This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 29 October 2014, At: 10:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Essential Criteria to CharacterizeConstructivist Teaching: Derived froma review of the literature and appliedto five constructivist‐teaching methodarticlesSandhya N. Baviskar a , R. Todd Hartle a & Tiffany Whitney aa Idaho State University , USAPublished online: 11 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Sandhya N. Baviskar , R. Todd Hartle & Tiffany Whitney (2009) EssentialCriteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature andapplied to five constructivist‐teaching method articles, International Journal of Science Education,31:4, 541-550

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 31, No. 4, 1 March 2009, pp. 541–550

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/09/040541–10© 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690701731121

RESEARCH REPORT

Essential Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles

Sandhya N. Baviskar*1, R. Todd Hartle and Tiffany WhitneyIdaho State University, USATaylor and Francis LtdTSED_A_273047.sgm10.1080/09500690701731121International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Research Report2007Taylor & Francis0000000002007Ms. SandhyaBaviskarbavisand@isu.edu

Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of newteaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learningand not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe thefour essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance,application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteriawe developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and testconstructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere tothe constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can beemployed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be auseful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teachingmethods.

Introduction

Constructivism is an important and driving theory of learning in modern education.However, the difficulty in defining and implementing constructivism as a practicalmethodology has created misconceptions because lesson plans that claim to beconstructivist do not have all the elements that are required by constructivism andalso often include elements that deviate from constructivist theory. The goal of this

*Corresponding author. Department of Biological Sciences, Gale Life Science Center, Idaho StateUniversity, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007, USA. Email: bavisand@isu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

542 S.N. Baviskar et al.

article is to generate a list of constructivism-defining criteria, and to demonstratetheir use by evaluating five representative papers whose stated goals were todescribe and test a constructivist course design in secondary or post-secondaryscience courses.

The descriptive and theoretical literature on constructivism is fragmented(Crowther, 1999; Jenkins, 2000). Some articles explore the basic tenets ofconstructivism (Richardson, 2003; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991), but thedescriptions are often theoretical without illustrating how these tenets can be putinto practice. Some authors present specific constructivist teaching methodologiesthat require certain elements such as group work (Lord, 1994). Although groupactivity may be necessary for the described teaching method, it may not be essen-tial for the method to be considered constructivist, but often this element ismistakenly considered one of the essential elements of constructivism. Otherarticles provide rich descriptions and examples of constructivist practice withoutstressing the elements that make them constructivist (Vermette et al., 2001). Thesedescriptions could be useful to practitioners looking for teaching tips, but do notreveal the essence of constructivism.

There is also confusion between personal constructivism, the theory of individuallearning, and social constructivism, a theory concerning the origins of knowledge ina culture. Social constructivism states that cultures or groups construct theirknowledge bases through the discourse and interactions among their membersrather than through the discoveries of individuals or the dictation of authorities(Marin, Benarroch, & Jimenez-Gomez, 2000; Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002).Many educators assume that if their students are working in groups, the lessonmust be constructivist because ‘social constructivism’ states that knowledge isnegotiated through interactions. However, social constructivism does not sayanything about how an individual acquires the knowledge for passing a collegebiology course. The personal constructivist theory that is the topic of this paper(also called psychological or cognitive constructivism) does not say that learningoccurs only in groups or even that learning necessarily occurs best in groups.Consequently, group work may be a constructivist educational tool, or it may notbe, depending entirely on the implementation.

Constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of curriculum design(Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Richardson, 2003). Therefore, when a lesson is said tobe constructivist, it does not necessarily follow a specific formula. Instead aconstructivist lesson is one that is designed and implemented in a way that createsthe greatest opportunities for students to learn, regardless of the techniques used.Implementation of the theory is the crux of constructivism. Large lecture halls areoften held up as the antithesis of constructivism. However, if an instructor needs totransmit a large amount of information to a large group of expert learners, and thelesson is properly implemented, a lecture is probably the most efficient constructiv-ist tool possible (Richardson, 2003). In this paper, we have distilled the requiredcharacteristics of constructivism and formalized them into four criteria required todesignate a methodology as constructivist.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 543

Definitions: Four constructivist criteria

The theory of constructivism states that the knowledge possessed by an individual isconnected in a comprehensive ‘construct’ of facts, concepts, experiences, emotions,values, and their relationships with each other. If the construct is insufficient orincorrect when compared with the information the individual is gathering from theenvironment, the individual will experience a form of cognitive dissonance that willact as a motivation (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1993). The individual will be motivated toreject the new information or incorporate it into his or her construct (Berger, 1978;Novak & Gowin, 1986; Sewell, 2002). In order to make any changes to the knowledgeconstruct permanent, the learner must be able to apply the changed construct to novelsituations, receive feedback about the validity of the construct from other sources, andestablish further connections to other elements in the construct.

