how teaching methodology affects learners’ outcomeshow teaching methodology affects learners‟...
TRANSCRIPT
1
How Teaching Methodology Affects Learners‟ Outcomes:
A Constructivist Approach to a Middle School
Ceramics Unit
By
Anne M. Kressly
A Research Paper
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
in
Education
Approved: 2 Semester Credits
_____________________________
Dr. James Lehmann
The Graduate School
2
University of Wisconsin-Stout
December, 2010
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author: Kressly, Anne M.
Title: How Teaching Methodology Affects Learners’ Outcomes:
A Constructivist Approach to a Middle School Ceramics Unit
Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education
Research Adviser: James Lehmann, Ph.D.
Month/Year: December, 2010
Number of Pages: 65
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th
edition
Abstract
This paper investigated the use of Constructivist techniques to present factual material to
middle school art students. The experiment included the use of technology, group work,
independent research and creative group demonstrations of knowledge. Research focused on
Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky and how these Constructivist approaches are applicable in 2010,
especially with reference to technology. The participants in the experiment were randomly
selected eighth grade students. The students were all Caucasian and from a rural community.
The number of participants is small, 17 participants in the treatment group and 13 in the control
group. The control group was instructed on factual information and given assessments. The
treatment group researched the factual information and was assessed on their knowledge. After
researching the control group performed better on the assessment than the treatment group. The
3
lecture was more effective than student research. The treatment group also created group
projects to demonstrate their gained knowledge. PowerPoint, posters, puppet shows and a
research paper were available to students to demonstrate their knowledge. Observation
concluded the students were more knowledgeable after the presentations then before the
presentations. For technology to be effectively utilized in the classroom, additional
Constructivist techniques need to be included.
4
Table of Contents
…………………………………………………………………………………………Page
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………..2
Chapter I: Introduction……………………………………………………………………6
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………...7
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………..8
Assumption of the Study…………………………………………………………….8
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………9
Methodology……………………………………………………………………….13
Chapter II: Literature Review……………………………………………………………16
Constructivist verses Traditional Classroom Experience………………………….16
Dewey in the Early 1900’s and 2010………………………………………………19
Piaget in the 1950’s and 2010……………………………………………………..22
Vygotsky in the 1930’s and 2010…………………………………………………..26
Theorists in Contrast………………………………………………………………30
Possibilities in the Art Classroom…………………………………………………32
Chapter III: Methodology………………………………………………………………..34
Subject Selection and Description…………………………………………………34
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………….35
Data Collection Procedure…………………………………………………….…..37
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………..… 39
Limitations…………………………………………………………………………40
Summary……………………………………………………………………….…..41
5
Chapter IV: Results………………………………………………………………………42
The Sample……………………………………………………………….……...…43
Question One: Constructivist Methods…………………………………………….44
Table 1: Impact of Student Performance……………………………...…45
Question Two: Active Learning ...............................................................................47
Table 2: Shift From Teacher to Student Centered Environment…………47
Question Three: Student Preference………………………………………….……48
Table 3: Student Learning Preference…………………………..…….…48
Future Research ………………………………………………...…………………50
Chapter V: Discussion………………………………………………………………...…51
Limitations……………………………………………………………………...….51
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………..52
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………54
References……………………………………………………………………………… 56
Appendix A:……………………………………………………………………………..59
Appendix B:……………………………………………………………………………..60
Appendix C: ...…………………………………………………………………………..61
Appendix D:……………………………………………………………………………..62
Appendix E:……………………………………………………………………………..63
Appendix F:………..……………………………………………………………………65
6
Chapter I: Introduction
A number of years ago, the Prescott, Wisconsin school district adopted the Wisconsin
Model Academic Standards. Correspondingly, each discipline adopted the academic standards
created especially for the discipline. The goal was to create standard expectations for students.
For example, describing what students will be expected to know leaving eighth grade. Since that
time, the teachers in the district have been striving to align the curriculum so that students will
have the best possible learning experience while complying with the state standards. The
teachers closely examine the curriculum to determine whether the students are learning the
necessary skills and concepts. The district does not “teach to the test” (WKCE- the high stakes
test for the state), but instead strive to teach the students to use higher-order thinking skills. In an
effort to improve the Visual Arts learning experience at the Middle School and promote learning,
while also ensuring the Wisconsin Model Standards for Art and Design are met. I conducted a
study utilizing constructivist principles to investigate the effects of a Constructivist classroom on
the learning experience for the students. The goal was to determine whether constructivist
theories and practices could be integrated into my middle school art classroom. It was also my
hope that my findings could assist other art educators‟ move towards a constructivist classroom.
In recent years, I have observed a marked decline in students‟ problem-solving skills.
Whether this is based on a lack of desire, or ability, on the parts of the students is unclear. The
students increasingly seem to prefer the teacher simply provide the answers rather than seeking
out knowledge. I consider a number of my classroom projects to be on the Constructivist
spectrum. An art classroom has an array of opportunities for hands on learning and problem
solving. Students often run into problems or impediments. I often find myself providing
answers, rather than encourage the student to problem solve. In art education there is
7
foundational knowledge that needs to be administered. In the past lecture has been my preferred
method to introduce these topics. This has allowed me to ensure that the topics in the Wisconsin
Model Standards for Art and Design are met. This method has been met with mixed results.
Lecture provides structure and allows me to efficiently get through the material. However, I find
students quickly lose interest. These students do not retain the information long without
application; they often perform poorly on tests. In this study, I wanted to view the results of
using constructivist practices, whether this method of instruction would promote the use of
critical thinking skills in my students, or if they would continue to rely on the teacher to
problem-solve and provide the information required to memorize for and pass the test.
Specifically, I wanted to attempt using Constructivist principles in an area usually taught by
lecture.
Statement of the Problem
A problem exists in that the Wisconsin Model Standards for Art and Design require
certain factual information to be taught, at Prescott Middle School lecture has been the preferred
method to teach these topics; however, lecture seems to disinterest and bore students. Will using
Constructivist learning techniques including technology, student lead research, and group
projects and demonstrations, yield a better understanding of factual information in art education
than students who are taught using strictly traditional lecture techniques?
1. Does constructivist instruction have a direct impact on student performance?
2. In what ways may constructivist approaches to teaching facilitate a shift from a teacher-
centered learning environment to one that is student centered?
3. In what ways may constructivist strategies positively impact student learning?
8
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine if teaching general factual information, like the
difference between functional and non-functional ceramics, is best done using Constructivist
teaching methods, or traditional lecture. This understanding would drive curriculum
development for the future. If Constructivist methods are not beneficial, then more lectures
could be used. Specifically, Constructionist techniques in combination with technology in art
education will be assessed. Technology is becoming an increasingly important component in
classrooms and the world of art. Appropriate and useful ways to weave this into the curriculum
are useful. This would save time and allow more material from the Wisconsin Model of
Academic Standards for Art and Design to be taught more thoroughly. If Constructivist methods
are beneficial to students then the art curriculum could be redeveloped to include more
Constructivist learning methods, while still covering the material required by the Wisconsin
Model Academic Standards for Art and Design. This could be done by including several topics
in the same unit, or covering a several topics thoroughly and a several topics more broadly. In
order to make these evaluations, determining if Constructivist methods are effective is crucial.
Assumptions of the Study
There are a number of assumptions relating to the researcher, student capabilities and the
composition of the treatment group and the control group. This study assumes that students do
not know the definition of functionalist and non-functionalist ceramics. If one or two students in
a class knew the answers to the questions the results would be altered. The pre-test is aimed to
ensure that this is not the case. For similar reasons it is assumed that students are not discussing
answers in between classes. This would also alter the results. There is an assumption that
students will answer the surveys and tests honestly and to the best of their ability. Students‟
9
ability to research on the computer and understand the results is an assumed capability. This is a
reasonable assumption for eighth grade students.
The researcher is assumed to be unbiased. The researcher will present the same amount
of excitement and enthusiasm about the topic to both the control group and the treatment groups.
The effects teacher‟s enthusiasm has on students may be a useful research project, but it is not
the focus of this paper. The researcher will not deliver answers about the task to the treatment
group; rather encourage students to seek out answers from researching or critically thinking
about the issue. Because the students in the treatment and control group were randomly
assigned, it is assumed academic performance, interest level and general makeup of the treatment
group and the control group equal.
Definitions of Terms
Accommodation: Learners use accommodations when they adjust their schema according
to the new information provided.
Active learning environments: Active learning environments are situations in which
students are encouraged to problem solve, think critically, work collaboratively, and engage in
hands-on projects.
Art-making process: The art-making process can be a number of actions or procedures
that involve materials and ideas to be manipulated and refined, reflecting ideas or emotions.
Art: Art is a process or product to communicate an idea or feeling in an expressive
manner.
Assimilation: Assimilation is the process of acquiring new information for a learner‟s
schema.
Authentic: Authentic experiences are genuine or real life experiences.
10
Blog: User created Web site where a log of items are created
Ceramics: Ceramics are non-metallic porous objects made out of clay and fired in a kiln
at a high temperature.
Child Centered: Child-centered learning and learning activities are centered around and
on the child, as opposed to learning that is teacher directed and delivered to the student. Students
are empowered to control their own learning when its child centered.
Child-Originated Learning : Child-originated learning is directed and developed by the
student to meet and satisfy his or her own needs.
Cognitive Constructivism: Cognitive constructivism is a child-centered approach to the
individual process of learning, where the emphasis is placed upon the individual learner.
