SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2

Student's Perception of their Learning Approach and Relationship with Level of Engagement in Science Lessons

Nasir MAHMOOD
Pages
93–112
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, they were also more composed and meaningful in their style of writing as far as conciseness and communicability of language was concerned, as compared to students with less constructivist approach to learning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study focused on finding the relationship between students‟ proximity with constructivist principles of learning and their engagement in science lessons.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Constructivist Learning Scale (CLS) by Mahmood (2004) was used to distribute students in two groups on the basis of their proximity to using constructivist learning approach for their science learning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, they were also more composed and meaningful in their style of writing as far as conciseness and communicability of language was concerned, as compared to students with less constructivist approach to learning.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The study focused on finding the relationship between students‟ proximity with constructivist principles of learning and their engagement in science lessons. Constructivist Learning Scale (CLS) by Mahmood (2004) was used to distribute students in two groups on the basis of their proximity to using constructivist learning approach for their science learning. In addition, a self-report engagement questionnaire comprising of six questions was used to record students‟ assessment of their own engagement at the end of each lesson while learning about “solution”. The comparison of two groups showed that students exercising greater proximity to the constructivist approach toward learning had more interest, collaborated well and exceedingly involved in discussion with class-fellow/teachers. Moreover, they were also more composed and meaningful in their style of writing as far as conciseness and communicability of language was concerned, as compared to students with less constructivist approach to learning.

🔖

Cite This Article

MAHMOOD, N. (2022). Student's Perception of their Learning Approach and Relationship with Level of Engagement in Science Lessons. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2, 93–112. https://ajindex.com/articles/442701

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Boddy, N., Watson, K. and Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five Es: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33, 27-42.
  2. Brooks, G. J. & Brooks, G. M. (1999). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brooks, M. G. and Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.
  3. Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-215.
  4. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
  5. Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13
  6. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach J., Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7). 5-12.
  7. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research. 59, 117-142.
  8. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. Finn, J. D. and Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82, 221-234.
  9. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviours, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfield, P. C. and Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 59-109.
  10. Gagnon Jr. W. G. and Collay M. (2001) Designing for Learning: six elements in constructivist learning, California: Corwin Press,
  11. Inc. Herman, K.C., & Tucker, C.M. (2000). Engagement in learning and academic success among at-risk Latino-American students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(3), 129-36.
  12. Jordan, W. J. & Nettles, S. M. (1999). How students invest their time out of school: Effects on school engagement, perceptions of life chances, and achievement. US Department of Education: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on