This article was downloaded by: [aqil rusli] On: 21 December 2011, At: 18:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

Impact of constructivist teaching on students' beliefs about teaching and learning in introductory physics
Wheijen Chang
a a

FengChia University, Taiwan

Available online: 26 Jan 2010

To cite this article: Wheijen Chang (2005): Impact of constructivist teaching on students' beliefs about teaching and learning in introductory physics, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5:1, 95-109 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926150509556646

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions 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. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning in Introductory Physics
Wheijen Chang Feng-Chia University, Taiwan
Abstract: This article reports on the impact of different teaching styles on students' beliefs about teaching and learningconcerning effective teaching strategies, effective learning strategies, and learning goalsin an introductory physics course in engineering. A questionnaire including closed and openended questions was administered to two groups: 55 students taught based on a constructivist view of learning by the author, and 51 students in a traditional class taught by another instructor. Eight students from each group were then interviewed. The results show that the constructivist teaching seemed to effectively shift students' beliefs about the teaching and learning tasks towards a constructivist orientation, as well as develop their epistemological beliefs about science knowledge to a more sophisticated perspective. On the other hand, the traditional teaching, limited to a didactic way of lecturing, seemed to have enhanced students' commitments to transmission views of learning and objectivist-positivist perspectives of science knowledge. However, both groups were found to consistently favour superficial learning strategies when aiming to achieve good grades. The current constructivist teaching program may need further modifications to facilitate the abandonment of superficial learning strategies. Sommaire excutif : Cet article analyse l'impact des diffrents styles d'enseignement sur ce que pensent les tudiants de l'enseignement et de l'apprentissage, en particulier ce qui touche l'efficacit des stratgies d'enseignement et d'apprentissage et aux objectifs d'apprentissage eux-mmes, dans un cours universitaire de physique destin aux tudiants de premire anne en sciences et gnie. Un questionnaire comprenant des questions fermes et ouvertes a t administr deux groupes d'tudiants, dont 55 suivaient un cours donn par l'auteur et fond sur une vision constructiviste de l'apprentissage, et 51 suivaient un cours traditionnel donn par un autre professeur. Huit tudiants de chaque groupe ont t interviews. Le groupe constructiviste se spcialisait en gnie informatique, et le groupe traditionnel en mathmatiques appliques. Les rsultats du questionnaire ferm ont fait l'objet d'une analyse quantitative au moyen d'un test Chi-2 et d'un test-t visant analyser les diffrences entre les deux groupes, et d'un test de McNemar pour analyser les stratgies que prfraient les tudiants d'un mme groupe dans le cas o il y avait des objectifs de cours diffrents. Les donnes provenant des questions ouvertes et des entrevues ont fait l'objet d'une analyse qualitative. Les tches lies l'enseignement traditionnel impliquaient une explication des principes physiques, suivie de la rsolution de problmes de types didactiques et mathmatiques. Quant l'enseignement constructiviste, il se distinguait par trois aspects : il fournissait l'occasion de se pencher sur de nombreuses questions conceptuelles en contexte, les tudiants participaient des discussions en petits groupes et avec toute la classe, et il rduisait considrablement l'enseignement des drivations mathmatiques. Les rsultats indiquent que le type d'enseignement semble avoir une certaine influence sur ce que pensent les tudiants des processus d'apprentissage. Aprs un semestre d'enseignement, les professeurs des deux groupes semblaient avoir russi convaincre leurs tudiants de la validit des deux approches quant l'apprentissage de la physique, ce qui pourrait avoir contribu d'une part la perspective qu'avaient les tudiants de leur rle comme apprenants, et d'autre part aux supposs pistmologiques qui caractrisent leurs connaissances en physique.

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

2005 Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

Le groupe constructiviste tait dispos participer activement au dialogue dans la classe de physique, et considrait l'apprentissage participatif comme trs important. Certains tudiants ont affirm qu'ils avaient apprci le fait de pouvoir entendre les diffrentes interprtations formules par leurs pairs, ce qui les a aids mieux comprendre les concepts physiques. L'enseignement constructiviste s'est donc dmontr efficace pour ce qui est d'effectuer un changement dans les convictions des tudiants au regard des tches d'enseignement et d'apprentissage fondes sur le constructivisme, et d'affiner leurs connaissances scientifiques. Pour sa part, l'enseignement traditionnel, qui se limitait un mode didactique d'exposer la matire, semble avoir ancr les tudiants dans une vision de l'apprentissage oriente sur la transmission des connaissances. Les tudiants du groupe traditionnel insistaient galement sur l'importance des exposs magistraux portant sur les drivations mathmatiques des formules et la prsentation de dmonstrations pour vrifier les thories physiques. Leurs rponses impliquent aussi qu'ils ont une vision linaire du savoir, et qu'ils sont dpendants de l'autorit. Cela indique que ces tudiants ont une perspective des connaissances scientifiques et de l'apprentissages des sciences qu'on pourrait qualifier d'objectiviste-positiviste, perspective qui est sans doute renforce par la prvalence de l'enseignement didactique traditionnel.

