Issuu

Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, Online ISSN 2278-8808, SJIF 2019 = 6.380, www.srjis.com PEER REVIEWED & REFEREED JOURNAL, SEPT-OCT, 2020, VOL- 8/61

EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra PhD Student,RIE,BBSR Abstract The present study investigated the effect of constructivist approach on the achievement of elementary students in the English language. A quasi-experimental design was used in the study. Participants for this study were drawn via purposive sampling from an intact population of class VI students and were divided into an experimental group (N = 29) and a control group (N =29). An achievement test, which served as the pretest, was administered prior to the intervention to both the groups. Furthermore, students with low scores in the pretest (low achievers) were distributed between the experimental and control group. The experimental group received instruction based on Interpretation Construction (ICON) Design Model. The control group received the traditional method of instruction. Post-test was conducted and mean scores were computed for the groups. Mean, Standard deviation’– test and Analysis of covariance were used to arrive at the following conclusions: (i) Students taught through constructivist approach, ICON model, gained significantly higher score as compared to their counterpart taught by traditional method. Based on the ‘t’ value of 0.948 at 0.005 level with df 56, there was no significant difference between the mean achievement of the experimental group and control group before the intervention. However, there existed a significant difference between the mean achievement of the experimental group and control group after the intervention (t value 4.271 at 0.001 level with df 56). (ii) Low achievers learnt better through a constructivist approach and gained significantly higher score as compared to their counterpart taught by traditional method. There was also no significant difference between mean achievement scores of low achievers from both the groups before intervention (t value 0.638 at 0.001 level with df 56). But the researcher found a significant difference between the mean achievement scores post-intervention (t value 3.707 with df 15 at 0.001 level). Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended that the English language taught through ICON model leads to better achievement among the students. Keywords: Constructivist Approach, ICON model, English Language, Elementary Students Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

INTRODUCTION Education makes any child a rational person in the sense. It helps in the teaching-learning, improves the classroom environment, provides instructional strategies for increments among students, remedial actions for low achievers. The improved teaching methodologies are very important for all-round advancements of students. It was Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, Brunner and Vygotsky others who developed Constructivism as a student's centred approach than the teacher-centred. Glasersfeld (1990) state that constructivism is known as a cognitive theory focuses on the role of the learner in the self-construction of knowledge and Judi and Jula (2002) refer to it as a learning theory offers an explanation of the nature of knowledge and how the learner learns. Zaitoon (2007) highlight it as a process of receiving involves learners’ building of new meanings within the context of the current knowledge according to their experiences and learning environment. It was one of the most important revolutionary theories in the field of Copyright © 2020, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14288

education, as it focused on the knowledge and how to provide it to learners in gradual steps, and it receives a growing interest in contemporary educational thought, Aqeeli (2005) stresses its importance as a new theory in teaching and learning based on the idea of teaching for understanding, and the adoption of the learner as the centre of the educational process; the constructivist teaching is based on the principle that the learner is active and positive. Need for study Constructivist theory plays an important role in the field of education. In the present study constructivist approach on the ICON, the model has been followed to plan lesson-enabling students to construct new ideas on concepts based on their current and past knowledge. Adak (2017), Agarwal and Chawla (2005), Chang (2001), Folashade and Akinbobola (2009), Jameela (2010), Kim(2005) Lee and Fraser (2000) and Nayak and Senapathy (2010), are also in favour of constructivist approach as their investigation showed that it has a significant effect on the achievement of the learners. In the present study, the constructivist approach of learning environment makes English learning meaningful. It has helped in the development of language skills and enhanced vocabulary and increased the appreciation for the English language at the elementary level which is corroborated by the previous studies such as Al Muhaimeed S.A(2013), Gutrie (2004), Gurol (2002), Hunter, D., Gambell, T., & Randhawa, B. (2005) Landi, N. (2010) Rexhaj, X. (2016), Sert (2008), Shah Hussain (2007), Sonmez, H. (2019) Zhang, L. J. (2008 ) . Hsu, L. (2013). National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005 has emphasized to follow the constructivist approach in the classroom so that students can construct their own knowledge and understand the concepts at the grass-root level. Ultimately, their achievement will be enhanced. However, in many parts of India teachers are still following the traditional method of teaching. The investigator wants to find out how far the constructivist approach has significant effects on students’ achievement in comparison to the traditional method. Specifically, the study addresses the following objectives– 1. To study the effect of the ICON model, a constructivist approach, on class VI students’ achievement in the English Language. 2. To study the effect of this constructivist approach (ICON model) on the achievement of low achievers of class VI students in the English Language. The hypothesis of the study 1. Students taught through the constructivist approach gained significantly high score as compared to the students taught through the traditional method in the English language. 2. Low achievers learn better through the constructivist approach gained significantly high score as compared to their counterpart learnt by the traditional approach. Methodology Participants The participants in this study were students enrolled in class six at the English Medium School at Bhubaneswar. Out of four sections, two sections were randomly taken without disturbing the classroom situation for the research. Each group was composed of twenty-nine students of class six. In the control group, the researcher taught through the traditional method and in the experimental group the researcher taught through the constructivist approach. The low Copyright © 2020, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14289

