A Meta-Analysis of Constructivist Approach on Students’

Achievement

Tantri Mayasari, Jeffry Handhika, Farida Huriawati, Mislan Sasono, Erawan Kurniadi, Purwandari

Purwandari and Andista Candra Yusro

Universitas PGRI Madiun, Madiun Indonesia

tantri@unipma.ac.id

Keywords: Meta-analysis, Constructivist, Students’ Achievement.

Abstract: This study tries to get a proof about the question ‘Does a Constructivist Learning Approach have any influence

on students’ achievement?’ As results of a set examination of studies were presented in scientific articles

conveyed out between 1997 and 2017 in science education, 73 studies were found in the initial search. After

a second screening, 12 studies were selected to examine. The calculating effect size of Constructivist approach

on students’ achievement (ES: 0.87) was calculated by Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2.0. In

addition, calculated effect size considering grade level and models of learning. The results indicate that the

effect sizes on the academic achievement of high school level are at a large level while on college is at a usual

level (standard level). The conclusion shows that a constructivist approach has a positive effect especially on

students' achievement. Concerning the results, authors made some recommendations for an educator,

researcher, and further research.

1 INTRODUCTION

The theory of constructivism began with the

developmental product of Jean Piaget (1896-1980). A

constructivist approach implies that students

construct information or knowledge through their real

world experiences as personal mental model, more

willingly than learn from abstract concepts

(Bhattacharjee, 2015). On the constructivist

approach, the perspectives will take from students’

real life experience as the result. The theory suggests

that students construct knowledge and meaning from

their experiences (Kim, 2005; Driscoll, 2000).

Belongs to (Brooks and Brooks, 1993), their opinion

five basic principles on constructivism such as: “1)

Posing relevant problems or issues, 2) Constructing

materials around major concepts, 3) Trying to find

and assessing students' perspective, 4) Balancing

lessons based on students' points of view, finally 5)

Appraising students learning outcome in the context

of real-life learning.” The constructivist approach

encourages students to be actively included in the

whole process of learning. It also suggested that

learning material is organized based on the students’

needs and interest to encourage and motivate the

students. Through constructivist approach, it was

believed that the goal of learning would be easily

achieved. However, the utilization of it in the learning

process is not much considered in the current

curriculum system (Tobin, 2012). Steffe and Gale

(1995) suggested that teacher should encourage

students to learn from all aspect and therefore, the

constructivist approach should be applied to promote

collaboration between students and teacher in the

learning process. It most essential in the current

education system as students should be encouraged to

construct their knowledge instead of being taught by

the teacher. This approach also shifted the role of the

teacher from the being the knowledge giver, into the

facilitator to facilitate students in knowledge,

reasoning and intuition sharing (Kleinhenz et al.,

2007). It most essential in the current learning trend

as every individual is unique and they construct their

knowledge and understanding of the unique ways

through their life experiences. Constructivist

approach promoted two essential forms of learning

where firstly students construct knowledge based on

their personal experience and secondly that

knowledge are then shaped so uniquely based on

characteristics of every individual, and therefore it is

long lasting or becoming permanent rather than those

given knowledge obtained from teacher’s

explanation.

488

Mayasari, T., Handhika, J., Huriawati, F., Sasono, M., Kurniadi, E., Purwandari, P. and Yusro, A.

A Meta-Analysis of Constructivist Approach on Students’ Achievement.

In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (ANCOSH 2018) - Revitalization of Local Wisdom in Global and Competitive Era, pages 488-491

ISBN: 978-989-758-343-8

2 METHODS

2.1 Data Collection

Various databases are used in this research with the

help of Educational Resources Information Center

(ERIC) via EBSCO Host, with supplementary

information from Google Scholar, Wilson Web, and

Digital Dissertation. As many as seventy-three

researches examining the impact of the constructivist

approaches in science learning were found in the first

seeking. After performing the repetitive screening,

there were only twelve studies were selected to be

relevant as the source of data for this research based

on abstract, content, and finding of the study.