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

Cependant, les deux cohortes ont eu recours des mthodes superficielles d'apprentissage au moment d'affronter les preuves notes de fin d'anne. Bien que l'enseignement de type constructiviste ait russi faire en sorte que les tudiants soient conscients du rle fondamental que joue la participation cognitive dans la comprhension des concepts, il ne conduit pas automatiquement l'abandon des stratgies superficielles lorsque vient le moment d'affronter les examens. Il est donc possible que le systme d'valuation du programme d'enseignement de type constructiviste actuel doive faire l'objet de modifications si on veut dcourager l'application de stratgies d'apprentissage superficielles.

Introduction
In recent years, the development of the constructivist view of learning has resulted in modifications of teaching design in many science classes (e.g., Hewson, 1981 ; Osborne & Wittrock, 1985; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog 1982). The modifications not only involve a change of teaching methods, but are more likely to bring about a revolution in classroom culture, including the roles of teachers and students, as well as the course goals (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1997). In other words, an innovative constructivist teaching program normally implies modification of teaching tasks and strategies, learning tasks and strategies, and the criteria for learning achievements. It is suggested that the teacher's role shifts from knowledge provider to learning facilitator, and that the student's role shifts from information collector to active practitioner (Hewson & Thorley, 1989; Roth, McRobbie, Lucas, & Boutonne, 1997). The focus of learning achievement may be broadened from mere knowledge accumulation to personal development, including attitudes of learning and adoption of learning strategies (Cross & Angelo, 1992; Donald, 1993; Elby, 1999, 2001; Gibbs, 1995). However, while a teacher may have implemented an innovative teaching program that appears more meaningful and effective to her/him, will the students appreciate the teacher's change? Will the students' previous learning experiences in didactic teaching context impede the potential strengths of teaching innovations? This study was designed as an action research. The purpose of the research was to examine whether an innovative constructivist-teaching approach would result in shifts in students' perspectives on effective teaching strategies, effective learning goals, epistemological beliefs about science knowledge, and the learning goals of the course. The context of the study was an introductory physics course in engineering in Taiwan. The course was a two-semester course, consisting of 16 weeks each semester. The physics professors' major teaching tasks involved explaining physical principles and concepts, solving manipulating-type problems, and occasionally demonstrating corresponding experiments. The students were expected to listen to the lectures, to copy notes in class, and to practice

96

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

the end-of-chapter problems after class. This type of didactic and mathematical teaching is also prevalent in physics classes at high schools in Taiwan. First-year university students might regard the conventional teaching as valid, based on their previous learning experiences. Compared to the conventional way of teaching physics, the constructivist teaching design comprises three features: the provision of everyday life contextualized conceptual questions; the engagement of students in small group and whole-class discussions on the conceptual questions; and greatly reducing the teaching time spent on mathematical derivations. An example unit of the everyday life questions utilized in the current study is presented in the appendix. The in-class discussions used about one quarter of the teaching time, and the teaching content integrated both mathematical derivations of problems and verbal clarifications of concepts. The three features were adopted throughout the one-year period by the author in the constructivist class. More details of the teaching design are described in Chang (in press).

Research questions
Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011
The research questions of this study involved three concepts. The first concerned teaching performance and strategies: How did the students evaluate their professors' teaching performance as well as the features of the teachings? Which teaching strategies were regarded as critical? Were there any differences between the perspectives on teaching held by the two groups of students? The second concept featured learning commitments and learning strategies: How did the students evaluate their own learning commitments and adopted learning strategies? What did they believe to be effective learning strategies, either for obtaining good grades or for understanding physical concepts? Did the constructivist teaching method encourage students to adopt meaningful learning strategies or develop their perspectives on learning tasks/strategies? Finally, the third set of questions concerned the learning outcomes and teaching goals of the course: How did the two groups of students evaluate their learning outcomes, and what did they perceive to be the most important goals to achieve during the course? Did the constructivist teaching method broaden the students' viewpoints with respect to the teaching goals of the course?
How to teach?

How to leam?

What to achieve?

Epistemological beliefs about physics knowledge

Figure 1: Purposes of the research

Rationale
The literature on the constructivist view of learning has revealed that learning physics is much more complex an operation than simply transferring knowledge from the instructor's brain to the students,' and 'piling it up' in their memory (Osborne & Wittrock, 1985). In addition, learning physics is not simply an individual cognitive activity. Rather, it involves social participation and practice in order for the student to become acquainted with the culture and the 'way of seeing' of the science community (O'Loughlin, 1992; Scott, Asoko, & Driver, 1992). Thus, learning physics

