Perception of Constructivist Learning Environment: Gender and School Type Differences in Siaya County, Kenya

Aims: The study aimed at investigating gender and school type differences in perception of Biology constructivist learning environment. Study Design: The study adopted a survey design. Place and Duration of Study: The study was carried out in Siaya County in Kenya between October and November 2013 during the school term. Methodology: The study sampled 815 grade 12 students (466 boys, 349 girls, 399 high achieving students and 416 low achieving students). Two instruments were used viz. Learners Perception Questionnaire (LPQ) and Learners Interview Guide (LIG). The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, two-way MANOVA and two-way ANOVA. The qualitative data were used to explain quantitative data. Results: The findings show that there existed statistically significant difference in perception between the low achieving schools and high achieving schools in favor of the low achieving schools in all the subscales of SPQ (p =.00) and statistically significant gender (Hotelling’s trace = .131, F = Original Research Article Ongowo et al.; AIR, 4(1): 15-26, 2015; Article no.AIR.2015.056 16 21.19, p = .000) and school type (Hotelling’s trace = .269, F = 43.48, p = .000) differences with respect to the collective dimensions of the SPQ. The results also revealed that there was an interaction between gender and school type and vice versa with respect to collective dimensions of the SPQ (Hotelling’s trace = .176, F = 23.40, p = .000). Conclusion: It is concluded that low achieving schools have higher preference for a constructivist learning environment than high achieving schools and there exists gender and school type differences in perception of constructivist learning environment in favor of girls and low achieving schools respectively. The implications of the findings are discussed.


INTRODUCTION
One of the global concerns in science education is the declining interest in science and science related careers. Fensham [1] has documented some of the reasons leading to this state of affairs as learning environments characterized by transmission; science knowledge that is dogmatic and correct; abstractness and irrelevance of science content just to mention a few. The declining interest in science has attracted much attention in terms of research on the learning environment due to its influence on the cognitive and affective outcomes of student learning. The learning environment has been a subtle concept in the past but recent research has made great strides at conceptualizing it. It is now understood as a psychosocial and pedagogical context in which learning takes place and influences cognitive and affective components of learning. The learning environments in which the learners are active participants in the learning process are focal point of contemporary educational systems [2][3][4][5][6]. Within the continuum of active learning strategies, the constructivist theory of learning is gaining traction across the globe as a panacea to disinterest in science learning and science related disciplines [2,7].
Constructivism is a learning theory that describes a process of knowledge construction as an active rather than a passive one. It is a theoretical position which holds that knowledge should not be imbibed by the learners' minds but a socially constructed by the learners through interaction with text, dialogue or physical experiences [8,9]. According to Kim [6], in the constructivist epistemology, knowledge is constructed out of sensual and perceptive experiences of the learner. Secondly, knowledge is the personal understanding of the outside world through personal experience. Thirdly, the internally represented knowledge becomes the basis of other structures of knowledge and a new cognitive structure of the person. Fourthly, learning is an active process of developing meaning based on individual personal experiences.

