A Look At Constructivist Approach (Through Studies In Ulakbim)
Abstract
In search of the effectiveness and validity of the constructivist approach, various evaluations have been made by collecting data from teachers, students, managers and all the other sharers. The aim of this study is to present the tendency of studies: i) carried out from 2005 to 2016 (until March), ii) consisting “constructivism”, “constructive teaching” or “constructive approach” in its title, iii) employed survey method. Among the presented information there will be the number of studies in given years, methods of studies and sampling and summarized results of studies. This study employs documentary analysis as method appropriate to this aim and uses descriptive analysis in order to present the data as it is and content analysis in order to analyze the data deeply. A total of 93 studies have been found in all journals indexed in the database of Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi (Ulakbim-National Academic Network and Information Center) that are published between 2005 and 2016 (until March when data collection was carried out), consisting one of the keywords given above in its title and employs survey method. These studies will be examined in terms of some variables through descriptive and content analysis and tendency and change of these studies in time will be examined. A total of 42 studies have been found between 2005 when compulsory education was 8 years then and new curricula went live and 2010 when counted as the first five years of compulsory education and also the new curricula. The number of studies found is 51 after than 2011. The year in which there is the highest number of studies is 2010 with 18 studies and least are 2005 and 2016 with only one. The mixed method design was preferred less than quantitative and qualitative methods. There are scale development and adaptation studies on topics such as collecting teachers’ ideas on constructivism and evaluating constructive learning environments. Data have been collected from teachers, students, school managers and supervisors as samples. Besides, document analysis has also been done to find out the appropriateness of curricula to constructivism.
Keywords
constructivism,survey studies,literature review,document analysis
References
- Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713-722.
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6. b.). Oxon: Routledge.
- Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: problems and possibilities. EDUCATIONAL THEORY, 52(4), 409-428.
- Elkind, D. (2004). The problem with constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 306-312. doi:10.1080/00131720408984646
- Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and education: misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86. doi:10.1080/08878730701728945
- Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Language, Discourse, and Meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-10.
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd b.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623-1640.
- Sjøberg, S. (2009). Constructivism and learning. P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Education (s. 1-10). London: Elsevier.
- Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 25-44. doi:10.1080/00220270210163653