Constructivism: Constructivism is a theory of learning in which the learner constructs
knowledge and meaning that is influenced by past experiences and learning, the environment,
and social interactions. Knowledge is built or constructed gradually, delivered not just by a
teacher or expert but also affected and influenced by the context in which it is occurring.
(Dewey, 1998)
Cooperative Learning: Cooperative learning involves students working together in
groups to complete a task.
Disequilibration: Disequilibration is a state of cognitive conflict that learners experience
when they are provided with new information that conflicts with previous information. Students
encounter difficulty in learning when they are in a state of disequilibration and seek
equilibration.
Epistemological: Epistemological beliefs are those that a teacher would hold regarding
learning and knowledge.
11
Equilibration: Equilibration occurs when students attempt to acquire a state of
balance.
Functional Ceramics: Functional ceramics are ceramic items or objects that have a
purpose or function, such as a cup or a bowl.
Google: Search engine used to search for words or phrases on the Internet.
Inquiry Learning: Inquiry learning is a teaching tool that allows students to actively
locate, gather, and analyze information.
Non-Functional Ceramics: Non-functional ceramics are objects or items that do not
have a purpose other than decoration.
Objectivist Learning Model: The objectivist (traditional) learning model is that in which
the teacher delivers all of the information to the students. The teacher controls the learning and
decides what, when, and where it will happen. Students do not take responsibility in the process
of their learning.
Podcasting: Similar to a radio broadcast, transmitting prerecorded content via the internet
to others who download them.
Photosharing: Severs on the Internet where a user can upload photographs. Service can
be used to store, manipulate or share photos with others.
RSS Feed: Allows users to determine what is worth reading or not, provides a collection
of stories relevant to your interests.
Social Constructivism: Social constructivism is a theory of learning that is based on the
belief that the child learns from interactions with others and their environment.
12
Scaffolding: Teachers use scaffolding to support the learners when they are in the zone
of proximal development. Scaffolding is a support process that helps the student reach the next
level of learning.
Schema: Learners create schema out of cognitive structures of similar experiences.
Traditional Learning Model: The traditional learning model is also known as the
objectivist-learning model. See the definition above.
Problem Solving: Problem solving is a process by which a student uses skills to define
the problem, develop possible solutions using investigation, and determine which of those
solutions may be the best choice.
Teacher-Directed Instruction: Teacher-directed instruction is curriculum or learning
that is designed and delivered solely by the teacher.
Teacher-Framed Instruction: Teacher-framed instruction is a method of teaching in
which students are given a minimal amount of instruction and directions. Teachers set up the
structure of the problem or activity, and the students work to solve it. Students must problem
solve and find a solution to the problem. The problems are typically open ended and a can have a
variety of solutions rather than just one correct answer. Teachers help the students make
connections between previous learning and their new discoveries.
Web 2.0: Second generation of web based communities, users can read and add content.
Zone of Proximal Development: The zone of proximal development is the place
between the students‟ current level of knowledge and the level they will have after the learning
takes place (Vygotsky, 1978). Constructivists believe that during the journey between the two
states of being, the students will gradually build their level of learning or meaning.
13
Limitations of the Study
A study of this size has certain limitations. First, the students are familiar with the
instructor. All students have had a number of classes with the instructor previously. The
students are therefore familiar to the type of teaching the instructor executes and the expectations
the instructor has. They are “accustomed to viewing the material from the instructor‟s
perspective.” This could have a number of effects. The students may be expecting one result or
format of exam at the end of the unit. The exam may not fit with their expectations; their study
methods were therefore ill placed. The students could also expect the format of exam and know
what is important to look for. This could allow some students to do well that otherwise would
not. The sample size is small, 13 students in the control and 17 students in the treatment. The
small sample size may make it difficult to extrapolate results and apply results to a large scale.
The small sample size also makes it difficult to interpret data. The results can be noticeably
different depending on the post-test or pre-test answers from one or two students in either group.
The researcher acting as the instructor and information gatherer limits the study. A third person
gathering data may be more attune to differences in teaching, presentation, differences in
classroom management, ultimate results or classroom composition. Similarly, if the researcher
observed a different teacher teach using constructivist verses traditional methods additional
results addressing teaching methods and results may be compiled.
Methodology
The study will focus on whether students learn better in a Constructivist or a traditional
classroom environment. The treatment group will research the difference between functionalist
and non-functionalist ceramics in the computer lab. The treatment group will then create a
demonstration or project displaying what they have learned. The control group will be given a
14
traditional lecture on the differences between functionalist and non-functionalist ceramics. Both
groups will be administered a pre-test to assess any previous knowledge and a post-test to assess
their gained knowledge. The classroom environment will be the students regular art education
room in Prescott Middle School. This is the same room the students have received art instruction
for the previous two years. The treatment group will conduct research in a computer lab located
about 300 feet from the art education classroom. There are enough computers for every student
to have their own. The students involved are second semester eighth grade art exploratory
students. The students have art every other day, „day one‟ or „day two.‟ The 13 day one students
will be the control group and the 17 day two students will be the treatment group. The lesson for
the control group will take one class period. The lesson for the treatment group will take three
class periods.
The treatment group will be taught using constructivist teaching methods. These students
will make decisions about their learning. Students will decide how best to demonstrate their
knowledge of functional and non-functional ceramics. Students will decide if they will work
with partners. Students will choose their partners. Students will decide between preparing a
PowerPoint, developing and presenting a puppet show or writing a report. The
researcher/instructor will take observation, or field, notes of the students while they are working
on the research portion of the project. The students will be given three surveys. The first survey
(survey 1) will be a pre-assessment to see what prior knowledge the students have about
functional and nonfunctional ceramics and their attitudes about the importance of each. The
second survey (survey 2) will be conducted after the students have had an opportunity to conduct
research on the Internet. The third survey (survey 3) will be conducted after the students present
their research to their peers and the researcher/instructor.
15
The control group will be introduced to the ceramics unit and the concepts of functional
and non-functional ceramics using a traditional style of lecture and examples. The control group
will be administered survey 1 before the unit starts and survey 2 after the lecture. The students
will also complete an assigned project to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts. The
treatment group will take survey 3 at the end of the unit.
16
Chapter II: Review of Literature
Constructivist verses Traditional Classroom
Constructivist theory is an established paradigm with seeds that can be traced back to the
time of Socrates. Socrates developed the Socratic dialogue, focusing on the utility of small
groups, stressing critical and independent thinking. The Socratic Method focuses on asking both
specific and general questions to the individual and the group. The aim is to deepen the
understanding of the subject material. “Socratic dialogue draws on specific and concrete
experiences of participants in response to an initial question” (Moir, 2004, p. 30).
Constructivism differs from the traditional approach to teaching and education. The
traditional model focuses on discrete disciplines; a discipline centers on a group of related facts
and ideas. The facts are not disputable; rather, the facts are simply conveyed as the truth. These
facts are put into a framework and taught to students in a structured curriculum (Prater, 2001).
“Curriculum involves creating a sequence of objectives that expose students to the “facts” of a
discipline in a manner that reflects their hierarchy” Greene‟s work (as cited in Prater, 2001, p.
44). The traditional education requires students to mimic or repeat back new information.
Teachers are in a superior position in the classroom hierarchy. Teachers are the keepers of
information and they decide what and how new information will be learned. The teacher is able
to rehearse and recite, and choose material the teacher is comfortable and knowledgeable about.
Students do not witness the gestation of the teacher‟s thoughts (Belenky, Clinchy, Gildberger &
Tarule, 1997, Chapter 10). Students take greater risks than the teacher. Consequently, students
perceive the teacher as infallible. The student then “tries to look at the material through the
teacher‟s eyes” (Prater, 2001 p. 45). The student is almost a “spectator” to the classroom
experience; having to adapt to the teacher‟s methods (Belenky et al., 1997). Students do not
17
have control over, or say about the learning process. They often feel inferior, possibly due to the
hierarchical structure of the classroom. As a result there is apprehension and tension between
students and teachers and students refrain from asking questions.
Traditional academic activities are abstracted from their settings and mastered by
the child in isolation from the main currents of his life. The activities seem to him
alien, artificial, and irrelevant. As a consequence, he does them in a perfunctory
and languid manner. The speed and amount of achievement are disappointing.
(Bobbit, 1934, p. 257)
Constructivist theory is an alternative to the traditional approach. Constructivist theory
believes that students construct meaning and learning over time (Brooks & Brooks, 1993).
Students construct meaning based on their previous experiences; new learning is therefore
connected to past experiences. As past and present learning is connected, new knowledge is
constructed. Constructivism suggests that teachers understand how students learn. The teacher
should master how the learning process is most effective and then develop a classroom that
utilizes this knowledge. Followers of Constructivism believe Constructivism changes the
environment of the classroom and enables the most children to learn the most effectively.
Learning is fluid, it is constantly changing as new connections are made, remade, and
expanded (Prater, 2001). The experiences of the learner are the key element in constructivism; it
allows meanings to be formed and problems to be solved in a more efficient and beneficial way
than if the experiences of the learner are stripped from the dialogue (Simspon, 1996).
Constructivism has gained momentum since the 1960‟s. An increasing number of teachers
are utilizing the technique, albeit with mixed results. Teachers have reported behavioral
problems when Constructivist techniques are used. When students are given freedom to talk and
18
move around it increases the opportunities for behavioral problems. Constructivism encourages
movement in the classroom. This movement costs time. The extra transition time and time
dedicated to activities when using Constructivist techniques can deplete conventional classroom
learning time (Applefield, Huber & Moallem, 2001). Proponents of Constructivism have argued
that Constructivism makes the student more involved and interested, students will therefore be
less inclined to disrupt the classroom (Dewey, 1903).
