staff.najah.edu€¦ · the following text: "the final publication is available at...

1 23

International Journal of Science andMathematics Education ISSN 1571-0068 Int J of Sci and Math EducDOI 10.1007/s10763-016-9772-4

Democratic Practices in a ConstructivistScience Classroom

Wajeeh Daher & Abdel-Gani Saifi

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Ministry

of Science and Technology, Taiwan. This e-

offprint is for personal use only and shall not

be self-archived in electronic repositories. If

you wish to self-archive your article, please

use the accepted manuscript version for

posting on your own website. You may

further deposit the accepted manuscript

version in any repository, provided it is only

made publicly available 12 months after

official publication or later and provided

acknowledgement is given to the original

source of publication and a link is inserted

to the published article on Springer's

website. The link must be accompanied by

the following text: "The final publication is

available at link.springer.com”.

Democratic Practices in a ConstructivistScience Classroom

Wajeeh Daher1,2 & Abdel-Gani Saifi1

Received: 3 May 2016 /Accepted: 18 September 2016# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Abstract The constructivist learning approach is suggested as a means for facilitatingstudents’ learning of science and increasing their participation in this learning. Severalstudies have shown the contribution of this approach to the different aspects of students’learning of science, though little research has examined the contribution of this approach tothe democratic environment of the science classroom. The present study attempted to do so.34 grade 5 science students studied the energy unit of the science book using the V-shapestrategy, and 38 grade 5 science students studied the same unit without using the strategy.The research results show that students who used the V-shape strategy had significantlyhigher scores in democratic practices than students who did not use the strategy. Moreover,the democratic practices in the science classroom were not influenced significantly by theindependent variables (science ability, general ability, and preferred subject). The results ofthe current study also show that, in the experimental group, only the correlation betweeninvolvement and freedom was significant, while in the control group, all of the correlationsamong involvement, freedom, and equality were significant.

Keywords Democratic practices . Equality. Freedom . Involvement . Science classroom

Introduction

The constructivist learning approach developed by Piaget and Ausubel has beenadopted in science education since the eighties of the twentieth century (Zaitoon,2007). This helped turn the role of the teacher to that of facilitating students’ learning

Int J of Sci and Math EducDOI 10.1007/s10763-016-9772-4

* Abdel-Gani [email protected]

Wajeeh [email protected]

1 An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine2 Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Baka, Israel

Author's personal copy

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10763-016-9772-4&domain=pdf

rather than transmitting information to them (Al-Najdi, Rashed, & Abed-Alhadi, 2005).So, learning scientific concepts meaningfully became one of the goals of scienceeducation (Okebukola, 1990). Specifically, emphasis was put on the meaningfullearning practices described by Ausubel, where the meaningful learning emphasizesunderstanding, reasoning, and application of knowledge. Different constructivist strat-egies that emphasize meaningful learning are used today in science teaching (e.g. Calik,Ayas, & Coll, 2007), where these strategies help learners build new scientific conceptsand enhance/correct the ones they possess (Nantawanit, Panijpan, & Ruenwongsa,2012). These strategies enable teachers to facilitate their students’ discovery of scien-tific concepts. Concept mapping and maps are one example on constructivist strategiesthat the V shape belongs to (Abdu-Alsalam, 2005; Khalid & Bawaneh, 2010; Moon,Hoffman, Novak, & Cañas, 2011). Researchers point at concept maps as effective toolsthat support students in their learning of scientific concepts (e.g. Mintzes & Quinn,2007), but little research has been done on their influence on educational aspects asdemocratic practices. The present research describes an experiment in which the V-shape strategy was used in the science classroom to teach the energy unit of the sciencebook for fifth grade students. More specifically, the present research examines students’democratic practices as a result of the experiment.

Gowin’s Epistemological Vee

Gowin’s epistemological Vee depends, on one hand, on the constructivist approach tostudents’ learning, and on the other hand, it depends on the strategy that uses conceptmaps as a means for developing students’ scientific concepts.

Gowin’s epistemological Vee was developed by Bob Gowin in the late 1970s toassist science learners in their meaning making and knowledge construction in theframe of their laboratory activity (Gowin, 1981). Moreover, Novak and Gowin (1984)described Gowin’s epistemological Vee or the V-shape strategy in the frame of theirinterest in knowledge building and overcoming students’ difficulties in learning.Furthermore, Zaitoon (2007) stresses that Gowin developed the epistemological Veein light of the constructivist ideas prevailing in the late seventies of the twentiethcentury.

Gowin’s epistemological Vee has two main assumptions about knowledge construc-tion: (1) the individual builds his/her knowledge from experience and does not receiveit passively from others and (2) knowledge building develops by building on theindividual experience. This knowledge building can be done through building visualmeans that connect the procedural and conceptual knowledge related to a learning topicor concept. These visual means also connect between the practical aspect and theprevious experience constructs (Esiobu & Soyibo, 1995). Moreover, the V-shapestrategy relates scientific events to a scientific concept (Abdu-Alsalam, 2005) as aresult of a sequence or succession of research operations and inquiry (Zaitoon, 2007).