The fact that constructivism is learner oriented is essential to any constructivistlesson plan or curriculum (Richardson 2003; Vermette et al., 2001; Yager, 1991). Itis not considered one of the four criteria because it is a basic and pervasive concept.The constructivist teacher’s role is to create a context where the learner is motivatedto learn, which includes providing content and resources, posing relevant problemsand questions at appropriate times (Wheatley, 1991, p. 14; Windschitl, 2002,p. 137), and linking these resources and questions to the students’ prior knowledge.

There are four critical elements that must be addressed in the activities, struc-ture, content, or context of a lesson for it to be considered constructivist. The firstcriterion is eliciting prior knowledge. Constructivism presupposes that all knowledgeis acquired in relation to the prior knowledge of the learner (Naylor & Keogh,1999; Sewell, 2002; Vermette et al., 2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). If theeducator does not have a mechanism for eliciting the prior knowledge of thestudents, the new knowledge cannot be gainfully presented in a way that can beincorporated into the learner’s construct. Likewise, if the learner’s attention is notdrawn to their prior knowledge, the learner will either ignore or incorrectly incor-porate the new knowledge.

Prior knowledge can be elicited in different ways: formal pre-tests, asking informalquestions, formal interviews with students, or setting up activities such as concept-mapping that require basic knowledge to be applied. The key element in the criterionof eliciting prior knowledge is to make sure that the activity assesses the learner’s priorknowledge and relates it to the new knowledge. For example, having successfullycompleted a unit on the process of meiosis does not imply that the students under-stand genetic segregation. Also, merely checking the completion of an activity bystudents (e.g., having done assigned readings) will not give sufficient information tothe instructor about their prior knowledge. On the other hand, an activity like havingthe students create a concept map of their prior knowledge on a topic is an excellentmethod of eliciting prior knowledge. The students are required to present everythingthey know about the topic in the form of a network of concepts and the relationsamong them. The combination of both eliciting and organizing the information in theform of a map that resembles the student’s own cognitive construct allows the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

544 S.N. Baviskar et al.

student and the teacher to assess any misconceptions and target the implementationof the lesson plan accordingly.

The second criterion is creating cognitive dissonance. The learner must be made awareof a difference between his/her prior knowledge and the new knowledge (Inch, 2002;Sewell, 2002). Wheatley (1991, p. 15) states that ‘in preparation for a class, a teacherselects tasks which have a high probability of being problematical for students—taskswhich may cause students to find a problem’. If students are presented with new knowl-edge in a way that assumes they should acquire this knowledge independent of theirprior knowledge, the lesson is deterministic and cannot be considered constructivist.

The third criterion is application of the knowledge with feedback (Vermette et al.,2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Misinterpretation or rejection of new knowl-edge is likely if the learner does not interpret and modify prior knowledge in thecontext of new knowledge. Application of the new construct could be in the form ofquizzes, presentations, group discussions, or other activities where the studentscompare their individual constructs with their cohorts’ or with novel situations. Inaddition to checking the validity of their constructs, application allows the student tofurther define the interconnectedness of the new knowledge to a greater variety ofcontexts, which will integrate the new knowledge permanently.

The fourth criterion is reflection on learning. Once the student has acquired the newknowledge and verified it, the student needs to be made aware of the learning thathas taken place (Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Constructivist lessons will providethe student with an opportunity to express what he or she has learned. Reflectioncould be attained using traditional assessment techniques such as presentations,papers, or examinations, if the questions on the examinations fostered reflection onthe learning process (Saunders, 1992). Activities that are more meta-cognitive innature might include a reflexive paper, a return to the dissonance creating activity,or having the student explain a concept to a fellow student (Lord, 1994). Althoughthe reflection criterion does not necessarily have to be a formal part of the lessonplan, its presence makes the lesson considerably more constructivist.

Implementation: Review of published articles using constructivist criteria

Although, there are specific teaching methodologies that are strongly constructivist,such as inquiry-based teaching methods, it is not necessary to use one of thesemethods to be constructivist. Likewise, simply following a methodology in a cook-book fashion will not guarantee constructivism. In this section, five articles whoseauthors specifically claim to have implemented constructivist-teaching methods areevaluated according to the four criteria defined above.

