This article was downloaded by: [National Chiao Tung University 國立交通大學]
On: 26 April 2014, At: 05:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Biological Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20
Effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on
elementary school students' cognitive structures
Ying-Tien Wu
ab& Chin-Chung Tsai
aa
Institute of Education and Center for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung
University , Hsinchu, Taiwan
b
Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University , Taipei, Taiwan
Published online: 13 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Ying-Tien Wu & Chin-Chung Tsai (2005) Effects of constructivist-oriented instruction
on elementary school students' cognitive structures, Journal of Biological Education, 39:3, 113-119, DOI:
10.1080/00219266.2005.9655977
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655977
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Introduction
Constructivism is a theory about ‘knowing’ and ‘learning’ (Bodner, 1986; Bettencourt, 1993; Fosnot, 1996), asserting that knowledge cannot be directly transmitted but must be actively constructed by learners. This view of learning also emphasises the significance of each individual learner’s previous knowledge in subsequent learning (Ausubel, 1968; Driver and Bell, 1986; Bischoff and Anderson, 2001). There is no doubt that the perspec-tives of constructivism in learning and teaching have profound influences on the development of science curriculum and science teaching practice (Matthews, 2002; Staver, 1998).
In the past three decades, ‘meaningful learning’ has been strongly advocated by science educators (e.g., Ausubel, 1968; Mintzes et al, 1998). Among biology teachers and educators, there seems to be a growing recognition of the need to refocus on students’ learning outcomes derived from meaningful learning and their conceptual understanding of biological ideas (Mintzes
et al, 2001). It is also suggested that constructivist-oriented
instruction or strategies can promote students’ meaningful learning (Taylor and Fraser, 1991; Tsai, 1998, 1999, 2003). Therefore, many teaching strategies based upon the assertions of construc-tivism have been adopted in biological education, and many of
these teaching strategies have been shown to improve students’ performance in biological learning, for example, concept mapping (Kinchin, 2000; Schmid and Telaro, 1990), the learning cycle (Lawson, 2001), cooperative learning strategies (Soyibo and Evans, 2002; Marinopoulos and Stavridou, 2002) and conceptual change instruction (Alparslan et al, 2003). Moreover, science educators have also proposed that the integration of multiple teaching strategies could promote students’ conceptual learning and knowl-edge construction in biological classrooms (e.g. Bean et al, 2001; Odom and Kelly, 2001).
In addition, White and Gunstone (1992) have proposed the POE (Prediction-Observation-Explanation) procedure as an effi-cient teaching strategy. The POE strategy involves students pre-dicting the result of a demonstration and discussing the reasons for their prediction, observing the demonstration and finally explaining the discrepancies between their predictions and observations (Kearney et al, 2001). It may expose learners’ prior knowledge for instructors, allow students to interpret their new observations of the world around them, and then offer more oppor-tunities to share and negotiate their own personal interpretations. The use of POE strategy, clearly, is consistent with the theory of constructivism, which highlights the importance of prior
Effects of
constructivist-oriented instruction on
elementary school students’
cognitive structures
Ying-Tien Wu
1,2and Chin-Chung Tsai
1Institute of Education and Center for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung
University, Hsinchu,Taiwan
1; Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal
University, Taipei, Taiwan
2Educational Research
Educational Research
The purpose of this study was primarily to explore the effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on fifth graders’ cognitive structures about biological reproduction. Furthermore, such effects on different science achievers were also investigated. The subjects of this study were 69 eleven year olds in Taiwan, who were assigned to either a constructivist-oriented instruction group or a traditional teaching group. The research treat-ment was conducted for three weeks, and the interview data were gathered a week later after the instruction about biological reproduction. The interview narratives were transcribed into ‘flow maps’. The information process-ing modes shown in the flow maps were also investigated through a series of content analysis. The results of this study revealed that students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group, in general, attained better learning outcomes about biological reproduction after instruction, both in terms of the extent of concepts and in the richness within their cognitive structures. Furthermore, the students in this group were probably better organised and stored their ideas in a higher-level mode of information processing, especially in the mode of ‘inferring or explaining’. However, high achievers and low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction attained better usage of information processing modes in somewhat different ways; only high achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group attained significantly better usage of high-order information processing modes.