The Structure of Gowin’s Epistemological Vee

Gowin’s epistemological Vee uses a two-side figure. The left side represents theconceptual aspect and includes concepts, principles, rules, and theories, while the rightside represents the procedural aspect and includes recordings, transformations, and

W. Daher, A.G. Saifi


cognitive and value demands. Events and objects link both sides at the center of the Vshape. The main question is placed at the top of the V shape, also linking both sides andenabling them to interact. Moreover, the main question examines the concepts thatlearners have, directing them to the new scientific concepts through questions likeBwhen,^ Bwhat,^ and Bhow.^ The events are the actions that learners record, what helpsthem plan their learning in order to answer the main question.

In addition, the basic units in the building process of a V shape are perceived eventsand objects. To build these events and objects, Bawaneh, Zain and Ghazali (2010)advise the teacher to ask him/herself questions that are related to the studied scientificphenomenon, the resources available to teaching it, and the demands expected of thelearner: These questions could be: What objects and events are noticed in light of themain question? What recordings are produced? What concepts are used to confirm therecordings collected? What concepts are used in the transformations? What are theguiding principles, rules, and theories? How are cognitive demands associated with thepreceding principles, rules, recordings, and transformations?

Gowin’s Epistemological Vee in the Science Classroom

This strategy has been used by learners from junior high school (Novak, Gowin, &Johansen, 1983) to PhD level (Fraser, 1993). Various researchers studied the influenceof the V-shape strategy on different educational aspects of students’ learning. One ofthese aspects is students’ scientific performance (Mikdad, 2004; Snead & Snead, 2004;Tekeş&Gönen, 2012). For example, Tekeş and Gönen (2012) found that teaching withthe V-shape strategy influenced positively students’ performance, when they learnedthe waves unit. Researchers also examined the influence of the V-shape strategy onstudents’ building of scientific concepts. For example, they found that this strategysupports students’ in their conceptual change and in their movement to scientificconcepts (Bawaneh, Zain, & Ghazali, 2010; Chiu, Chou, & Liu, 2002; Odom &Kelly, 2001). Researchers also examined the influence of the V-shape strategy onstudents’ development of scientific, creative, and critical thinking, and their scientificprocesses (Al-Aboushi, 2005; Khudir, 2011; Mintzes & Novak, 2000). Another fieldthat researchers examined is how the V-shape strategy influences the cognitive andmetacognitive knowledge of students (Keys, Hand, Prain, & Collins, 1999; Polancos,2011). Researchers’ also examined the influence of the V-shape strategy on students’attitudes towards science (Mikdad, 2004; Tortop, 2012), students’ motivation to learn(Al-Zaanin, 2010), and students’ attitude towards the use of the V shape itself. Tekeşand Gönen (2012) found that students had positive attitude towards using the V-shapestrategy in the science classroom. The present research wants to study the influence ofthis strategy on democratic practices in the science classroom.

Democratic Practices in the Classrooms

Barton, Basu, Johnson and Tan (2011) argue that schooling is structured aroundtraditional models of education, where students are consumers of knowledge, theiractions and their choices are constrained, and they have limited opportunities toparticipate in classroom decisions. They further argue that from the perspective ofdemocratic science education, Bscience literacy must be attentive to the roles that youth

Democratic Practices


generate or accept for themselves within science-related communities^ (p. 11). Thepresent experiment attempts to introduce new roles for grade 5 students in the scienceclassroom. It does that through the V-shape strategy. The present research measures theinfluence of the strategy on the participants’ democratic practices.

Stepanek (2000) reviews the literature to show that the learning environment has asignificant impact on the different aspects of student’s learning at all grade levels. Theseaspects include achievement, as well as emotional and social outcomes. Stepanek(2000) adds that the positive classroom environment has specifically improved theachievement of low-performing students. On the other side, democracy is one aspect ofthe classroom environment that can impact positively the classroom environment, and,as a result, the different aspects of students’ learning. Moreover, the prevalence ofdemocracy in the classroom means the fulfillment of various characteristics andconditions. Researchers in democracy education described various characteristics andconditions for practicing democracy in the classroom, where they paid attention to thecharacteristics of the learning environment in which democracy is practiced (see, forexample, Knight, 2001; Wilmer, 2002). Furthermore, Knight (2001) stresses encour-aging students to reach their full potential, as a condition to maintaining a democraticenvironment, and calls this environment an optimal learning environment. Thesestudents’ reach of their full potential could be done through their involvement in theirlearning in the classroom. Furthermore, students’ participation and involvement are thecore of democratic practices in the classroom (Wilmer, 2002). This is especially true forthe mathematics and science classrooms (Beane & Apple, 1995; Stepanek, 2000). Twoother constructs that should be prevailing in the democratic classroom are freedom andequality. Kesici (2008), for example, found that teachers, who adopted democraticvalues, talked about democratic classrooms where fair behaviors are demonstratedtowards students, students’ range of personal freedom is enlarged, and students areprovided with equality of opportunity. Here, teachers’ fair behavior towards studentscould be related also with students’ involvement that would increase as a result ofteachers’ fair behavior towards them. Thus, the three constructs related to democ-racy in the science classroom, and which this research is interested in, arestudents’ involvement, the freedom, and the equality they have in the scienceclassroom.