Article 1: ‘Using computers to create constructivist learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement’

Huffman, Goldberg, and Michlin (2003) asked: To what extent can computers beused to help teachers create a constructivist learning environment in the science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 545

classroom? They used a project called Constructing Physics Understanding (CPU).CPU is a curriculum designed to meet the US National Science EducationStandards (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). It has computer-basedmodular activities, software, and curricula to help teachers create a learning environ-ment. The study examined three groups of teachers: (1) teachers who fully adoptedthe new pedagogy and computer-based materials (termed ‘Lead CPU teachers’); (2)teachers who were newly trained and modified some of the CPU pedagogy (‘Begin-ning CPU teachers’); and (3) the comparison teachers who used traditional instruc-tional methods. In all, 13 teachers were examined to determine the extent to whichcomputers can alter pedagogy and student achievement.

The authors describe three vignettes as representative of classroom teaching of eachof the three groups. The lead CPU teacher’s class did not meet any of our criteria forconstructivist teaching. The authors claimed that because the lead CPU teacher knewthe students had performed a specific experiment prior to the lesson, the teachers wereaware of the students’ prior knowledge. We did not find any evidence of dissonancebeing created by the teacher in students’ minds. Neither was there any specificapplication of new knowledge nor review of the learning process. The students andteachers seemed to be following the procedures and activities step-by-step asdescribed in the CPU curriculum project.

Huffman et al. (2003) state that their data suggest computers help teachers createmore constructivist learning environments. We think the comparison done in thestudy is not appropriate to address the research question. There were severalconfounding factors including the experience levels of the teachers and differentialaccess to properly working computers by different groups of teachers. It is notpossible to determine which factors were responsible for students’ higher achieve-ment. Without further experimental probing, it could even be argued that theexperienced teachers would create a more constructivist-learning environmentwithout computers than less experienced teachers could with computers.

Article 2: ‘Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study’

Stephen J. Bostock (1998) describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of aweb-based course and claims that it is based on constructivist educational principles.Lectures were conducted by the author once per week for one hour and laboratorysessions were presented by two demonstrators for two hours per week. Instructionalmethods also included a computer-assisted learning package and other resource-based learning including videos and web pages. Students were required to demon-strate practical skills in the laboratory and to generate summaries and concept mapsbased on the tasks.

The author summarizes five principles that make an environment rich for what hecalls ‘active/constructivist’ learning: authentic assessment, student responsibility andinitiative, generative learning strategies, authentic learning contexts, and cooperativesupport. According to our criteria, authentic assessment, authentic learning context,and cooperative support are not essential features of constructivist teaching. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

546 S.N. Baviskar et al.

type of assessment can only affect constructivist learning if it offers opportunities forapplication of new knowledge that was not demonstrated by the author. Authenticlearning contexts may or may not create dissonance or provide opportunity forapplication of knowledge depending on their application. Finally, as stated earlier,group activities are not necessarily constructivist (Richardson, 2003).

The article fails in meeting most of our criteria of constructivist paedagogy. Theteacher neither elicits prior knowledge of the students nor creates any dissonance intheir knowledge structure with the result that the students lost interest in the courseas confirmed by the author (Bostock, 1998, p. 230). The students were allowed tochoose their research topics and create their own web pages in consultation with theteacher, which is an example of application of knowledge with feedback (the onlyconstructivist technique we found). The author considers cooperative learning animportant principle of constructivist teaching but admits that the cooperative groupwork failed. He reasons that the attendance was thin, and with very little teacher–student and student–student interactions the students found it more convenient towork alone than in groups. Finally, students were required to reflect on their ownlearning by maintaining a diary, but only 13% participated.

The author states that the content of the course was not decided by the instructoralone but was negotiated with the students, which, according to the author, is astudent-centred approach, and hence constructivist. But negotiation on coursecontent with the students has no relevance to constructivism. In reading this article,one gets the impression that the author had no control over the implementation ofthe course. He admits his failures on various fronts, but draws consolation by saying‘… it is cheering to think that a partial implementation of constructivist principlesmay actually be optimal for the majority of students’ (Bostock, 1998, p. 236).