Key words: Constructivist; Cognitive structure; Flow map; Biological reproduction; Taiwan
Constructivist-oriented instruction Wu and Tsai
knowledge and the construction of interpretations. In the past, the POE strategy had widely been used for physics education at secondary and high school level as a tool for teaching and assess-ment (for further details about the POE strategy, see White and Gunstone, 1992; Kearney et al, 2001; Palmer, 1995). Palmer (1995) also argued that POE could be a suitable technique for primary science. In sum, the POE strategy is regarded as a structivist-oriented learning strategy to promote learners’ con-ceptual learning (White and Gunstone, 1992; Liew, 1995). Consequently, it was combined with the small group cooperative learning activities and employed to promote learners’ biological learning outcomes in this study.
Current practice in science education encourages the use of multiple ways to assess learners’ learning outcomes. Although traditional-oriented assessment methods, such as multiple choice questions (e.g. Marinopoulos and Stavridou, 2002; Soyibo and Evans, 2002), two-tier multiple-choice test (e.g. Odom and Kelly, 2001; Alparslan et al, 2003; Christianson and Fisher, 1999), matching tests (Bean et al, 2001) and short essay questions (Bean et al, 2001), were widely used to assess students’ learning outcomes in biological education, the measurement of learners’ cognitive structures can be one of another important indicators in assessing what learners know.
Educators and cognitive scientists have tried to represent pre-acquired knowledge in terms of ‘cognitive structure’ (Pines, 1985; West et al, 1985). A cognitive structure is a hypothetical construct showing the extent of concepts and their relationships in a learner’s long-term memory (Shavelson, 1974). Through probing learners’ cognitive structures, biological educators can understand what learners have acquired. Therefore, students’ cognitive structures were used as an assessment outcome variable in this study.
However, many methods of representing individual cognitive structures have been proposed, such as word association, tree construction, concept map and flow map. Tsai and Huang (2002) summarised three major aspects in the description of cognitive structures: the concepts or ideas contained; the connec-tions between concepts; and the mode of information processing used in organising concepts. Based upon this review, the flow map (described in detail later) may be the most useful method to represent learners’ cognitive structures. Anderson and Demetrius (1993) also argued that the flow-map representation required minimal intervention by the interviewer and low inference for its construction, providing a convenient diagram of the sequential and multi-relation thought patterns expressed by the respondent, and argued it was a useful method to probe learners’ cognitive structures. The use of the flow map method also concurs with current neuroscience models about human cognition and infor-mation processing (Anderson, 1997). Therefore, the flow map method was used as a way to probe students’ cognitive structures in this study.
Furthermore, the effects of the constructivist-oriented instruc-tion or teaching strategies on high school or college students’ learning outcomes have been widely evaluated (e.g. Odom and Kelly, 2001; Alparslan et al, 2003; Schmid and Telard, 1990; Christianson and Fisher, 1999; Mintzes, 2001), but few studies on elementary school students were conducted. Therefore, this study was conducted to explore the effects of the constructivist-oriented instruction on a group of Taiwanese fifth graders’ cog-nitive structures about biological reproduction. In addition, such effects on different science achievers were also investigated.
Method
Subjects and science achievement grouping
The subjects of this study came from two classes of an urban elementary school in Taiwan. By using a quasi-experimental research approach, one class of 35 students was assigned to a constructivist-oriented instruction group, while another class of 34 students was assigned to a traditional instruction group. These two groups did not show statistical differences in science academic achievement, preferences and perceptions of science learning environments before the study (p>0.05). These two groups were taught by their usual science teachers, both male teachers with two years of science teaching experience.