There has been a renewed interest in Constructivism in the past few decades. With the
advent of technology, there are more ways to analyze student‟s progress, more ways to teach
children and more ways for teachers to learn. Historically, Constructivism has focused on a
„should‟ model. Dewey and Piaget instructed teachers on how they should teach. Today‟s
researchers have concluded that the working definition of a Constructivist classroom is on a
continuum (Vermette et al., 2001). Teachers can do many things to encourage a Constructivist
classroom. There is no „should‟ model (Vermette et al., 2001). On one side of the spectrum
students are asked to answer open-ended questions, rather than filling in blanks or finding
definitions. On the other side of the spectrum, students are in control of their learning
experience. Student control could include designing curriculum and presentations, rather than
teachers designing presentation and curriculum (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In a completely
Constructivist classroom teachers could act more like facilitators and remove exhaustive
directions and instructions about projects and experiments. Students would be required to forge
the way for themselves. In the middle of the spectrum is, perhaps, a combination of lecture,
group projects and open-ended questions (Howard, et al., 2000, p. 457). Teachers do not have to
relinquish all control. Researchers suggest this is the best way to begin using the method.
19
In a controlled Constructivist classroom students can develop questions for continued
research. Teachers can construct worksheets and study guides with terminology like “classify,”
“analyze,” “predict” and “create.” Researchers pose that teachers make simple changes like
waiting a somewhat uncomfortable time to allow time for questions and create a more
Constructivist classroom (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p. 17). There are seemingly endless
possibilities.
The introduction of technology opens up a number of new creative avenues that were not
present when Brooks & Brooks wrote in 1993. Technology can engage students (Prater, 2001).
However, it can be easy to become so involved with technology that the purpose of the lesson is
lost (Earnon, 2006). The theories of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky have proved invaluable to the
understanding of Constructivism. Most researchers today still dedicate a significant amount of
their research space to the thoughts and theories of founders. Using technology does not make
the writing of the founders obsolete. Rather, it increased the importance critiquing current
teaching techniques under the eyes of Dewey or Piaget.
Dewey in the Early 1900’s and 2010
Dewey (1938) thought that students‟ life experiences would stimulate learning and cause
connections to be made outside of the classroom with the world around them. Dewey submitted
that education should begin with what the child is interested in and connect education with
activities. By connecting with activities, curriculum would be mastered in the process (Sidorkin,
2009).
Discovery of typical modes of activity, whether play or useful occupations, in which
individuals are concerned, in whose outcome they recognize they have something at stake,
20
cannot be carried through without reflection and use of judgment to select material of
observation and recollection. (Dewey, 1966, p.132)
Dewey asserted that the best way to master curriculum is to problem solve and trouble shoot.
This is sort of a “learning the hard way” approach. Problems are regularly encountered in
students‟ daily activities, in and out of the classroom. The best way to become connected to the
material and realize connections within and between material is to problem solve. This can be
accomplished after thinking, considering and applying a number of solutions to a problem. The
process of problem solving reinforces learning (Sutinen, 2008). The students likely will retain
this knowledge better than if they are given instruction and a solution. This technique is
applicable at any cognitive level. “The formation of knowledge requires constructive action
from the child at every stage of the emergence of thinking” (Sutinen, 2008, p. 12).
A Constructivist classroom in 2010 can apply these basic building blocks that Dewey
developed. Rather than teaching concepts without any context, a teacher can help students
connect the information to their daily lives. Instead of presenting the material and testing on it a
teacher can introduce the material and then encourage students to problem solve (Simspon, 1996,
p. 56). After a period of time problem solving and hypothesizing, the rest of the concept can be
introduced. The assessment can reflect the change in learning strategies. The students can be
required to construct projects, rather than complete an exam (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, pg. 17).
Teaching concept in this way will force students to work to the edges of the capability, and then
assist the student to have complete understanding (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). There are potential
drawbacks to teaching this way. Students, especially students unaccustomed to Constructivist
learning, may become frustrated early on. Students may shut down and refuse to continue
(Gillies, 2007, p. 56). It is the job of a Constructivist teacher to identify these problems, assist
21
students to keep up momentum and still make students accountable for their actions. This can be
accomplished through teacher feedback and individual, recurring assessment (Gillies, 2007,
p.56).
Technology can also be adopted to facilitate constructivism. “The computer serves as the
central tool for a classroom that makes use of Constructivist learning tasks. The computer assists
students in the construction of meaning for concepts, in its ability, to serve simultaneously as an
information resource, an interactive learning tool, and a storage device” (Prater, 2001).
Computers have a remarkable ability to engage students. Often, situations, which, to some
students, would be boring and dry, become interesting, interactive and informational. Dewey
was encouraging of devices that made curriculum more engaging to students. Dewey stressed
the need for students to interact with their learning experience. The key to successful integration
of computer technology in the classroom is having the right direction, the right programs and
facilitation (Marlowe & Page, 2005).
Students too often do not use time on computers well. Student reports are just a collection of
phrases of the Internet. Students often spend the majority of time decorating their report with
clip-art (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 105). Using technology does not itself make a Constructivist
classroom. Passive learning will be passive learning with or without a computer (Marlowe &
Page, 2005, p. 105). Although, Dewey says there is value in knowledge obtained through play,
structure still needs to be present.
There have been constructive uses of technology. The use of PowerPoint shows can be
useful for students to develop. The student can become involved in the construction and then
share their excitement with everyone. Students, however, can also be passive onlookers and not
gain much substance (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 106). There are, on average 4.1 computers per
22
student (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 102). Most schools are wired for internet in the classroom.
The usefulness of technology as a Constructivist tool is directly connected to the teacher‟s
experience integrating technology into the classroom (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 103). Many
teachers are using computers for memorization drills; few are using computers to engage in
higher-level thinking (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 103). Even though there is overwhelming
research that students excel using Constructivist techniques, teachers are not utilizing these
techniques (Marlowe & Page, 2005, p. 15).
Piaget in the 1950’s and 2010
Piaget was a Swiss developmental psychologist. His work was primarily in the early to
middle 1900‟s. Dewey was interested in the application of learning; Piaget was more interested
in the mechanics behind learning. Piaget is best known for his theories on genetic epistemology,
which is the study of how knowledge develops in humans, as well as cognitive development.
Piaget‟s theories about constructivism have two equal components. The first component
addresses how students construct knowledge, or cognitive development. Piaget believed that
students could not just be given knowledge and be able to understand and use this knowledge
immediately. He proposed that students need to construct knowledge themselves to be able to
understand and use it (Piaget, 1953). The influence of Dewey is evident in Piaget‟s theory.
Piaget used this core component as a base for his second component.
The second component is sometimes referred to as “ages and stages.” Ages and stages, as
the name suggests, addresses what children can be expected to understand at different ages.
Piaget asserted children travel through four stages of development. These stages construct
schemas, or a cognitive structure of similar experiences for each child. Schemas assist children in
organizing and interpreting information. The schema keeps collecting information until it
23
becomes a category or group of similar information. The categories get larger as more
information is acquired and more experiences have been had. The categories will start to
interconnect and overlap. Then something happens or is learned which contradicts the existing
knowledge. The child will then start a new schema, either ignoring the new knowledge or
reconstructing the existing schema to hold it (Prater, 2001).
Piaget developed four ages of development for educators and parents to understand how to
best promote schema. From ages zero to age two the average child is in the sensorimotor stage.
Sensorimotor is when children use their senses to learn about the world around them, language
also emerges at this stage. From ages 2 to age 7 is the preoperational stage, children further
develop language skills and begin to make a distinction between symbols and pictures in the
world around them. Piaget called this “symbolic function.” Children also start using “intuitive
thought” at this stage; intuitive thought is noticeable in children‟s continual desire to ask
questions about their surroundings. The concrete operational stage from ages 7 to 11 is very
important to a child‟s development. In the concrete operational stage, children let go of intuitive
thought and start using logical reasoning. At this age many students start to excel in mathematics
or more advanced literature. The last stage is formal operational, from ages 11 to adulthood. In
this stage abstract ideas are used in problem solving and higher levels of thinking are being
engaged in. The belief that these stages represent the development of logical thinking is widely
accepted (Powell & Kalina, 2009).
Piaget‟s theory of equilibration, assimilation and accommodation states that children try to be
in mental balance. When children move from stage to stage they experience mental turmoil.
Piaget calls this disequilibrium. Children try to understand the new information they are getting
which causes mental stress, or disequilibrium. Disequilibrium makes children uncomfortable, so
24
they adjust their schema to accommodate the new information. The process of acquiring new
information for their schema Piaget calls assimilation. When the schemas have to be changed
because of the new information, it is accommodation. Students go through the processes of
assimilation and accommodation when they are learning; they are acquiring new information and
try to make it fit with what they already know (Powell & Kalina, 2009).
Piaget is credited with the development of cognitive constructivist theory. Students construct
their own ideas using a personal process. Piaget focused on the individual and the process that
they go through to construct knowledge (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Piaget also believed that
students should be able to have spontaneous experimentation either by themselves or with others.
Being able to experiment facilitates cognitive development and challenges student thinking.