2.2 Criteria for Inclusion

Some requirements were set to be identified as the

primary and secondary data to this study namely: (1)

Constructivist learning studies which published

between 1997 and 2017. (2) can be found in google

Scholar, Digital Dissertation, and ERIC through some

keywords such as “constructivist” “constructivist

approach”, “constructivist learning”, “inquiry”,

“problem based learning”, “project based learning”,

“discovery learning”, “experiential learning”,

“science education”, “achievement”, “learning”, etc.

(3) The article should verify the accomplishment of

each student and quantitative findings.

2.3 Calculating Effect Sizes

The Twelve studies used in this meta-analysis present

the dissimilar research models. Some statistical data

from each research were recorded, belong mean

scores, deviation standart, t-value, and p-value which

then modified to an effect size metric by Glass (1976)

conversion formulas, and Comprehensive Meta-

Analysis (CMA) version 2.0 as indicated in Table 1.

The personal effect size was informed to show the

influence of integrative approaches among STEM

subjects following the guidelines of Cohen (1988) to

defining effect sizes where Effect Size = 0.2 (mean

small effect), Effect Size = 0.5 (mean medium effect),

and Effect Size = 0.8 (large effect).

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The result shows that from twelve studies used in this

analysis, found fourteen attainment effect sizes were

gained. The study sample sizes used by the twelve

published articles were ranged from twenty-five to

one hundred and twelve students with the grades

ranging from primary until university. Table 1 shows

the effect sizes and a resume of every study’s nature.

Table 1: Major features of twelve studies.

Study

Grade Levels

Models of Learning

Effect Size

Code

Abdelrahman and

Abdelrahman (2014)

Middle School

Discovery learning

0.85

Akınoğlu and Tandoğan

(2007)

Middle School

Problem Based Learning

0.497

Bilgin, Karakuyu, and Ay

(2015)

College

Project Based Learning

0.131

Clements (1997)

High School

Constructivist learning

1.26

Gurses, Dogar, and Geyik

(2015)

College

Problem Base learning

0.25

Huffman, Goldberg, and

Michlin (2003)

College

Constructivist learning

0.31

Kazemi and Ghoraishi (2012)

College

Problem Base learning

0.14

Klahr and Nigam (2004)

112

Elementary School

Discovery Learning

0.904

Meijer and Riemersma (2002)

High School

Constructivist learning

0.62

Reid, Zhang, and Chen (2003)

Middle School

Discovery Learning

ES : 2.32

No ES : 1.46

Total : 1.66

K10

K11

K12

Ryser, G., Beeler, J., and

McKenzie (1995)

College

CSILE

1.91

K13

Selçuk and Çalişkan (2010)

College

Problem Base learning

0.38

K14

A Meta-Analysis of Constructivist Approach on Students’ Achievement

489

Figure 1: Fourteen achievement effect sizes of twelve

studies.

Figure 1 denotes the allocation of the effect sizes

which ranged from 0.25 up to 1.91. Four studies (K4,

K11, K12, K13) shows the high effect sizes of more

than 1.0, while another (K1, K2, K3, K5, K6, K7, K8,

K9, K10, K14) shows the effect sizes of between 0

and 1.0. Effect size is obtained by calculating the

discrepancy among the probationary and control

group means divided by standard deviation of it.

The study concluded that constructive learning

approach which used frequently in different lessons

and subjects could significantly contribute to

learners’ academic achievement. Most Quantitative

research done between 1997-2017 shows the

effectiveness of constructive learning on academic

achievement.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results above included in the meta-

analysis, it was found that the outcomes of a

constructivist approach in the educational process are

most effectual for beginners’ academic success. The

synthesis of twelve research articles shows that

learning with constructivist approach has a positive

involve on students' learning outcomes. From

education level views, the constructivist approach

shows that the largest effect size at the higher

education grade and the lowest effect size at the

college level. Besides, the results of student's

achievement on learning process with constructivist

approach show the most significant effect size which

showed by learning discovery models, and project-

based learning shows the smallest effect size.

