The Effect of Constructivist Learning Approach and Active Learning on Environmental Education: A Meta-Analysis Study

Abstract

This study conducted a meta-analysis of 57 primary experimental studies which involved 6237 students and investigated the effect of constructivist learning approach and active learning on students’ environmental education. The study also analyzed a set of moderator variables, which are considered to influence the results of the primary studies in line with the findings of the meta-analysis. The moderator variables included “year of publication”, “language of publication”, “type of publication”, “country”, “educational level”, “sample size”, “type of measuring instrument in terms of questions and developer”, “duration of experimental intervention”, “research design”, “teacher and researcher effect”, and “type of constructivist learning approach and active learning method”. The sample consisted of 6237 students and 57 primary experimental studies on environmental academic achievement and environmental attitudes, which were conducted between 2000 and 2015 and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 114 effect sizes were obtained from 57 studies. This study used a meta-analysis approach, which is a retrospective study design. The data were analyzed using meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of the data was performed using a random- effects statistical model. Hedges’ g was used to measure effect size. Moderator variables were analyzed using the analog to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on random-effects and mixed-effects models. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the overall effect size of constructivistlearning approach and active learning on environmental education compared to traditional learning is positive and large (Hedges’ g= 1.463). According to the results of the moderator analysis, constructivist learning-based and active learning-based environmental education significantly differed in terms of “country”, “sample size”, “educational level”, “type of publication”, “type of measuring instrument”, “developer of measuring instrument”, “language of publication”, “teacher effect”, and “researcher effect”. On the other hand, no significant difference was found in terms of “year of publication”, “duration of experimental intervention”, “research design”, and “type of teaching method used in the experimental group”. Taken together, these findings suggest that constructivist learning and active learning can often be used in environmental education. The following variables should be considered in environmental education practices: sample size of the experimental group, educational level of students, measuring instruments employed, and researchers conducting the experiment, and duration of experimentalintervention.