AFIF ZEIDAN

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTAMONG PALESTINIAN SCIENCE STUDENTS

Received: 11 July 2013; Accepted: 20 December 2013

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the constructivist learningenvironment among Palestinian science students. The study also aimed to investigate theeffects of gender and learning level of these students on their perceptions of the constructivistlearning environment. Data were collected from 125 male and 101 female students from thefaculty of science in Al-Quds University. In order to assess the constructivist learningenvironment, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was used in this study;this version has five scales containing six items in each scale. In this study, CLES has beenstrongly supported by the factorial validity, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the instrumentwas found to be 0.90. The study revealed that the mean of the items in the CLESwas 3.8 basedon a five-point Likert-type scale. The result of the present study suggests that there is astatistically significant gender difference in students’ responses to the CLES, with femalestudents’ perceptions of the constructivist learning environment being more positive thanthose of their male counterparts.

KEY WORDS: constructivism, learning environment perceptions, learning in Palestinianuniversity, science education

INTRODUCTION

The term “Constructivism” means that learning is an active process duringwhich a learner constructs knowledge rather than acquires knowledgethrough direct transmission by the teacher. Instruction is a process ofsupporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge directlyto the learner (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). The constructivist learningenvironment implies a setting when learners collaboratively constructknowledge through problem solving and the use of learning tools andknowledge sources, while supporting each other in this learning process. Inconstructivist learning environments, students are encouraged to evaluatetheir knowledge and beliefs and to explain them (Akar, 2003). Throughconstructivist learning environments, learners can develop their ownperspectives, solve problems from different angles, and construct meaningfulsolutions. To be able to construct their own knowledge, it is important forlearners to have advanced problem solving, analysis, synthesis, and criticalthinking knowledge and skills (Terhart, 2003). In constructivist learning

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2014# National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

environments, teachers have to monitor learners, provide sources and cues,and help students to analyze their own learning process and evaluate theirunderstanding (Lee & Butler, 2003). In constructivist theory, the existence ofknowledge only occurs within humans who construct their own reality.Moreover, knowledge is constructed subjectively by people based on theirearlier experiences by reflecting on and organizing these thoughtsmetacognitively. According to constructivist theory, if the learner acquiresthe strategies that meet the learning objectives, then learning will occur(Reeves, 1992).

Hence, it was decided to evaluate Palestinian university undergradu-ates’ perceptions of their learning environment in this study using theConstructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) that has beenwidely used in several other countries.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A review of the literature indicates a positive effect of constructivistteaching on achievement gains. In mathematics learning, for example, theconstructivist learning environment provides a positive contribution tolearning concepts in mathematics, while at the same time, studentsexperienced less difficulty in understanding the related mathematicsconcepts (Bukova, 2007). Also, students achieved better overall under-standing of mathematics concepts and were more proficient in thecomponents of modeling, interpreting, and translating (Boaler, 1998;Caprio, 1994; O’Callaghan, 1998). Narli (2011) revealed that the studentsin a constructivist learning environment showed better retention of almostall of the concepts than the students in the traditional class. In addition, aconstructivist learning environment has potential to minimize genderdifferences in chemistry achievement (Dhindsa & Shahrizal, 2011).Additionally, students’ learning perspectives were found to have changedas a result of implementing a constructivist environment (Bodner,Klobuchar & Geelan, 2001).

The CLES was developed to investigate how the learning environmentaffects students as co-constructors of their own knowledge (Taylor,Dawson & Fraser, 1995; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997). Nix, Fraser &Ledbetter (2003) used a new form of the CLES to evaluate an integratedscience learning environment by administering the questionnaire to 1,079high school students in 59 classes. This study was conducted in northTexas to assess the degree to which the principles of constructivism wereimplemented in the classroom.

