Assessment of the constructivist physics learning environments

The refinement and validation of the CLESAF involved a series of principle component analysis, in order to examine the internal structure of the 50 item set. A principle component analysis with varimax rotation was used to generate the factors. Results of the factor analysis indicated that five factors explained all ten items. This result was very satisfactory to the expected factors and intended objectives for the model used.

Table 2 shows the factor loadings and final version of the CLESAF. The only factor loadings included in this table are those greater than or equal to the conventionally accepted value of 0.4. Reliability and validity of the CLESAF was established by examining the internal consistency or reliability (Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient) and discriminant validity (mean correlation with other scales) of the CLESAF. These are shown in Table 3, which indicates the alpha coefficient ranged from 0.62 to 0.77, exceeding the threshold of 0.60 given by Henderson, Fisher and Fraser (1998) as the acceptable reliability for research purposes.

Table 2. Constructivist Learning Environment Survey According to 5E Model - CLESAF and Factor Loadings for Items.

Factor Loadings			Items	Variance %
Enter	1	0.46	My new learning started with problems about real world	12.6
	2	0.72	I felt that I could challenge and question the subject
	3	0.59	It was important for me to be involved in class discussions
	4	0.68	I used my previous knowledge and experiences in discussions
	5	0.64	My ideas and suggestions were used during classroom discussions
	6	0.47	I enjoyed having teachers tell me how to work in this class
	7	0.60	I listened to other students during the classroom discussions
	8	0.56	Questions gave me a chance to review my previous experiences
	9	0.61	The teacher asked me questions before starting the activities
	10	0.73	My previous knowledge encouraged me when learning a new subject
Exploration	11	0.65	I planned what I was going to learn after pre-discussions	22.2
	12	0.74	I got the chance to talk to other students
	13	0.71	I helped the teacher decide which activities were best for me
	14	0.62	I complained about anything that preventing me from learning
	15	0.68	I shared resources with other students when doing activities
	16	0.72	When I worked in groups in this class, there was teamwork
	17	0.81	I cooperated with other students when doing research
	18	0.76	I learned from other students in this class
	19	0.71	I carried out investigations to answer the questions that puzzled me
	20	0.64	I found answers to my questions by investigating
Explanation	21	0.47	I explained my comprehension to teacher or other students	11.7
	22	0.55	I asked other students to explain their thoughts
	23	0.62	Other students or teachers asked me to explain my ideas
	24	0.64	The teacher’s questions helped me understand
	25	0.49	I was asked to think about evidence for statements
	26	0.71	The teacher moved around the classroom to talk with me
	27	0.66	I enjoyed showing the teacher what I did
	28	0.73	The teacher gave me explanations using several resources
	29	0.68	The teacher helped me share my experiences with others
	30	0.54	I explained the meaning of statements, diagrams and graphs
Elaboration	31	0.64	I learned how science could be part of my life ouside of school	10.4
	32	0.82	I knew what I was trying to accomplish in new situations
	33	0.74	I knew how much I work in new situations with group (confusing)
	34	0.72	I relied on my ability to know what I had to do
	35	0.69	I enjoyed seeing how other students attempted to solve problems
	36	0.76	I was asked to explain how I solved the problems
	37	0.68	Students discussed how to go about solving problems with me
	38	0.62	I explained my ideas to other students
	39	0.81	The teacher helped me when I had trouble with the work
	40	0.82	I did as much as I set out to do
Evaluation	41	0.65	I would have wanted to understand the subject before starting the task activities	9.2
	42	0.71	I needed to do theoretical research again during task activities
	43	0.68	I used knowledge from my studies that took place previous stages in task activities
	44	0.48	I needed the teacher during all activities
	45	0.71	It’s OK for me to assign to participate in various homework and projects
	46	0.77	It is important that my contributions to the activities were used for evaluations
	47	0.62	I believe that my interactions with others are considered by the teacher
	48	0.74	Talking with teacher is very important in the assessment of my knowledge
	49	0.78	My performance on activities should be considered for success
	50	0.65	I enjoyed having an active role in my learning activities

Table 3. Internal Consistency and Discriminant Validity for the CLESAF

Scale	Alpha reliability	Discriminant validity
Enter/Engage	0.67	0.36
Exploration	0.77	0.44
Explanation	0.73	0.40
Elaboration	0.62	0.33
Evaluation	0.74	0.35

Combining qualitative and quantitative data revealed that the CLESAF has proven to be useful instrument for providing important insights into the key characteristics of the constructivist learning environment using the 5E model. CLESAF explains 66.1% of the total variance. The most interesting data is about the distribution of the variance to the five factors. 22% of the total variance was explained by the exploration factor. In other words, a third of the total explained variance belongs to the discovery phase. This situation is very important when considering implementing the constructivist 5E model. The exploration phase is the heart of the 5E model. The enter phase, explains 12.6% of the total variance, and the explanation phase, explains 11.7% of the total variance, and are critically important for 5E model and its applicability. These results are compatible with Akdeniz et al. (2002) and Keser (2003). The 5E model can be used to implement a constructivist view of teaching and learning in the classroom. Although this model was successful, it may not be suited to all teachers and to all strands of a curriculum. Teachers have a variety of structured, convenient and effective ways to teach based on a constructivist theory of teaching and learning available to them (Boddy et al., 2003).

Because CLESAF contains most characteristics of the constructivist perspective, it should be considered as an instrument to be use when designing constructivist environments, especially well-equipped constructivist physics classes (Keser, 2003).