Moreover, students’ fourth grade science test scores were used to categorise students’ science achievement in this study. The score average for all participant students was used to divide the students in each class into two subgroups. One was for high achievers, while the other was for low achievers. The high achiever subgroup in the constructivist-oriented instruction group included 17 students, while that in the traditional group included 19 stu-dents; the low achiever subgroup in the constructivist-oriented instruction group included 18 students, while that in the tradi-tional group included 15 students. There was no significant differ-ence in the scidiffer-ence achievement score for these two high-achiever subgroups between constructivist and traditional groups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two low-achiever subgroups.
Description of the lessons
According to the National Standards of Elementary Science Education in Taiwan, the instruction unit on biological repro-duction for fifth graders should take nine 40-minute class peri-ods. Consequently, the students in this study received relevant instruction about biological reproduction for three successive weeks (three periods per week). The first two weeks covered different methods of plant reproduction. In the final week, dif-ferent methods for animal reproduction (i.e. viviparity, ovipari-ty and ovovivipariovipari-ty) were introduced. The lecture and text-book-based method was used in the traditional group, while the constructivist-oriented instruction conducted in this study was developed by combining the POE strategy and small group cooperative learning activities. For example, in the first two weeks, students in the constructivist group were individually asked to predict (or think about) the methods of plant repro-duction and write them down, and their ideas were discussed in small groups (each group contained five or six students). By watching videotapes, students could observe the reproduction of plants. Then in small groups, the students were assigned to reproduce plants, observe their reproduction, and gather infor-mation about plant reproduction by teamwork. Finally, each group reported their observations and explained the difference between their initial prediction and the observation about plant reproduction.
The constructivist-oriented instruction in this study high-lighted the significance of prior knowledge and allowed learners to observe phenomena around them, share and discuss their interpretations, negotiate meanings, and actively construct bio-logical knowledge. Compared with the traditional teaching group in this study, these instructional activities could be regarded as relatively constructivist-oriented.
Data collection, analysis and the flow map method
Students were interviewed to explore their cognitive structures about biological reproduction. To probe learners’ cognitive structures about biological reproduction, non-directive questions asked by researchers were as follows:
1. Please tell me what are the main ideas or ways of biological reproduction.
2. Could you tell me more about the ideas you have mentioned? 3. Could you tell me the relationships between the ideas you
have already told me about?
All of the interviews above were tape-recorded. Then, each stu-dent’s interview narrative was transcribed into the format of a ‘flow map.’
Figure 1 shows a constructivist-oriented instruction group student’s flow map after the unit of ‘biological reproduction.’ The basic flow map is constructed by entering the statements in sequence uttered by the learner. The sequence of discourse is examined and recurrent ideas represented by recurring word elements in each statement (presenting a connecting node to prior idea) are linked by connecting arrows.
There are two types of arrows used in the flow map. The linear or serial arrows show the direct flow of the learner’s narrative, while the recurrent arrows show the revisited ideas among the statements displayed in the flow map. For example, the student’s narrative mapped in Figure 1 shows a sequential pattern beginning with plant reproduction and progressing to the methods of animal reproduction. The student also gave some concrete examples of plant reproduction, such as beans, roses. Recurrent arrows are inserted that link revisited ideas to the earliest step where the related idea first occurred. Statement 2, for example, ‘beans use their seeds for reproduction’ includes one revisited idea, ‘seeds for reproduction.’ Thus, Statement 2 has one recurrent arrow drawn back to Statement 1, i.e. plants can use seeds, stems or roots for reproduction (for further details about the flow map method, see Anderson and Demetrius, 1993; Tsai, 2001; Tsai and Huang, 2001). Figure 2 shows another student’s flow map, with similar rules for diagramming the interview narrative.