97

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

requires both social practice and individual cognitive engagement (e.g., Salomon & Perkins, 1998; Duit & Treagust, 1998). Several innovative teaching programs in introductory physics report that teaching designs which emphasize cognitive engagement, discussion, and cooperative learning are beneficial to students' learning outcomes both in academic and affective aspects (e.g., Chang, in press; Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Gautreau & Novemsky, 1997; Hake, 1998). However, comparatively few studies have focused on the evaluation of the impact of teaching design on students' beliefs about teaching and learning (e.g., Elby, 1999, 2001). The literature in science education has highlighted the significance of students' beliefs about learning and science knowledge to the outcomes of learning science (e.g., Prosser, Walker, & Millar, 1996; Radloff & De La Harpe, 2001). Students' epistemological beliefs are critical to determining their foci and strategies for learning physics (Hammer, 1995; Redish, Saul, & Steinberg, 1998). Recent literature suggested that with respect to different teaching designs, students' learning experiences can influence their epistemological beliefs (Bell, 1999; Elby, 2001). However, some studies found that conventional teaching in introductory physics seemed to encourage a tendency towards objectivist perspectives on knowledge and passive or superficial learning strategies (Redish et al., 1998). Halloun (1997) found that the more consistent the students' and lecturers' perspectives regarding learning physics were, the better these students performed in the course. Thus, the success of an innovative teaching program depends on favourable attitudes of the students towards the teaching design (Fraser & Wubbels, 1995). In addition, the development of students' perspectives on learning and teachinglearning how to leamis regarded as one of the goals of higher education, as these perspectives can determine the students' learning strategies and commitments to ongoing learning (De La Harpe & Radloff, 2000; Elby, 2001; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991). Combining the literature regarding general higher education and teaching goals for introductory physics, the teaching goals for the course can be summarized as follows: (1) knowledge goals: focusing on better comprehension rather than accumulation of knowledge; (2) intellectual capability goals: cultivating abilities such as description, selection, representation, inference, synthesis and verification; (3) learning attitudes goals: enhancing students' positive attitudes towards physics and learning in general; and (4) belief goals: encouraging a transition from behaviourist-objectivist commitments to constructivist-sociocultural perspectives (Donald, 1993; Elby. 2001; Mclntosh, 2001). Conventional teaching design may fail to demonstrate a broad perspective on course goals, and encourage the adoption of superficial learning strategies (Biggs, 1987; Kember, Ng, Tse, & Pomfret, 1996). The didactic teaching approach may fail to facilitate learning engagement, and enhance students' objectivist commitment to science knowledge and the transmission view of learning (Redish et al., 1998; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Zajchowski & Martin, 1993). Strike and Posner (1992) suggested that university study might be a critical time for students to develop their epistemological beliefs about science knowledge. Therefore it is worthwhile to examine students' perspectives on teaching and learning introductory physics under both a constructivist teaching model, and a comparatively conventional design.

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

Methodology
Data collection methods for this study included interviewing and a student survey. Two groups of students participated in the questionnaire survey, including 55 students in the constructivist class and 51 students in the traditional class. The survey was anonymous and given by the researcher's assistants at the end of the first semester. The interviews were conducted at the end of the second semester. The author interviewed eight students from the traditional group, and a research assistant interviewed eight of the author's students. The interviewed students were selected on the basis of various academic performances. In order to encourage willingness of participation and honesty in 98

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

the responses, all the participants were informed that the results would not be disclosed to their instructors before the grading process was completed. The questionnaires included both closed and open-ended questions. With respect to the evaluations of teaching performance and learning commitments, a five point scale, ranging from 'strongly agree' (5 points) to 'strongly disagree' (1 point), was used for the closed questions, and one-tailed t-test of the scores was adopted to examine the significant differences between the perceptions of the students from the two groups. In order to indicate the students' agreement from a macroscopic perspective, the agreement percentages were also counted, by adding the responses of the 'strongly agree' to the 'agree' options. In order to understand the students' perspectives on effective teaching and learning strategies and their priorities towards course goals, the students were asked to select two or three options from a list of goals. A Chi-square test was adopted to examine the discrepancy between the two groups with respect to each goal, and a McNemar test was used to examine the variations expressed within the same group in preferred strategies in two different course goals. The student interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis using a semi-structured format. Interview questions were based on students' perceptions of class activities, teaching performance, and on their own learning commitments and achievements. In addition to student interviews, the open-ended questions in the survey provided information for qualitative analysis of the students' perspectives. The open-ended questions asked students about the strengths and drawbacks of the teaching design, and the reasons behind their comments.

Results
The findings of this study are discussed in three parts: the first part concerns teaching performance and strategies, the second part, learning strategies/commitments, and the third part, learning achievements/goals. The results of the quantitative analysis are presented first, followed by the qualitative data, which provides interpretations of the quantitative assertions.

