!"##$#% '()*+ , -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!

8 0-36/-6 9















A Constructivist Approach to Secondary Science
Kate Ropchan
ETEC 530, Section 66B
Instructor: Dr. John Egan
July 2014
University of British Columbia















, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 :
Introduction
Imagine a room full of students sitting quietly in straight rows of desks while they listen
to the authority figure at the front. Students frantically take notes as the instructor lectures, rarely
pausing to ask questions. Now envision instead, a learning environment where students are
engaged in hands-on, collaborative activities where priority is given to students pre-existing
ideas. Technology use plays a prominent role as students are guided down a captivating path of
discovery and learning, with their teacher acting as a facilitator, rather than the sole disseminator
of knowledge. Which learning environment is more effective for secondary science education
today?
Transmission

Under the transmission model of learning, students are introduced to content through
lectures, presentations, and readings, and then they are expected to absorb the transmitted
knowledge in ready-to-use form (Seimears, Graves, Schroyer, & Staver, 2012, para. 4). This
teaching model is often used because it is the instructional method that most teachers are familiar
with, as they were likely taught in this way (Seimears et al., 2012). However, this model of
learning assumes that the message received by the student is the same message that the teacher
intended. In reality, when you send a message by saying something or providing information,
and you have no knowledge of the receiver, then you have no idea as to what message was
received, and you can not unambiguously interpret the response (Dougiamas, 2006, p. 14).
Constructivism, on the other hand, is a learning approach that shifts the emphasis from having
students replicate what teachers do, to having students experience an event that causes a
reorganization of their existing thought processes.

, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 ;
Constructivism
Constructivism, stemming from the works of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Dewey, contends that
students are not sponges ready to absorb and use transmitted knowledge (Seimars et al., 2012,
para. 6), but rather builders of their own knowledge. Particular consideration is given to students
prior knowledge, including any misconceptions that the learner starts with in their construction
of new knowledge (Anderson, 2008). Further, the learning environment respects and
accommodates the particular cultural attributes, especially the language and particular forms of
expression that the learner uses to interpret and build knowledge (Anderson, 2008, p. 47). Other
tenets of constructivism include the active role of learners in building their own understanding of
reality as they engage in collaborative, real-world learning, receiving scaffolding from an
instructor and more capable peers.
Engaging in active, situated, social learning, allows students to encounter new information,
which confronts their previously held ideas, creating dissatisfaction (zdemir & Clark, 2006),
and thus providing opportunities for a reorganization of the thought processes to accommodate
new ideas (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). The constructivist teacher acts as a guide
on the side rather than the sage on the stage (King, 1993, p. 30), facilitating learning in a less
directive way by presenting material in a manner that makes the students manipulate new ideas
and relate them to what they already know. Essentially, the teachers role is to facilitate students
interaction with the material and with each other in their knowledge-producing endeavor (King,
1993, p. 30).
Benefits
Constructivism allows students and teachers to develop a comprehensive understanding
of science and its real world applications (Lew, 2010). From a constructivist perspective, science
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 <
is not the search for truth or for facts to be learned, but rather a process enabling us to make
sense of our experiential world (Seimears et al., 2012). By utilizing a constructivist approach,
learning science becomes more like the science practiced by actual scientists; active and social
rather than consisting of lectures, textbook readings, and tests. This active engagement in the
learning process through hands-on scientific investigations can lead to better conceptual
understanding, recall, and application of science concepts (So, 2002; Minner, Levy & Century,
2010).
A constructivist science class allows learners to become actively engaged in relevant,
real-world topics through an approach that allows them to analyse, investigate, collaborate,
share, build and generate based on what they already know (Dougiamas, 2006, p. 15), rather
than regurgitating facts and processes. Students are encouraged to take responsibility for their
own learning by taking an active, rather than passive approach. Rather than having an
instructors version of science concepts imposed on them, students appreciate that their own
ideas become the focus of the initial learning process, and that they are given control of their
own learning (Hand, Treagust, & Vance, 1997). When students become involved in the culture
of science, they improve their attitude and confidence in participating in everyday, real-world
discussions of science (Hand et al., 1997).
Challenges
While constructivism is widely recognized as a best practice for science education, in
reality, many science teachers default to the transmission model, emulating the way they were
taught (Hand et al., 1997; Lew, 2010; Siemears et al., 2012; So, 2002). In some cases, this is
because constructivist teaching requires more time and there is pressure on teachers to cover a
large number of scientific learning outcomes for the purpose of testing (Minner et al., 2010;
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 =
zdemir & Clark, 2006). As a result, teachers become over-reliant on familiar pedagogical
approaches such as lectures, textbooks, worksheets, and rote learning practices, without
providing adequate opportunities for students to collaborate and actively build their own
knowledge (So, 2002). Although educators espouse support for constructivist approaches to
teaching and learning, they may find it easier and more efficient to maintain current practices
than to promulgate approaches for which significant pedagogical shifts are required.
Another challenge with a constructivist approach to secondary science is that science
doesnt always follow common sense. Teachers may worry that unguided experiences with
natural interpretations of phenomena will result in student misunderstandings (Matthews, 1994).
In many cases, scientific knowledge is abstract, removed from experience, lacks connection with
prior knowledge, and counters everyday experience, expectations, and concepts (Matthews,
2000). Thus utilizing a constructivist approach may pose a significant challenge for these types
of scientific topics.
Science teachers are faced with numerous challenges, including students lack of interest
in science, teachers inadequate knowledge of science, schools lack of resources, and societys
lack of interest in education (Matthews, 2000). However, many of these obstacles can be
overcome by following the recommendations below.
Recommendations
In order for more secondary science teachers to consistently adopt a constructivist
approach, curricula should provide more time for students to explore their ideas. According to
the British Columbia Ministry of Education (2013), currently, B.C.s curriculum has too many
prescribed learning outcomes and reducing those outcomes will give teachers more time and
flexibility to allow students to explore their interests and passions. The draft curricula recently
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 >
released in B.C. show evidence of fewer outcomes, which should facilitate the implementation of
a more constructivist teaching approach.
Constructivism values where the learner is, what she or he already knows and what her
or his society makes and demands of the learner (Jegede, 1995, p. 124). Knowledge
construction is only successful if significant regard is given to indigenous knowledge and
prevailing socio-cultural factors. Thus the learning environment should demonstrate respect for
an individuals culture, especially the language and prior conceptions that the learner uses to
interpret and build knowledge.
If teachers are to take a constructivist approach, then they need to understand what this
entails (Seimears et al., 2012). Thus teacher education should focus on research-based evidence
for the effective use of constructivism, emphasizing student-centered learning and helping
teachers to gain a better understanding of how students learn and how teachers can aid in this
process (So, 2002). In particular, teachers need to make more of an effort to challenge pupils'
initial ideas and probe pupils' responses for clarification and justification, as well as allowing
students to suggest the direction of the activity, to discuss ideas with peers and to explain
contradictions and misconceptions (So, 2002). Not only will this process increase science
understanding in students, but it will also make science fun and interesting for both students and
teachers (Posner et al., 1982).
In order to overcome the difficulty of teaching abstract science concepts that seemingly
violate common sense, Posner et al., (1982) recommend using metaphors, models, and analogies
to make these new conceptions more intelligible and plausible. Additionally, representing
content in multiple modes may help students to clarify their ideas. Ultimately, teaching science
involves providing a rational basis for a conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982, p. 223). This
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 ?
may be a slow process, but accommodations end result is a substantial reorganization or change
in ones previously held ideas.
My Own Classroom
If students construct their own knowledge, then my role as a teacher should be to work as
a facilitator and create an environment where students can actively explore content. While I am
working toward creating a truly constructivist learning environment in my classroom, I still have
significant room for improvement. I have found myself hampered by many of the barriers cited
above, particularly the numerous learning outcomes to teach in Science 10, which culminates in
a high-stakes multiple choice provincial exam. Over the last year, however, I reduced my
persistence to cover content and began providing students the opportunity to engage more
deeply with science concepts through the use of collaborative projects on a topic of their choice,
web-mediated active learning exercises, and discovery-based science labs. What I found is that
student understanding seemed to be much greater when using a constructivist learning approach
than when using transmission methods. In order to improve upon the progress that I have made
and become a stronger constructivist teacher, I plan to further my knowledge of constructivism
through the education obtained in ETEC 530, as well as by situating myself in a supportive
community of practice of like-minded teachers at my school.
Conclusion
Students today live in a society where information can be obtained immediately on their
electronic devices. Thus passively listening to a teacher, memorizing information, and recalling
facts is no longer a high priority. Engaging secondary science students in constructivist learning
experiences helps them to think critically, to move from the recall of knowledge toward the
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 @
production of knowledge, to work collaboratively, and to become creative problem solvers in
order to deal effectively with the challenges of the twenty-first century.

, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 A
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.),
Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-
Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2012). Education for tomorrow: 2012/2013
transformation and technology update. Retrieved from
http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/pubs/tt-plan/2012bced_tt_plan_vid.swf
Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science education's "grand unifying theory". Clearing
House, 74(1), 9-12.
Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved from
http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MOODLE/M981100D.pdf
Hand, B., Treagust, D. F., & Vance, K. (1997). Student perceptions of the social constructivist
classroom. Science Education, 81(5), 561575.
Jegede, O. J. (1995). Collateral learning and eco-cultural paradigm in science and
mathematics in Africa. Studies in Science Education. 25, 97 - 137.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.
Lew, L. (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.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M.R. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. In D.C.
, -./01!2-134301 ,55!.,-' 1. 06-./7,!8 0-36/-6 9B
Phillips (Ed.), National society for the study of education, 99th yearbook, (pp. 161-192).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from
http://educa.univpm.it/inglese/matthews.html
Minner, D. D., Levy, A., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction--What is it and
does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal Of
Research In Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
zdemir, G. & Clark D. B. (2006). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351-361.
Posner, G.J, Strike, K.A, Hewson, P. W, & Gertzog, W.A (1982). Accommodation of a
scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education.
66(2), 211-227.
Seimears, C., Graves, E., Schroyer, M., & Staver, J. (2012). How constructivist-based teaching

influences students learning science. Educational Forum, 76(2), 265-271.

So, W. M. (2002). Constructivist teaching in primary science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science

Learning and Teaching, 3(1), Retrieved from

http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v3_issue1/sowm/index.htm#contents