Article 3: ‘Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall’

Daniel Klionsky (1998) modified his teaching methods in an attempt to adopt aconstructivist teaching style. His first goal was to ‘alter the study habits of students’by eliminating reading assignments from the textbook and instead supplying thestudents with his lecture notes prior to class. Students were then quizzed on thereading material at the beginning of each class session. He wrote that this methodwould limit the amount of reading for which his students were responsible, whileencouraging them to come to class prepared. His second goal was to ‘create alearning environment that fostered constructivism’. Group problem-solving activi-ties were implemented in order to promote student interaction and a hands-onproblem-solving experience. The students were then quizzed on the material theylearned from the group activity.

Although, the group activities appear to have been a useful pedagogical tool, asmentioned previously, group work alone does not define a lesson as constructivist.The modifications made in teaching methods appear to have improved students’performance as well as the students’ approval of the course and the instructor.However, the new teaching methods did not meet the criteria for constructivism. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 547

author did not use a comprehensive evaluation of the prior knowledge of the students,or give any evidence that cognitive dissonance occurred in the students. The quizzesmay or may not have given the students an opportunity to apply their new knowledgeand receive feedback, but they certainly were not a mechanism for reflection.

Klionsky (1998) did evaluate the effectiveness of his methods and he does appearto have promoted an improvement in student performance. He used comparisons ofcurrent quiz and test scores with those of previous years and noted a generalimprovement. He also compared course evaluations from the two teaching methodsand found that the students preferred his new method. The new teaching methodsadopted by the author appear to have improved his students’ learning, but these newmethods were not entirely based on constructivist principles.

Article 4: ‘A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord’s constructivist model put to a test’

Burrowes (2003) describes an experiment in which constructivism is tested in theclassroom. She had three major goals: to help students achieve better grades on stan-dard mid-term examinations, to develop higher level thinking skills, and to modifytheir attitude towards biology at this large, urban university. To meet these goals, twodifferent biology classes with approximately 100 students each were taught usingdifferent methods. One class was taught using a traditional lecture and note-takingmethod, and the other was taught using what the author describes as ‘experimentalteaching based on the constructivist learning model’.

In the experimental group the author followed Yager’s (1991) application of the‘constructivist learning model’, Bybee’s (1993) ‘5E’ model, which is based onconstructivism, and Lord’s (Lord, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001) application of‘cooperative learning’. She used a short lecture to ‘engage’ her students and thenhad groups to formulate problems or exercises, which she considered the ‘explore’step. The students then ‘explained’ what they had done. After students explainedtheir problems and solutions that the author ‘elaborated’ by addressing anyquestions or misconceptions that may have arisen, she then introduced the newmaterial and referred it back to what was previously discussed.

Burrowes (2003) followed the criteria for constructivist teaching. The combina-tion of the ‘explore’ and ‘explain’ steps satisfied the first criterion of eliciting priorknowledge. The ‘explain’ and ‘elaboration’ steps created dissonance by explicitlycomparing the students’ new and prior knowledge. The ‘elaboration’ step satisfiedthe third criterion of application of knowledge with feedback. Finally, the fourthcriterion was satisfied by the ‘elaboration’ and ‘evaluation’ steps in which theinstructor assisted the students in realizing their recent learning. Overall, the authormet the criteria for constructivist learning. In addition, the author showed that therewas more learning in constructivist classroom than the traditional classroom.Although we question some of the techniques and statistical analyses used forcomparing the performance of the students of the two classes, she did demonstrategreater learning in the constructivist classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

548 S.N. Baviskar et al.

Article 5: ‘Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school’

Banet and Ayuso (2003) designed, implemented, and tested a constructivistsecondary school biology unit on inheritance and evolution. The unit had fourgroupings of content goals. They elicited common misconceptions of the studentpopulation through a series of surveys, assessments, and pre-tests of the generalstudent population as well as the students involved in their study. For each groupof content goals, the authors identified a schema from the pre-tests as the ‘correct’conceptualization, as well as one to three schema based on common misconcep-tions. In the classroom, the authors used problem-solving lesson plans designed toexplore the students’ misconceptions. Finally, the students were evaluated both ina post-test and a ‘retention test’ (three months after the end of the lesson) usingsimilar schema-based methods to the pre-tests.