According
to Singh and Rajput [10] constructivism is not a unitary theoretical position but a representation of a continuum of cognitive or radical constructivism and socio-cultural or social constructivism. 'Cognitive constructivism' was based on the earlier work of Jean Piaget and emphasizes the importance of cognitive processes that occur within individuals. Proponents of this view [6,[11][12][13], argue that individuals always strive to make sense of the world around them by physically interacting with objects in their environment, thinking about things that have been observed. Individuals interpret these experiences in order to make meaning and develop personal understanding. Cognitive constructivism therefore emphasizes the personal construction of knowledge. The teachers' role with regard to this view is therefore peripheral to provision of suitable experiences that will facilitate learning. It implies that the teacher should be conversant with the prior knowledge of the learners; use these prior conceptions to define conceptual goals for the learners and understand the processes needed to achieve these goals; help the learners to be aware of the alternative frameworks and provide opportunities for trying out their new ideas.
On the other hand, 'social constructivism' developed from the ideas of Lev Vygotsky and emphasizes the importance of society, culture and language [14][15][16]. According to this perspective, knowledge is socially constructed and learning takes place in particular social and cultural contexts. Social interaction provides learners with ways of interpreting the physical and the social world. The students thus become enculturated into ways of thinking that are common practice in that specific community. Much learning occurs when learners interact with more competent individuals such as teachers. Through a process of scaffolding, a teacher can guide students to develop their knowledge and skills while making connections with students' existing schemes. Through language, students are able to share ideas and seek clarification until they understand. The emphasis is on a communication rich environment in which students are given opportunities to interact with adults and peers to negotiate meaning. The teachers' central role is providing guidance and support to learners. In other words, 'social constructivism' places emphasis on the community and social interaction rather than the individual.
Cognitive and social constructivist perspectives emphasize different paths towards knowledge construction but have a common ground in the sense that the student is still required to access their pre-existing knowledge and beliefs, link these to what is currently being experienced and modify them if there is need. Thus implicit in both views is that construction of meaning requires effort on the part of the learner.
Several constructivist learning environment designs have come to the fore since its foundational proposition. Cosgrove and Osborne [17], Proposed a generative learning model in which the teaching sequence consisted of four phases: The preliminary phase, in which the teacher ascertains the pupils views through surveys; the focus phase in which the pupils' attention is focused on a phenomenon and their ideas about that phenomenon; the challenge phase, in which the pupils present their views to the group, the teacher presents the scientific view and they are discussed and compared in order to facilitate accommodation and the application phase in which the students use the accepted scientific viewpoint to solve a range of problems. According to Driver and Oldham [18], the constructivist model consists of five phases as Orientation, elicitation, restructuring, application and review. According to Yager [19], constructivist model of teaching consists of four aspects; inviting ideas, exploring, proposing explanations and solution and taking action. The designs of constructivist learning environment are characterized by the use of prior knowledge as a primer to new knowledge, active construction of knowledge and ultimately application of the constructed knowledge.

Research on Constructivist Learning Environment
Ozkal, Tekkaya and Cakiroglu [20], carried out a study to investigate 8 th grade students' perception of actual and preferred constructivist science learning environments in public elementary schools of Ankara. The results showed that students tended to prefer more constructivist learning environment in which they have more opportunities to relate science with the real world, communicate in the classroom, take role in the decision making process of what will go on in the lesson to be more beneficial to them, questioning what is going on in the lesson freely and experience the formulation of scientific knowledge. Kim [21] carried out a study to investigate the effects of constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement in mathematics, self-concept and learning strategies. The results from this study indicated that constructivist teaching approach is more effective than traditional teaching in terms of academic achievement however it was not effective in relation to self-concept and learning strategies, however it had some effect upon motivation, anxiety towards learning and selfmonitoring; at the same time the constructivist learning environment was preferred to a traditional classroom. Thenjiwe and Boitumelo [9] carried out a study to explore the extent to which constructivist practices were present in Mathematics classrooms. The findings of the study indicated that 73.5% of the lessons required learners to memorize facts, formulae and definitions, 85% of the lessons were characterized by performance of algorithmic problems without connection to the underlying concept or meaning, 23% of the lessons involved use of procedures with the purpose of developing deeper levels of understanding concepts or ideas and in only 3% of the lessons observed involved learners doing non-algorithmic thinking, students exploring and investigating the nature of concepts and relationships. Beyhan [22], carried out a study to examine the correlation between elementary teachers' student control ideology and students' views on constructivist learning environment in Konya. The findings indicated that there was a negative moderate significant correlation between teachers' student control ideologies and students' views on constructivist learning environment. On the hand, it was found that teachers' student control ideologies predict students' views on constructivist learning environment. Ongowo [23] investigated teachers' perception of actual and preferred constructivist learning environment. The data were collected from a sample of 41 Biology teachers from Gem District, Kenya. The findings indicated that of the 5 scales of the constructivist learning environment, the ones that were statistically different were personal relevance, uncertainty and student negotiation. The scales of critical voice and shared control were not statistically different. Ongowo, Indoshi and Ayere [24] observed that constructivist learning environment can enhance the motivation of students in low and high achieving schools. These studies indicate the knowledge gap as far as school type and gender differences are concerned.

Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
Research on constructivist learning environment has produced a plethora of findings that could lead to enhancement of cognitive and noncognitive outcomes of learning science. However, literature is mute as concerns the gender and school type differences in perception of the constructivist learning environment specifically in the discipline of Biology. The purpose of this study was therefore to examine the gender and school type differences in perception of the Biology constructivist learning environment.