Teaching performance/effective teaching strategies

First, the study investigated the students' perceptions of teaching performance and strategy. The results of the closed questions are given in Table 1. Compared to the traditional teaching, the constructivist teaching appeared to place more emphasis on providing challenging questions to stimulate thinking, on encouraging students to participate in discussions in class, and on being aware of learning outcomes while teaching. On the other hand, in the traditional teaching more time was spent on derivations of formulae and problems. Both methods of teaching were found to put similar efforts into introducing everyday-life examples and providing demonstrations. The students' responses were consistent with the constructivist instructor's (researcher's) expectations of attempts to engage students' learning in the classroom. Results also implied that the instruction of the traditional class was still dominated by didactic teaching, focused on presenting information. However, the efforts the researcher made in supplementing her teaching with everyday-life examples and demonstrationswhich are regarded as a key feature in many innovation programs in physics (e.g., Di Stefano, 1996; Ridgen, Holcomb, & Di Stefano, 1993)were adopted and emphasized by other instructors. For this reason, the students' different perspectives on teaching were analyzed from the open-ended responses, which will be discussed later. In addition to requesting the evaluation of teaching performance based on different strategies, the survey also asked students to choose the two or three strategies they found most important, in order to determine students' prioritization of teaching strategies. Table 2 shows the selected percentages of students in each group who selected which strategy, along with the %2 value, which displays the discrepancy between the two groups.

99

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

Table 1: Students' evaluation of teaching performance/strategies

Questions Agreement % CT 1. Providing lucid and systematic lectures 2. Emphasis on derivations of formulas or problems 3. Being aware of learning outcomes while teaching 4. Providing challenge questions to stimulate thinking 5. Introducing examples of everyday life 6. Showing demonstrations related to physics 7. Encouraging students to participate in discussions in class. TD Probabilities of t-test

82 27 98 91 98 80 98

86 76 65 55 90 88 35

n.s.

* * *
n.s. n.s.

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

n.s.: not significant at p = 0.01; * : significant at p < 0.001 TD indicates the traditional class, and CT means the constructivist class.

Table 2: Students' beliefs about effective teaching strategies and discrepancies between the two groups
Questions Selected %
%2 v a | u e

Probabilities of X 2 test

CT 1. Providing lucid and systematic lectures 2. Emphasis on derivations of formulas or problems 3. Being aware of learning outcomes while teaching 4. Providing challenging questions to stimulate thinking 5. Introducing examples of everyday life 6. Showing demonstrations related to physics 7. Encouraging students to participate in discussions in class

TD

70 11 36 40 79 23 40

69 22 35 29 80 37 23

0.33 5.82 0.3 1.83 0.72 6.89 4.59

n.s.

*
n.s. n.s. n.s. #

n.s.: not significant at p = 0.05; # : significant at p < 0.05; * : significant at p < 0.01

The %2 test showed that giving demonstrations and showing mathematical derivations were appreciated more by the traditional group than the constructivist group, while the latter group placed more value on encouraging students' participation in discussions. The strategy adopted by the constructivist teacher of reducing the number of mathematical derivations given and encouraging discussion was approved of by the constructivist students. Complementing the discrepancy in opinions, the selected percentage showed that the students consistently regarded 'providing lucid lectures' and 'introducing everyday life examples' as the most important teaching strategies regardless of teaching style. The results of the open-form investigation (i.e., the open-ended questionnaire and interviews) were analyzed in order to suggest reasons for the above information. Both consistent and divergent reasons were found supporting the results for the two groups.

100

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

A consistent response of both groups was to praise the introduction of everyday life examples and the showing of demonstrations, for promoting interest or being 'mind-refreshing.' For example, (The instructor) utilizes examples of everyday life to explain physics principles, which is appealing. (TD) Please introduce more examples of everyday life, because it is quite fun. (CT) However, disparate opinions between the two groups were also found. The traditional group placed more value on showing demonstrations and thorough lecturing on mathematical derivations. The traditional students were found to focus on teaching performance, rather than on learning participation. Although a few traditional students praised the brief pauses taken during lecturing in order to elicit students' reasoning, they seemed to regard the strategy as subsidiary to teaching. The responses of the traditional group implied that they had epistemological commitments to the positivist view of physics knowledge and a transmission view of learning. For example, Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011 The teacher introduced a lot of everyday life examples and experiments to verify the principles found in the textbooks. (TD) The mathematical derivations can help me understand the meaning and the reasons of physics principles. (TD) The instructor emphasizes derivations of formulas, which I think is important... it makes the formulas more acceptable. They (formulas) are the same as mathematical theorems; you must give some evidences in order to convince people to believe them. (TD) The teacher will ask us whether we understand or not (while teaching), thus he can give further explanations when necessary. (TD) I don't agree with adopting more of the (questioning and discussing) method. It is too hard to design questions, which fit well to our background ... Occasionally, the teacher will give questions to let us think, but the students just respond indifferently. (TD) (Although) I agree that the (questioning and discussing) method is quite good, the teaching time is very limited. The teacher has already omitted many chapters (due to time constraint). 1 would regret missing more fantastic lectures if more of this (questioning and discussion) was adopted. (TD) These quotations indicate that the major strength of the course, as perceived by the traditional students, was in teaching performance. However, learning engagement was not identified. Furthermore, many students used the terms 'verify,' 'reasons,' 'evidences to convince,' which indicated their commitment to positivism. The students' positivist beliefs of physics knowledge and the transmission view of learning may contribute to, or be enhanced by, the lack of learning engagement in class. On the other hand, the constructivist students express some key points that their counterparts did not mention. The two major features of teaching performance praised by the constructivist students were the introduction of everyday life examples and the adoption of questioning/discussion in class. The two features appeared to be interwoven, which fulfilled the researcher's expectations when designing the program. The teaching design seemed to benefit the learning outcomes of promoting interaction, inspiring thinking, and facilitating conceptual comprehension. The learning engagement in class noted by the constructivist group was hardly found in their counterparts' responses. In addition, the drastic deduction in teaching mathematical derivations of formulae seemed to cause little concern to the constructivist group, which may imply their unfavourable attitudes towards the positivist view of physics knowledge. For example, Discussing everyday life conceptual reasoning questions is excellent; (I) prefer to (have the chance) to think a lot. (CT) 101