Banet and Ayuso (2003) used constructivism in a way that met all four criteria.Their efforts at eliciting prior knowledge for the general population of students aswell as the individuals involved in their experimental unit were extensive. Theyexplored the current level of content knowledge, the cognitive abilities, and thestages of cognitive development of the students. This comprehensive understandingof the students’ prior knowledge was then used at all stages of the educationalprocess. It was made clear that prior knowledge is by far the most important elementin the authors’ considerations. The authors used problem-solving lessons based onthe students’ misconceptions in order to create dissonance in the minds of thestudents. The problems presented in the lessons were designed to demonstrate howthe students’ current constructs were insufficient to solve the problems. These sameproblems also provided the opportunity to apply and test the new information.

Banet and Ayuso (2003) also evaluated the success of their constructivist biologyunit and found its performance satisfactory. They compared their students’ perfor-mance with their initial goals in the form of their schema. In all four content areasthe results of the post-test and retention test were considerably better than those ofthe pre-test. In three of the four areas, the retention-test results were slightly lessthan those of the post-test.

All in all, Banet and Ayuso (2003) presented a truly constructivist biology unitand demonstrated that it was successful. As the purpose of the authors was not toconvince their readers that they used constructivist methods, they did not present allthe information that would have been helpful to judge their unit in terms of ourconstructivist criteria as defined above. However, the details provided do show athorough and appropriate understanding of constructivism as well as the practicalissues involved in implementing the theory to actual science education. This paper isan excellent example of the proper use of constructivist theory in science education.

Conclusion

Our study of the literature on science education has revealed that constructivismand constructivist concepts are frequently mentioned, but essential elements of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 549

constructivism are often lacking. The descriptive literature on constructivism canbe misunderstood by teachers and practitioners because the articles are esotericand technical with little emphasis on their practical application, or they are descrip-tions of lessons that succeeded without emphasizing which elements made themconstructivist. In addition, many ‘constructivist lesson plans’ are transformed into‘un-constructivist lessons’ through misapplication and deterministic implementa-tion. We think that greater rigour in the implementation of constructivist lessonplans and their proper presentation in the published literature are essential to theoverall validity and respect for educational research, thereby easing the implemen-tation of new teaching methodologies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Rosemary Smith for valuable discussions,advice, and mentoring throughout the writing process.

Note

1. Ms Baviskar is first author because the idea for a review paper exploring constructivism inscience classrooms launched the original collaboration and because she performed most of thebackground and paper selection work. The ideas surrounding the four criteria of constructiv-ism in the introduction were derived primarily from Mr Hartle’s background and training ineducational theory and practice. In all other aspects, each of the three authors contributedequally to this work.

References

Airasian, P.W., & Walsh, M.E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 449.Banet, E., & Ayuso, G.E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings

in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.Berger, K.S. (1978). The developing person. New York: Worth Publishers.Bostock, S.J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 29(3), 225–240.Burrowes, P.A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works:

Lord’s constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491–501.Bybee, R. (1993). Instructional model for science education in developing biological literacy Colorado

Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.Crowther, D.T. (1999). Cooperating with constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching,

29(1), 17–23.Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., & Michlin, M. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist

learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathe-matics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 151–168.

Inch, S. (2002). The accidental constructivist a mathematician’s discovery. College Teaching, 50(3),111–113.

Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the mostdangerous intellectual tendency? Science and Education, 9, 599–610.

Klionsky, D.J. (1998). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. Journal of College ScienceTeaching, 31(4), 246–251.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

550 S.N. Baviskar et al.

Lord, T.R. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student learning in college biology. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 23(6), 346–348.

Lord, T.R. (1997). Comparing traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology.Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–217.

Lord, T.R. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-based activities to challenge student teams. The American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 580–588.

Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmentalscience. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–28.

Lord, T.R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The AmericanBiology Teacher, 63(1), 30–38.

Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. NARSTNews, 34(3), 9–11.

Marin, N., Benarroch, A., & Jimenez-Gomez, E. (2000). What is the relationship between socialconstructivism and Piagetian constructivism? An analysis of the characteristics of the ideaswithin both theories. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 225–238.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal ofScience Teachers Education, 10(2), 93–106.

Novak, J., & Gowin, D.B. (1986). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.Rodriguez, A.J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for

understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American EducationalResearch Journal, 39(4), 1017–1045.

Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies forscience. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–141.

Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal,48(2), 24–28.

Vermette, P., Foote, C., Bird, C., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, S., & Battaglia, C. (2001).Understanding constructivism(s): A primer for parents and school board members. Education,122(1), 87–93.

Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. ScienceEducation, 75(1), 9–21.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiations of dilemmas: Ananalysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers.Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.

Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education. TheScience Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 10:

19 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014