AFIF ZEIDAN

One view of constructivist teaching includes five components that helpto describe an effective classroom learning environment (scientificuncertainty, student negotiation, shared control, critical voice, andpersonal relevance) (Aldridge, Fraser, Taylor & Chen, 2000; Taylor,Fraser & White, 1994). These components are explained as follows:

Scientific uncertainty: is concerned with opportunities provided for studentsto experience scientific knowledge arising from theory-dependent inquirythat is nonfoundational, and culturally and socially determined.Student negotiation: assesses the extent to which students explain andjustify to others their newly developing ideas and listen to and reflect onthe viability of other students’ ideas.Shared control: measures the degree to which students share with theteachers control for developing a learning environment.Critical voice: examines the extent to which social climate has beenestablished where students feel that it is legitimate and beneficial toquestion the teacher’s pedagogical plans and methods and to expressconcerns about any impediment to their learning.Personal relevance: concerns the connectedness of school science tostudents’ out-of-school lives, making use of students’ everyday experi-ences as a context for learning science.

Jonassen (1994) proposed that there are eight characteristics that reflecta constructivist learning environment and would be supported by bothsocial and cognitive constructivists. These characteristics of a construc-tivist learning environment are:

1. Provides multiple representations of reality.2. These multiple representations avoid oversimplification and represent

the complexity of the real world.3. Emphasizes knowledge construction instead of knowledge reproduction.4. Emphasizes authentic tasks in a meaningful context rather than

abstract instruction that is out of context.5. Provides real-world settings or case-based learning instead of

predetermined sequences of instruction.6. Encourages thoughtful reflection on experience.7. Enables context- and content-dependent knowledge construction.8. Supports “collaborative construction of knowledge through social

negotiation, not competition among learners for recognition” (p. 35).

Hardy et al. (2006) studied the effects of instructional support withinconstructivist learning environments involving elementary school stu-

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

dents’ understanding of “floating and sinking”; results of the studyindicated that after 1 year, the group that received high instructionalsupport was superior to the group that received low instructional supportin the reduction of misconceptions and the adoption of scientificexplanations.

In a study that was conducted in Taiwan, male students placed moreemphasis on the negotiation of critical judgment and epistemologicalawareness than their female counterparts in a constructivist instructionalapproach that was enhanced by internet-based learning environments (Lee& Tsai, 2005). Tsai (2000) studied the relationship between Taiwanesetenth grade students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions ofconstructivist learning environments. This study found that studentstended to perceive the learning environment as being less constructivistthan what they preferred, because students who had epistemologicalbeliefs that were more orientated to constructivist views of science tendedto have a view that the learning environments did not provide sufficientopportunities for social negotiations and prior knowledge integration;they preferred to learn in a constructivist learning environment where theycould interact and negotiate meanings with others.

Fraser & Lee (2009) investigated high school students’ perceptionsabout their science classrooms, focusing especially on the notion ofconstructivism. The results of the study indicated that there wereassociations between students’ perceptions of the learning environmentand their attitude to science, with students from the science-independentstreams perceiving their classroom environments more favorably than didstudents in the humanities science-oriented streams.

One of the few studies that compared the constructivist learningenvironments in different countries was a cross-national study in Taiwanand Australia. The study findings indicated that the mean score for bothcountries was close to 3, suggesting that each of the constructivistdimensions measured by the CLES occurred only “sometimes” in eachcountry (Aldridge, Fraser, Taylor & Chen, 2000). In Bulgaria Tafrova,Kirova & Boiadjieva (2012) used the CLES to study science teachers’views on the constructivist learning environment and their preferences tothe ways of teaching science in class; the teachers were found to prefer anenvironment committed to constructivist practices.

Arizoy (2007) investigated eighth grade students’ perceptions of theirlearning environment in science classrooms using a Turkish version of theCLES. The findings of the study indicated that gender had a significanteffect on students’ views of a constructivist learning environment withgirls having higher perceptions of their learning environment than boys.

AFIF ZEIDAN

Cavallo & Rozman (2004) examined gender differences in severallearning variables; these variables included approaches and beliefs aboutscience. They found that female students with higher confidence andhigher abilities were likely to achieve high grades than their male peers.

OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In the present study, the researcher examined the constructivist learningenvironment among Palestinian science students. This study differs from otherresearch studies on constructivist learning environments in that it examines,for the first time, the constructivist learning environment at the faculty ofscience in an Arab country in the West Bank of Palestinian territories.

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How valid and reliable is the CLES when modified and translated foruse in Palestine?