Through using this method, students’ interview narratives were transcribed into visual displays of flow maps. This study then produced 69 flow maps as the representation of students’ cognitive structures about biological reproduction for the two participating classes. The number of linear linkages could be viewed as the extent of concepts or ideas within the student’s cognitive structure, whereas the number of recurrent linkages
could be viewed as an indicator of its richness. For example, there are six linear linkages in Figure 2, and five in Figure 1; in Figure 2 there are 11 recurrent linkages, but only four in Figure 1. In addition, the information processing modes shown in the flow maps were investigated through a series of content analyses. To acquire a deeper understanding of a student’s usage among different modes of processing knowledge about biological repro-duction, each of the student’s statements shown in the flow maps was categorised into one of the following four levels of infor-mation processing modes (adapted from Tsai and Huang, 2001): 1. Defining: Providing a definition of a concept or a scientific term, e.g. ‘ovoviviparity indicates animals that lay eggs that hatch inside the mother’s body’.
2. Describing: Depicting a phenomenon or a fact, e.g. ‘roses use their stems for reproduction’.
3. Comparing: Stating the relationships between (or among) subjects, things, or methods, e.g. ‘compared to other methods, oviparity could generate more offspring at one time’. 4. Inferring or Explaining: Describing what will happen under
certain conditions (e.g. ‘if the pollen deposits onto a pistil, it may generate seeds’), or offering an account to justify the causality of two facts or events, (e.g. ‘since viviparity in mammals is associated with parental care, it does not need a large number of offspring to increase the reproductive rate’). According to Tsai and Huang (2001), the fourth category of infor-mation processing modes (i.e. inferring or explaining) was viewed as the high-order information processing mode in this study.
The statements in each flow map were categorised (for instance, Statement 2 in Figure 2, ‘for example, beans use their seeds, roses use their stems, potatoes use roots, and so on’, was coded within the ‘describing’ category. Statement 4 in Figure 2, ‘The nutrient of viviparity animals come from maternal body, while oviparity animals and ovoviparty animals depends on eggs themselves’, was coded within the ‘comparing’ category). The frequencies of the four-level information processing modes used by the learner were then counted. Students who frequently used higher-order modes of information processing (e.g. ‘inferring or explaining’) were viewed as having better strategies for organising information during recall.
1. Plants can use seeds, stems or roots for reproduction 2. Beans use their seeds for reproduction
3. Roses use their stems for reproduction 4. The goal of repoduction for plans and animals is
to generate offspring
5. The methods of reproduction for animals include viviparity, oviparity, ovoviviparity
Linear linkage Recurrent linkage Figure 1. A low achiever’s flow map from the constructivist-oriented instruc-tion group
1. Plants can use seeds, stems or roots for reproduction 2. For example, beans use their seeds, roses use
their stems, and potatoes use roots
3. The methods of reproduction for animals include viviparity, oviparity, ovoviviparity
4. The nutrients of viviparity animals come from maternal body, while oviparity animals and ovoviparity animals depends on eggs themselves
5. The babies of viviparity animals have umbilical cords to obtain the nutrients from maternal body, while those of oviparity and ovoviparity animals do not
6. Dogs are viviparous and chickens are oviparous Linear linkage Recurrent linkage Figure 2. A high achiever’s flow map from the constructivist-oriented instruction group
Constructivist-oriented instruction Wu and Tsai
After students’ interview narratives were transcribed into flow maps, the reliability of flow map diagramming was determined by asking a second independent researcher to draw a subset of students’ narratives. In this study, the inter-coder agreement for sequential linkages was 0.91, and for recurrent linkages was 0.88 (for the details of calculation of the reliability coefficient, please refer to Anderson and Demetrius, 1993). In general, it is considered sufficient for narrative analysis if the reliability is greater than 0.80. Based on this evidence, this method was deemed to be suffi-ciently reliable for the purpose of this study. Similarly, an inter-coder reliability of 0.92 was obtained for the content analysis of information-processing modes, indicating that the two researchers coded 92% of the students’ ideas into the same category of information processing modes. Therefore, the content analysis of information processing modes in this study was viewed as suffi-ciently reliable.
Results
In this study, a series of t-test analyses were conducted to examine the difference in students’ cognitive structures between construc-tivist and traditional groups. Table 1 presents the data on students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their information processing modes gathered from the interviews. The results in Table 1 show that these two groups of students had significant differences in terms of ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ (p<0.01). The students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group attained better learning outcomes about biological reproduction after instruction, both in terms of the extent of concepts and the richness within their cognitive structures.