achievers were selected with the help of quartile deviation as per the score of the achievement test in the pretest. Procedure As discussed above there were two groups and the intact classroom was taken into consideration for framing the experimental group and the control group. The design of the study was the Quasi-Experimental design. The researcher used two types of tools -Instructional tools and Measuring tools for the study. The researcher prepared a lesson plan based on the ICON Model for teaching in both groups. The necessary teaching aids like pictures, charts, audio-video aids related to the assigned topics were used in the present study as instructional tools. For measuring tools the researcher prepared an achievement test for the study containing the multiple-choice question, fill in the blanks, matching, short-answer type and long answer type questions based on thought-provoking, problem-solving, critical thinking, creative thinking, understanding and application based on constructivist principles. The procedure was as follows: In the pre-experimental phase, the researcher used an achievement test of 50 marks was used as a pre-test. The NCERT English textbook was selected to prepare lesson plans for six months (Traditional method and Constructivist method). In the experimental phase, the two groups were taught for a period of six months by two different methods. Lesson plans were prepared separately on the traditional method and ICON model of learning. After the Pre-test, the two groups were intervened by two different methods of teaching separately. The experimental group was taught by ICON model of teaching and control group was taught by the traditional method. All the prepared lessons were delivered through each method. The researcher used necessary aids like pictures, chart papers, audiovideos related to a particular concept for the study. The ICON model represents seven stages of teaching and learning: Observation, Contextualization, Cognitive Apprenticeship, Collaboration, Interpretation Construction, Multiple Interpretations and Multiple Manifestations. A situation was created by the researcher in which students were motivated towards learning. The whole process was monitored by the researcher who worked as a facilitator to ascertain student’s progress. After teaching, a post achievement test was administered to both groups. A comparison was made to find out the effect of the ICON model. Post – experimental phase After the completion of the intervention, post achievement test was administered by using the same question given in the pre-achievement test. A comparison was made on the post achievement test of experimental group and control group to find out the effect in achievement. Data analysis: -Inferential statistics like ‘t’ test and ANCOVA were applied to find out the results and inferences. Testing of Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 Students taught through the constructivist approach will gain a significantly higher score as compared to students taught through the traditional method in the English

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14290

language. To test the above hypothesis a comparison of mean scores of the experimental group and control group was done through ‘t’- test. Table 1- ‘t’- test of two groups in relation to their achievement before the intervention. Groups

Experimental group Control group

Number Mean of students 29 17.793

Standard Deviation

t- test

5.557

0.948

5.234

16.448

Degree of freedom 56

The above table indicates that the mean score of the experimental group M=(17.793) is higher than the mean score of the control group M=(16.448). The mean difference in ‘t’- value (0.948) is not significant at 0.05 level with df 56. Therefore, there is no significant difference between the mean achievement of the experimental group and the control group before the intervention. Table 2- ‘t’- the test of two groups in relation to their achievement after the intervention. Groups