2. What perceptions do Palestinian undergraduate science students holdof their constructivist learning environment?

3. How do male and female Palestinian science undergraduate studentsdiffer in their perceptions of the constructivist learning environment?

4. How do the constructivist learning environment perceptions ofPalestinian science undergraduate students differ among differentlearning levels?

Significance of the Study. The importance of this study is in itscontribution to the research literature on constructivist learning environ-ments particularly in the Arab region. The findings of this study areexpected to enrich the research literature and shed light on constructivistlearning in Palestine. The study also provides Arabian science teachersand researchers with an Arabic version of the CLES, which can be usedfor developing future studies in this field. Science teachers will also findthe CLES helpful in developing their classroom learning environments. Inthe field of higher education, this study will help raise the awareness ofacademics in Palestinian universities toward the importance of facilitatingconstructivist learning environments in our universities.

METHOD

Research Design. The study was a quantitative case study (Yin, 2003) thatinvolved administration of a questionnaire that was adapted from the CLES.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Population and Sample. The population of the study consisted of allstudents at the faculty of science in Al-Quds University (624 males and504 females). Al-Quds University is one of nine universities in Palestine;the main campus of the university is located near Jerusalem City. Theundergraduate students have four learning levels depending on the numberof courses that have been passed. The actual learning environment in Al-Quds University was lecture type, teacher centered in theoretical knowledge,direct inquiry teaching methods in practical (laboratories), and studentscentered in graduation projects. In the past 3 years, the university began touse blended learning (face to face and e-learning).

A stratified random sample of the study consisted of students (125male and 101 female) who were selected according to gender and learninglevel (20 % of the population) (see Table 1).

Instrument. In order to measure the perceptions of the constructivistlearning environment among Palestinian science undergraduates, theCLES was used in the present study. The CLES was used by Taylor et al.(1995, 1997) to measure students’ perceptions of the extent to whichconstructivist approaches were present in their classrooms. In this study,the researcher used the version of the CLES modified by Aldridge, Fraser,Taylor & Chen (2000); this instrument was originally developed byTaylor & Fraser (1991). This version has five scales, namely personalrelevance, uncertainty, shared control, critical voice, and students’negotiation (See APPENDIX 1) with six items in each scale resulting ina total of 30 items. Each item consisted of a five-point Likert-typeresponse scale ranging from 5 to 1 representing almost always, often,sometimes, seldom, and almost never, respectively.

The English version of the CLES was translated into the Arabiclanguage by the researcher himself, and the translation was checked by

TABLE 1

Distribution of the study sample according to gender and learning level (N = 226)

Learning level (year of study)

Number of students

Male Female

1st year 50 252nd year 42 153rd year 20 334th year 13 28Total 125 101

AFIF ZEIDAN

two Arabic linguists and translation instructors, taking into considerationthat the items retained their essential meaning during translation andback-translation (See APPENDIX 2).

Data Collection and Analysis. In this research, the CLES version that wasadministered by the researcher was in Arabic. The CLES was administeredto students during their regular classes in the first semester of 2011/2012.Participants were given 30 min to complete the instrument, and if studentswere unable to complete the survey within this time, they were givenadditional time to do so. The CLES was administered to five classes thatwere randomly chosen from the faculty of science in Al-Quds University.After the instrument was collected, the responses were keyed in. Before theanalysis of data, incomplete responses were excluded as invalid data.Responses from 226 students were analyzed. The subjects did not give theirnames; only their gender and level of learning were required.

The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science(SPSS) version 17. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) werecomputed for responses to each scale of the CLES. MANOVA was used todetermine variations in the means by gender. Subsequently, one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether or not there werestatistically significant differences in the constructivist learning environmentamong Palestinian science undergraduates due to their level of learning.

RESULTS

Validity and Reliability of the Palestine Version of the CLES. To answerthe first research question of the study (How valid and reliable is theCLES when modified and translated for use in Palestine?), a factoranalysis using principal components with varimax rotation was performedon the data to confirm the a priori conceptual structure of the CLES usedin Palestine. All items had a loading of more than 0.4. The percentage ofthe total variance extracted and eigenvalue associated with each factorwere also recorded (see Table 2).

