Section Education and Educational Research

5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM
2018, www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2018 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-56-0 /
ISSN 2367-5659, 26 August - 1 September, 2018, Vol. 5, Issue 3.4, 183-190 pp.

CONSTRUCTIVIST ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FROM THE

STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE

PhD. Senka Gazibara

1
University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Croatia

ABSTRACT
Active learning, as an inevitable construct of contemporary teaching, is the basis of
every student’s integral growth and development. It is based on the constructivism and
socio-constructivism where the emphasis is on students as constructors and co-
constructors of their own knowledge. Here, the process of learning includes the
students’ experiences and interests, pre-knowledge, and the creation of their own
interpretations. The constructivist active learning environment is directed to students ‒
they take the active role in learning, evolve into autonomous individuals who think
critically about the real world, develop their own potentials, and take the responsibility
for their own actions. Students are included in planning, performing, and evaluating the
learning process, through which the student-teacher partnership is cultivated, as well as
the partnership between students. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine the
constructivist active learning environment from the students’ perspective. The research
included 951 primary and grammar school students. The constructivist active learning
environment was operationalized through the following determinants: the student’s
autonomy, the student participation, the pre-knowledge, the student centeredness, and
the metacognition and co-construction of knowledge, i.e. individual and social aspects
of active learning. The results of this research have shown that the constructivist active
learning environment is not sufficiently presented in educational practice. It was
assessed more positively by elementary school than grammar school students. This
implies a discontinuity in educational practice, as well as the dominance of traditional
teaching. The results have also shown that the constructivist active learning
environment is linked to the student’s age, the school type, and an academic success.
Finally, it can be concluded that students need greater support to be able to learn
actively, which would also make the abovementioned determinants of the constructivist
active learning environment more presented and recognizable in the practice of
teaching.
Keywords: active learning, constructivism, learning environment, students

INTRODUCTION
Active learning is a basis for contemporary teaching aimed at students, focusing
on their overall growth and development into autonomous individuals. Furthermore, the
concept is the center of attention in the area of education, especially in the context of
educational reforms at all levels, from primary school to faculty [8]. Although its value
is widely accepted and recognized, changes are still small and superficial in educational
5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Art SGEM 2018

practice with no expected progress and, moreover, the potential and benefits of active
learning have not been sufficiently exploited [4], implying the need for general
consensus on understanding the very term, as well as its proper implementation.
Thereby, the learning environment based on constructivist and socio-constructive
setting is the key element of active learning.
Active learning environment
The concept of active learning refers to a classroom environment that includes
social and emotional relationships affecting active student learning as well as the
physical and material aspects of learning. The constructivist active learning environment
is directed to students ‒ they take an active role in learning, evolve into autonomous
individuals who think critically about the real world, develop their own potentials, and
take the responsibility for their own actions. Students are included in planning,
performing, and evaluating the learning process, through which the student-teacher
partnership is cultivated, as well as the partnership between students. Numerous authors
at the theoretical and empirical level [6, 5, 14, 7, 3, 2] have been involved in the
research of active learning environment. Grabinger and Dunlap [5] the notion of rich
environments of active learning (REALs - Rich Environments for Active Learning) have
based on constructivist values. The main features of the concept are the encouragement
of student responsibility and initiative, as well as the application of generative learning
activities where students work on projects and tasks that are not only personally
important to them but also applicable to their life and community. With respect to that,
the emphasis here is on the authenticity of learning, i.e. the actual student experience,
what is related to the activity of students in the learning environment in relation to the
environment in which learning will be used. This concept is also featured by authentic
evaluation strategies that require both the specification of students' skills and authentic
support of teachers, whereby it is necessary to take into consideration the area of
approximate development of students [5]. The area of approximate development of
students covers the range between two levels of performance: the lower limit ‒
independently performing a task, and the upper limit ‒ not independently, but can
perform a task with the help of an adult or a teacher. Therefore, formative evaluation
and continuous feedback to students are an integral part of the learning process, and is
focused on monitoring student's progress and planning future learning activities. The
authenticity of activity and learning environment as the key strategy for creating
constructivist learning environments was also emphasized by Honebein et al. [6].
Another important characteristic of rich active learning environments is collaborative
support integrated in all other features of rich active learning environments that are not
only interdependent but also conditioned to the successful realization of the active
learning process. Furthermore, Jonassen [7] proposed a model for creating a
constructivist learning environment which centers a particular problem, project, case
study, or issue with different interpretative possibilities, where students are involved in
creating meaning for problem solving or project realization. In the environment like that
students build knowledge and solve problems both individually and in a team work,
with the emphasis on creating the personal meaning of learning, connecting new ideas
with experience and previous knowledge, as well as reflection process [7]. Whats more,
to create the active learning environment it is essential to clarify the aims and contents
of the subject, create a positive classroom environment, creatively organize the learning
 Section Education and Educational Research