Number of Mean students

Standard Deviation

t- test

Degree of freedom

4.271**

Experimental 29 group

36.882

6.957

Control group

30.206

4.746

** significant at 0.01 level Above table indicates that the mean score of experimental group M= (36.882) is higher than the mean score of the control group M=(30.206). The mean difference is significant in t-test t=(4.271) with df=56 at 0.01 level. Hence the directional hypothesis is accepted at 0.01 levels and significant difference exists between the achievement of the experimental and control group. Further, it is already mentioned that both groups are not equal at the beginning of the experiment. Therefore, to increase the reliability and verify our hypothesis analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) has been done. Application of ANCOVA equates both the groups prior to the treatment and thus helps invalid conclusion. Here, ANCOVA is performed by taking the pre-test score of the experimental and control group as co-variate and post-test score as the dependent variable. The summary of ANCOVA is shown in the following table:Table 3 Analysis of co-variance table taking Pre-test score as the covariate Source

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

Corrected Model

3172.279

1586.139

547.605

<0.001

Intercept

7.389

2.551

0.116

PreAchievement Treatment/Group

2626.003

906.612

<0.001

42.723

14.750**

<0.001

Error

159.308

2.897

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294) Total

65442.000

Corrected Total

3331.586

14291

** significant at 0.01 level The obtained ‘F’ value (14.750 ) = with df 1, 58 is significant at 0.01 level. This interprets that there is a significant difference between the post-test score of the experimental and control group. Thus, it can be concluded that the directional hypothesis is accepted. Further, it can be concluded that the constructivist approach has significantly improved the achievement of students in language at the elementary level. Hypothesis 2 Low achievers learnt better through the constructivist approach and gained significantly higher score as compared to their counterpart taught by traditional method. To test the above hypothesis a comparison of mean scores of the experimental group and control group was done through ‘t’- test. Table - ‘t’- test of two groups in relation to their achievement before the intervention. Groups Number Mean Standard t-test Degree of Deviation of students freedom Experimental 6 11.545 2.736 0.638 15 group Control 11 10.833 0.752 group The above table indicates that the mean score of the experimental group M=(11.545) is higher than the mean score of the control group M=(10.833). The mean difference is not significant‘t’value (0.638) with df 15 at 0.05 level. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant difference between the mean achievement of low achievers of experimental group and control group before the intervention. Table 5 ‘t’- test of two groups in relation to their achievement after the intervention. Groups Number Mean Standard t-test Degree of Deviation of students freedom Experimental 6 40.00 5.991 3.707** 15 group Control 11 30.00 5.352 group ** significant at 0.01 level Above table indicates that the mean score of experimental group M= (40.00) is higher than the mean score of the control group M= (30.00). The mean difference is significant in t-test t=(3.707) with df=15 at 0.01 level. Hence the directional hypothesis is accepted at 0.01 and 0.05 level. Hence there is a significant difference between achievements of low achiever of experimental exists and control group. Further, it is already mentioned that both groups are not equal at the beginning of the experiment. Therefore, to increase the reliability and verify our hypothesis analysis of Copyright © 2020, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14292

covariance (ANCOVA) has been done. Application of ANCOVA equates both the groups before the treatment and thus helps invalid conclusion. Here, ANCOVA is performed by taking the pre-test score of low achiever of the experimental and control group as co-variate and posttest score as the dependent variable. The summary of ANCOVA is shown in the following table:Table 6 Analysis of co-variance table taking Pre-test score as a covariate Source