As shown in Table 2, the total amount of variance accounted for the 30items within the five scales was 72.25 %. The eigenvalues range from2.66 to 9.44; this means that CLES has been strongly supported by thefactorial validity. A reliability test utilizing the SPSS was performed onthe total CLES and the five scales of the CLES to examine Cronbach’salpha coefficient value for each scale and for the instrument as a whole(see Table 3). The overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the CLES wasfound to be 0.90.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

As shown in Table 3, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values for the fivescales (personal relevance, uncertainty, shared control, critical voice, andstudents’ negotiation) with the individual students as the unit of analysisranged from 0.53 to 0.78 which is considered satisfactory, except for the

TABLE 2

Factor loadings for the items in the CLES in Palestine (N = 226)

Item no.

Factors/scales

Personalrelevance Uncertainty

Sharedcontrol

Criticalvoice

Students’negotiation

1 0.692 0.963 0.824 0.915 0.826 0.697 0.898 0.859 0.7810 0.9511 0.9312 0.8913 0.9614 0.9515 0.9116 0.9317 0.7318 0.9219 0.6420 0.8221 0.7922 0.9523 0.9224 0.9525 0.8526 0.9327 0.9528 0.9329 0.7630 0.93% Variance 31.47 13.86 10.02 8.89 8.01Eigenvalue 9.44 4.16 3.66 3.01 2.66

AFIF ZEIDAN

relatively low value for the personal relevance scale. In other studies suchas by Nix et al. (2003), Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values for five scalesranged from 0.72 to 0.85, while Johnson & McClure (2004) found thatCronbach’s alpha coefficient values for the five scales of CLES rangedfrom 0.72 to 0.91 for Australian students and from 0.72 to 0.93 forAmerican students, while they ranged from 0.57 to 0.78 for Turkishstudents (Ozkal, Tekkaya & Cakiroglu, 2009). By comparing the resultsof this study with the results of previous studies, the researcher finds thatthere are similarities in the results of the reliability.

Constructivist Learning Environment. To answer the second question ofthe study (What perceptions do Palestinian undergraduate sciencestudents hold of their constructivist learning environment?), the researchercomputed the means of each of the five scales as well as that of thecomplete instrument. Rank ordering of the means of the scales ispresented in Table 4.

The means of each of the scales as well as that for the whole instrument ofthe study were relatively high ranging from 3.75 to 3.87, close to a value of 4,

TABLE 3

Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient) for the individual studentsas the unit of analysis for the CLES scales (N = 226)

Scale No. of items Alpha reliability

Personal relevance 6 0.53Uncertainty 6 0.78Shared control 6 0.66Critical voice 6 0.76Students’ negotiation 6 0.73

TABLE 4

Means, standard deviations, and rank order of the five domains of the CLES (N = 226)

Scale no. Scale Mean SD Rank

1 Personal relevance 3.77 0.25 32 Uncertainty 3.87 0.15 13 Critical voice 3.75 0.11 54 Shared control 3.81 0.14 25 Student negotiation 3.76 0.12 4The whole instrument 3.80 0.16

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

suggesting that the perceptions of the constructivist learning environmentwere often experienced by the undergraduates.

Differences Due to Gender. To answer the third question of the study (Howdo male and female Palestinian science undergraduate students differ in theirperceptions of the constructivist learning environment?), the researcher usedMANOVA to analyze the data from the questionnaire (see Table 5).

As shown in Table 5, there were statistically significant differences due togender; the results show that pG0.05 for all the five scales. This outcomeconfirms that there were significant differences between male and femaleundergraduates’ perceptions of the constructivist learning environment.Also, we can see that the means of the perceptions of the constructivistlearning environment for the males were in the range 3.67–3.80, while thatfor the females were in the range 3.81–3.94, in favor of the female students.

Differences Due to Learning Level. To answer the fourth question of thestudy (How do the constructivist learning environment perceptions ofPalestinian science undergraduate students differ among different learninglevels?), an ANOVA was used to compare the differences in students’perceptions of the constructivist learning environment among Palestinianscience undergraduates based on their learning levels. The results of theanalysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in theundergraduates’ perceptions of their constructivist learning environment[F(3) = 4.22; p = 0.00] based on their learning levels.

