Constructivist Approach as a Pedagogical Framework for Teaching English Language and Communication Skills to Nigerian ESL Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Citation: Abdullahi Salisu KADEMI, PhD. (2022). Constructivist Approach as a Pedagogical Framework for Teaching English Language and Communication Skills to Nigerian ESL Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture (YOJOLLAC), Vol. 10, Number 1. Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Nigeria. ISSN 2449-0660

CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH AS A PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS TO NIGERIAN ESL STUDENTS: A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

By

Abdullahi Salisu KADEMI, PhD.

Abstract

This study examined the impact of a constructivist teaching approach on the academic achievements of English as Second Language (ESL) students enrolled in an English Language and Communication Skills course at Federal College of Education, Zaria, Nigeria. It used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research design. Random sampling was used to select 80 participants who were assigned to two groups, the experimental, which was taught using the constructivist approach, and the control, which was taught using the non-constructivist approach. Two data collection instruments were used. A researcher-designed General English Language Test (GELT) was used as a pretest and posttest and Murphy’s (1997) Constructivist Checklist was used for classroom observation. It was hypothesized that, due to the impact of the constructivist approach, the experimental group participants will have higher academic achievements in the posttest than those in the non-constructivist group. After using a pretest to establish that the two groups had similar English language skills and abilities prior to the experiment, posttest results revealed that the participants in the experimental group had statistically significantly higher academic achievements in GELT, (t(78) = 2.315, p = .023) than those in the control group. This implies that teaching them using a constructivist approach has had positive effect on their academic achievements. The study recommended using a constructivist teaching approach to enhance students’ cognitive retention and improve their academic achievements.

Introduction

This quasi-experimental study investigates the effect of using a constructivist approach on the academic achievements of English as Second Language (ESL) students who are pursuing a Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE) programme at Federal College of Education (FCE), Zaria. Specifically, it seeks to find out whether there are statistically significant differences in the academic achievements of students who were taught English Language and Communication Skills (ELCS) course in a constructivist learning context (CLC), and other students who were taught the same course in a non-constructivist learning context (nCLC).

The term ‘teaching approach’ has been defined in different ways by different theorists (Akimenko, 2016). Doumas (2012) sees it as the mode or manner of teaching which can be shaped as a lecture, tutorial, or laboratory work. For Hwang & Embi (2007), it involves the understanding of how to facilitate learning. Hoque (2016) defines it as a set of principles, beliefs, or ideas about the nature of learning which is translated into the classroom. Teaching approach entails a set of ideas, implementation guidelines for teachers, and principles and methods used by teachers to facilitate learning for students. Although there are many different learning theories, such as behaviourism, humanism, connectivism, constructivism, etc. and their associated teaching approaches (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; Maheshwari & Thomas, 2017), this study specifically examines the teaching approaches associated with the theory of constructivism. The aim is to investigate their effectiveness on students’ academic achievements. 

Constructivism, according to Elliott et al. (2000), is “an approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experiences of the learner” (p. 256). Mvududu &Thiel-Burgess (2012) describe it is as one of the leading and most hyped theories in the field of education. For Hein (1991) and Herring (1997), it is both a learning theory (how people learn) and an epistemology (the nature of knowledge). Hoagland (2000), who sees it as a learning theory, asserts that “humans create or build an understanding of their world by reflecting on their experiences instead of passively receiving the ‘objective knowledge’ of the world from others” (p. 4). Almukhallafi (2014) further submits that in a constructivist learning context, knowledge is not passed on directly from teachers to learners. Rather, it is constructed by learners and reconstructed as they gain new experiences or get access to new information. In a constructivist learning context, students are encouraged to be actively engaged with the material and to use their previous knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and insights as foundations for knowledge creation. In addition, they are encouraged to take responsibility for their learning, to ask questions, to make challenges, to interpret, to hold and defend their ideas, and to work collaboratively, rather than individually, in carrying out tasks and solving problems. The goal of a constructivist approach is cognitive development and deep learning.