The Research Goals and Rationale

Democratic practices are essential in the classroom for they nourish the differentaspects of students’ learning, and prepare them as future citizens (Thornberg, 2010).This is specifically true in the science classroom, where scientific experiments needplanning and taking decisions (Barton, Basu, Johnson, & Tan, 2011), and whereargument and argumentative practice are a core activity (Driver, Newton, & Osborne,2000). On the other hand, there is a lack of empirical research on educational constructsrelated to democracy in the classroom (Ahmad, Said, & Jusoh, 2015). This is especiallytrue for the science classroom, though there are some voices that call for democraticenvironment in this classroom (Basu, Barton, & Tan, 2011). The present research triesto do that by examining the impact of using a constructivist strategy in the scienceclassroom, namely the V-shape strategy, on students’ democratic practices. Construc-tivist strategies are expected to increase the democratic practices in the science



classroom, where these strategies encourage the student’s sharing of responsibility anddecision making, which results in empowering the student and encouraging democraticpractices in the classroom (Gray, 1997).

The Research Questions

1. What is the level of democratic practices (involvement, freedom, and equality) inthe fifth grade science classroom that uses the V-shape strategy?

2. Are there significant differences in the democratic practices (involvement, free-dom, and equality) in the fifth grade science classroom between subjects who usethe V-shape method and subjects who do not use it?

3. Are there significant differences in the democratic practices (involvement, free-dom, and equality) in the fifth grade science classroom as a result of each of theindependent variables (treatment, science ability, general ability, and preferredsubject in science (physics, biology, and chemistry) and their interaction?

4. What are the relationships among democratic education subscales (involvement,freedom, and equality) in the traditional fifth grade science classroom and in the V-shape science classroom?

Methodology

Study Sample

The study design was a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest comparison. The sample ofthe present study consisted of 67 female students of the sixth class in the governmentalschools in the academic year 2013–2014. The subjects were distributed into two groupswith 34 and 33 respectively. The first group was experimental and the second was thecontrol group. Table 1 further describes the percentages of the participants regardingtheir science ability, general ability, and preferred subject.

Table 1 Percentages of the participants regarding the background variables

Independent variables Percentages

Science ability Weak –

Middle 14.9

Good 43.3

Excellent 41.8

General ability Weak 1.6

Middle 6.3

Good 50

Excellent 42.2

Preferred subject Physics 29.9

Biology 41.8

Chemistry 28.4



To ensure the insignificance differences between the two study groups regardingtheir democratic practices in the classroom, we computed, before the experiment, themeans of the democratic practices (involvement, freedom, and equality) in the twogroups as well as t values. Table 2 shows the results before the experiment.

Study Instruments

The questionnaire used in the present study included two parts. The first part isconcerned with the student’s personal information (science ability, general ability,and preferred subject). The two variables Bscience ability^ and Bgeneral ability^have four values: weak, middle, good, and excellent. Moreover, the variableBpreferred subject^ has three values: physics, chemistry, and biology. Thus, theprevious variables were measured based on the participating student’s self-reporting.

The second part of the questionnaire included the democratic practices scales.These scales aimed at examining the students’ ratings of the democratic practicesused by them or/and by the teacher inside the science classes. It covered threesubscales: involvement (number of items = 14), freedom (number of items = 12),and equality (number of items = 10). The involvement and equality questionnaireswere taken from Sunitha (2005), where their items were rated on a 2-point scalewith anchors 1, yes, and 2, no. Examples from the involvement questionnaire areBIn the science classroom, I discuss ideas and justify my ideas,^ BIn the scienceclassroom, I give my opinions during class discussions.^ Examples from theequality questionnaire are BIn the science classroom, the teacher gives as muchattention to my questions as to other students questions,^ BI have the same amountof say in the science classroom as other students.^

The freedom questionnaire was built in the frame of the present study (SeeAppendix 1). Examples from the freedom questionnaire are BI can ask the teacherany question in the science classroom,^ BI can answer the teacher’s question if I decideto.^ The items in all the present democracy questionnaire were rated on a 5-point Likertscale with anchors 1, very much disagree, and 5, very much agree. For each participant,a score was calculated for each of the subscales as the mean of all items included in the

Table 2 Differences between the two groups (V shape vs. traditional teaching methods) in democraticeducation total scores and its subscale scores (before the experiment)

Dimension Experimental n = 34 Control n = 33 T value Sig.