A (least significant difference, LSD) post hoc test was utilized to identifyany statistical differences between the student groups. The LSD post hocresults are summarized in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, there was a significant

TABLE 5

MANOVA test of the differences among the means of the sample upon the scales and thewhole instrument due to gender (N = 226)

Dependent variable

Mean SD

F p valueMale Female Male Female

Personal relevance 3.72 3.83 4.12 0.04*Uncertainty 3.80 3.94 4.67 0.03*Critical voice 3.70 3.81 4.63 0.03*Shared control 3.75 3.87 4.55 0.03*Students’ negotiation 3.67 3.86 9.22 0.00**Total CLES 3.73 3.86 8.03 0.05*

*p G = 0.05; **p G 0.01

AFIF ZEIDAN

difference at (p = 0.05) in students’ perceptions of the constructivist learningenvironment due to the learning level between the 1st year and 4th year in favorof 4th year. However, there was no significant difference between the 1st yearand 2nd year, 2nd year and 4th year, and 3rd year and 4th year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Constructivist Learning Environment. The results of the study revealedthat the mean perception of the constructivist learning environment amongPalestinian science undergraduates was 3.80. This was relatively high in theLikert scale that ranged from 1 to 5, and the means of the five scales rangedfrom 3.75 to 3.87; the mean of the “uncertainty” scale ranked highest with avalue of 3.87 while that of the “critical voice” scale ranked the lowest with amean value of 3.75. It was clear that the constructivist learning environmentwas significant. The researcher believes that the reasonwas that academics inthe faculty of science practice the constructivist style of teaching andlearning in designing their courses, so that each course depends on theprerequisite prior knowledge that is to be integrated with new concepts. Thisrequirement has resulted in the constructivist learning environment as a keystrategy in the teaching and learning. This practice was reflected in thestudents’ relatively high perception scores on the CLES.

It should be noted that the faculties of science in Palestine including thefaculty of science at Al-Quds University use the curriculum that is adopted inmost world universities. These curricula take into account the constructivistdesign theory. As undergraduates in science faculties are usually highlyachieving and were exposed to constructivist approaches when they were inschool, they have experience in solving scientific problems and possessnegotiating and critical thinking skills, all basic factors in the constructivistlearning environment. As a result, their mean scores in the scales of the CLESare relatively high. Another reason for the high mean scores may be due to the

TABLE 6

Results of post hoc test comparisons using the LSD method for independent variablelevels

1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year

1st year – 0.103 0.120 0.240*2nd year – 0.016 0.1403rd year – – – 0.120

*pG 0.05

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

teaching staff, many of whom are graduates fromWestern universities and arefamiliar with constructivist learning environments, unlike the staff in Arabuniversities that tend to be somewhat traditional. The teaching staff areconsidered as an effective factor in creating a constructivist learningenvironment. They are active in changing the teaching and learning processfrom being teacher centered to student centered. In Palestinian universities,most instructional goals and objectives are produced by negotiation betweenstudents and teaching staff. This is a positive effect in changing the sciencelearning environment from a traditional to constructivist-oriented one.

The results of the CLES data indicated that students in the faculty ofscience perceived constructivist approaches as being displayed “often.”Ozkal, Tekkaya & Cakiroglu (2009) found that the actual perceivedmeans on the CLES ranged from 2.48 to 3.35 when the CLES wasadministered to the Turkish students. Kim, Fisher & Fraser (1999) alsofound that the actual perceived means on the CLES for Korean studentsranged from 2.33 to 3.00.

Differences Due to Gender. As shown in Table 5, we can see that theoverall means on the CLES for the males was 3.73, while that for the femaleswas 3.87. This difference between the means was significant showing thedifference in favor of female students. The researcher believes that the reasonfor this is that females in Palestine are more disciplined than the malesbecause of the opportunities afforded to females to complete their universitystudies. Female students adopt a constructivist learning environment as adefensive mechanism to compensate for the shortfalls in the social status ofwomen in conservative societies. While males favor individual decisionmaking and a tendency toward exclusivity, in general, they do not likediscussions and sharing control. As a result, female students’ perceptions ofthe constructivist learning environment are more positive than those of theirmale counterparts. The perceptions of male students may, however, bedeveloped through arranging activities such as presentation models thatadopt constructivist learning environments.