It was also found that both the Cohen’s d values of ‘linear link-ages’ and ‘recurrent linklink-ages’ were larger than 0.8; that is, the practical significance of both ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ was large (Cohen, 1988). This might imply that students would acquire more concepts and develop more integrated cog-nitive structures after the constructivist-oriented instruction than the traditional instruction did. The well-organised cognitive structures might help learners store more information in their long-term memory.
Moreover, the results in Table 1 also revealed that these two groups of students had significant differences in their usage of two modes of information processing, namely, ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’ (p<0.01); however, no significant difference was found in their usage of the other modes of information pro-cessing, ‘defining’ and ‘comparing’. The students in the construc-tivist-oriented instruction group tended to store more concepts or ideas in describing the related scientific information about biological reproduction. Furthermore, the students in the con-structivist-oriented instruction group were probably better
organised and stored their ideas in a higher-level mode of infor-mation processing, the ‘inferring or explaining’ modes. Both the
Cohen’s d values of ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’ were
larger than 0.8. In other words, the practical significance of both the usage of ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’ was large. The constructivist-oriented instruction is likely to have facilitated the connections between new conceptions and pre-existing knowledge within learners’ cognitive structures and promote the usage of higher-level information processing modes.
The difference in high achievers’ cognitive structure outcomes between constructivist-oriented and traditional groups was also explored by conducting similar t-test analyses. Table 2 presents the data on the high achievers’ cognitive structure outcomes and their information-processing modes between two instructional groups. It showed that there were significant differences in terms of ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ between these two high achiever subgroups (p<0.01). Moreover, both of the
Cohen’s d values of ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ were
far larger than 0.8 (i.e. the practical significance of both ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ was large). These results indicated that the high achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group displayed larger and more integrated cognitive structures than their opposite numbers in the traditional group.
It was also revealed that there were statistical differences between these two high achiever subgroups in their usage of two modes of information processing, ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’ (p<0.01); however, no significant difference was found in their usage of the other two modes. Moreover, both the
Cohen’s d values of ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’
were far larger than 0.8: the practical significance of the usage of both ‘describing’ and ‘inferring or explaining’ was large. The results suggested that high achievers would benefit more from the con-structivist-oriented instruction in their usage of high-order information processing modes, such as inferring and explaining. Similarly, a series of t-tests were conducted to investigate whether the low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group outperformed their peers in the traditional group on the cognitive structure outcomes. Table 3 presents the data on the low achievers’ cognitive structure outcomes and their information processing modes. The results show that there was significant difference in cognitive structure outcomes both in ‘linear linkages’ and ‘recurrent linkages’ (p<0.05) between these two low achiever subgroups. The practical significance of ‘linear linkages’ was middle (0.5<Cohen’s d<0.8), and the practical significance of ‘recurrent linkages’ was large (Cohen’s d>0.8). In other words, constructivist-oriented instruction helped low achievers develop more extended and connected cognitive structures than traditional teaching.
Table 1. Students’ cognitive structure outcomes and information processing modes between groups
Constructivist-oriented (n=35) Traditional (n=34) t Cohen’s d1
Mean SD Mean SD Linear linkages 9.23 4.19 5.38 2.80 4.50** 1.11 Recurrent linkages 8.20 5.32 3.85 2.58 4.34** 1.04 Defining 2.49 1.67 2.44 1.86 0.11 -Describing 4.83 2.93 2.15 2.12 4.35** 1.05 Comparing 0.94 0.97 0.65 0.95 1.28 -Inferring or Explaining 0.63 0.94 0.03 0.17 3.70** 0.92
1The Cohen’s d value is the effect size of the practical significance between groups. The practical significance is large when the Cohen’s d value is larger than 0.8.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
The results in Table 3 further reveal that these two subgroups of students had significant differences in their usage of two modes of information processing, namely ‘describing’ (p<0.05) and ‘comparing’ (p<0.01); but no significant difference was found in their usage of the other modes of information processing, ‘defining’ and ‘inferring or explaining’. Furthermore, both the