and teaching setting, but also to acknowledge the student's interests and needs, what is
something every teacher should know [9].
For a successful active learning environment, students and teachers also need to
adapt their roles to the traditional learning environment, with the emphasis on the
transmission of knowledge and the teacher’s more active role [4]. Besides that, it is also
necessary to align student and teacher expectations, which implies effective
communication, cooperation and partnership. Moreover, teachers need support because
their concepts of the active learning environment are quite different, as De Kock and
others have emphasized in their research [3]. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously
monitor, evaluate and encourage the development of the constructivist active learning
environment in everyday educational practice, which the traditional schools
systematically neglected. With that in mind, many teachers can use a widely used
application Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) [13,14] as a help in
monitoring constructivist learning environments today.
Nowadays, as important features of active learning environments contemporary
approaches to teaching emphasize its interactivity and multimodality with the emphasis
on interdisciplinary, active and multisensory approach. In other words, it is a holistic
approach to life-related active learning, which takes into account different styles / ways
of learning with the appreciation of different media and senses [4, 10]. In addition to
that, the studies of active learning environments have confirmed its numerous
advantages among which the increase in deep approaches to learning points out, as
opposed to the superficial [15, 12]. However, the traditional teaching still remains
dominant over the constructivist practice of active learning [1].

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim of the paper was to examine the constructivist active learning
environment from a student perspective. The results were conducted by surveying 951
elementary school (8th grade of a primary school, N = 458) and high school students
(4th grade of a grammar school, N = 493) from Osijek-Baranja County in the Republic
of Croatia. The eighth grade elementary school and the fourth grade grammar school
students were selected for the survey sample since they have been involved in the
educational process the longest and, consequently, it has been assumed that they are the
most adequate to evaluate the constructivist active learning environments. Moreover,
this research has been a part of the doctoral thesis on active learning as a didactic-
methodical paradigm of contemporary teaching [4]. For the purpose of the original
research, three questionnaires were constructed ‒ Questionnaire of the constructivist
active learning environment, Questionnaire of didactic-methodological determinants of
active learning and Questionnaire of (self)assessment of teaching competences related
to the active learning. However, for the purpose of this paper, the Questionnaire of
constructivist active learning environment was used as a part of a survey questionnaire
for students. The constructivist active learning environment is operationalized through
the determinants of student autonomy, student participation (involvement), pre-
knowledge, student centeredness, metacognition, and co-construction of knowledge, i.e.
an individual and social aspect of active learning [4]. The terms and subscales of student
autonomy, student participation or involvement, pre-knowledge and student
centeredness have been taken, and slightly modified, from the standardized
5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Art SGEM 2018