When students‟ thinking is challenged, knowledge has to be constructed or reconstructed and
tested over and over again until the conflict is resolved and information is accommodated (Green
& Gredler, 2002). “In Piagetian theory, the material world should be a staring point for
learning, because it is both accessible and contains complexities of which children have never
dreamed” Duckworth‟s work (as sited by Green and Gredler, 2002, p.56).
Technology in the classroom has been revolutionary for spontaneous experimentation, the
construction of schema and disseminating information to all age levels. Quickly, students can
look up information, ideas, papers, newspapers, and primary source data and determine answers
or solutions. Every year new programs are developed to facilitate learning. A lifetime of
information is a few clicks away. For example, sophisticated programs like ActivStats for SPSS
have changed how empirical research is done in the classroom. SPSS “empowers” students to
develop their own understanding of statistical concepts. Quickly, students can take a number of
variables and using the computer program determines if there are any correlations within the data
25
(Mills & Johnson, 2004). Students can gain knowledge of statistics from class and activities;
then run statistical analysis challenging this knowledge. They can incorporate these ideas into
their Schema. Often statistical information found will contradict established perceptions, other
times it will affirm ideas discussed in class. The student‟s schema will be reworked to include
this idea. Programs like this help the student become better problem solvers. The problem is
that programs like ActivStats for SPSS are generally found exclusively in universities. The cost
can be prohibitive for public school districts. This is true for many sophisticated software
programs. This technology is expanding and becoming more accessible.
Many school districts now have subscriptions to interactive databases. These can be on CD-
ROM, or online databases like EBSCO HOST (Prater, 2001). These subscriptions allow students
access to almost unlimited, current information on whatever topic they desire. The student can
be inspired to learn and have access to answers. No longer are teachers the keepers of
information (Caine & Caine, 1997). If the student thinks that the teacher is wrong, students can
go look up the answer. They can challenge the teacher‟s perceived infallibility. The student can
take possession of their learning. Piaget‟s assimilation is present when students become intrigued
and look up new information. The students then have to accommodate this new information.
Schema can be developed rapidly. The Internet can “maintain and support student dialogue and
inquiry outside and during class” (Prater, 2001, p. 48).
However, search engines like Google often remove students from the learning experience.
The searching of a string of key words can separate content from its context (Earnon 2006, p.
298). Facts need to be supported by the other media and information. Sending students off by
themselves to interpret data often leads to misunderstandings. Teachers are there to help
students comprehend the material (Earnon, 2006). Students are learning to rely too much on the
26
Internet. Students no longer know how to research or think critically about their results.
Students clearly prefer researching on Google to going to the library and searching for a journal
or book (Barberio, 2004, p. 308). Students now think there is no need to problem solve. All the
answers will be on Google (Earnon, 2006). The Internet allows for spontaneous
experimentation, which Piaget was an advocate of. But, the Internet can also handicap problem
solving.
The Piagetian theory of learning holds that learning should be an active process where
mistake can be made and where students can have direct experiences in order to solve problems.
Problem or conflict solving is important for accommodation and assimilation. The other key
principal is that learning needs to be authentic and real. Students should be engaged in
interesting activities that connect them to the world around them. Piaget thought that meaning
would be constructed as students participated in real activities. Technology in the classroom
continues to run into the same problems. The students are not taking the technology seriously.
Students are not using technology to think at a higher level. Vygotsky developed principles on
structure, accountability and community that may be helpful to ground technology in the
classroom and give the idea more depth.
Vygotsky in the 1930’s and 2010
Vygotsky was a soviet psychologist and the founder of cultural-historical psychology. He
primarily wrote at the beginning of the 20th
century. He was a prolific writer but most of his
work did not appear in English publications until the 1960‟s and later. Consequently, he is not as
well known as Dewy and Piaget. Vygotsky is credited with developing the theory of social
constructivism, which is based on collaboration, social interaction and personal experiences
(Powell & Kalina, 2009). His philosophies about learning are similar to Piaget and Dewey. But,
27
while Piaget focuses on the technical aspects of the brain and learning, Vygotsky focuses more
on the utility of a learning community. Teachers and other adults are considered tools whose
purpose is to convey the culture and language to the student. Vygotsky asserted that there are
specific skills associated with cognitive development, namely: voluntary attention, conceptual
thinking, logical memory and categorical perception. He called these skills higher psychological
or cognitive functions. Developing the high level skills is dependent on two interrelated
developmental attributes. The first attribute is for the student to learn and understand the
symbols and written language of the culture in which that student lives. The other attribute is
learning to master these symbols so that the student can carry out cognitive tasks.
Adult –child interactions enable understanding language and symbols as well as mastering
these symbols, according to Vygotsky. Vygotsky‟s encouragement of adult-child relationships
compliments Piaget‟s four stages of development. When a student goes to school they start to
have an awareness of their cognitive functions and gain some control over them. This growing
awareness with instruction will lead to higher psychological functioning (Green & Gredler,
2002).
Vygotsky developed the idea of the zone of proximal development, which is the difference or
space between what a learner can do by themselves and what a learner can do with guidance or
assistance. Vygotsky said, “the zone of proximal development defines those functions that have
not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are
currently in an embryonic state” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86).
The zone of proximal development controls how a student learns. Students learn the best
when they are pushed the edge of understanding on their own and then can have assistance from
others to understand the remainder. This is the essence of the zone of proximal development.
28
Students try to do the task with what they already know about the problem. Once the problem is
solved the zone of proximal development grows and the student can do more by themselves.
Learning in the zone of proximal development is based on what the students can do by
themselves with teachers pulling their mind and assisting the student in articulating and
understanding the rest (Powell & Kalina, 2009).
Scaffolding is also part of Vygotsky „s social constructivist theory. Scaffolding supports the
student when they are in the zone of proximal development. Classmates, teachers, peers and
other adults give support to the student while they climb to reach the next level of understanding.
During scaffolding the student will internalize information and how it connects to them
personally, scaffolding will ultimately allow the student to solve the task (Powell & Kalina,
2009). As ideas and technology are introduced it is the teacher‟s job to support and guide the
student.
It would seem that Vygotsky would be supportive of the use of computers in the classroom.
Computers are a symbol of our culture and time. A student needs to be able to master the
computer and related software in order to be competitive in the job market (Bell, 2009).
However, the use of technology still needs to be within the zone of proximal development.
Students should be given opportunities to challenge themselves technologically and challenge
themselves while addressing the material. It is the job of the learning community to make
students accountable for their actions on the computer and to challenge each other to learn more.
Ann Bell (2009) asserts that using Web 2.0 applications “can assist learners in moving up the
ladder toward higher-order thinking skills from remembering, to understanding, to applying, to
analyzing, to evaluating, to finally creating” (p. 7). Web 2.0 allows the Internet to be more
interactive. The Web allows you to read and write. Web 1.0 restricted users to publish and
29
browse (Bell, 2009, p.1). Bell submits that although teachers are crucial in facilitating learning
on computers, teachers also need to facilitate safety (Bell, 2009, p. 9). Bell‟s aim is to educate
teachers on the different technological options available. To Bell (2009) programs like Web 2.0
build a community and participation. They embody Vygotsky‟s thesis. Students should not be
limited to just Internet searches, or just online databases. Students should be exposed to a
number of different technological outlets. When teachers learn and understand RSS Feeds,
photo sharing, blogging and podcasting, the students will benefit. Bell is also an advocate of
teaching about Wikipedia, something many educators are resistant to do. Wikipedia has been
seen as a site to distrust because it is user centered. But, students can be empowered when they
see that individual users can have a voice. Students can also be taught to think critically about
where their information is coming from. Students can be taught to check and cross check
information. When students are aware of the world they live in, they can be better participants in
it.
Blogs for instance encourage a learning community, encourage interaction with
knowledge and information and challenge students to problems solve. A blog is a website posted
to on a regular basis. Blogs bring in the community aspect that Vygotsky advocated. Blogs
challenge schema. When students read other people‟s blogs they have to think critically about
the content and depend on their own knowledge. They may have to double check it with another
source, and then assimilate that new knowledge (Bell, 2009, Chapter 6)
The concept of cooperative learning is essential to achieving a deep understanding of the
material being covered, according to Vygotsky. Students should work with their peers, other
classmates and teachers. According to Vygotsky, groups can offer each other much more than if
the student is working alone. When the tasks or problem is solved the information is
30
internalized, on an individual bases, depending on the cultural experiences the individual student
has had (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Students bring all sorts of experiences to the classroom with
them. These experiences affect what the student will learn and internalize. Blogs are an
excellent way to bring these individual experiences into the classroom while still directing the
class towards individual goals (Bell, 2009, p. 75). When students interact over a common
learning activity they each bring their own individual experiences to the event. These different
perceptions have an impact on what the student learns. When they interact they construct new
meanings for the event while simultaneously reconstructing the meaning as they learn. New
meaning and the experiences of the others in the class are integrated into the learning (Prater,
2001). Vygotsky‟s asserted that learning is intrinsically social, and is rooted in specific cultural
events settings (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Learning is not done in isolation it is a shared
experience with others to achieve a deep understanding. Bell has applied Vygotsky to the
twenty-first century.
The Theorists in Contrast
Thinking about the individual theorists individually is useful when comparing their thoughts
to 21st Century application. The theorists, however, should be compared with each other as well.