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Involvement scores 3.45 .56 3.41 .54 .31 .76

Freedom scores 2.74 .52 2.92 .75 1.15 .26

Equality scores 3.75 .52 3.69 .81 .36 .72

Total scores 3.30 .54 3.32 .70 .13 .90

Note: Based on the result in Table 2, no significant differences existed in democratic education total scores andits subscale scores (involvement, freedom, and equality) before the experiment



subscale. An example of the involvement subscale items is BI discuss ideas and justifymy ideas in the science classroom.^

Construct validity for the scale and the subscales (involvement, freedom, andequality) was evaluated using the item-total correlation [ITC] technique. Anacceptable level was set to > 0.30 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). To computethe ITCs, the researchers selected an exploratory sample consisting of (40) femalestudents from the study population. Resulting ITC values for the 36-item scale andthe subscales were higher than 0.30; therefore, all items remain in the instrument,which in turn indicates that the scale is valid.

In order to examine the reliability, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated.The coefficient for the 36-item scale was 0.91. Furthermore, the coefficients for thesubscales were 0.78, 0.76, and 0.87 for involvement, freedom, and equalityrespectively.

Data Analysis Procedures and Tools

To evaluate the level of democratic practices before the experiment in the scienceclassroom according to the students participating in the research, we comparedthem with the Bgood democracy score^ and the Bnormal democracy score.^ Wecomputed the good democracy score by dividing 4 (4 units between 1, the lowestscore of any item, and 5, the highest score of any item), getting 0.8; thus, we gotthe points related to the democracy intervals presented in Fig. 1. We consideredthe two middle points (2.6 and 3.4) to be the Bnormal democracy score^ and theBgood democracy score^ respectively. In addition, the point 4.2 was consideredthe Bvery good democracy score.^

To compare the means with the Bnormal democracy score,^ the Bgood democracyscore^ and the Bvery good democracy score,^ we used the one-sample t test andcomputed the appropriate t values.

The Learning Material

The learning material used in the experiment was developed depending on the princi-ples of the V-shape strategy and the constructivist approach. Figure 2 shows anexample of an activity about the resources of energy, while Fig. 3 includes the resultof the activity represented as V shape.

Results

In all our consideration of democratic practices in the science classroom, we did notcompute the total democracy questionnaire because we are aware that democracy couldinclude other components and constructs that we did not consider here.

Fig. 1 Intervals related to the democracy scores of any item



Level of Democratic Practices Prevalent in the Traditional Science Classroomand in the Epistemological V-Shape Science Classroom

To answer the first research question and find the level of democratic practices inthe traditional and V-shape science classroom, we computed means and standarddeviations of the three democratic practices. We also conducted a one-sample t testto find the significance of the difference of this level with Bnormal,^ Bgood,^ andBvery good^ scores of democratic practices (see the BMethodology^ section for adescription of these levels).

What is the difference between the natural and industrial sources of Energy?

The conceptual aspect The procedural aspect

Value claims Humans invented many industrial

devices that help us obtain energy and enable us to perform tasks, save time and effort, and provide well-being of the human being.

Cognitive claims: Natural energy sources: What are the characteristics of the natural

energy sources? What are the characteristics of the industrial

energy sources?

Records and transformations

Industrial NaturalEnergy source

Sun Electric lamp Muscles Electric stove Electric heater Electric fan Running water Solar heater Microwave Food Car Electric iron Firewood Oil (kerosene, gas, petrol) Electric washing machine wind

Which of the following energy source is natural and which is industrial?

Principles:

Where can we find energy?

Concepts: Natural sources of Energy, industrial sources of energy

Events:Classification of sources to natural sources and industrial sources

Objects: Electric lamp, electric heater, iron, radio, microphone, fan, a collection of photos of the sources of

natural energy and industrial energy

Fig. 2 Activity about the resources of energy



The previous computations showed that in the case of the traditional classroom,the mean score of freedom (2.83 ± .41) was significantly less than the Bgoodscore^ (a statistically significant difference of 0.57, t(66) = 11.38, p = .00) andsignificantly more than the Bnormal score^ (a statistically significant difference of0.23, t(66) = 4.59, p = .00). Moreover, the mean score of involvement (3.43 ± .30)was significantly more than the Bnormal score^ (a statistically significant differ-ence of 0.83, t(66) = 22.65, p = .00), but not significantly more than the Bgoodscore.^ In contrast, the mean score of equality (3.72 ± .46) was significantly more,not only than the Bnormal score^ but also than the Bgood score^ (a statisticallysignificant difference of 0.32, t(66) = 5.69, p = .00).

What is the difference between the natural and industrial sources of Energy?

The conceptual aspect The procedural aspect

Value claims Humans invented many industrial

devices that help us obtain energy and enable us to perform tasks, save time and effort, and provide well-being of the human being.

Cognitive claims: Natural energy sources: Natural energy sources exist in the nature

before the interference of humans. Industrial energy sources are enabled as a

result of the interference of humans

Records and transformations

Industrial NaturalEnergy source

xSun xElectric lamp

xMuscles xElectric stove xElectric heater xElectric fan

xRunning water xSolar heater xMicrowave

xFood xCar xElectric iron

xFirewood xOil (kerosene,

gas) xElectric

washing machine

xwind

Which of the following energy source is natural and which is industrial?

Principles:

Energy can be obtained from any material on earth

Concepts: Natural sources of Energy, industrial sources of energy

Events:Classification of sources to natural sources and industrial sources

Objects: Electric lamp, electric heater, iron, radio, microphone, fan, a collection of photos of the sources of

natural energy and industrial energy

Fig. 3 Final V-shape output about the resources of energy



In the case of the V-shape science classroom, themean score of freedom (3.45 ± .7) wassignificantly less than the Bvery good score^ (a statistically significant difference of .75,t(33) = 6.25, p = .00) and more than the Bgood score,^ but not significantly. Moreover, themean score of involvement (4.07 ± .56) was significantly more than the Bgood score^ (astatistically significant difference of 0.67, t(33) = 6.98, p = .00), but not significantly lessthan the Bvery good score.^ In contrast, the mean score of equality (4.32 ± .66) wassignificantly more than the Bgood score^ (a statistically significant difference of 0.92,t(33) = 8.13, p = .00), but not significantly more than the Bvery good score.^

Table 3 summarized the previous findings, where + indicates that the mean score ofthe democracy component is significantly more than the level, while − indicates that themean score of the democracy component is significantly less than the level. When thecell is empty, it means that no significance was achieved.

Comparison Between the Level of Democratic Practices in the Traditional and VeeScience Classrooms

The second question tried to determine whether there are significant differences inscores of democratic practices (involvement, freedom, and equality) between subjectswho used the V-shape strategy and subjects who studied in a traditional way. To answerthis question, an independent-sample t test was conducted between subjects in theexperimental and control groups after the experiment. Table 4 shows thesecomputations.

Table 3 Levels of democratic practices in the traditional and the Vee science classroom

Dimension Normal Good Very good

Traditional Vee Traditional Vee Traditional Vee

Freedom + + – –

Involvement + +

Equality + +

Table 4 Differences between the two groups (V-shape vs. traditional teaching methods) in democraticeducation total scores and its subscale scores (after the experiment)

Dimension Experimental n = 34 Control n = 33 T value Sig.

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Involvement scores 4.07 .56 3.44 .58 4.48** .00

Freedom scores 3.45 .70 2.88 .73 3.29** .00

Equality scores 4.32 .66 3.68 .86 3.39** .00

Note: Based on the result in Table 4, significant differences exist in scores of the three democratic practices(involvement, freedom, and equality) between subjects who used the V-shape strategy and subjects whostudied in a traditional way in favor of V-shape strategy subjects (p < .01)

**p < .01



Influence of the Independent Variables on the Scores of the Three DemocraticPractices

The third question tried to determine whether any of the independent variables (treatment,science ability, general ability, and preferred subject in science (physics, biology, andchemistry)) and the interaction among them have significant effects on scores of the threedemocratic practices (involvement, freedom, and equality). To answer this question,means, standard deviations, and ANOVA test were conducted. Table 5 shows percentagesof respondents by group, science ability, general ability, and preferred subject in science(physics, biology, and chemistry). It also shows means and standard deviations on scoresof the three democratic practices according to the independent variables.

Note: The ANOVA test shows that except for treatment, all the independent variables(science ability, general ability, and preferred subject in science) and their interactions hadno significant effects (p > .05) on scores of democratic practices. Nevertheless, scienceability had a significant effect on the participants’ scores of equality (F = 4.625, p < .05).

It is worth mentioning that, in some cases, the effects of the interaction among indepen-dent variables were not conducted since the sample is small resulting in empty cells in thetables of factorial ANOVA. In addition, the effect size of the groups was calculated in orderto observe the effectiveness of the treatment. These effect sizes were .10, .17, and .25 forfreedom, equality, and involvement respectively. In sum, all of these effect sizes were small.