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

I feel much more enthusiastic about learning physics, while we are discussing everyday life examples. (CT) (I love) the flexible teaching style, which is completely different from the baby-feeding teaching in high school (physics), enabling students to understand the principles, rather than (dealing with) complicated calculations. (CT) The providing of everyday life examples freed me from being a rote-learner since high school. Learning was so painful in high school, (but) now the (learning of) introductory physics is interesting and fun. (CT) (I love) small group discussions, because the answers, which come from peer discussion are more meaningful than those given by the instructor. (CT) Through (small group) discussions, I can discover my own weaknesses, as well as correct others' (conceptual) defectsvery enjoyable! (CT) Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011 (I love) small group discussions, because (through them, I) can learn various ideas of the same phenomenon perceived by different people. (CT) These quotations indicate that the strategy of introducing everyday life examples through questioning in constructivist teaching was beneficial in facilitating learning engagement and conceptual understanding. The fact that many of the students used terms such as 'discussing,' 'thinking,' 'enthusiastic,' and 'understanding' seems to indicate they were highly engaged in learning. The teaching outcomes noted by the constructivist students in the area of cognitive engagement, and the process of actively constructing or modifying their understanding of physics concepts are in accordance with the key notions of the personal constructivist view of learning (Duit & Treagust, 1998). In regard to obtaining physics knowledge, the authority of the instructor seemed to weaken in the constructivist model, while peers and then the learner her/himself gradually took the role of the instructor. The constructivist students' appreciation of alternative interpretations of physics principles and the degree of effort needed to acquire conceptual comprehension implied that their epistemological beliefs had shifted towards constructivist views of physics knowledge (Hammer, 1995; Scott etal., 1992). In addition to the impact on students' perspectives on effective teaching strategy and on their epistemological beliefs, the constructivist teaching design may influence the students' adopted learning commitments and perspectives of effective learning strategies, as discussed below.

Learning commitments/effective strategies

The results of the self-evaluation of the students' learning commitments are shown in Table 3, which includes the agreement percentage for each group, and a one-tailed t-test of the two groups. Table 3 shows that the constructivist group engaged more in thinking and discussion than the traditional group. In class, thinking and discussion seemed to be major learning commitments for the constructivist students, while their counterparts seemed to limit their learning to listening to the lectures. According to the %2 test, there were no significant differences between the two groups during engagement in lower-level learning strategies such as listening to the lectures, attending the class with the intention of learning (not merely for roll call; see Table 3, #4), and rote learning. As found in the closed questions, the high commitment of the constructivist class to thinking and discussion is consistent with the responses to the open-ended questions quoted and discussed previously. Students' perspectives on effective learning strategies were also investigated. The term "effective strategies" may differ in meaning between obtaining good grades and acquiring conceptual comprehension (Elby, 1999). Table 4 gives the comparative results of the two groups and their perspectives on effective strategies for each goal, as well as the comparison for different goals within the same group. 102

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

Table 3: Adopted learning commitments/strategies Questions Agreement % CT 1. listening to lectures 2. thinking in class 3. discussions in class 4. attending the class only for roll-call 5. discussing physics questions out-of-class 6. practicing problem-solving after class 7. trying to clarify physics concepts 8. memorizing formulas without understanding 64 76 73 7 40 13 67 51 TD 61 39 31 14 22 14 45 55 n.s. * ** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Probabilities oft-test

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

n.s.: not significant at p = 0.01; * : significant at p < 0.01; * * : significant at p < 0.001