Cohen’s d values of ‘describing’ and ‘comparing’ were larger than
0.8. In other words, the practical significance of both the usage of ‘describing’ and ‘comparing’ were large.
The results indicated that low achievers also benefited from the constructivist-oriented instruction in their usage of informa-tion processing modes, but in somewhat different ways from high achievers. Low achievers in the constructivist group may construct more ideas in the mode of ‘comparing’ than those in the traditional group, but high achievers in the constructivist group may utilise more ‘inferring or explaining’ mode of infor-mation processing.
Based upon the flow map analysis of fifth grader narratives, this study explored the effects of the constructivist-oriented instruction on students’ cognitive structures about biological reproduction. In this study, ‘inferring or explaining’ was viewed as the high-order information processing mode. Therefore, the results of this study can be summarised as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group, in general, attained significantly better learning outcomes in the extent, and the integration, of their cognitive structures and the usage of high-order information processing modes; however, low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group did not significantly outperform those in the traditional group in their usage of high-order information-pro-cessing modes.
A series of ANOVA test analyses were also conducted to explore the possible interactions of students’ academic achieve-ments and the instruction method. The results revealed that students’ academic achievement and the instruction method
only showed significant interaction effects on the usage of the ‘inferring or explaining’ information processing mode (F=9.671,
p<0.05). Through a series of Scheffe tests, it was found that
there were significant differences between high achievers and low achievers in the traditional instruction group. However, no significant difference was found between high achievers and low achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group. Again, the students of the two high-achiever subgroups displayed signifi-cant differences in their usage of high-order information process-ing modes (i.e. inferrprocess-ing or explainprocess-ing), while the students of two low-achiever subgroups did not. This indicated that high achievers benefited more from the constructivist-oriented instructional activities, especially, in their usage of high-order information processing mode.
Discussion and implications
Driver et al (1994) have argued that the learning of science is a process of knowledge construction involving both individual and social perspectives. The constructivist-oriented instruction could provide more opportunities for learners to construct their own per-sonal interpretations of the world around them, share their ideas, negotiate with others and construct their own meaning of biolog-ical knowledge. The findings of this study show that constructivist-oriented instruction could promote students’ performance in biological learning in the light of cognitive structure outcomes. Bischoff and Anderson (2001) have argued that sufficient concepts or ideas are necessary in order to precede and promote the development of more complex ideational patterns in the learner’s cognitive structure. Constructivist-oriented instruction, in the present study, helped students develop more extended knowledge frameworks about biological reproduction. These extended knowledge structures, probably serving as scaffolding, may also facilitate the construction of more integrated cognitive structures. Therefore, the finding in this study is consistent with the argument proposed by Bischoff and Anderson (2001).
Table 2.High achievers’ cognitive structure outcomes and information processing modes between groups
Constructivist-oriented (n=19) Traditional (n=17) t Cohen’s d1
Mean SD Mean SD Linear linkages 11.24 3.05 5.95 2.95 5.28** 1.76 Recurrent linkages 10.65 5.20 4.74 2.75 4.33** 1.42 Defining 3.18 1.47 2.47 1.58 1.38 -Describing 5.53 2.53 2.21 2.30 4.13** 1.37 Comparing 1.18 1.13 1.11 1.05 0.20 -Inferring or Explaining 1.12 1.11 0.05 0.23 3.88** 1.33
1The Cohen’s d value is the effect size of the practical significance between groups. The practical significance is large when the Cohen’s d value is larger than 0.8.
