I. HUSSAIN
Effects of Construc ti vi st Ap pro ach on S oc i al
Learning of University Students
The researcher observed some effects of constructivist ap-
proach on social learning of students as reported below:
Effects of Construc ti vi st Ap pro ach on S oc i al
Learning and Etiquettes
The researcher observed the effects of constructivist ap-
proach on learning etiquettes and mannerism of students. In the
beginning of the semester low sociability of students was re-
ported by the researcher. They showed shyness and introversion.
They were reported to be feeling hesitation in working on col-
laborative and cooperative projects/tasks with their fellows of
opposite gender. However, gradually collaborative and coop-
erative projects/tasks developed confidence among students.
They learned to exchange morning greetings and pass smile.
They learned the group dynamics and ethics of working on
collaborative and cooperative projects/tasks. They facilitated
each other in preparing assignments, presentations and other
academic activities. At the end of the semester the researcher
witnessed that majority of the students appeared to be out spo-
ken practicing social skills and etiquettes. They showed caring
attitude towards each other with patience and endurance for
developing and maintaining academic relationships.
Effects of C onstructi vist Appro ach on Personality
Development
It was observed by the researcher that academic collaboration
and cooperation helped students to develop their personalities.
It enhanced their communication skills to convey ideas and
viewpoints appropriately. They became extrovert and expres-
sive. They shared learning experiences with each other and
sought help from teachers when needed. They desired to con-
tribute to their learning community.
Problems and Issues of Constructivist Approach
The researcher observed to report some problems and issues
in assigning collaborative and cooperative projects/tasks to
students. Initially, some female students showed their reluc-
tance to work with male students because of the social norm
and values. Some female students observed veil and felt diffi-
culty in working with male students. Similarly, some religious
minded (male & female) students had the same reluctance to
work with their counterparts.
Similarly, the researcher noted some reluctance of girls
coming from rural areas to work on collaborative and/or coop-
erative projects with male students. Likewise, the boys of rural
socio-cultural background showed shyness, whereas their coun-
terparts of urban culture sowed negligible or no hesitation to
work with female students.
Conclusion
The researcher concluded that students enjoyed working on
collaborative as well as cooperative projects and tasks. They
were keen on constructing knowledge by involving themselves
in activities and showing their readiness to embrace construc-
tivist approach. Constructivist approach played a significant
role in learning process to constructing knowledge. It helped
them develop qualitative research skills and competencies.
Similarly, collaborative and cooperative work developed con-
tribution spirit among students overcoming their shyness and
introversion. They became independent and capable of taking
initiatives in conducting research projects. They also learnt
ethics, social skills and etiquettes in groups. However, some
culture related problems like working of female students with
their counterparts and shyness of rural students were noted.
REFERENCES
Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism.
Clearing-House. 75, 118-121. doi:10.1080/00098650209599249
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research:
multiple strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free
Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative re-
search. Newbury Park, CA: S a g e .
Gagnon, G. W., & Colley, M. (2001). Constructivist learning design.
URL (last checked 6 February 2 0 12).
http://www.prainbow.com/cld/clds.html
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol:
Technical and Educational Services Ltd.
Hussain, I., & Sultan, S. (2010). Learning by doing: Outcomes of
teaching a research course through group activities. Proceedings of
the Annual International Conference on Computer Science Educa-
tion: Innovation & Technology (CSEIT) 2010, Singapore City:
Global Science and Technology Forum, 6-7 December 2010.
Hussain, I., & Mahmood, S. T. (2010). Practice teaching or internship:
Professional development of prospective teachers through their
pre-Service training programmes. Journal of Educational Research,
13, 105-122.
Hussain, I., & Reza, A. (2010). Getting into varsity: A country case
study of Pakistan. In B. Vlaardingerbroek, & N. Taylor (Eds.), Get-
ting Into Varsity—Comparability, Convergence and Congruence (pp.
117-126). Amherst, NY: Cambria Press Inc.
Hussain, I. (1999). A study of problems faced by distance education
tutors in Bahawalpur Region. An un-published M.Phill thesis, Is-
lamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University.
Ismat, A. H. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considera-
tions for those who would link practice to theory. ERIC Digest. URL
(last checked 5 January 2012) http://www.eric.edu.gov
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1999). Joining together: Group
theory and group skills (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Li, W. (2001). Constructivist learning systems: A new paradigm. In-
ternational Conference on Advanced Learning Techniques, Madison,
6-8 August 2001.
Dhindsa, H. S., & Emran, S. H. (2006). Use of the interactive white-
board in constructivist teaching for higher student achievement.
METSMaC 2006, 175-188.
Lord, T., Travis, S., Magill, B., & King, L. (2005). Comparing stu-
dent-centered and teacher-centered instruction in college biology
labs. Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Something old, something new: Adult learning
theory for the twenty-first century. In S. B. Merriam, (Ed.), The New
Update on adult learning theory, new directions in adult and con-
tinuing education No. 89, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations,
principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 183