Although the constructivist group seemed to be engaged more deeply cognitively than their counterparts in class (shown in Table 3), the two groups appeared to be consistent in regard to what they believed were effective learning strategies. However, both groups favoured different effective learning strategies with regard to grades and comprehension. Both groups responded that thinking and discussing were crucial to conceptual comprehension, while reciting formulae and practicing solving problems were effective in obtaining good grades. The discrepancy between what they considered to be effective learning strategy for grades, on the one hand, and comprehension, on the other, is consistent with the results of Elby (1999). Although the constructivist teaching seemed to successfully facilitate students' commitments to deep learning strategies in class, i.e., thinking and discussion, the students still did not abandon superficial strategies when pursuing good grades. The assessment design in the constructivist teaching model might need further modifications that emphasize reasoning rather than fact recalling (Redish et al., 1998). Table 4: Differences in perception of effective learning strategies
Questions x 2 test between groups grades 1. listening to lectures 2. thinking in class 3. discussions in class n.s. nis. n.s. McNemar test between grades & comprehension comprehension CT TD n.s. n.s. n.s.
A

n.s. n.s. comprehension p < 0.01 comprehension p < 0.01 comprehension p < 0.01 comprehension p < 0.01
A A

4. attending the class only for roll- A call n.s. 5. discussing physics questions out-of-class 6. practicing problem-solving after n.s. class 7. trying to clarify physics concepts n.s. 8. memorizing formulas without understanding n.s.

n.s. n.s. n.s.

A

comprehension p < 0.05 n.s. grades, p < 0.001 n.s. grades, p < 0.001 grades p < 0.001 n.s. grades p < 0.001

: invalid for x 2 test due to zero frequency; n.s.: not significant at p = 0.05

103

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

Different teaching styles may also have an influence on students' perceived learning outcomes and on their expectations of the major goals to achieve. These two considerations are discussed below.

Achieved learning outcomes/expected goals

The perceived learning outcomes were determined by asking the students to self-evaluate their own achievements. Table 5 shows the one-tailed t-test and the agreement percentages for both groups on their perceived learning outcomes and their major goals. Table 5: Self-assessment of achieved learning outcomes
Questions Agreement % CT TD Probabilities oft-test

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

1. promoting understanding of physics concepts 2. cultivating thinking ability 3. enhancing mathematical ability 4. adopting flexible learning methods 5. knowledge for advanced study 6. interest in physics 7. confidence reinforcement 8. knowledge of applications

80 80 18 64 33 69 42 93

55 45 43 33 47 41 25 88

* * * * * n.s. * n.s. n.s.

n.s.: not significant at p = 0.01 ; * : significant at p < 0.01 ; **: significant at p < 0.001

According to Table 5, students in the constructivist group were more satisfied than the other group with their learning achievements, including understanding physical concepts, development of thinking and learning ability, and level of interest in the subject matter. The outcomes of the constructivist teaching are particularly significant in cultivating students' thinking ability. The traditional students, on the other hand, seemed to achieve more on mathematical skills than the constructivist group. The modifications in the constructivist teaching design, a reduction in mathematical derivations and the adoption of the questioning and discussing approach, might have greatly contributed to the learning outcomes. In order to determine the students' prioritization of learning goals for introductory physics, they were asked to select two to three items from the published learning outcomes as their most important goals. The comparison between the answers of the two groups is given in Table 6. Table 6 shows that the two groups seemed to have different foci regarding the priorities of learning goals. The students in the constructivist group focused on cultivating thinking ability and promoting learning interest, while the students in the traditional group placed more value on the knowledge basis for advanced study and applications. In other words, the constructivist group valued the development of learning abilities and attitudes, while their counterparts viewed learning mainly as a way to accumulate knowledge. In addition, both groups seemed to agree that mathematical skills are a trivial goal for the introductory physics course. This supports the strategy of reducing mathematics demand in constructivist teaching. In summary, the strategies of constructivist teaching seemed to be in accordance with the students' expectations, namely to help students achieve what they value through the reduction of what they praised the least.

104

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

Table 6: Priorities of learning goals for the constructivist and the traditional groups Questions Selected % Probabilities of %2 test CT 1. promoting understanding of physics concepts 2. cultivating thinking ability 3. enhancing mathematical ability 4. adopting flexible learning methods 5. knowledge for advanced study 6. interest in physics 7. confidence reinforcement TD

80 82 4 17 13 43 7 50

73 69 10 8 33 20 4 80

n.s.

*
n.s. n.s. * * * n.s. *

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

8. knowledge of applications

n.s.: not significant at p = 0.01; * : significant at p < 0.01; * * : significant a t p < 0.001

The responses from the open-form investigation were found to be in accordance with this assertion. For example, The teacher often brings scientific toys and everyday life examples to show us applications of physics, which can accumulate our knowledge in everyday life. (TD) The teacher should list all the key points of the one-year course (content), so that we can learn them effectively. (TD) I don't like the traditional examinations, because the physics course should emphasize the interpretation of natural phenomena, and not get stuck on testing formulas and solving problems. The physics course should emphasize learning processes, otherwise we still only know how to take examinations. (CT) (1 appreciate the fact that) the teacher would give us novel questions and let us learn from searching for information. The everyday life questions can also inspire our reasoning ability. (CT) The responses of some constructivist students stressing the development of learning abilities through the learning process were rarely found among students of the traditional group, whose concerns seemed to focus on knowledge accumulation and learning effectiveness. The neglect of the learning process by the traditional group implies their behaviourist commitments (Duit & Treagust, 1998), while some of the constructivist students seemed to have shifted towards a broader perspective of learning goals in physics (Donald, 1993).

Conclusion and discussion

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that teaching design seems to have a certain influence on students' beliefs about the learning process. After one semester of teaching, the instructors of both groups seemed to have successfully convinced their students that their different teaching foci and approaches were valid and meaningful in helping to learn physics, and this may have contributed to the students' perspectives on their roles as learners in class as well as the formulation of their epistemological beliefs about physics knowledge. The constructivist teaching, which provided time and pedagogical tools (questions) to facilitate students' thinking and discussion in class, was likely to benefit students' learning engagement (found in Table 3), and learning outcomes (found in Table 5). The positive responses obtained in 105

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

this study are in accordance with similar programs in Western countries (e.g., Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Gautreau & Novemsky, 1997). In contrast to the students in the traditional class, the constructivist students seemed to take an active role in participating in the physics class, and regarded the teaching design of engaging learning as crucial. The learning experience of engaging in thinking and discussion may help to demonstrate the significance of cognitive participation in class. With respect to participation in in-class discussion, some students expressed their appreciation of the opportunity to share alternative interpretations with peers, and some noted the outcome of achieving better understanding of physics concepts, which indicates sophisticated perspectives on science knowledge and learning. Their epistemological beliefs about science knowledge and learning science seemed to shift from objective-positivist perspectives towards social-constructivist perspectives (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). Compared with their counterparts, the constructivist students seemed to have placed more value on the development of learning abilities and attitudes rather than knowledge considerations. The wider scope regarding the goals of the course expressed by the constructivist students may be due to satisfaction with their achievement in this course (Table 5). In short, the constructivist teaching seemed to have guided the students towards coherent perceptions of constructivism, including beliefs about effective learning and teaching strategies, epistemological beliefs about science knowledge, and perspectives on learning goals. The outcomes of the constructivist teaching in developing students' perspectives on how to learn and what to achieve, found in this study, were in agreement with the studies of Elby (1999, 2001). On the other hand, the responses of the traditional group were limited to teaching performance, rather than learning engagement. Providing opportunities and stimulation for students to engage in learning seemed not to be an issue no matter what the students' appraisal of the current teaching design. The students in the traditional class seemed to regard teaching to engage learning as impractical, ineffective, or even unfeasible. In addition, the appreciation of teaching performance and commitments appeared to be irrelevant to promoting learning engagement. Though many students were not satisfied with their learning outcomes (Table 5), most of them seemed to see nothing wrong with the didactic teaching approach. The responses implied that the traditional group held transmission views of learning, which may have been enhanced by the learning experiences of didactic teaching (Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). Also, the traditional teaching, which stressed mathematical derivations of formulae and giving demonstrations, highlighted the crucial notion of "verifying" physics theories, and may have enhanced the students' positivist beliefs about physics knowledge (Redish et al., 1998; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). The traditional students were found (in the open-form responses) to have commitments to a positivist view of knowledge, appreciating simple and certain knowledge, and dependent on authority, which may have endorsed the transmission view of learning and the didactic way of teaching (Hammer, 1995; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994; Schommer, 1990). However, despite the differences summarized above, the two groups appeared to have similar perspectives on effective learning strategies. Although the constructivist group devoted more efforts to deep-level learning strategies in class, and regarded them as valid, they did not abandon superficial learning strategies for the consideration of grades. Thus, the adoption of deep learning strategies may not necessarily lead to the abandonment of superficial learning strategies, which is consistent with the findings of Biggs (1987). The data in Tables 1 and 5 imply that simply modifying teaching content or introducing teaching aids, as many physics teachers claim to do to improve teaching, can hardly facilitate learning engagement. Providing time and challenging questions for discussion promoted students' learning participation in class, and led to better learning outcomes, including conceptual comprehension and affective learning outcomes. This was in line with the published literature (e.g., Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Gautreau & Novemsky, 1997). This result also suggests two opportunities for further research. First, the constructivist students' adoption of superficial learning strategies regarding

106

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

grades alongside deep-level learning engagement warned the researcher to reflect on her assessment design. The everyday life-contextualized questions may be regarded as challenging when first introduced in class, but similar questions can easily lose their novelty and cognitive significance when they reappear in examinations. Further modifications to the researcher's assessment design or strategies are suggested,, for instance the integration of questions discussed or the adoption of an open-book assessment policy, to demonstrate the futility of adopting superficial strategies to obtaining high grades. Investigations into the impact of assessment designs on students' perspectives of learning strategies are suggested. Second, through macroscopic investigation and quantitative analysis, this study indicated that most of the constructivist students agreed with the innovative teaching design and showed favourable perspectives on teaching and learning with respect to the notions of constructivism. However there was a small number of students identified in their responses in the survey questions who seemed to be sceptical of the constructivist teaching design. This group of students appeared to be too small to affect the assertions in this study, based on a macroscopic analysis. However, their sceptical opinions may provide critical clues to help the innovators to not only promote students' willingness to participate in learning, but also to eliminate instructors' tension while teaching that is caused by the negative attitudes of these students. In order to acquire better insights into the scepticism of a few students, the author has published another paper (Chang, 2004), based on a three-year, qualitative study. The paper investigated the few students' criticisms of teaching innovations in contrast to the positive comments from the majority, discussed possible reasons for the discrepant opinions, and provided suggestions to eliminate the students' hesitations.

Notes
1 2 This paper was supported by the National Science Council (NSC-90-2511 -5-035-001 -) and the Ministry of Education (90M503). Part of the article has been presented at the 2002 Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), 7th-10th April, 2002, New Orleans.

References
Bell, B. (1999, September). Formative assessment and science education: Modeling and theorising. Paper Presented at the Seminar to Celebrate the Work of Rosalind Driver, York, UK. Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Australian Council. Chang, W. (2004). Student skepticism: Problems encountered in implementing a constructivist physics teaching. CD-ROM Proceedings of the 2004 National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual International Conference. Chang, W. (In press). The Rewards and challenges of teaching innovation in university physics: Four years' reflection. International Journal of Science Education. Cross, K.P., & Angelo, T.A. (1992). Teaching Goals Inventory, self-scorable version. Berkeley: School of Education. Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977. De La Harpe, B., & Radloff, A. (2000). Informed teachers and learners: The importance of assessing the characteristics needed for lifelong learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 169-182. Di Stefano, R. (1996). Preliminary IUPP results: Students' reactions to in-class demonstrations and the presentation of coherent themes. American Journal of Physics. 64(1), 58-68. Donald, J.G (1993). Professors' and students' conceptions of the learning task in introductory physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 905-918. 107

CJSMTE/RCESMT 5:1 January 2005

Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in science: From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B.J. Fraser & K.G Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3-25). London: Kluwer Academic. Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. Physics Education Research, Supplement of American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 52-57. Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. Physics of Education Research, American Journal of Physics Supplement, 69(7), S54-S64. Fraser, B.J., & Wubbels, T. (1995). Classroom learning environments. In B.J. Fraser & J.W. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gautreau, R., & Novemsky, L. (1997). Concepts first: A small group approach to physics learning. American Journal of Physics, 65, 418-428. Gibbs, G. (1995). Research into student learning. In B. Smith & S. Brown (Eds.), Research, teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 19-29). London: Kogan Page. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. Halloun, I. (1997). Views about science and physics achievement: The VASS story. In E.F. Redish & J S. Ridgen (Eds.), The changing role of physics departments in modern universities: Proceedings of ICUPE (pp. 689-698). New York: American Institute of Physics. Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79, 393-413. Hewson, P.W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396. Hewson, P.W., & Thorley, N.R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541-553. Kember, D., Ng, S., Tse, H., & Pomfret, M. (1996). An examination of the interrelationships between workload, study time, learning approaches and academic outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 347-358. McIntosh, G. (2001). Intellectual development and undergraduate research in physics. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30, 412-413. O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791-820. Osborne, R.J., & Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59-87. 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, 211-227. Prosser, M., Walker, P., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences in students' perceptions of learning physics. Physics Education, 31(1), 43-48. Radloff, A., & De La Harpe, B. (2001). Expanding what and how we assess: Going beyond the content. In A. Herrmann & M.M. Kulski (Eds.), Expanding horizons in teaching and learning. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 7-9 February 2001. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Redish, E.F., Saul, J., & Steinberg, R.N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66, 212-224. Ridgen, J.S., Holcomb, P.F., & Di Stefano, R. (1993). The introductory university physics project. Physics Today, 46(4), 32-37.

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

108

Impact of Constructivist Teaching on Students' Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

Downloaded by [aqil rusli] at 18:19 21 December 2011

Roth, W.M., McRobbie, C.J., Lucas, K.B., & Boutonne, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 509-533. Roth, W.M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students' epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5-30. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1-24. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504. Scott, P.H., Asoko, H.M., & Driver, R.H. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329). Proceedings of an international workshop, University of Bremen, Germany, March 1991. Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251-266. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). A comparison of student perceptions of Dutch physics teachers' interpersonal behavior and their educational opinions in 1984 and 1993. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 447-466. Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Difference in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459-470.

Appendix
1 How does the induction cooker light up the incandescent bulb (Figure 2)? Explain the related physics principles. Why does the electric bulb keep flashing on the induction cooker? Predict the signal function of the induction cooker. Are there any methods to change the brightness (elecFigure 2 tric power) of the bulb? Explain your reasons. On the other hand, why can't the cooker light up the fluorescent tube (Figure 3)? Compare the differences of physical principles of both kinds of lights from the two bulbs.

Figure 3 109