Many researchers and theorists have proposed different ways of conducting a constructivist class. Bybee (1993) proposes 5E’s constructivist instructional model which involves engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate. Each of these E’s has a particular function and helps in making the teaching process more coherent and also assists students to understand the knowledge or skills better. Maheshwari &Thomas (2017) suggest a 5-stage model consisting of introduction / review / feedback, development of concepts, guided practice, closure, and assigning independent tasks to students. Similarly, Yeager (1991) offers a constructivist teaching approach that focuses on five things, namely, inviting ideas, exploring, proposing, explaining and solving, as well as taking action. Murphy (1997) provides an 18-item checklist for a typical constructivist learning context and it is on this framework that this study is based. Table 1 makes a comparison between operational mode of traditional and constructivist classrooms.

Table 1: Comparison between traditional and constructivist classrooms

Traditional Classroom		Constructivist Classroom
· Curriculum begins with the parts of the whole. Emphasizes basic skills.	· Curriculum emphasizes big concepts, beginning with the whole and expanding to include the parts.
· Strict adherence to fixed curriculum is highly valued.	· Pursuit of student questions and interests is valued.
· Materials are primarily textbooks and workbooks.	· Materials include primary sources of material and manipulative materials.
· Learning is based on repetition. Activities rely on textbooks only. · Teachers disseminate information to students. Students are recipients of knowledge. · Teacher's role is directive, rooted in authority. · Assessment is through testing and correct answers. · Knowledge is seen as inert. · Students work primarily alone.	· Learning is interactive, building on what the student already knows. · Teachers have a dialogue with students, helping students construct their own knowledge. · Teacher's role is interactive, rooted in negotiation. · Assessment includes student works, observations and points of view, as well as tests. Process is as important as product. · Knowledge is seen as dynamic, ever changing with our experiences. · Students work primarily in groups.

Source: University of Buffalo (n.d.)

The aim of this study is to investigate whether students who were taught using a constructivist teaching approach will have higher academic achievements in an English language test than those who were taught using a non-constructivist teaching approach. This is because of the belief that using a constructivist approach is capable of producing enhanced and positive learning experiences as well as higher learning outcomes. The underlying assumption is that although all the participants in this study were engaged in some forms of active learning, those in the experimental group will be more self-directed, more learner-centered, and more autonomous due to their exposure to the constructivist teaching approach.

Objectives of the Study

The study aims to achieve the following:

1. To examine the effect of using a constructivist teaching approach on the academic achievements of ESL students in a GELT, and

2. To investigate the extent to which the constructivist and non-constructivist groups differ in their response to the teaching approaches.

Research Questions

This study seeks to answer the following two research questions.

1. What is the difference between Nigerian ESL students who were taught using constructivist teaching approach and their peers who were taught using a non-constructivist approach in their academic achievements in a GELT?

2. To what extent do the constructivist and non-constructivist groups differ in their response to teaching approaches?

Significance of the Study

The main objectives of teaching methods and approaches are to help learners acquire knowledge and skills in easy, effective and efficient ways and to make the teaching and learning experience enjoyable, fruitful, and worthwhile. Therefore, it is essential for educational practitioners and policy makers to understand how different teaching methods and approaches affect learners’ academic achievements. For this reason, this study is significant as it sheds more light on the constructivist teaching approach and its influence on the academic achievements of ESL learners. The findings of this study will help educational stakeholders to have a better understanding of how different teaching approaches boost understanding and improve academic achievements.

Methodology

This section discusses the research design, population, sampling scheme, sampling procedure, and data collection tools. Similarly, issues of validity and reliability of the research instruments are discussed. 

Research Design

This study adopts a pretest-posttest control group quasi-experimental research design, otherwise known as classic controlled experiment or randomized pretest/posttest design. This design was chosen because it is suitable for comparing groups and measuring the degree of change that may have occurred as a result of treatments or interventions (Shuttleworth, 2009). Eighty (80) participants were randomly selected and randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. The rationale for randomization was to improve the validity of the results.

The learning task was teaching students different English language skills such as vocabulary, reading, grammar, and writing. The treatment group was taught using a constructivist approach, while the control group was taught using a behaviourist-based approach. As shown in Table 2, a GELT (0₁) was administered to both groups as a pretest to ensure that they were equivalent prior to the intervention. The constructivist treatment (X), which ran for 14 weeks, was given to the experimental group participants only and it was not part of the regular school programme. At the end of the experiment, the same GELT was given to both groups as a posttest (0₂) to investigate the effect of the intervention on their academic achievements.