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
Table 3.Low achievers’ cognitive structure outcomes and information processing modes between groups
Constructivist-oriented (n=15) Traditional (n=18) t Cohen’s d1
Mean SD Mean SD Linear linkages 7.33 4.30 4.67 2.50 2.12* 0.77 Recurrent linkages 5.89 4.42 2.73 1.91 2.74* 0.93 Defining 1.83 1.62 2.40 2.23 -0.85 -Describing 4.17 3.19 2.07 1.94 2.23* 0.80 Comparing 0.72 0.75 0.07 0.26 3.46** 1.16 Inferring or Explaining 0.17 0.38 0.00 0.00 1.84
-1The Cohen’s d value is the effect size of the practical significance between groups. The practical significance is large when the Cohen’s d value is larger than 0.8, and
the practical significance is middle when the Cohen’s d value is between 0.5 and 0.8. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01
Constructivist-oriented instruction Wu and Tsai
Biology teachers should encourage and promote learners’ use of higher-order information processing modes through which they organise and store their biological ideas or concepts. The results in this study reveal that high achievers in the constructivist-oriented instruction group attained better usage of high-order information processing modes than their peers in the traditional group. This was probably due to the fact that the learners (espe-cially higher achievers) in the constructivist biological classrooms would need more complex cognitive structures to store more concepts or ideas they have learned. Thus, higher-order information processing modes were largely used to shape their concepts or ideas. It is also argued that low (or middle, such as ‘comparing’) order cognitive operations may act as precursors to the devel-opment of high order operations and may be increasingly replaced by them (Bischoff and Anderson, 2001). If the treatment in this study could last longer, the lower achievers in the constructivist group might display more high-order information processing. So, further exploration is suggested to investigate the progression of learners’ information processing, particularly by documenting low achievers’ ways of constructing knowledge. Clearly, such research requires more time and instructional units to obtain reliable findings. Moreover, the use of higher-level information processing strategies and the increase in networking connections among existing concepts may mutually reinforce one another (Tsai and Huang 2001). The findings of the present study may indicate that constructivist-oriented instruction could also help learners to use more generalised or advanced forms of knowledge (e.g. explaining) to express their understanding of the biology, as their cognitive structures become more elaborate.
This study also examined the applicability of the POE strategy in primary school biology classes. Tsai (2001) has suggested that the use of POE instructional activities is useful for enhancing students’ information processing levels. The findings in this study have supported the proposal that the POE is a useful instructional strategy to promote not only students’ cognitive structure outcomes but also their usage of high-order information processing modes, which concurs with Tsai’s (2001) suggestion. In conclusion, this study showed some evidence that students in the constructivist-oriented instruction group, in general, attained significantly better biological learning outcomes in the light of the extent and integration of their cognitive structures, and the use of high-order information processing modes. The findings of this study also suggest that instructors can utilise constructivist-oriented instructional activities, such as the POE strategy and cooperative learning activities, to enhance students’ conceptual learning and knowledge construction in primary school biology classes.
Acknowledgement
Funding of this research work is supported by National Science Council, Taiwan, under grant numbers NSC 91-2511-S-009-008, and NSC92-2511-S009-016.
References
Alparslan C, Tekkaya C and Geban O (2003) Using the conceptual change instruction to improve learning. Journal of Biological
Education, 37(3), 135-139.
Anderson O R (1997). A neurocognitive perspective on current learn-ing theory and science instructional strategies. Science Education,
81(1), 67-89.
Anderson O R and Demetrius O J (1993) A flow-map method of rep-resenting cognitive structure based on respondents’ narrative using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 953-969. Ausubel D P (1968) Educational psychology: A cognitive viewpoint. New
York: Rinehart & Winston.
Bean T W, Searles D, Singer H and Cowen S (2001). Learning concepts from biology text through pictorial analogies and an analogical study guide. Journal of Educational Research, 83(4), 233-237.
Bettencourt A (1993) The construction of knowledge: A radical con-structivist view. In K. Tobin (ed), The Practice of Constructivism in
Science Education (pp 39-50). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
Bodner G M (1996). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of
Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
Bischoff P J and Anderson O R (2001) Development of knowledge frameworks and higher order cognitive operations among secondary school students who studied a unit on ecology. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(2), 81-88.
Christianson R G and Fisher K M (1999) Comparison of student learn-ing about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional class-rooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 687-698. Cohen J (1998) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd
Ed). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence.
Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E and Scott P (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational
Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Driver R and Bell B (1986) Students’ thinking and the learning of sci-ence: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456. Fosnot C T (1996) Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In: C T Fosnot (ed), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice, (pp 3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kearney M, Treagust D F, Yeo S and Zadnik M G (2001) Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict-observe-explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science
Education, 31, 589-615.
Kinchin I M (2000). Concept mapping in biology. Journal of Biological
Education. 34(2), 61-68.
Lawson A E (2001) Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 165-169.
Liew C W.(1995). A predict-observe-explain teaching sequence for learning about students’ understanding of heat and expansion of liq-uid. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 41(1), 68-71.
Marinopoulos D and Stavridou H (2002) The influence of a collabora-tive learning environment on primary students’ conceptions about acid rain. Journal of Biological Education, 37(1), 18-24.
Matthews M R (2002) Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121-134. Mintzes J J (2001) Prior knowledge and locus of control in cognitive learning among college biology students. Education, 100(2), 138-145. Mintzes J J, Wandersee J H and Novak J D (1998) Teaching Science for
Understanding. London: Academic Press.
Mintzes J J, Wandersee J H and Novak J D (2001) Assessing under-standing in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124. Odom A L and Kelly P V (2001) Integrating concept mapping and
Table 4. A summary of cognitive structure outcomes and information processing modes among different subjects
Constructivist group. Constructivist v.s. Constructivist v.s.
v.s. Traditional high Traditional low
Traditional group (total) acievers subgroup achievers subgroup
Extent of cognitive structure ** ** * Integration of cognitive structure ** ** ** High-order information processing mode ** **
-* Cohen’s d > 0.5, -*-* Cohen’s d > 0.8
learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85, 615-635.
Palmer D (1995) The POE in the primary school: An evaluation.
Research in Science Education, 25(3), 323-332.
Pines A L (1985) Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations and the implications for the evaluation of cognitive structures. In: L H T West and A L Pines (eds), Cognitive structures and conceptual change, (pp 101-115). Orlando: Academic Press.
Schmid R F and Telaro G. (1990) Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research,
84(2), 78-85.
Shavelson R J (1974) Methods for examining representations of a sub-ject-matter structure in a student’s memory. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 11, 231-249.
Staver J R (1998) Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
35(5), 501-520.
Soyibo K and Evans H G (2002) Effects of co-operative learning strate-gy on ninth-graders’ understanding of human nutrition. Australian
Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(2), 32-35.
Tsai C-C (1998) An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientation of Taiwan eighth graders. Science Education, 82, 473-489.
Tsai C-C (1999) ‘Laboratory exercise help me memorize the scientific truths’: A case study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654-674.
Tsai C-C (2001) Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a metalistening technique.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 257-268.
Tsai C-C (2003) Using a ‘conflict map’ as an instructional tool to change student alternative conceptions in simple series electric-circuits.
International Journal of Science Education, 25, 307-327
Tsai C-C and Huang C-M (2001) Development of cognitive structures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biological Education,
36,21-26.
Tsai C-C and Huang C-M (2002) Exploring students’ cognitive struc-tures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of
Biological Education, 36, 163-169.
Taylor P C and Fisher B J (1991) CLES: An instrument for assessing
constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
West L H T, Fensham P J and Garrard J E (1985) Describing the cogni-tive structures of learners following instruction in chemistry. In: L H T West and A L Pines (eds), Cognitive structures and conceptual
change, (pp 29-48). Orlando: Academic Press.
White R and Gunstone R (1992) Prediction-observation-explanation. In: R White and R Gunstone (eds), Probing understanding, (pp 44-64). London: The Falmer Press.
Ying-Tien Wu earned his Master’s degree at the Institute of Education, National Chiao Tung University, 300 Hsinchu, Taiwan, and is currently a doctoral student at the Department of Earth Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Chin-Chung Tsai (corresponding author) is a Professor and Chair at the Institute of Education & Center for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung University, 300 Hsinchu, Taiwan. Email: cctsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw
