THE EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH IN TEACHING SHORT STORIES AND POEMS TO THE ENGLISH PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS
Keywords:
Constructivist Approach, English Performance, Experimental group, Control groupAbstract
This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Constructivist approach in the teaching of short stories and poems. It involved the experimental group and the control group which were carefully selected through randomization procedures. Both groups were given pretest at the beginning of the term (midterm) and posttest at the end of the term (midterm). But the control group was isolated from all experimental influences. A total of 35 equated second year A and B Information Technology students of the Cagayan State University who were enrolled in Philippine Literature during the second semester, school year 2011-2012 were the subjects of the study.
Employing the pretest-posttest experimental design with weighted mean, t-test, frequency count and percentage distribution as statistical tools, it established that the level of performance of the students in their pretest was satisfactory. There was no significant difference between the level of performance of the control and experimental groups in their pretest. The level of performance of the control group in their posttest was satisfactory while the experimental group was very satisfactory. There was a significant difference between the levels of performance of the subjects in their posttests. The gain score of the control group was 5.26 or low while the experimental group was 10.32 or average; therefore, there was a significant difference in their gain scores. Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that the constructivist approach was better than the traditional approach in the teaching of short stories and poems.
Downloads
References
Applebee, A.N. (1993). Literature in the Secondary School: Studies of Curriculum and Instruction in the United States. National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana Printing, Inc.
Baraceros, E .L. (2005). Communication Skills I.(Revised Edition). Manila, Philippines: Rex Bookstore. p 10-18.
Bolosan; Bumanglag; Norono; Pascua; Villanueva (2010). Improving Classroom Interaction of the Third year High School students using the Constructivist Approach in teaching of Short Stories. Unpublished Action Research. Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City, Philippines.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VI: Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, Inc.
Bruner, J.S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cacatian, Shella B. (2009). Development and Validation of Constructivist-Based Self Learning Packages on Ecological Concepts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cagayan State University, Sanchez Mira, Philippines.
Catacutan, C. (2006). English of the New Generation. Quezon City, Philippines. Sunshine Interlinks Publishing House, Incorporated.
Dell, P. E. (1985). Understanding in Bateson and Maturnana: Toward a biological foundation for the social sciences. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 1-20.
Dogru and Kalender. (2007). Applying the Subject “Cell” Through Constructivist Approach during Science Lessons and the Teacher’s View. Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2 (1), 3-13.
Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen. (1991). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Forcier, R.C., & Descy, D.E. (2002). The computer as an educational tool: Productivity and problem solving (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Fosnot, C.T. (ed.) (1996). Constructivism, theory, perspectives and practice. New York. Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C.T. (1993). Revisiting science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (9), 1118-1201.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K.L, & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development 45 (1): 65-94.
Kim, J. (2005). The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student Academic Achievement, Self-Concept, and Learning Strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1) p7-19.
Lasaten, Ronald Candy S. (2008). Constructivist Resource Materials in Teaching Short Stories. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.Mariano Marcos State University, Laoag City, Philippines.
Linfords, J. (1984). How children learn or how teachers teach? A profound confusion. Language Arts, 61 (6), 600-606.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. (A. Rosin, Trans). New York: The Viking Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as Exploration. New York; London: D. Appleton Century.
Salandanan, Gloria B. (1995). The Teaching of Science. Quezon City, Philippines: Phoenix Publishing House.
Von Glasserfield, E. (1984). Radical Constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (eds.). The invented reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygostky, L. (1962). Thought and language. (E. Hanfman& G. Backer, Trans.) Cambridge, MA.: M.I.T. Press (Originally published in 1934).
Williams, T. (1945). The glass menagerie. New York: New Directions Books.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