Relationships Among Democratic Practices

The fourth question was related to the relationships among democratic practices(involvement, freedom, and equality) for the experimental and control groups. To

Table 5 Means and standard deviations on scores of democratic practices according to treatment, scienceability, general ability, and preferred subject in science

Independent variables Involvement Freedom Equality

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Treatment Experimental 4.07 .56 3.45 .70 4.32 .66

Control 3.44 .58 2.88 .73 3.68 .86

Science ability Weak – – – – – –

Middle 3.63 .65 3.35 .57 3.51 .53

Good 3.60 .58 3.09 .60 3.83 .81

Excellent 3.98 .68 3.17 .97 4.38 .77

General ability Weak 3.86 – 2.50 – 3.60 –

Middle 3.39 .72 3.17 .72 3.28 .56

Good 3.58 .51 3.08 .57 3.96 .70

Excellent 3.98 .73 3.32 .99 4.24 .93

Preferred subject Physics 4.12 .59 3.42 .77 4.23 .75

Biology 3.64 .66 3.07 .82 3.92 .82

Chemistry 3.56 .56 3.04 .65 3.91 .88



answer this question, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed.The results of these computations show that, in the experimental group, only thecorrelation between involvement and freedom was significant (a strong relationshipof r = .53, p < .01). Meanwhile, in the control group, all of the correlations amonginvolvement, freedom, and equality were significant. In more details, the correlationbetween involvement and freedom was strong (r = .59, p < .01), between involvementand equality was stronger (r = .68, p < .01), and between freedom and equality wasmedium (r = .37, p < .05).

Discussion

Constructivist learning strategies are suggested for a long time as alternative methods inthe classroom (see, for example, Kenny & Wirth, 2009). Here, we experienced one ofthese strategies, namely the V-shape strategy, in the science classroom. This strategyencourages the involvement of the student in learning the science concepts and hasbeen researched before regarding the outcomes of students’ learning of science, butlittle regarding its impact on the classroom environment, specifically democraticpractices in the classroom.

Generally speaking, the research results show that the democratic practices in the V-shape classroom are one level more than the democratic practices in the traditionalscience classroom. Moreover, the research results show that students who used the V-shape strategy had significantly higher scores in the practice of democratic practicesthan students who did not use the strategy. Thus, the V-shape strategy influencedpositively students’ democratic practices, namely involvement, freedom, and equality.This positive influence could be explained by the constructivist practice of knowledge,where learners construct their knowledge by interpreting what they sense and come intocontact with (Taber, 2011). In our case, the V-shape strategy encouraged the learnerswho used it to increase their participation in the classroom activities because the shapesused in the classroom enabled them to interpret, in a better way, the scientific phenom-enon, in our case, the energy phenomenon. In addition, the use of the strategy alsosupported the teacher in practicing freedom and equality in her teaching, for morestudents engaged in the science learning using V shapes. This engagement helped theteacher give the students equal opportunities in learning and, at the same time, thefreedom to ask and answer questions. The participants’ scores in freedom were lowerproportionally to the scores in involvement and equality. This is so because some itemsin the freedom questionnaire do not relate directly to the practice of the strategy, as, forexample, the item BI can request the teacher to explain a point another time.^

The reported democratic practices in the science classroom were not influencedsignificantly by the independent variables (science ability, general ability, and preferredsubject). This indicates that the V-shape strategy encouraged students from variousscientific and general abilities to be involved in building their knowledge about theenergy as a scientific phenomenon due to its constructivist characteristics (Cooperstein& Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Taber, 2011). In our case, these characteristics includedpresenting the scientific phenomenon visually, presenting both the conceptual aspect ofthe energy topic as well as its procedural aspect, asking and answering questions,discussing the energy phenomenon, and an activity written to encourage students’



discovery of the scientific phenomenon. These characteristics, according to the litera-ture, encourage the involvement of students in learning in general and in learningscience in particular. This encouragement could be a result of stimulating and focusingstudents’ thinking (Clough, 2007). Furthermore, this encouragement has positiveimpact on students’ cognitive level during science instruction (Smart & Marshall,2012).

The characteristics of the V-shape strategy, as a constructivist strategy, also supportthe teacher in giving more opportunities to science students (Palmer, 2005), wherethese opportunities include giving attention to students’ freedom (for example to askand answer questions) and equality regarding the opportunities given to them.

The results of the current study also show that, in the experimental group, only thecorrelation between involvement and freedom was significant, while in the controlgroup, all of the correlations among involvement, freedom, and equality were signif-icant. These results indicate that in the traditional classroom, all the democraticpractices (involvement, equality, and freedom) are correlated with each other, a resultsimilar to that found in Korkmaz and Gümüşeli (2013). These results could beexplained by the influence of the teacher on the practice of the different democraticpractices (Subba, 2015), where a teacher who values democracy availability in theclassroom is expected to do that for all its components. The mentioned situation did notprevail in the V-shape classroom, because the V-shape strategy encouraged the practiceof the three democratic practices, so they prevailed as a result of the strategy used bythe teacher, and was not dependent on the teacher’s characteristics alone.

Conclusions

The constructivist learning approach is suggested as a means for facilitating students’learning in the science classroom and increasing their active participation in thislearning. Previous studies have shown the contribution of using this approach in thescience classroom to students’ learning (e.g. Tekeş and Gönen (2012) and teacher’sinstruction (e.g. Garbett, 2011). Little research has been done on the contribution of thisapproach to the democratic practices of the science classroom. The present studyattempted to do so. Generally speaking, the use of the V-shape strategy, as represen-tative of the constructivist learning approach, advanced the democratic practices in thescience classroom, what indicates the effectiveness and thus need for this strategy inparticular and for constructivist strategies in general in the science classroom. Increas-ing democratic practices in the science classroom not only increases the role of thestudents in doing science but also prepares them for the future life, where democraticpractices are needed for the modern society (Kymlicka, 2002).

We are aware of the other approaches and strategies that could enrich students’learning in the science classroom, but here the constructivist approach, and in particularconcept maps as the V shape, is suggested to enrich students’ learning of scientificconcepts and phenomena. This strategy still attracts the attention of science teachersand educators as enriching students’ construction of scientific knowledge (e.g.Olivares, Merino, & Quiroz, 2014; Thao-Do, BAC-LY, & Yuenyong, 2016; Zeidan,2015). Here, it attracted our attention as enriching the democratic practices in thescience classroom. Future studies could examine the impact of other methods or



combined methods (for example, the combination of the V shape with technology) onthe science classroom environment, especially the practice of democracy in thisclassroom.

In addition to the said above, democratic practices could include more than the threepractices studied in the present research. Future research needs to consider the otherdemocratic practices and try to find out if and how constructivist methods in the scienceclassroom enable and support these practices.

Appendix 1

Please read carefully the following statements and indicate your agreement or disagree-ment with it on a scale of five levels:

1. I strongly disagree 2. I disagree 3. I am not sure 4. I agree 5. I strongly agree

References

Abdu-Alsalam, M. A. (2005). The effectiveness of a proposed constructivist model in correcting fifth gradestudents’ perceptions about energy concept. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference for Scienceand Mathematics Teachers, Beirut, Lebanon.

Ahmad, I., Said, H. & Jusoh, A. (2015). Empirical evidence on the relationship between democratic classroomand social skills development of students. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 18–27.

Al-Aboushi, N. (2005). The effect of Ausubel model on secondary students’ understanding of science and theirskills to do science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amman University, Amman, Jordan.

Al-Najdi, A., Rashed, A. & Abed-Alhadi, M. (2005). Modern approaches in teaching science in light ofinternational standards, thinking development and constructivism. Cairo, Egypt: Dar-Alfeker Al-Arabi.

Al-Zaanin, J. (2010). The effect of the V-shape and practical presentations strategies on improving the practicalpractice and skills in TIMSS tests of grade 8 students. An-Najah University journal for humanisticsciences, 24(8), 2289–2310.

Table 6 The freedom questionnaire

Item 1 2 3 4 5

1. I can ask the teacher any question in the science classroom

2. I can answer the teacher’s question if I decide to

3. I can participate in the class discussion if I intend to

4. I can suggest an answer different to that of the teacher in the science classroom

5. Whenever it is needed I can request the teacher to repeat her explanation

6. I can object to the teacher’s way of solving a scientific problem

7. We can object to the science exam questions

8. We can decide the scientific topic to discuss in the science classroom

9. I can inquire from my mates about what goes on in the science classroom

10. In the science classroom, we can decide whether to learn in groups or individually

11. We can suggest part of the science exam

12. In the science classroom, I can answer a question that another student asked



Barton, A. C., Basu, J., Johnson, V. & Tan, E. (2011). Introduction. In S. J. Basu, A. C. Barton & E. Tan(Eds.), Democratic science teaching: Building the expertise to empower low-income minority youth inscience (pp. 1–20). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Basu, S. J., Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (Eds.) (2011). Democratic science teaching: Building the expertise toempower low-income minority youth in science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.

Bawaneh, A., Zain, A. & Ghazali, M. (2010). The effectiveness of conflict maps and the V-shape teachingmethod in science conceptual change among eighth-grade students in Jordan. International EducationStudies, 3(1), 96–108.

Beane, J. A. & Apple, M. W. (1995). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.),Democratic schools (pp. 1–25). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Calik, M., Ayas, A. & Coll, R. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understandingof solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation, 5, 1–28.

Chiu, M.-H., Chou, C.-C. & Liu, C.-J. (2002). Dynamic processes of conceptual change: Analysis ofconstructing mental models of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8),688–712.

Clough, M. P. (2007). What is so important about asking questions? Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 34(1), 2–4.

Cooperstein, S. E. & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach tolearning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148.

Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.Science Education, 84, 287–312.

Esiobu, G. & Soyibo, K. (1995). Effects of concept and Vee mapping under three learning modes on students’cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 971–995.

