teaching changed from an average rating of 0.84 in micro-teaching, to 1.00 during school teaching experience, and to 1.39 during the first year of teaching. A significant increase in performance was found in Stage 1 and Stage 3 (t = 2.90*, df = 8) which showed an overall shift of teachers' performance from the earliest stage of teacher education to beginning teaching.
Teachers P and Y remained at an 'agreed' constructivist teaching performance at this stage of study from school teaching experience. Teacher N maintained a few signs of constructivist teaching in the three stages of the study. Four other teachers (Teachers I, L, S and X) showed a change in their teaching, from a "slightly agreed" constructivist teaching to "agreed constructivist teaching" in their beginning teaching year. Teacher B, was also changing from "not being observed" to have constructivist teaching in school teaching experience to showing some signs of constructivist teaching in beginning teaching. However, Teacher F, though having a rating of 'slightly observed' constructivist teaching at micro-teaching, was found to have fewer signs of constructivist teaching throughout his teaching in school teaching experience and beginning teaching year. The analysis of Teacher F's teaching in Stage 2 and 3 showed that he had adopted a rather teacher-centered teaching approach with much input from the teacher in his teaching.
The nine beginning teachers' teaching performance in different areas was compared with their performance in the two previous stages (Table 4) in order to offer a meaningful analysis of teachers' change in their enactment of constructivist teaching. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS paired t-tests was conducted with each of the features of the constructivist teaching in school teaching experience and beginning teaching. The results of this analysis are shown below.
Using pupils' existing knowledge to guide teaching: change in performance
Obvious change was shown in some features of this area, beginning teachers were more aware of pupils' existing ideas (t = 2.45*, df = 8), and were more able to make new ideas accessible to pupils (t = 3.16*, df = 8) in the beginning teaching year. In addition, there was substantial correlation (r = 0.82*) between the performance in Stage 2 and 3 with the feature "making new ideas accessible to pupils". This suggested that teachers who were more able to guide pupils' learning of new ideas during school teaching experience had the same performance in the beginning teaching year.Guiding pupils to generate explanations and alternatives: minimal change in performance
No great advancement was shown in this area. Only a small change was identified in one item of this area. Beginning teachers were more capable of providing opportunities for pupils to generate explanations and interpretations. It was very uncommon to have pupils explain contradictions and misconceptions.Devising incisive questions: change in performance
Apparent change was shown in this area (t = 2.31*, df = 8). Student teachers were more able to provide a question-rich environment (t = 2.83*, df = 8), and to accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions (t = 2.53*, df = 8). There was also evidence of consistency (r = .69*) in teachers' performance to accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions between Stage 2 and 3 of the study.Choosing materials and activities for pupils to test ideas: change in performance
Though most of the student teachers were still not performing well in most of the features of this area, significant change was found (t = 3.10*, df = 8), especially with the three features "pupils work with materials and activities" (t = 2.83*, df = 8), "Minimal help from the teacher" and "pupils to put their ideas to the test" (t = 2.53*, df = 8).Providing a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion: Minimal change in performance
No apparent change was observed in this area. Pupils could sometimes put forward and discuss their ideas with the teacher, but it was uncommon to have the pupils discuss ideas among themselves.Providing opportunities for pupils to utilize new ideas: change in performance
Significant progression was found in this area (t = 2.86*, df = 8). Student teachers were more able to relate current teaching points to previous knowledge and to provide opportunities for pupils to apply knowledge to new situations or real-life.Compared with the teaching performance in micro-teaching and in school teaching experience, though more beginning teachers' (two-thirds) performance was approaching the agreed constructivist teaching level (with ratings higher than 1.5 but less than 2.0), none of them were given teaching performance ratings of 2 or over. This suggested that there was still room for improvement for the beginning teachers towards becoming more constructivist teachers.
Table 4. Teaching performance of the nine teachers in the three stages of study
Features of Constructivist Teaching Teaching Performance (Mean) Micro-teaching
(Stage 1)School teaching experience
(Stage 2)Beginning teaching
(Stage 3)Changes in Stages 2-3 9 teachers 1. Use pupils' existing knowledge to guide teaching 1.36 1.36 1.92 1.1 teacher's awareness of pupils' existing ideas 1.22 1.11 2.11 1.2 elicit pupils' ideas before presenting teacher's own 1.33 1.56 1.78 - 1.3 challenge pupils' initial ideas 1.11 0.78 1.22 - 1.4 make new ideas accessible to pupils 1.78 2 2.56 2. Guide pupils to generate explanations and alternative 0.98 1.16 1.47 - 2.1 pupils observe phenomenon 1.78 1.78 2.11 - 2.2 pupils describe phenomenon 1.56 1.89 2.11 - 2.3 pupils generate explanations and interpretations 0.56 1.11 1.56 - 2.4 probe pupils' responses for clarification and justifications 0.78 0.89 1.22 - 2.5 pupils explain contradictions and misconceptions 0.22 0.11 0.33 - 3. Devise incisive questions 1.14 1.39 1.75 3.1 a question-rich learning environment 1.44 1.67 2.33 3.2 questions based on pupils' responses 1.33 1.78 1.78 - 3.3 pupils expand on their questions and justify their responses 0.67 0.56 0.89 - 3.4 accept and value pupils' answers and suggestions 1.11 1.56 2.00 4. Choose materials and activities for pupils to test ideas 0.51 0.4 0.80 4.1 pupils work with materials and activities 1.44 0.78 1.44 4.2 pupils engage in scientific inquiry 0.22 0.56 0.89 - 4.3 minimal help from the teacher 0.33 0.33 0.78 4.4 pupils put their ideas to test 0.56 0.22 0.67 4.5 pupils' suggestion about the direction of the activity 0.00 0.11 0.22 - 5. Provide a classroom atmosphere conducive to discussion 0.89 0.84 0.78 - 5.1 pupils put forward and discuss ideas with the teacher 1.00 0.78 1.00 - 5.2 pupils put forward and discuss ideas with peers 0.78 0.89 0.56 - 6 Provide opportunities for pupils to utilize new ideas 1.11 1.00 1.56 6.1 Relate current teaching points to previous knowledge 1.11 1.22 1.78 - 6.2 Pupils apply knowledge to new situations or real-life problem 1.11 0.78 1.33 - Mean 1.00 1.17 1.39
* P< .05
- Not much change in performance
Copyright (C) 2002 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 3, Issue 1, Article 1(June, 2002). All Rights Reserved.