There are differences between Cognitive Constructivism that was developed by Piaget and Social
Constructivism that was developed by Vygotsky is subtle. Understanding these differences is
important. When a deep understanding is present then the teacher will be the master of the
language and symbols around them. For example, a teacher who has mastered technology will
be better able to utilize it in the classroom. According to Vygotsky, this is necessary for any
useful application. Piaget focused on the individual and what causes them to think, learn and
interpret information. He also thought that learning was a personal internal process that
31
individual goes through. Cognitive constructivism believes that thought comes before language
and the construction and reconstruction of ideas are based on prior experiences. Cognitive
constructivism places an emphasis on facts and developing schemas. In Piaget‟s view social
interaction does happen and could even be part of the learning process, but it‟s a personal
internal process based on prior experiences that facilitates learning. This personal internal
process begins with inner speech. As the learner matures, inner speech is shed (Powell &
Kalina, 2009).
Vygotsky, unlike Piaget, thought that social interaction, language and the individual‟s culture
effected how they learned. According to Powell & Kalina (2009, p. 246), “social interaction
and culturally organized activities are necessary in the classroom for proper psychological
development.” Activities should be planed that are at the students level of understanding, but
that also cause the learner to seek help to reach the next level of understanding. The activities
need to be interesting to the learner and be difficult enough that they enter the zone of proximal
development. The application of technology to Piaget‟s theory of Constructivism is applicable to
Vygotsky as well. If a student is interested in technology or the software and given a challenging
purpose, then the student will perform better.
There is a basic difference between Social Constructivism and Cognitive Constructivism.
Social Constructivism emphasizes the interactions and relationships that a learner has with
others. Cognitive Constructivism focuses on the individual ability to think and how ideas are
interpreted. There are, however, commonalities between the two theories. The two theories
agree that students actively construct their own learning (Green & Gredler, 2002). Students need
to be guided by teachers or facilitators as they construct their learning. Vygotsky and Piaget also
valued inquiry learning, where students ask questions.
32
There is a clear contrast between Constructivist learning models and objectivist or traditional
learning model. The traditional model encourages teachers to control the learning and
instruction. Students receive learning and accept it passively (Howard, et al., 2000). The teacher
designs the curriculum and delivers it; students do not make any active contributions to the
learning.
A Constructivist learning model promotes students engagement in active learning
environments, where students can think critically, work collaboratively and engage in problem
solving. This should be a goal of all educators, whether using technology, or not. The students
find the solutions to problems and challenges, the answers are not just given to them. This type
of learning is child centered. This is not to suggest that there cannot be a blend between the two
the two types. As shown, teachers try to incorporate Constructivist concepts into the classroom.
This has admittedly mixed results.
Possibilities In the Art Classroom
The art classroom as a constructivist-learning environment seems like a perfect match. Art
rooms have many opportunities for students to make connections with each other and their
environment. Art projects give students the time and space needed to problem solve and try
solutions. Students may also make connections with other disciplines while problem solving and
interacting with their peers. Students can be taught, for example, about art history or geography
simultaneous to learning about the Impressionist period in art or the Renaissance. Teaching
about art fosters connection making and linking of ideas about themselves and their world
(Simspon, 1996).
Computers and art work well together. A student can participate in photo sharing and then
manipulate these photos. The development of a web page requires an understanding of shapes
33
and color connections. The web is appealing, in part because it is so visually appealing.
Technology in the Art Classroom has the potential to increase the number of students that are
attracted to art (Prater, 2001). Watercolors and acrylics have their place. The computer prepares
a whole new canvas. This canvas may be more inexpensive, may challenge students in a
different way, leads directly to lucrative careers and open up the world of art to more students.
Showing students how to express themselves through art adds another possible link to the
world and themselves. “Encouraging students to reveal new understandings through personal
visual expression adds another dimension to the interpretation of meaning. Using the students‟
experiential base, building on that base through the introduction of a different perspective of a
concept, and, allowing the two sources of information to come together through art-like
behavior, provides a strong verbal/visual synthesis” (Simspon, 1996, p.56). If students are to
engage in a higher level of thinking and learning though analysis and interpretation art projects
or art production is a very good vehicle for that. When students become personally involved in
their artwork they take ownership of the project and their learning. They exhibit a higher level of
thinking (Milbrandt, Felts, Richards, & Abghari, 2004, p.24)
34
Chapter III: Methodology
Teaching methodology has an effect on learners‟ outcome; does a Constructivist method
enhance learning? The purpose of this study is to determine if teaching general factual
information in an art classroom, like the difference between functional and non-functional
ceramics, is best done using Constructivist teaching methods, or traditional lecture. The teacher
has traditionally controlled learning in which students passively absorb the material being
presented. Students do not make decisions or judgments about their learning; they simply take
what is delivered to them. With constructivist theory students control their own learning
building on past and present experiences to construct new knowledge. Students are engaged in
their own learning.
This study was designed to examine the use of constructivist theory in the art classroom.
Using a middle school ceramics unit about functional and non-functional ceramics, one group of
students were taught using constructivist principles and the other group was taught in the
traditional manner. The goal was to determine if students learned more and were more engaged
in a unit that was executed with constructivist methods; or, if students benefited from assertive
direction and a learning style that they were more familiar with.
Subject Selection and Description
The study was carried out at the Prescott Middle School in Prescott, Wisconsin. The
middle school had a population of less then 300, sixth, seventh and eighth grade students
Spring semester of the 2009 –2010 school year. The middle school population in the 2009-
2010 school year was 38% female and 62% male (Winss, 2010). Prescott is a small
suburban/rural community, located where the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers meet. Prescott is
approximately 35 miles east of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Many people commute to work in the
35
Twin Cities. Prescott had a population of 3,918 in 2009. The median income in 2009 was
$62,969, which is well above the Wisconsin state median income of $49,993 (City-Data, 2010).
The economic status was largely middle class; the school district has approximately 18 % of
the student population in the free and reduced food program (Winss, 2010).
Every student was required to take art. Students were randomly assigned to art classes.
The students ranged in ability level form the Gifted and Talented to Special Education students.
The majority of the students were considered regular education (regular ed.). All students were
white; there was very little racial or cultural diversity in the school. The economic status was
largely middle class; the school district has approximately 18 % of the student population in the
free and reduced food program.
The Study was conducted in the art classroom at the Prescott Middle School. The students
involved were second semester eighth grade art exploratory students. The students had art every
other day, day one or day two. Day one had 17 students, this was the treatment group; the
control group was included 13, day two, students. The treatment group consisted of seven males
and 10 females. The control group had eight males and five females. All students in the study
were Caucasian.
Instrumentation
Surveys were constructed for the purpose of this study. Survey one (Appendix A), was a
pre-test with four questions pertaining to functional and non-functional ceramics. Survey two
was a post-test, which had identical questions as the pre-test. Each survey had two questions that
the students were required to write an answer to, under each written answer question was a one
by one inch box. Students were also required to make a small diagram of their written answer in
the box. This was intended to better clarify their answers to the survey question. Students were
36
spaced out around the room so that they could not see each other‟s answers when they were
answering the questions. Spacing out the students was done to guarantee validity. Students were
given five minutes in which to take both survey one and survey two. The treatment group and
the control group took both survey one and two, only the treatment group took survey three
about their personal opinions.
Survey three consisted of two questions, which asked the students in the treatment group
their opinions on personal learning styles. There was also room for them to write any other
opinions that they had about the project if they wanted to (Appendix F ). The students were not
required to give additional opinions about the project, but many of them did.
The treatment group was immersed in constructivist teaching methods. The treatment group
students went to the computer lab and were instructed to research what the difference was
between functional and non-functional ceramics. Students could work with partners and talk
with each other. Students had approximately 30 minutes to work in the computer lab before they
returned to the classroom to take survey two. These students made decisions about how they
were going to learn the material.
Observational notes, or field notes, (Appendix E) were taken of the students while they were
working on the research portion of the project. The researcher/instructor had a yellow college
lined notebook that she took to the computer lab to make observational notes about what the
students were doing, and how they were working. As students worked, notes were taken about
their behavior, which they choose to work with, if they were off task and fooling around, or if
they were doing well.
The Treatment group students were given three surveys. Survey one was a pre-assessment to
determine what prior knowledge the students had about functional and nonfunctional ceramics.
37
Survey two was conducted when the students had an opportunity to conduct research on the
Internet. Both survey one and two were conducted during the same class period. Survey three
was conducted after the students presented their research for their project about functional and
non-functional ceramics to their peers and the teacher.
A traditional style of lecture and examples was used to introduce the control group to the
ceramics unit and the concepts of functional and non-functional ceramics. Students were given
survey one before the unit commenced and survey two after the lecture. Both surveys were given
on the same day. Survey three was not administered to this group.
The students in the treatment were assigned a project to demonstrate their understanding of
the concepts. The students were given the freedom to choose between designing a puppet show,
creating a Power Point presentation, writing a report, or creating a poster to demonstrate
concepts of functional and non-functional ceramics. Students were given a sheet of requirements
(Appendix D). Requirements included the definition, representation and characteristics of both
functional and non-functional ceramics. Four examples of functional and non-functional
ceramics needed to be included. Student‟s opinions of functional and non-functional ceramics
need to be included. After the research for the projects and the projects were presented to the
class the treatment group took survey three.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher, who was also the instructor, had a yellow notebook present in class to write
down observations or field notes about the students‟ behavior while the students worked. Notes
were taken about student behavior, student progress, or lack of progress. Notes were taken in a
word format, long hand and later typed (Appendix E). The goal of this collection method was to
38
provide an accurate narrative of the students‟ experiences when the constructivist process was
employed.