questionnaire CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments

[13]. The questionnaire CLES uses four scales to measure important aspects of
constructivist learning environment, but the other questionnaire subscales were created
by the author referring to the relevant literature in this area. Also, a factor structure of
the questionnaire was verified by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The
questionnaire uses five-degree Likert scales, with higher results pointing to the greater
expressiveness of each construct, and they are expressed as the average value of
students’ evaluation on the constituents of the corresponding subscales [4].
The survey was being conducted from February to May 2017 in elementary and
grammar schools in the Osijek-Baranja County during the school subject classroom
lessons. Prior to conducting the survey of the eighth grade students, it was firstly
necessary to conduct parents’ consents for child’s participation in the research.
Furthermore, while carrying out the research, the Code of Ethics for Children's
Research was followed. In processing and interpretation of data descriptive statistics
and a series of single-directional variance analyzes (with Bonferroni correction) were
used in order to test the differences in the constructivist environment of active learning
perception, as well as its individual dimensions with regard to the socio-demographic
characteristics of the respondents. Finally, the results of the research are covered by the
IBM SPSS (v. 22.0), and IBM SPSS for AMOS statistics (v. 20).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive indicators of student assessment of the constructivist active learning
environment as a whole, and its particular aspects are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Students' assessment of constructivist active learning environment representation
N M SD
Constructivist active learning environment 725 3.26 .65
Autonomy 900 3.82 .70
Student's participation (involvement) 903 3.46 .73
Pre-knowledge 928 3.23 .94
Student centeredness 888 2.72 .98
Metacognition 870 3.10 .89
Co-construction of knowledge 917 3.28 .86
As shown in the table, the results have indicated deficiency in the representation
of constructivist active learning environments, what is manifested in students’
assessment too (the scaled value of 3, M = 3.26). In other words students both agree and
disagree that the concept is represented in the teaching practice. Moreover, the same
results were confirmed by Abbot and Fouts [1], i.e. they noted in their research that the
use of constructivist teaching practice in only 17 % of observed classes.
Taking into consideration the individual components of the constructivist active
learning environment, the student centerdness was assessed by the students as the least
represented component of active learning in practice (M = 2.72), which requires its
greater recognition in the teaching process. In particular, that refers to acknowledging
the student needs and interests, both in the planning of teaching (M = 2.44) and in its
further implications in learning (M = 2.36), as shown in Table 2. To achieve that,
students need to be able to independently set their own learning objectives, choose
between teaching activities, participate in learning content planning, but they also need
 Section Education and Educational Research

to be encouraged to give comments and reflect on their own learning and experience, as
well as planning the learning sequences. Also, the intrinsic motivation in student-
centered lesson is crucial. If there is no motivation, active learning as itself can not be
represented in the practice. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to pay more attention
to students' intrinsic motivation. In other words, they have to include the students in
planning their own learning and maintaining their interest in and after classes, which is
the starting point for students to take responsibility for their learning and thus for the
development of self-regulated and lifelong learning.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for students’ assessment on the scale of constructivist active
learning environment ‒ determinant student centeredness
STUDENT CENTERDNESS N M SD
21. Teachers are aware and respect students’ living conditions and
942 2.95 1.30
circumstances.
22. Teachers include students in lesson planning. 942 2.64 1.27
23. Teachers help students to discover on their own the best ways to learn. 945 2.82 1.30
24. Students’ will and interests as starting points 938 2.44 1.25
25. Lessons end with the students’ motivation to learn more. 930 2.36 1.17
26. Teachers ask students about their experiences/pre-knowledge when
943 2.85 1.18
teaching.
27. Teachers acknowledge students’ individual differences. 943 3.11 1.28
Furthermore, the results have also shown that students of all tested variables of
the constructivist active learning environments are most likely to experience autonomy
in learning (M = 3.82), which moves around the scalar value of 4. In other words,
according to students, autonomy in learning is a determinant that it is mostly
represented in the teaching process. The later can be explained by developmental
determinants, where cognitive changes occurring at the period of adolescence contribute
to an increased sense of autonomy among young people [11]. The student autonomy is
of crucial importance for the constructivist active learning environment, especially by
looking at active learning from an individual point of view. Table 3 shows that students
develop their autonomy in learning by taking responsibility for their learning (M =
4.39), but also by thinking about own ideas and their meaning (M = 4.03). The
development of student autonomy, along with the mentioned determinants presented in
the teaching practice, can be improved by the evaluation process so that the students
discuss and record their progress and achievements, which is least represented by their
judgment (M = 2.94). However, the involvement of students in the evaluation process is
impossible to avoid in active learning, and it is necessary to monitor their development,
and thus to understand and improve their learning competencies. In doing so, students
need support of teachers as their both mentors and partners.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for students’ assessment on the scale of constructivist active
learning environment ‒ determinant autonomy
AUTONOMY N M SD
1. I formulate (set) my own learning objectives. 949 3.79 1.06
2. I am thinking about my ideas and their meaning. 949 4.03 1.00
3. I develop my own learning style. 942 3.96 1.10
4. I estimate the length of a given activity. 939 3.91 1.19
5. I take responsibility for own learning. 935 4.39 0.86
6. I assess (evaluate, monitor, identify) my progress and 940 3.66 1.13
5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Art SGEM 2018