Sum of Squares

Corrected Model

4194.264

Intercept

5.636

722.755

<0.001

5.636

1.942

0.168

3795.097

1307.941

<0.001

Treatment/Group

43.812

15.099**

<0.001

Error

191.504

2.902

Total

70943.000

Corrected Total

4385.768

Pre Achievement

Mean Square 2097.132

** significant at 0.01 level The obtained ‘F’ value (15.099) = with df 1,69 is significant at 0.0 1 level. This interprets that there is a significant difference between the post-test score of the experimental and control group. Thus, it can be concluded that the directional hypothesis is accepted. Group discussion, peer interaction, teacher’s encouragement for analysis has enhanced the performance of low achievers of the experimental group. Results and Discussions Findings related to the achievement of students in English at the elementary level. Students taught through the constructivist approach gained significantly higher score as compared to their counterpart taught by traditional method. There exists a significant difference between the mean scores of the student’s experimental group and control group before the intervention. From the descriptive analysis, it was clear that mean of pre-test score of the experimental group was slightly higher than the mean of the control group. There exists a significant difference between the mean score of students in the experimental group and the control group in post-test. From the descriptive analysis, it was clear that the mean score of the experimental group was slightly higher than the mean of the control group. Findings related to the achievement of students in English at the elementary level. Low achievers learnt better through a constructivist approach and gain significantly higher score as compared to their counterpart learnt by traditional method. The constructivist approach provides essential conditions for low achievers to improve their learning. The comparative analysis of the mean score of the experimental group and the control group in the post-test revealed that there exists a significant difference between the experimental and control group.

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14293

CONCLUSION AND EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS  In the classroom, teachers should let students carry out their investigations and take the role of a facilitator versus guiding them at every step. Teachers will guide so that students use their prior knowledge to understand something new or use their previous experiences as foundations upon which new knowledge or understanding is built.  Constructivism helps in the construction of knowledge for the students and leads to active participation among students in learning. Teachers should structure their class for active learning activities where students learn any concept via doing some hands and minds-on activity versus being a passive recipient of information via lecture.  A constructivist approach such as ICON model of learning brings better academic achievement of students; School administration should provide all required resources to help teachers practice the ICON model of instruction. Teachers should implement instructional strategies in alignment with constructivism for effective student learning. References:Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074-1079. Agrawal, R and Chawla (2005). Influence of cooperative learning on academic achievement, Journal of Indian Education vol -31, no. 2. Ahmadi, D., & Reza, M. (2018). The use of technology in English language learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English Education, 3(2), 115-125. Almasi, J. F., & Gambrell, L. B. (1994). Sociocognitive Conflict in Peer-Led and Teacher-Led Discussions of Literature. Reading Research Report No. 12. Al Muhaimeed, S. A. (2013). Task-based language teaching vs. traditional way of English language teaching in Saudi intermediate schools: A comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Aqeeli, A. (2005). Theoretical and applied trends for Arabic language teachers in the city of Riyadh and their relationship to the theory of constructivism, Educational Journal, 19(76), 45-62. Chang, M (2001), The Constructivist approach of teaching and portfolio assessment on science teaching. National Hisinchu Teachers College, Department of Elementary Education. Eeds, M., and Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23 (1), 4- 29. Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory,perspectives, and practice, 2, 8-33. Glasersfeld, V. (1990). An Exposition of cnstructivism: Why some like it radical. Journal for Study in Mathematics Education, 4(6), 102-116. Gürol, M. (2002). Eğitim teknolojisinde yeni paradigma: Oluşturmacılık. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 159-183. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., ... & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept oriented reading instruction. Journal of educational psychology, 96(3), 403. Hunter, D., Gambell, T., & Randhawa, B. (2005). Gender gaps in group listening and speaking: Issues in social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Educational Review, 57(3), 329355

Swarna Chandrika Mahapatra (Pg. 14287-14294)

14294

Javed, M., Juan, W. X., & Nazli, S. (2013). A Study of Students' Assessment in Writing Skills of the English Language. Online submission, 6(2), 129-144. Judi, H., & Julia, M. (2002). Four Case Studies of Perspective Science, Teachers Concerning Constructivist Teaching Practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783-802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10038. Landi, N. (2010). An examination of the relationship between reading comprehension, higher-level and lower-level reading sub-skills in adults. Reading and writing, 23(6), 701-717. Lee. S. S. V. & Fraser. B. J (2000) Constructivist learning environment in science classes in Korea. National Curriculum Framework- 2005. Report of NCERT, New Delhi. Rexhaj, X. (2016). Constructivist approaches and strategies for improving the listening language skills. Sert, N. (2008). Constructivism in the elementary curricula. E_itimde Kuram ve Uygulama, (4)2, 291-S316. Shah, H. (2007). Constructivist approach to development of criteria for selection of contents for teaching English in secondary school. Sonmez, H. (2019). The Strategies for Designing Activity Related to Listening/Following Skills and Assessment Rubric. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), 124-154. Zaitoon, A. (2007). Constructivism theory and strategies of teaching science. Amman: Dar al Shorook for publication and distribution. Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36(2), 89.