Research Questions
The study was guided by the following questions:  Are there any significant differences in students' perception of constructivist learning environment between low achieving schools (LAS) and high achieving schools (HAS)?  Are there any significant gender differences in students' perception of the constructivist learning environment in low achieving schools (LAS) and high achieving schools (HAS)?

Significance of the Study
The practical outcomes of this research is that students outcomes can be improved by creating classroom environment with respect to constructivist perspective found empirically to be conducive to student motivational beliefs and attitude towards Biology. This study also provides a degree of support for promoting constructivist oriented teaching in Biology classrooms to help the students to be more motivated and help them realize the importance and usefulness of what they have learnt in the classrooms. Understanding student perceptions of the classroom learning environment and the factors associated with it can help teachers and educational researchers to find out some alternative ways that enhance student learning by restructuring the learning environment to make it more congruent with that preferred by students.

Research Design
The study adopted a survey design. This is because the study sought to determine the existing status of perception of constructivist learning environment by the students. The study also described the learning environment as perceived by the students without subjecting the learning environment to experimentation [25][26][27][28][29]. A survey is an excellent tool for the measurement of characteristics of large populations. For example, how grade 12 students in Siaya County perceive the Biology constructivist learning environment. A survey is also useful to explain or exploring the existing status of two or more variables like gender and school type.

Sample Size
The sample size comprised of 466 boys and 349 girls in terms of gender and 399 high achieving students and 415 low achieving students in terms of school type. All these were grade 12 students in co-educational public secondary schools from Siaya County. This represented slightly above 10% of the population. For studies that involve description, 10% of the population is enough to provide a representative sample when the target population is in thousands [28,30,31]. This provided a sample that represents the salient characteristics of the population. From this sample, 72 students were interviewed that comprised 36 boys and 36 girls. Table 1 shows the sample characteristics by school type and gender.

Instrumentation
The study used two instruments namely Learners Perception Questionnaire (LPQ) and Learners Interview Guide (LIG).

Learners perception questionnaire
The Learners Perception Questionnaire (LPQ) was adopted from Johnson and McClure [32] and modified to suit the study by the researchers. It is a five point response scale of Almost always, Often, Sometimes, Less often and almost never. The instrument consists of two forms that are 'actual' and 'preferred' forms. The actual form assesses the current learning environment of the classroom and the preferred form assesses the students' preferences about the constructivist learning environment.
The instrument has 20 items; the scales are Personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control and student negotiation. The scale on personal relevance is concerned with the extent to which the teachers relate Biology to out of school experiences. Uncertainty relates to the degree in which learners experience biological knowledge as provisional or tentative. Critical voice is concerned with the extent to which the learning environment has been created in which learners can question the teachers' method of teaching. Shared control relates to the degree to which learners and teachers co-control the learning environment. Finally, Student negotiation is related to the degree in which the learning environment provides for cooperative learning.

Learners interview guide
Learners Interview Guide (LIG) was developed by the researchers and used to corroborate the quantitative data collected from the questionnaire. The items were created from each of the sub-domains of the questionnaire. 5 questions were generated from the questionnaire to form the interview guide.

Validity and Reliability of Instruments
The instruments LPQ and LIG were first validated by experts in science education from the school of education. Thereafter, they were piloted in a school with the same features as the sample. The outcomes of the process of piloting the instruments were used to rephrase the questions so that they convey the same meaning to all the subjects. This helped to improve the questionnaire and enhance reliabilities of the instruments.
The Cronbach's Correlation Coefficient alpha (α) formula was used to test for the reliabilities of LPQ-actual and LPQ-preferred. Cronbach's correlation coefficient alpha is considered appropriate in assessing internal consistency of an instrument. [30,31,33]. The LPQ-actual and LPQ-preferred returned reliability coefficients of above 0.7 which is considered appropriate and acceptable [34][35][36].

Data Analysis
To establish school type differences with regard to perception of constructivist learning environment, data were analyzed using independent sample t-test and to determine the multivariate effect of school type and gender on perception of constructivist learning environment, two-way MANOVA was used together with univariate analyses. Data were analyzed using the SPSS program version 17.The qualitative data collected using LIG were grouped according to their similarity in content then organized in relation to research objectives. Analysis was done by establishing the thematic categories.