When the surveys were administered, the control group and the treatment group students
were instructed to sit in seats that left at least one vacant seat between them and no more then
two students at a table. The researcher/instructor distributed survey one and instructed the
students to answer the questions and illustrate their answers by drawing it the box below the
question. The students were given five minutes to answer the survey questions. When the
students were done answering the questions the researcher/instructor collected the surveys and
put them in a nine by twelve inch manila envelope. The control group was then given a lecture
about functional and non-functional ceramics. The treatment group was taken to the computer
lab to do research.
Survey one was given to students in both the treatment and control group without any prior
instructions. This limited instruction was intended to ensure that only prior knowledge of the
topic was obtained. Having the students take the survey without prior introduction was to assure
validity of the responses and to ensure that the results would not be skewed. By introducing the
topic, the researcher/instructor thought that the results might get tainted, so it was decided that
the students would take the survey “cold” without any introductions.
After survey one was collected by the researcher/instructor the students in the control group
began taking notes on a lecture prepared by the instructor. The treatment group was instructed
that the class was going to the computer lab to do research. The students in the treatment group
were told that they had the option to work with partners. The treatment group was instructed that
they needed to research what functional and non-functional ceramics were. After spending 30
39
minutes in the computer lab researching answers, the students were taken back to the classroom
and given survey two.
Survey two was administered in the same manner as survey one. The treatment group was
instructed to sit with at least one seat between them and no more then two students per table.
The teacher/researcher distributed survey two. The students had five minutes to complete the
survey. The surveys were then collected and put into a nine by twelve inch manila envelope.
The students in the treatment group were then asked to develop a presentation of their choice
for the class, and the instructor, about functional and nonfunctional ceramics. This was done so
that they students would have the experience of working together to create a project of their own
design. There were specific questions that the partner teams of students needed to answer and
present to the class later (Appendix D). Students were then asked to present their projects to the
class and the teacher/ instructor. This was done so that the students could show what they had
learned, which is a tenet of social constructivist doctrine (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). When the
presentations were complete the students filled out survey three.
Data Analysis
All students‟ responses to survey one and survey two were examined and the responses were
divided into categories and compared. The data was assembled into a table so that the mean
scores between the treatment and control group could be analyzed. The researcher/instructor
administered both survey one and two. Students sat at tables to take the surveys, there was at
least one vacant space between students and only two students were seated at a table. When the
surveys were completed they were put into nine by twelve inch manila envelopes. The
envelopes were then taken by the teacher/researcher and put into a locked desk drawer until it
was time to analyze the results.
40
Survey three was handled in the same manner, after the treatment group finished filling it
out, it was put in a nine by twelve inch manila envelope and then put in a locked drawer until it
was time to analyze the data.
Survey three was an opinion survey only given to the treatment group, because their personal
learning style responses were being researched. The responses to survey three will be examined
and the data put into categories. All data collected will be analyzed using comparative charts.
The results between the treatment group and the control group will be to determine if there is
was a difference in learning. It will be examined whether Constructivist teaching practices lead
to better learning results in students, or the traditional teaching model lead to better results.
Field notes were taken in a yellow college ruled notebook that the instructor/researcher
carried with her to class and wrote notes while teaching the classes. The researcher tried to take
notes as the students were working. The field notes will be examined to see if the students were
demonstrating principals of constructivist theory. Field notes were kept because the
researcher/instructor wanted a complete narrative of the constructivist process. Entries were
comprised of observations of the students and personal reflections.
Limitations
The degree of subjectivity inherently in a qualitative study is a limitation. The researcher‟s
attention can be torn between actions happening simultaneously in different small groups and
individuals. Observing and the taking of notes about what the observer sees can get
compromised when conversations and actions of the class happen quickly, or overlap.
Another limitations, is that the researcher was also the class instructor. Bias can
unintentionally be introduced into the study because the instructor is also a participant. The
instructor was familiar with the students; it can be difficult to have an objective view of a
41
situation occurring in class. The instructor/ researcher was also doing multiple actions at the
same time. Teaching the class, taking care of classroom management, attempting to take
objective notes, and maintaining impartiality while conducting the study were in conflict with
each other and made it a challenge to do any one of these tasks well.
A third limitation is the sample size; with a small sample size generalizations may not be
valid when applied to a larger population. The control group had 13 participants and the
treatment group had 17 participants. These are small sample sizes to extrapolate information
from.
Summary
A qualitative study was conducted in the Prescott Middle School art room. Eighth grade
students were divided into two groups. The treatment group of 17 students was taught using
constructivist practices and the control group of 13 students was taught using the traditional
lecture model. Both groups participated in survey one and two about their knowledge and beliefs
in regards to functional and non-functional ceramics. The treatment group also took survey three
about their personal opinions after their class presentations. Students were observed and
observational notes or field records were kept about student behavior, observations and
researcher reflections. The field notes were kept to enhance thee study and give a complete
narrative of the constructivist process.
42
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of the study was to determine if constructivist methodology had an impact on
student learning in a middle school ceramics unit. The unit focused on the difference between
functional and non-functional ceramics. The treatment group was given three surveys, survey
one and two were identical. Survey one was administered by the instructor/researcher before the
students had any information on the topic of functional and non-functional ceramics. Survey two
was administered to the treatment group after the group had 30 minutes in the computer lab to
research what functional and non-functional ceramics was. The students were seated with at
least one vacant seat between each of them. They had 5 minutes in which to do each survey.
When the surveys were completed they were put in nine by twelve inch manila envelopes and
locked in a desk draw until it was time for the data analysis. The treatment group then did a
project that they presented to the class, and the instructor, about functional and non-functional
ceramics. The students developed their own projects, some did PowerPoint presentations, and
others chose to do puppet shows, posters or written reports. Students were given these four
selections to make their choice from. A set of criteria and requirements was also distributed to
the students (Appendix D). Students were encouraged to work in pairs of their own choice on
their projects. After the presentations students then took survey three, which was an opinion
survey, administered by the instructor/researcher. The treatment group had 5 minutes to take
survey three. This gave students a comfortable amount of time to complete the survey. Students
were spaced out around the room so that they could not see each other‟s paper. By spacing the
students out around the room peer pressure about the way students answered the questions was
eliminated. It also helped to ensure validity of the survey.
43
The control group took survey one and two in the classroom; they were seated, spaced out
around the room also. Survey one was administered “cold” to the control group by the
instructor/researcher. Students had five minutes to complete the survey. T he
instructor/researcher wanted to have valid responses about their prior knowledge on the subject
of functional and non-functional ceramics. The control then had a 30-minute lecture about
functional and non-functional ceramic. After the lecture students were given 5 minutes to take
survey two. All students comfortably completed all surveys within the allocated time.
Field notes were taken to document the processes that the students went through and to have
a complete narrative of the constructivist process. Observations, reflections, student behaviors
and anecdotal information were record in a college ruled notebook. The notes were later typed
and examined to see what patterns may have emerged and to complete the narrative.
The Sample
The population being studied was the eighth grade, second semester art students at Prescott
Middle School. Students have art class every other day; the classes operate on a day one and day
two schedule. Students were randomly assigned to the classes; by the office scheduling software
program the pervious spring. The classes were composed of students from a full range of
academic and behavioral abilities. There were students from the gifted and talented population,
regular education and special education taking part in the study. All participates were Caucasian
and from roughly the same socioeconomic, middle class back ground. The subject group was a
randomly computer generated. Day one had 17 students, they were the treatment group and the
13 day two students were the control group. The treatment group consisted of seven males and
10 female students. The control group had eight males and five females students.
44
Constructivist Teaching Model
The first research question to be addressed was whether constructivist instruction has a
direct impact on student performance. According to the results of the survey, constructivist
methods do not have a direct effect on learning. The treatment group, which received
Constructivist instruction, did not score as well as the control group, which had direct
instruction.
Students were given two surveys to answer. The treatment group and the control group
were given the first survey before they started the ceramics units. They took the survey “cold”
with out any prior introduction to the ceramics unit. The survey was administered by the
researcher/instructor and the students were spaced out around the room to take the survey. There
were no more then two students per table and they had 5 minutes to complete the survey. Each
Survey had two questions. The students were also given an opportunity to draw their answers.
Five students, three in the control group and two in the treatment group were able to draw their
answers but did not write the correct answer. Students were given credit for being able to draw
the correct answer. The survey was collected and put away in a locked drawer until it was time
to analyze the data. The treatment group then went to the computer lab to research the
differences between functional and non-functional ceramics. Students had 30 minutes to
complete their research with partners. Everyone had a partner, or a group of three. At the end of
30 minutes the students went back to the classroom and completed survey two. Survey two was
administered by the instructor/researcher, students were spaced around the room and they had 5
minutes in which to complete the survey. Students appeared to both have enough time to
research the subject and enough time to complete the surveys.
45
After the control group was finished with survey one, students were given a traditional
lecture about functional and non-functional ceramics. The lecture was 30 minutes long. Students
then took survey two, which was administered by the instructor/researcher in the classroom.
Students were spaced around the room and they had 5 minutes to complete the survey. Students
also were given credit for being able to draw the correct answer. When the survey was complete
it was collected from the students and secured in a locked drawer.
The treatment group went on to do a project about functional and non-functional
ceramics, which they presented to their peers and the instructor/researcher. The students could
work in pairs and choose their own product for the project from a selection of four options. The
options were PowerPoint presentations, puppet shows, posters or written reports. Student groups
chose each of these options. Each type of project had the same list of requirements and criteria
to be included (Appendix D). Survey three, which was a personal opinion survey, was
administered by the teacher/instructor to the treatment group after the project presentations.
Students were dispersed around the classroom so that they could not see other student‟s answers;
since it was a personal opinion survey being influenced by their peer could have been an issue.
By spreading the students around the room, validity of answers was ensured. The students had 5
minutes to complete the survey; the instructor/researcher collected the surveys and secured them
in a locked drawer.
Table 1: Impact of Student Performance
Question Survey 1
Correct
Answers
Survey 1
Correct
Answer
Survey 2
Correct
Answer
Survey 2
Correct
Answer
46
Treatment
Group
Control
Group
Treatment
Group
Control
Group
Item 1
What do you
think functional
ceramics are?
76% 31% 100% 100%
Item 2
What do you
think non-
functional
ceramics are?
53% 31% 88% 100%
Table 1 illustrates the difference between the correct and incorrect student answers, given
in response to the two survey questions. In Survey one the treatment group had a higher level of
prior knowledge to item about what functional ceramics are than the control group. There is not
a clear reason for this difference. The difference in scores may have been the result of
circumstances beyond the researcher‟s control. Because it was a small sample size, having one
or two students that knew the answer to item one would skew the results. Correspondingly,
having one or two students not know an answer results in significantly different outcomes. Item
two on survey one illustrates the lack of prior knowledge that both the control group as the
47
treatment group had about the use of non-functional ceramics. However, some people in each
group knew what functional and non-functional ceramics are.
Item one on survey two indicates that both the control group the treatment group know
what functional ceramics are. There is not a difference in student performance between the
control group and the treatment group. Item two on survey two indicates that the control group
had a greater understanding of non-functional ceramics then the treatment group did. The
control was told what non-functional ceramics were and the treatment group had to find it out for
themselves using constructivist methods.
Active Learning
Table 2: Shift From Teacher to Student Centered Environment
Question Yes No Don’t Know
Was doing the
PowerPoint‟s or
other projects of
your choice about
functional and non-
functional ceramics
better then getting
the information
through lecture?
100 0 0
Question two: In what ways may constructivist approaches to teaching facilitate a shift
from teacher-centered learning environment to one that is student centered?
48
When students are given open ended projects that they can make decisions about, such as
what type of product to make, a PowerPoint or a puppet show, it shifts the learning from the
teacher to the student.
Students in the treatment group indicated that they prefer doing projects over a lecture.
But table one, indicates that they may not learn as much if they construct their own knowledge
about a topic than if they are assertively, and correctly, provided with the information. The
results may be because of unknown variables. Variables such as the partner teams of the
treatment group may have influenced the results. If one student had more invested in the
research than the other this could affect results. Everyone in the treatment group had a partner.
The cognitive ability of the participants could also have an impact on the results. In the control
group everyone knew they were responsible for their own learning. In the treatment groups‟
students may have relied to heavily on partners. When teachers do not control what the students
learn and they and students control their own learning, students don‟t always learn what the
teacher wants them to.
Objectivist Teaching Model
Table 3: Positively impact student learning
Project Lecture Don’t Know
Which way do you
prefer to learn
100 0 0
Question three: In what ways may constructivist strategies positively impact student
learning? 100% of the treatment group responded that they prefer projects to lecture. Projects
can be a way that students problem solve, work together and share experiences (Prater, 2001).
49
When students can make decisions about their learning they take ownership and may learn more
then what the teacher intended (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Teachers become a “guide on the
side” rather than the sole instructor. However, fun should not replace information. Often, the aim
of learning is overshadowed by the use of technology (Earnon, 2006).
The researcher/instructor took note in her yellow college ruled notebook about student
participation in the project (Appendix E ). Many of the projects were videotaped for future
reference. There was excellent participation. There were occasional behavior problems noted.
The projects were all classroom appropriate. The projects all addressed the difference between
functional and non-functional ceramics. The students all seemed to have a good understanding of
the subjects. The researcher/instructor took special note of the enthusiasm the students had.
There seemed to be more enthusiasm toward creating the projects and demonstrating knowledge
them obtaining knowledge. When the projects were being presented students continued to show
interest.
It was noted by the researcher/instructor that the projects were where students seemed to
cement their understanding about functional and non-functional ceramics. There were a number
of questions from students asking if various objects would be classified as functional and non-
functional ceramics. The researcher/instructor took note of one student asking if a plastic Dixie
cup was a functional ceramic. The researcher/instructor did not answer the question directly.
Rather she tried to illicit understanding from the boy by asking open ended questions. “What is a
ceramic?” “Is that what you described?” “What is its function?” The boy was able to articulate
by the end of the series of question what a functional and non-functional ceramic was. There
was a similar series of questions used with a girl who did not have complete understanding of a
non-functional ceramic. She wanted to include a decorative coffee cup into her demonstration.
50
But, as she was able to articulate through open-ended questioning, a decorative coffee cup has a
function. It is therefore a functional ceramic, even though it may be attractive. Without the
project, the students may not have had an opportunity to ask these questions.
Future Research
If this experiment is run in the future, several changes could be made to the methodology.
The first recommended change would be to test the treatment group after their projects and
demonstrations. It was the aim of the researcher/instructor to have a different assessment
method that allowed students to express themselves. This is a tenant of Constructivism and often
a rewarding practice. The researcher/instructor noticed improvement in student‟s knowledge
about functional and non-functional ceramics from the projects. There was enthusiasm,
participation and at the end everyone seemed to have a firm understanding about the topic. This
increase in student understanding was not demonstrated through firm data. This growth was
observed between the students and the researcher/instructor. Helpful this may be in a regular
classroom setting, a research setting benefits from more concrete information. In the future, a
fourth survey, testing students improved knowledge after demonstrations could be administered.
Future research could also compare partner work in a Constructivist environment to non-
partner work in a Constructivist environment. This would analyze the extra variable that was
present in this study. The use of partners could have dissuaded students from taking ownership
of their work. A variation of the „freerider‟ syndrome, where one student does most of the work,
may have been present. The group atmosphere may have been distracting to students. Students
may not have used their time as efficiently as individuals would have. Or, alternatively, the use
of partners had no effect on the data. Future research is needed to determine this.
51
Chapter V: Discussion
A problem exists in that the Wisconsin Model Standards for Art and Design require
certain factual information to be taught, at Prescott Middle School lecture has been the preferred
method to teach these topics; however, lecture seems to disinterest and bore students. The
researcher constructed an experiment in an eighth grade art classroom to determine if using
Constructivist learning techniques, including student lead research, and group projects and
demonstrations, yield a better understanding of factual information in art education than students
who are taught using strictly traditional lecture techniques.
. The experiment exposed one group of students to various Constructivist learning
methods. Constructivist techniques such as group projects, research, demonstrations and
PowerPoint‟s were used. The control group received a lecture. The research focused
significantly on Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky, who are the three main founders of Constructivist
thought. The research compared these thoughts to the application of technology in a
Constructivist classroom. Technology in the classroom seems to need Constructivist teaching
techniques. By its nature, technology is interactive and lends itself to group activities.
Understanding how technology and Constructivism interact is useful to creating a more
beneficial learning experience.
Limitations
The study assessed a limited number of students in one lesson. With a small sample size
it is difficult to accurately extrapolate results and apply them to a wider group of students. When
the researcher is also the instructor and also the data collector, it can be difficult to show a
complete picture of the events and the assessment. The teacher and the researcher ideally are
supposed to be looking at different things. Assessing behavior, achievement and conduct and
52
teaching styles while simultaneously conducting behavior management and instruction creates a
conflict. The researcher cannot dedicate themselves to picking up on nuances and individual
student conduct, without taking away from the experiment, like a third person could. Because
the researcher is also the teacher, the researcher may be more sensitive to some data then others.
The researcher was also familiar with the students; this could have influenced data collection.
Previous knowledge about student behavior may not be accounted for. The students were also
accustomed to the teaching style of the teacher. This may have influenced the expectations of
students and therefore the outcome.
Conclusions
An experiment was constructed in an eighth grade art education room at Prescott Middle
School. Students taught with Constructivist techniques were given a research task, to research
online the difference between functional and non-functional ceramics. Students were given
assessments before and after researching. Students then constructed projects demonstrating their
skill. The projects were graded by the researcher/instructor. Data about performance was
collected and compared to the control group, which was taught the material through lecture. On
the assessments students who were in the control group did either the same or better than
students who were taught using Constructivist principles. Students in the treatment group did not
perform better on the assessments than the control group. The students in treatment group
enjoyed their project. The treatment group continued on and constructed technological
demonstrations and after the assessment. Overall enthusiasm was noted. Students asked a
number of questions related to the topic. The questions were met with open ended questions from
the instructor. At the completion of the treatment group‟s project, students seemed to have a firm
understanding of the subject matter.
53
The research analyzed the traditional theorists of Constructivism. The experiment was
modeled after their conclusions. Following Piaget‟s theories, students schema‟s were
challenged. They were encouraged to assimilate and accommodate new information. Students
needed to explain their understanding of the subject matter before the experiment took place.
Students then sought out information and then accommodated that information into their schema.