achievements.
7. I discuss and record my progress and achievements. 943 2.94 1.23
Looking at the students' assessment of the remaining determinants of the
constructive active learning environment, it is evident there is a need for their
improvement because, as in the case of constructivist environments of active learning as
a whole, they are both represented and not represented in the teaching process: the
students' participation (involvement) (M = 3.46), pre-knowledge (M = 3.23),
metacognition (M = 3.10), and knowledge co-construction (M = 3.28). For that reason,
it is essential to encourage and work on the improvement of each of those determinants
because that will not only lead to greater representation of the constructivist active
learning environment in teaching practice, but also to more active role of students in
controlling their learning processes.
A more detailed analysis of students' assessment of the constructivist active
learning environment is given below by examining the significance of differences in
students' assessment regarding socio-demographic features: the age of students, type of
school they attend, and general achievement at the end of the previous school year
(Table 4).
Table 4. The results of a series of one-way analysis variances (with Bonferroni correction)
conducted to check the differences in the perception of the constructivist active learning
environment with respect to the socio-demographic characteristics of the students
Age Type of General achievement
school
13 14 15 17 18 19 El. Gra 2 3 4 5
mm.
N 6 267 46 11 362 28 324 401 3 91 34 279
3
M 3.25 3.47 3.54 2.88 3.09 3.11 3.4 3.09 2.41 3.11 3.1 3.41
7 8
SD .61 .64 .74 .66 .59 .64 .66 .59 1.02 .62 .67 .61
F(SS, 13.87**(5,714) 67.23*** 10.07*** (3,712)
SS) (1,723)
14 > 17*,18**; 15 > 17*,18** El. > 5 > 2*, 3, 4***
Gramm.
The results have shown that there have been statistically significant differences
in assessment of constructivist active learning environments with respect to all examined
socio-demographic characteristics of students. Younger students evaluate the
constructivist active learning environment more positively than older students, implying
its greater representation in working with younger students. The data corresponds to the
results obtained when examining the differences in evaluation between elementary and
grammar school students. In other words, elementary school students evaluate the
constructivist active learning environment more positive than grammar school students,
F (1,723) = 67.23, p <.001. The later indicates that teaching at elementary schools is
more adapted to students' needs and interests, but also that the learning environment is
more encouraging, especially for active learning both in the individual and the social
sense. One of the possible ways to explain that is that students in the age of 17 and 18
are attending the final grade of grammar schools, and are preparing, together with their
teachers, for the Matura exam in order to enroll at universities they want. By doing so,
 Section Education and Educational Research

firstly learning is focused on passing the exams ignoring the processes of active
learning, secondly the teaching objectives are focused on memorizing and reproducing
the facts, and, thirdly the learning experiences that lead to the improvement of the test
results are considered to be more important than active learning. However, it is
interesting to note that active learning studies point to its positive link to the
improvement of students' achievement, which is exactly contrary to the practice. Active
learning skills have been and will be necessary for students not only in further education
at universities, but also in future workplaces. Therefore, continuity in active learning is
inevitable. In that way, students will increasingly associate their learning with pre-
knowledge, be more autonomous in their learning, develop their own metacognitive
skills, and construct and co-construct their knowledge with others. Moreover, the
student's general achievement has been also taken into account as a socio-demographic
feature in assessing the constructive active learning environment due to numerous
researches that point out the link between active learning and both school and student
achievement. The results of this study have also shown that the students who achieved
excellent general achievement at the end of a school year assess the constructivist
environment of active learning positively compared to the students who achieved lower
general achievements (F (3,712) = 10.07, p <.001). It is considered that students with
excellent achievements have developed autonomy, metacognition and participation
more in relation to the students who have achieved lower achievements. These skills
develop gradually in students, but the more they are active, the more present is active
learning. For this reason, it is important to promote greater representation of autonomy,
metacognition and student participation during the teaching processes because,
consequently, the student's success and achievement at school are also affected.