Fraser, K. (1993). Theory based use of concept mapping in organizational development: Creating sharedunderstanding as a basis for the cooperative design of work changes in working relationship(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of TeacherEducation, 36(6), 36–49.

Gowin, D. B. (1981). Educating. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Gray, A. (1997). SSTA research centre (Report No. 97-07). Regina, Canada: Saskatchewan School Boards

Association Research Centre.Kenny, R. F. & Wirth, J. (2009). Implementing participatory, constructivist learning experiences through best

practices in live interactive performance. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 9(1), 34–47.Kesici, Ş. (2008). Teachers’ opinions about building a democratic classroom. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 35(2), 192–203.Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning

from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065–1081.

Khalid, A. & Bawaneh, A. (2010). The effectiveness of conflict maps and the V-shape teaching method inscience conceptual change among eighth-grade students in Jordan. International Education Studies, 3(1),96–108.

Khudir, A. (2011). The influence of V-shape strategy on secondary school students’ achievement and theircreative thinking in Arabic grammar. Al-Fateh Journal, 47, 91–132.

Knight, T. (2001). Longitudinal development of educational theory: Democracy and the classroom. Journal ofEducation Policy, 16(3), 249–263.

Korkmaz, H. E. & Gümüşeli, A. İ. (2013). Development of the democratic education environment scale.International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 82–98.

Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Mikdad, H.A. (2004). The impact of using V-shape strategy in teaching physics laboratories to physicsstudents at the University of Applied Sciences on their achievement and attitudes towards physics(Unpublished master thesis). The Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan.

Mintzes, J. J. & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: The epistemological Vee diagram. In J.J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 41–69). London,United Kingdom: Academic.

Mintzes, J. J. & Quinn, H. J. (2007). Knowledge restructuring in biology: Testing a punctuated model ofconceptual change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 281–306.



Moon, B. M., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing,analyzing and organizing knowledge. New York, NY: CRC Press.

Nantawanit, N., Panijpan, B. & Ruenwongsa, P. (2012). Promoting students’ conceptual understanding ofplant defense responses using the fighting plant learning unit (FPLU). International Journal of Scienceand Mathematics Education, 10(4), 827–864.

Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B. & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee

mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645.Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Odom, A. L. & Kelly, P. V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and

osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85, 615–635.Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: An examination

of the potency of the concept-mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 493–504.

Olivares, C., Merino, C. & Quiroz, W. (2014). Gowin’s V as an instrument for systematization of chemicalknowledge. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2064–2068.

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 27(15), 1853–1881.

Polancos, D.T. (2011). Effects of Vee diagram and concept mapping on the achievement of students inchemis t ry. Liceo Journal of Higher Educat ion Research, 7 (1) . Ret r ieved fromhttp://asianscientificjournals.com/publication/index.php/ljher/article/view/17

Smart, J. B. & Marshall, J. C. (2012). Interactions between classroom discourse, teacher questioning, andstudent cognitive engagement in middle school science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 249–267.

Snead, D. & Snead, W. L. (2004). Concept mapping and science achievement of middle grade students.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 306–308.

Stepanek, J. (2000). Mathematics and science classrooms: building a community of learners. Portland:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Subba, D. (2015). Rediscovering democratic values in education. Online International InterdisciplinaryResearch Journal, 5(1), 178–186.

Sunitha, N.H. (2005). Academic learning environment of students from aided and unaided co-educationalhigh school (Master Thesis). University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.

Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guidedinstruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Nova.

Tekeş, H. & Gönen, S. (2012). Influence of V-diagrams on 10th grade Turkish students’ achievement in thesubject of mechanical waves. Science Education International, 23(3), 268–285.

Thao-Do, T. P., BAC-LY, D. T. & Yuenyong, C. (2016). Learning environment in Vietnamese physics teachereducation program through the lens of constructivism: A case study of a state university in Mekong deltaregion, Vietnam. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 55–79.

Thornberg, R. (2010). School democratic meetings: pupil control discourse in disguise. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 26(4), 924–932.

Tortop, H. S. (2012). Effect of Vee diagram for understanding of newtonian laws of motion and attitudetowards physics laboratory. E-Journal of New world Sciences Academy, 7(2), 755–763.

Wilmer, F. (2002). Pedagogy and politics: Democracy in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.montana.edu/facultyexcellence/Papers/ideological%20conflict.pdf

Zaitoon, A. (2007). The constructivism theory and strategies of teaching science. Amman, Jordan: AlShorookfor publication and distribution.

Zeidan, A. (2015). Constructivist learning environment among Palestinian science students. InternationalJournal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 947–964.



http://asianscientificjournals.com/publication/index.php/ljher/article/view/17

http://www.montana.edu/facultyexcellence/Papers/ideological%20conflict.pdf

http://www.montana.edu/facultyexcellence/Papers/ideological%20conflict.pdf

staff.najah.edu€¦ · the following text: "the final publication is available at...

Documents