Current Event #2
1
Running head: CURRENT EVENT #2
Constructivist Beliefs about the Science Classroom Learning Environment: Perspectives from Teachers,
Administrators, Parents, Community Members, and Students
Current Event #2
Andrew Stephens
California State University, Northridge
Current Event #2
2
Constructivist Beliefs about the Science Classroom Learning Environment: Perspectives from Teachers,
Administrators, Parents, Community Members, and Students
Current Event #2
In this journal article, Czerniak, Haney, and Lumpe studied the education community of
several school districts. They specifically examined the views of high school science teachers,
administrators, students, parents, and other active community members regarding constructivism.
The study was conducted using the BALE (Beliefs About Learning Environment) Instrument.
Two questions were asked of all the participants. They solicited responses about participants
own beliefs concerning the science learning environment and about how those belief structures
compared. The authors found a spectrum of perspectives on constructivism ranging from strong
constructivist proponents (administrators) to constructivist opponents (parents). These findings
bring up interesting applications as well as a forum for discussion of research methodology.
The strengths of the authors’ research method included a well-defined issue, a concise
literature review, data showing high reliability, extensive data analysis, triangulation, a sound
scoring methodology, data coding, and appropriate discussions of implications and limitations.
The literature review that opened this article served several important functions. First, it
explained the previous research in depth, and then convinced the reader of the study’s necessity
thanks to the findings of previous research regarding knowledge of and alignment of the school
community’s views on constructivism. Another impressive piece of the research was the
triangulation, planning, and extensive data analysis. The authors clearly spent ample time
planning how the surveys were going to be distributed, analyzed, and data coded. With such
open-ended questions, the high reliability coefficient (.92) was quite impressive. This was
achieved through the use of science education graduate students exercising cross checking and
rubrics while coding data before and after the study. Finally, the researchers did an excellent job
Current Event #2
3
of pulling out patterns in qualitative data and quantifying those patterns so clearly in a study with
such a voluminous amount of qualitative surveys.
The list of weaknesses related to the authors’ research methods was shorter: low sample
size, multiple dependent variables, broad generalizations, and inconsistent questions. Although
short, this list highlights a few important shortcomings. For a broad study of so many different
groups within the educational setting, the overall sample size (n=72) and subgroup sample size
(teachers n=35, administrators n=9, parent/community n=18, students n=10) seemed far too low.
The low numbers do not allow others to apply the findings to different situations. Within the
answers from that small sample size, the authors identified 5 belief categories and 12 belief
characteristics regarding constructivism. I felt that with such open-ended survey questions and
the high variation of views within a small group, no real conclusions could be clearly drawn.
Perhaps a more constructed response type of survey could have yielded results that were more
lucid. Finally, the structure of the two research questions could have led respondents to answer
without ever addressing constructivism, thus skewing the results without ever getting their
opinion of constructivism.
The findings and methods of this study pertain to applications in my own journey through
education. Flaws of the study aside, the lit review showed that more success is achieved in the
classroom when alignment of educational philosophy is high among all stakeholders. The study
showed that among a sample of 72 stakeholders, constructivist views vary widely from
administrators one side to parents on the other, with teachers and students in the middle. This
fact elucidates the importance of my communication between all these groups. In closing, I must
be aware of all the different views around the science classroom and seek buy in from students,
Current Event #2
4
parents, and administrators alike. I must also ask pointed, clear, and purposeful questions on my
own survey for my action research.
Current Event #2
References
Czerniak, C.M., Haney, J.J., Lumpe, A.T. (2003) Constructivist beliefs about the science classroom
learning environment: perspectives from teachers, administrators, parents, community members,
and students. School, Science, and Math 103, (8) 366-376.
5