CONCLUSION
To sum up, the results of the study of the constructivist active learning
environment from the student's perspective have shown that the concept is still
insufficiently represented in practice, although it is imposed as a necessity and a starting
point for contemporary schools focused on students. Elementary school students have
assessed the concept more positively than grammar school students, indicating the
discontinuity in practice and the prevalence of traditional teaching. Furthermore, a more
detailed analysis of the obtained results has shown the correlation between the
constructivist active learning environment and the age of students, the type of school
they are attending, and their general achievements at schools. Therefore, it is important
to encourage students' autonomy, to include them in planning, performance and
evaluation of their learning, to respect their experiences, to associate learning with their
pre-knowledge, to direct teaching to students, and to also take into account the age,
needs and interests of each individual student. It is hence necessary to interconnect the
entire educational vertical and to continuously encourage students to active learning, as
well as to create a positive learning environment, where teachers have a key role.
Ultimately, it can be concluded that students need greater support to be able to learn
actively, which would also make the abovementioned determinants of the constructivist
active learning environment more presented and recognizable in the practice of
teaching.

REFERENCES
5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Art SGEM 2018

[1] Abbott, M.L., Fouts, J.T., Constructivist Teaching and Student Achievement: The
Results of a School-level Classroom Observation Study in Washington. Technical
Report, Washington, Seattle Pacific University, Washington School Research Center,
2003.
[2] Cirik, I., Çolak, E., Kaya, D., Constructivist Learning Environments: The Teachers'
and Students' Perspectives. International Journal on New Trends in Education and
Their Implications, Turkey, vol. 6/issue 2, pp 30–44, 2015.
[3] De Kock, A., Sleegers, P., Voeten, M..M. New learning and choices of secondary
school teachers when arranging learning environments. Teaching and Teacher
Education, United Kingdom, vol.21/issue 7, pp 799–816, 2005.
[4] Gazibara S., Aktivno učenja kao didaktičko-metodička paradigma suvremene
nastave, doktorski rad, Zagreb, Hrvatska, 2018. // Active learning as didactic-
methodical paradigm of contemporary teaching, doctoral thesis, Zagreb, Croatia, 2018.
[5] Grabinger, R.S., Dunlap, J.C., Rich environments for active learning: a definition.
ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, United Kingdom, vol. 3/issue 2, pp 5–34,
DOI: 10.1080/0968776950030202, 1995.
[6] Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., Fishman, B.J., Constructivism and the Design of
Learning Environments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning. In: T.M. Duffy,
J. Lowyck, D.H. Jonassen, T. M. Welsh (eds.), Designing Environments for
Constructive Learning, pp 87–108, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, 1993.
[7] Jonassen, D.H., Designing constructivist learning environments. In: C.M. Reigeluth
(ur.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,
vol. II, pp 215–239. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
[8] Matsushita K., Deep Active Learning: Toward Greater Depth in University
Education, Singapore, Springer, 2018.
[9] Meyers, C., Jones, T.B., Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College
Classroom. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993.
[10] Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments,
Educational Psychology Review, Netherlands, vol. 19/issue 3, pp 309‒326, 2007.
[11] Rudan, V. Normalni adolescentni razvoj //Normal Adolescent Development,
Medix: specijalizirani medicinski dvomjesečnik, vol. 10/issue52, pp 36–39, 2004.
[12] Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Gielen, S., On the dynamics of students’
approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and
Instruction, United Kingdom, vol. 16/issue 4, pp 279–294, 2006.
[13] Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., Development of an instrument for assessing
constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L. A., 1991.
[14] Taylor, P., Fraser, B., Fisher, D., Monitoring constructivist classroom learning
environments, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 27/issue 4, pp 293–
302, 1997.
[15] Wilson, K., Fowler, J., Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’
approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs.
 Section Education and Educational Research

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, United Kingdom, vol. 30/issue 1, pp

87–101, 2005.