Research Question 1
To answer the research question, independent sample t-tests were carried out. Table 2 shows Levene's test for equality of variances and t-test for equality of means. Levene's tests for each of sub-scales of LPQ produced significant results hence the t-test analyses are based on equal variances not assumed. Table 2 indicates that the preference levels for Biology constructivist learning environment are higher among the low achieving students than the high achieving students for all the scales of LPQ as depicted by the negative t-values and mean differences. At the same time, there existed a statistically significant difference between the low achieving schools and high achieving schools in favor of the low achieving schools at an alpha level of 0.05.
The findings in Table 2 indicate that low achieving students have high preference levels for a constructivist learning environment compared to the high achieving students. This could be due to the fact that the learners in the high achieving schools score higher on achievement tests and therefore naturally attribute this to a positive learning environment. The low achieving learners are likely to attribute their low scores on the nature of the learning environment leading to high preference levels for a constructivist learning environment.
The qualitative data are in support of the findings from the quantitative data. The students generally have high perceptions for constructivist learning environment. However the perceptions of low achieving schools are higher. They have strong views in which they expect a constructivist learning environment. On whether they should question the pedagogical plans of the teacher, the low achieving students have strong feelings that they should have a say. This could be due to the fact that they attribute their failure or good performance to the extrinsic factors like what the learning environment provides. The high achieving students have mild views about their involvement in questioning the pedagogical plans of the teacher. LAS: Some teachers do not teach us well so we need to tell them that the method they using do not help us.
HAS: The teacher should be left to do their job of teaching because they are trained to do it.
On whether biological knowledge has changed over time, the high achieving students seem to have the view that biological knowledge keeps changing. This seems to stem from the fact that certain misconceptions that they held previously in primary school have been clarified like 'the source of Vitamin D'. The students from low achieving schools seem unaware that scientific knowledge is tentative. They hold static views of scientific knowledge.
LAS: Science remains the same as it was long time ago. The method of teaching is what keeps changing.
HAS: Science keeps changing. For example in primary school we taught that the sun is the source of vitamin D. but now it has been found that it is made in the skin.
The findings from this study support earlier classroom learning environment research that students' generally prefer a more favorable learning environment compared to the actual one they are actually experiencing [20,37,38]. In this study, the students tended to prefer a more constructivist learning environment in which they have more opportunities to relate Biology to with the real world, experience the formulation of biological knowledge, offers them chance to question what is going on in the class freely, take role in the decision making process of what will go on in the lesson to be more beneficial to them and finally a learning environment where they can negotiate ideas with fellow students.