In Palestine, most graduate students work as teachers due to the lack offactories and companies. Males are usually not interested in working asteachers due to the lower salaries, while females show interest because theculture accepts this career for women; this factor may have an influenceon females’ perceptions about the CLES. In addition, Palestinian femalesare less interested in political issues, with their interest being morefocused on acquisition knowledge in science.

AFIF ZEIDAN

Our findings differ from those of Kesal & Aksu (2005) who found thatTurkish students’ perceptions of constructivist learning environment didnot differ significantly according to gender.

Differences Due to Learning Level. The perceived means of the CLESscales among the Palestinian science undergraduates showed that there werestatistically significant differences in the perceptions of the constructivistlearning environment based on learning level. Results of post hoc testcomparisons using the LSD method for the independent variable levelindicated that there was a significant difference at p = 0.05 in students’perceptions of the constructivist learning environment between the 1st yearand 4th year undergraduates in favor of the 4th year. The researcher believesthat university students in the final year understood the learning environmentmore deeply than the 1st year students; it seems that the 1st year studentshave not had the educational experience in acquiring positive perceptions ofthe constructivist learning environment. Newly enrolled undergraduatestudents are influenced by their traditional school learning environmentsthat are far from a constructivist environment. As undergraduates advance intheir university studies, they become more familiar with the constructivistlearning environment, establishing social relationships with their colleaguesand teachers in the process. So, the university must work on establishingconstructivist learning environments among new undergraduates by encour-aging discussion, criticism, and sharing of control. Also, academic staff mustinvolve students in setting goals and objectives and in educational activities.So students can be exposed to new experiences based on their previousexperiences through interaction with others. Universities must thereforeprovide opportunities for newly enrolled students to ask questions, formulatehypotheses, and carry out investigations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. A.L. Chandrasegaran whomade it possible for me to complete this manuscript.

APPENDIX 1

Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Students were requested torespond to the following items on a Likert scale (almost never, seldom,sometimes, often, and almost always).

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Mean SD

Personal relevance1 I learn about the world outside the university. 3.58 0.772 My new learning starts with issues of interest to my life outside the

university.3.75 0.69

3 I learn how science is a part of my life outside the university. 3.44 1.054 I get a better understanding of the world outside the university. 3.77 0.705 I learn interesting things about the world outside the university. 3.89 0.916 What I learn has nothing to do with my daily life outside the

university.4.19 0.51

Total scale 3.77 0.25Uncertainty

7 I learn that science does not give us full answers to all the issues. 3.91 0.698 I learn that science is always changing. 3.96 0.679 I learn that science is influenced by peoples’ values and beliefs. 4.06 0.8410 I learn about different sciences used by people in other cultures. 3.65 0.5611 I learn that modern science is different from science in the past. 3.73 0.7212 I learn that science is a result of creating theories. 3.91 0.69

Total scale 3.87 0.15Critical voice

13 It’s OK for me to ask the teacher: “Why do I have to learn this?” 3.79 0.6014 It’s OK for me to question the way I’m being taught. 3.62 0.5615 It’s OK for me to complain about teaching activities that confuse

me.3.77 0.70

16 It’s OK for me to complain about the things that prevent me fromlearning.

3.68 0.74

17 It’s OK for me to explain my opinions. 3.93 0.6918 It’s OK for me to talk about what I think is true. 3.74 0.71

Total scale 3.75 0.11Shared control

19 I help the teacher to plan what I have to learn. 3.92 0.7120 I help the teacher to decide how I learn best. 3.87 0.7221 I help the teacher to decide the best activity for me. 3.95 0.7322 I help the teacher to decide how much time I need to learn

activities.3.81 0.61

23 I help the teacher to decide which activities I implement. 3.65 0.5724 I help the teacher to assess my learning. 3.64 0.53

Total scale 3.81 0.14Students negotiation

25 I get the opportunity to talk to other students. 3.96 0.6726 I talk with other students about how to solve problems. 3.68 0.7427 I describe my understandings to other students. 3.65 0.5628 I ask students to describe their interests. 3.73 0.7229 Other students ask me to describe my ideas. 3.85 0.8730 Other students describe their ideas to me. 3.68 0.74

Total scale 3.76 0.12The whole instrument (CLES) 3.80 0.16

AFIF ZEIDAN

APPENDIX 2

Arabic version of the CLES

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

REFERENCES

Akar, H. (2003). Impact of constructivist learning process on pre-service teachereducation students’, performance, retention, and attitudes. Unpublished Doctoral thesis.Turkey: Middle East Technical University.

Aldridge, J., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. & Chen, C. (2000). Constructivist learningenvironments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journalof Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.

Arizoy, N. (2007). Examining 8th grade students’ perception of learning environment ofscience classrooms in relation to motivational beliefs and attitudes. Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.

AFIF ZEIDAN

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.

Bodner, G., Klobuchar, M. & Geelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism.Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107–1134.

Bukova, E. (2007). The effect of a constructivist learning environment on the limitconcept among mathematics student teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory &Practice, 7(3), 1189–1195.

Caprio, M. (1994). Easing into constructivism, connecting meaningful learning withstudent experience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 210–212.

Cavallo, L., Rozman, M. & Potter, H. (2004). Gender differences in learning construct,shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structuredinquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science andMathematics, 104(6), 288–301.

Dhindsa, S. & Shahrizal-Emran (2011). Using interactive whiteboard technology-richconstructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistryachievement. International Journal of environmental and Science Education, 6(4),393–414.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, M. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design anddelivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educationalcommunications and technology (pp. 170–198). NewYork, NY: Simon&SchusterMacmillan.

Fraser, B. J. & Lee, S. S. U. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Koreanhigh schools. Learning Environment Research, 12, 67–84.

Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K. & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support withinconstructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of‘floating and sinking’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.

Johnson, B. & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version ofthe constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environment, 7(1), 65–80.

Jonassen, D. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model.Educational Technology, 34(3), 34–37.

Kesal, F. & Aksu, M. (2005). Constructivist learning environment in English language teachingmethodology II courses. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(1), 118–126.

Kim, H., Fisher, H. & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivistscience learning environment in Korea. Research in Science and Technology Education,17(2), 239–249.

Lee, H. S. & Butler, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students.International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.

Lee, M. & Tsai, C. (2005). Exploring high school students’ and teachers’ preferencestoward the constructivist internet-based learning environments in Taiwan. EducationalStudies, 31(2), 149–167.

Narli, S. (2011). Is constructivist learning environment really effective on learning andlong-term knowledge retention in mathematics? Educational Research and reviews,6(1), 36–49.

Nix, R., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. (2003). Evaluation an integrated science learningenvironment (ISLE) using a new form of the constructivist learning environment survey(CLES). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago

O’Callaghan, B. R. (1998). Computer –intensive algebra and students’ conceptualknowledge of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 21–40.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C. & Cakiroglu, J. (2009). Investigating 8th grade students’perceptions of constructivist science learning environment. Education and Science,34(153), 38–46.

Reeves, T. (1992). Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems. Invited Keynotepaper presented address at the Information Technology for Training and EducationConference, Australia

Tafrova, A., Kirova, M. & Boiadjieva, E. (2012). Science teachers views on theconstructivist learning environment in the Bulgarian school. Bulgarian Journal ofChemical Education, 21(3), 375–389.

Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Classroom learning environments undertransformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco

Taylor, P., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). Development of an instrument for assessmentconstructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans

Taylor, P., Fraser, B. J. & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learningenvironments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.

Taylor, P., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. (1994). The revised CLES: A questionnaire foreducators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Atlanta

Terhart, E. (2003). Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics.Journal of Curriculum studies, 35(1), 25–44.

Tsai, C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs andperceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193–205.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Stage.

Faculty of Educational SciencesAl-Quds UniversityP.O. box (20002), East Jerusalem, PalestineE-mail: afzeidan@edu.alquds.edu

AFIF ZEIDAN