As questions arose in class these schema were again challenged and additional accommodation
of knowledge was made. Vygotsky‟s theories were implanted by using group research and
projects, facilitated by the teacher. This utilized scaffolding, the students were supported and the
children were in the zone of proximal development. Students went as far as they could go on
their own, and then were facilitated by the teacher to go the rest of the way. The demonstrations
gave students an opportunity to bring their life experiences into the classroom. To an outsider it
may seem that the possibilities for functional and non-functional ceramics are limited. Students,
however, developed a number of different examples and creatively fashioned a project around
the idea. The uniqueness of the students was present.
However influential the theorists are, the data does not demonstrate that modeling the
experiment according to established Constructivist beliefs had any benefit. The students in the
control group, who received lecture, preformed the same as, or better than the treatment group.
This performance was made in one third the amount of time as the treatment group. The
experiment seems to suggest that the art curriculum be reworked to include more standard
lectures. Gillies (2007) proposed that students that are unaccustomed to Constructivist techniques
may shut down, they may not excel in the different environment. That may be the case in the
experiment. The class was, however, accustomed to some Constructivist instruction in art class.
This factual type of subject material presented had generally been lecture based. Earmon (2006)
54
proposed that students became removed from the learning experience when technologies,
especially search engines like Google are used. Facts without context are meaningless. The
students may have needed more direction on the computers, a webcrawl or scavenger hunt may
have given more structure to the assignment.
Earmon may be correct. Technology may strip context from the facts. Or, technology
needs to be used in direct connection with theorists like Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky. I submit
that the real learning did not occur until students interacted with what they had learned. When
the students were instructed to articulate their ideas, produce visuals for their ideas and observe
what other students were doing and learning then the students developed a grasp of the
information. The assessments did not show these results. But, the student projects showed how
enthusiastic and knowledgeable the students were about the project. Had the instruction stopped
at the computer lab, I feel that the students would have been at a disservice. The control group
did better on survey 2 than the control group. But, had the control group been given a third
assessment, in addition to the projects, there would, likely, be hard data to prove that.
Recommendations
Constructivism promotes alternatives to using exams for assessment. This has value, it is
however not as beneficial to other researchers in an experiment as hard data. In the future the
researcher should consider given another assessment after projects.
Researching the value of partner projects in the art classroom would be valuable. This
study included partner projects. This added an unnecessary variable. It would be interesting in
the future to do a Constructivist project with partners and do the same project without partners.
Some students take advantage of group projects it would be interesting to test the frequency of
this occurring.
55
Researchers like Ann Bell (2009) have interesting and cutting edge opinions about
technology in the classroom. It would be interesting to see if implanting some of the more
sophisticated ideas like RSS feeds or blogs would have an effect on learning performance. A
study focusing on using these types of media in the art classroom would be beneficial for a 2010
classroom.
56
References
Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice:
toward a better understanding. High School Journal, 84(2), 35.
Barberio, R. (2004). Ps: political science and politics. American Political Science Association,
37(2), 307-311.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1997). Women‟s ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
Bell, A. (2009). Exploring web 2.0 : second generation internet tools - blogs, podcasts, wikis,
networking, virtual worlds, and more. Georgetown, TX : Katy Cr o s s i n g P r e s s .
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bobbit, F. (1934). The trend of the activity curriculum. Elementary School Journal, 35(4), 257-266.
Caine, R., Caine, G. (1997). Education on the Edge of Possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
City-Data. (n.d.). Prescott Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://www.city-
data.com/city/Prescott-Wisconsin.html
Dewey, J. (1903). Ethical principles underlying education. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. Toronto, Canada: Macmillian.
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Earnon, M. (2006). The history teacher. Society for History Education, 39(3), 297-314.
Gillies, R. (207). Cooperative learning: integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Green, S., & Gredler, M. (2002). A Review and analysis of constructivism for school-based practice.
School Psychology Review, 31(1), 53.
57
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism:
transforming teacher epistemology. [Article]. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
32(4), 455.
Marlowe, B., & Page, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown.
Milbrandt, M., Felts, J., Richards, B., & Abghari, N. (2004). Teaching-to-learn: a constructivist approach
to shared responsibility. Art Education, 57(5), 19-24.
Mills, J., & Johnson, E. (2004). An evaluation of activstats for spss teaching and learning. The American
Statistician, 58(3), 254-258.
Moir, D. (2004). Leadership and integrity: are they compatible?--the role of socratic dialogue in learning
from our own and others' experience. Management in Education,
Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
Prater, M. (2001). Constructivism and technology in art education. Art Education, 54(6), 43-48.
Powell, K., & Kalina, C. (2009).cognitive and social constructivism: developing tools for an
effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
Sidorkin, A. M. (2009). "John dewey: a case of educational utopianism." Philosophy of Education
Yearbook: 191-199.
Simspon, J. (1996). "Constructivism and connection making in art education."
Art Education 49(1): 53-59.
Sutinen, A. (2008). "Constructivism and education: education as an interpretative transformational
process." Studies in Philosophy & Education 27(1): 1-14.
Vermette, D. P., Foote, D. C., Bird, C., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, D. S., & Battaglia, D. C. (2001).
Understanding constructivsim(s): a primer for parents and school board members. Education,
122(1), 87.
58
Vygotsky, L. S. (Ed.). (1978). Mind in society the development of higher psychological process (M. Cole,
V. John - Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winss. (n.d.). Enrollment by student group. Retrieved from
http://data.dpi.state.wi.us/data/GroupEnroll.aspx?GraphFile=GROUPS&S4orALL=1&SRegion=
1&SCounty=47&SAthleticConf=45&SCESA=05&FULLKEY=11457803````&SN=None+Chose
n&DN=Prescott&OrgLevel=di&Qquad=demographics.aspx&Group=EconDisadv
59
Appendix A
Survey 1
What do you think functional ceramics are?
Sketch an example?
What do you think non- functional or decorative ceramic are?
Sketch an example?
60
Appendix B
Survey 2
What do you think functional ceramics are?
Sketch an example?
What do you think non- functional or decorative ceramic are?
Sketch an example?
61
Appendix C
Survey 3
Was doing the power points or projects of your choice about functional and non
functional ceramics better then getting the information through lecture
Which way do you think you learn more project or lecture?
62
Appendix D
Name ______________ Group member Names__________________________
8th
grade Ceramics Group or Individual
Project
You are going to do a project where you can pick your product. Your choices are:
Slide show (small)
Puppet Show
Poster
Report
Other – get ok from me (examples puppet show, real examples that you bring in and talk about in front of the class)
___________________(Other)
Required in your product:
___Definition of Functional Ceramics
___Definition of Non- Functional Ceramics
___Definition of ceramics
___4 examples of functional ceramics ( pictures)
___4 examples of non-functional ceramics (Pictures)
___Your opinion if something can be both functional and non-functional
___(Your opinion) About functional or non – functional ceramics if one is more important then the other and why.
63
63
Appendix E
Field Notes
Control Group
April 19
Students had difficulty with the concept of a pre-test. Got upset because they thought
survey was graded. A student calmed down when they found out it wasn‟t graded.
Students became much more comfortable during the lecture. The student stress level
viable went down. After the lecture when the students took survey two they were much more
comfortable with it. Maybe they felt comfortable because this style of teaching is what they are
used to. They also might have been uncomfortable with taking a test in art class, that‟s
something they aren‟t used to.
Treatment Group
April 20
Filled out pretest without much problem. Told students it wasn‟t graded and I just
wanted to know what they already knew. After pre- test went to computer lab for 30 minutes.
Students looked up this difference between functional and non-functional ceramics. Students
had a difficulty and found it frustrating that they could not just put the functional or non-
functional ceramics into Google and get a ready-made answer. They seemed to find it difficult
almost painful to have to think about the answers and how to get them. It was hard to watch
them flounder around, without stepping in to help them.
No one wanted to be the partner with the student who was way off task and fooling
around. No one would give him the answers, the seemed to be ticked with him for fooling
around so much and wasting their time.
64
64
Went back to the classroom and the students took survey two. There weren‟t any
problems; the students just did the survey. Students instructed that it was graded.
April 22
Treatment group went to computer lab to work on their projects. Students paired off and
started working.
Students are struggling a bit and off task. They seem to be getting very frustrated. What
I find very interesting is that when one group started to make progress with their project
research, the some other students noticed and started paying attention to what they were doing.
A couple of the working teams started to share information and sources.
One partner team does not seem to be able to handle working on their own and
developing a project. They are way off task and bouncing around the room. They are also trying
to get others off task with them.
April 26
One student asking if a plastic Dixie cup was a functional ceramic and another student
wanted to included a decorative coffee cup as a non-functional ceramic, because it had
decoration on it.
Students are working groups developing their projects. The projects on a whole seem to
be going in-depth and have some very nice visuals. The team that is making the puppet show
seems to be going all out and having a good time doing it.
65
65
Appendix F
Optional Student Responses on Survey 3
Projects because they are more fun.
Projects, you can be more creative and it‟s more hands on then a lecture.
Because we got to learn the information and make a show that is more interesting.
It was more fun then a lecture.
A project is more interesting and fun.
A project is less boring.
Yes, because we found the information ourselves.
Project because we don‟t listen as well during a lecture.
Project, you get less bored.
Project, it‟s funnier and easier to understand.
Yes, it was fun and you learned easier.
Yes, because we could do actually do something and we were in control.
We could research the project ourselves and that made it fun. It was funnier then
listening to a lecture.
It would have been faster with a lecture, but I learn more with a project.
Projects – your answering your own questions and not falling asleep.
It was intrusting and we got into it more. Doing it ourselves made us understand better.