Research Question 2
To answer the question, a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted.
In doing this, the school type differences were further established and the interaction with the gender is confirmed. Analysis of interview data was also carried out. In this analysis, gender and school type were considered as independent variables and the dimensions of LPQ were considered as the dependent variables. The analysis was performed with the significance level of 0.05. The descriptive statistics for students' perceptions of Biology constructivist learning environment according to gender and school type are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 indicates that the girls in high achieving schools have higher mean scores for preference of a constructivist learning environment than boys in the same schools. In the low achieving schools, the boys have higher mean scores for preference of critical voice, shared control and uncertainty. On the hand, the girls have higher mean scores for preference of student negotiation and personal relevance than the boys in the same schools.
The mean scores suggest that girls in the high achieving schools on the whole have more positive perceptions of Biology learning environment characterized by constructivism than boys. On the other hand among the low achieving schools, the boys have more positive preferences for a learning environment providing for critical voice, shared control and uncertainty. The girls in the same environment have positive preferences for a learning environment providing for student negotiation and personal relevance. The girls had strong preferences for an environment providing for student negotiation where clarification of ideas from other students would occur. This would imply the girls prefer a relational, cooperative and friendly learning environment.
MANOVA was performed to determine the multivariate effect of gender and school type (independent variables) on the scores of students for perception of constructivist learning environment (dependent variable). Differences among the groups were assessed by applying a two-way MANOVA with all the dimensions of the constructivist learning environment. The multivariate F values in this analysis are based on Hotelling's trace which is useful when the independent variables are represented by two groups according to Meyers, Gamst & Guarino, [41] Univariate tests were done after analysis of multivariate effects. All the main effects for gender and school type were significant (significance level p<0.05). The effect size for school type was F (5, 807) = 43.48, p = 0.000, η 2 = 0.212, = 0.116. There was an interaction effect between gender and school type was F (5, 807) = 28.40, p = 0.000, η 2 = 0.150. Table 4 shows the results of univariate analysis on the variable school type. Table 4 indicates statistically significant differences in perception of the learning environment in all the subscales (personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control and student negotiation) in favor of the low achieving schools. The largest effect size came from the subscales of uncertainty and critical voice. Table 5 shows gender differences in perception of constructivist learning environment. Table 5 indicates the existence of statistically significant differences in perception of the learning environment in all the subscales (personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control and student negotiation) in favor of the girls. Once again the largest effect size came from the subscales of uncertainty and critical voice. The implication is that these subscales contributed a great deal to the gender differences in perception of the constructivist learning environment.
A summary of Two-way MANOVA results comparing mean scores according to gender and school type with respect to the collective dependent variables is shown in Table 6.
The results in Table 6 show that there were statistically significant gender (Hotelling's trace = .131, F = 21.19, p = .000) and school type (Hotelling's trace = .269, F = 43.48, p = .000) differences with respect to the collective dimensions of the SPQ. The results also revealed that there was an interaction between gender and school type and vice versa with respect to collective dimensions of the SPQ (Hotelling's trace = .176, F = 23.40, p = .000).
The results in Table 6 confirm the presence of gender and school type differences in perception of a constructivist learning environment. The results also indicate that there was an interaction between gender and school type. This implies that the effect of gender depends on school type and vice versa. We can visit places more often where we learn about plants and animals. If this is done I will understand better"….
The girls and boys seem to have high preferences for critical voice, a situation where they question the pedagogical plans of the teacher. The boys too seem to have ideals for the same but unsure of how it can be actualized and at the same time helpless. The girls on the other hand recognize the fact that a teacher is a human being and is prone to pedagogical ineffectiveness. The girl goes further to hold that it is possible to negotiate favorable learning environment without being seen to be undisciplined. A girl and a boy had the following to say.
Girl: "I will be happy to help the teacher plan for our lesson. I will check for the apparatus for the teacher, I will be ready to learn and even read ahead of the lesson and get to know what is to be learnt early".
Boy: "I can help the teacher if he asks me to help him. Remember, he has more knowledge than us. I can help him plan a few times because I also have a lot to do".
The findings of this study have indicated that there are gender differences in preference of the constructivist learning environment in favor of girls. The findings confirm the previous studies on learning environment [42][43][44][45][46][47]. This study has specifically indicated that the girls in high achieving schools have higher preferences for constructivist learning environment in all the scales. On the other hand, among the low achieving schools, the girls had higher mean scores for personal relevance and student negotiation. The boys had higher mean scores in the other scales of LPQ in the low achieving schools. The gender differences in favor of girls can be explained in terms the content that the students are exposed to at this stage of their learning. The content areas at this stage include excretion and homeostasis, respiration, gaseous exchange and transport in animals. These content areas are mainly concerned with human Biology which has been known to be more interesting to the girls [47]. This interest is likely to make the girls to perceive the learning environment more positively. The school type differences can be attributed to the nature of the learning environment in the low achieving schools. In an international study by Martin et al. [48], it was reported that some of the factors contributing to the low achievement in schools included limited teacher involvement and low student involvement. In such a situation, the students from low achieving schools are likely to have high expectations from the learning environment.

CONCLUSION
The students from low and high achieving schools have a high preference for a constructivist learning environment characterized by personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control and student negotiation than the learning environment they were actually experiencing. It is concluded that there is a difference between the students' perception of the constructivist learning environment and actual learning environment in favor of constructivist learning environment.
The girls in high and low achieving schools perceive the constructivist learning environment highly compared to boys in high and low achieving schools. On the other hand low achieving schools have high preference for constructivist learning environment than the high achieving schools. It is concluded that there are gender and school type differences in the perception of a constructivist learning environment.
The study has the following implications: Firstly, there is need for the teachers to create the learning environments to make it congruent with what the learners prefer in the high and low achieving schools. By looking at large discrepancies between one or two scales when students' perceptions of actual versus the constructivist learning environment are compared, teachers can tailor an intervention in order to bridge this gap. The gap between high and low achieving schools reflects the expectations of students in low achieving schools which need to be addressed. Secondly, teachers need to take gender differences into consideration when planning for teaching in coeducational schools. There is need to maintain the high preference levels among girls and low achieving schools for a constructivist learning environment and at the same time encourage the boys and high achieving schools to be more oriented towards embracing constructivist learning philosophy.