Through learning with the constructivist

approach, the learners could construct their

knowledge to improve the ability of literacy science

and technology that appear from reading, writing,

observing, and doing science activities so that it can

be used in social life later and solve the problems

which faced in daily of life. The results of the meta-

analysis can be a guide or rules for Indonesian

researchers to conduct empirical research related to

learning with constructivism approach.

REFERENCES

Abdelrahman, P., Abdelrahman, K., 2014. The Effect of

Using Discovery Learning Strategy in Teaching

Grammatical Rules to first year General Secondary

Student on Developing Their Achievement and

Metacognitive Skills. International Journal of

Innovation and Scientific Research. 5(2), 146–153.

Akınoğlu, O., Tandoğan, R. O., 2007. The Effects of

Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education

on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and

Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,

Science and Technology Education. 3(1), 71–81.

Bhattacharjee, J., 2015. Constructivist Approach to

Learning-An Effective Approach of Teaching

Learning. Research Journal of Interdisciplinary and

Multidisciplinary Studies (IRJIMS).

Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., Ay, Y., 2015. The effects of

project based learning on undergraduate students’

achievement and self-efficacy beliefs towards science

teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education. 11(3), 469–477.

Brooks, J. G., Brooks, M. G., 1993. In search of

understanding. The case for constructivist classrooms,

101-118.

Clements, D., 1991. Enhancement of creativity in computer

environments. American Educational Research

Journal. 78(4), 309–318.

Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the social

sciences, Lawrence Earlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.

Driscoll, M. P., 2000. Constructivism. Psychology of

Learning for Instruction.

Glass, G. V., 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis

of research. Educational Researcher. 5, 3-8.

Gurses, A., Dogar, C., Geyik, E., 2015. Teaching of the

Concept of Enthalpy Using Problem Based Learning

Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.

197(February), 2390–2394.

Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., Michlin, M., 2003. Using

computers to create constructivist learning

environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement.

Journal of Computer in Mathematics and Science

Teaching. 22, 151–168.

Kazemi, F., Ghoraishi, M., 2012. Comparison of Problem-

Based Learning Approach and Traditional Teaching on

Attitude, Misconceptions and Mathematics

Performance of University Students. Procedia - Social

and Behavioral Sciences. 46, 3852–3856.

Kim, J. S., 2005. The effects of a constructivist teaching

approach on student academic achievement, self

ANCOSH 2018 - Annual Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities

490

concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education

Review. 6(1), 7-19.

Klahr, D., Nigam, M., 2004. The equivalence of learning

paths in ealry science instruction. Psychological

Science. 15(10), 661–667.

Kleinhenz, Elizabeth, I., Lawrence, 2007. Standards for

Teaching: Theoretical Underpinnings and

Applications, (Online) available at:

http://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/1

McNamara, J. F., Morales, P., Kim, Y., McNamara, M.,

1998. Conducting your first meta-analysis: An

illustrated guide. International Journal of Educational

Reform. 7, 380-397.

Meijer, J., Riemersma, F., 2002. Teaching and testing

mathematical problem solving by offering optional

assistance. Instructional Science. 30(3), 187–220.

Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., Chen, Q., 2003. Supporting scientific

discovery learning in a simulation environment.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 19(1), 9–20.

Ryser, G., Beeler, J., McKenzie, C., 1995. Effects of a

computer-supported intentional learning environment

(CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory

behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of

Educational Computing Research. 13(4), 375–385.

Selçuk, G. S., Çalişkan, S., 2010. A small-scale study

comparing the impacts of problem-based learning and

traditional methods on student satisfaction in the

introductory physics course. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences. 2(2), 809–813.

Steffe, L., Gale, J., 1995. Constructivism in Education,

Routledge. New York.

Tobin, K. G., 2012. The practice of constructivism in

science education, Routledge. New York.

A Meta-Analysis of Constructivist Approach on Students’ Achievement

491