Table 2: Quasi-Experimental Research Design

Group	Pretest	Intervention	Posttest
Experimental Group Control Group	01 01	X -	02 02

 

Sampling

The study was conducted at the General Studies Department of FCE Zaria. Random sampling technique was used to select 80 participants. The treatment group (n=40) was taught the ELCS course using a constructivist approach, while the control group (n=40) was taught the same course using a non-constructivist teaching approach. The mean age of the participants was 21 and they were second year students of NCE. Regarding their English language skills, 80% considered themselves as intermediate, upper intermediate, or proficient and only 20% rated themselves as beginners. Almost 89% of them said they had not taken any private English courses and only 11% had taken private English language courses.

Instruments and Procedures

Two quantitative data collection instruments were used in this study. A researcher-designed GELT was used as a pretest and posttest. It focuses on testing the participants’ English language skills and abilities in vocabulary, reading, grammar, and writing skills. The pretest and posttest followed the same format and were given under the same conditions. The tests were scored by experienced graders using an answer key and a holistic rubric.

The second tool, Murphy’s (1997) Constructivist Checklist, which is a quantitative classroom observation tool, was used to ensure that each group complied with its assigned teaching approach. It had 18 constructivist traits, which were developed “following a synthesis and summary of the characteristics of constructivist learning and teaching” (p. 11). A structured observation technique was used because it is a unique, versatile, and commonly used data collection procedure for classroom research. Each class was observed unscheduled thrice by three different non-participant observers. Each observation session lasted between 35 to 40 minutes. During the observation, 1 point was awarded if a certain characteristic was present (or supported) and zero point given if it was not present (or not supported).

Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments

The data collection tools were validated by a panel of experts. Based on their feedback, some modifications were made to the tools. The test-retest reliability coefficients of the pilot tests were 0.78 and 0.80 respectively, while that of the main study was 0.87. 

The Results

Research Question 1

To answer this research question, it was hypothesized that Nigerian ESL students who were taught using a constructivist approach will have a statistically higher academic achievement in a GELT than their peers who were taught using a non-constructivist approach. To test this hypothesis, two independent sample t-tests were performed. The data for these tests was collected through the pretest and posttest results of GELT. However, a couple of things were checked before conducting the tests.

First, to ensure that there were no pre-existing academic differences between the two groups before the intervention, an independent sample t-test was conducted on their pretests. The result revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in their pretest GELT results, t(78) = .059, p = .953, as shown in Table 3. Although the constructivist group had a slightly higher mean value (M = 62.57, SD = 5.295) than the non-constructivist group (M = 62.50, SD = 6.008), the mean difference (0.07) was numerically very small and statistically insignificant. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The standard deviations in both groups were high, indicating high variability of the scores. However, the variability was higher in the scores of the control group. As for the effect size, Cohen’s d was estimated at 0.012, which was a very small effect based on Cohen’s (1992) guidelines. On the basis of this result, it was believed that the two groups had similar English language skills and abilities prior to the treatment. Consequently, any change in their posttest mean scores could be attributed to the impact of the treatment.

Table 3: Results of Pretest Writing Performance Test

Source of Variance	Group	N	Mean	SD	SEM	T	df	Sig.
Pre-Test	Experimental	40	62.57	5.295	.837	.059	78	.953
	Control	40	62.50	6.008	.950

Having established that the two groups were homogenous prior to the experiment, another independent sample t-test was run to find out if there were statistically significant differences in the results of the two groups in the GELT after the 14-week long intervention given to the treatment group. The results showed that the treatment group had a statistically significantly higher posttest mean scores than the control group, t(78) = 2.315, p = .023, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Posttest Independent Samples t-test Results

Group	Source of Variance	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Experimental Group Control Group	Post-Test	65.27 62.27	5.373 6.189	2.315	78	.023

An examination of the means of the two groups revealed that the experimental group (M = 65.27, SD = 5.373) had a higher posttest mean score than the control group (M = 62.27, SD = 6.189). The mean difference (3.00) was both numerically high and statistically significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Looking at the standard deviations, it could be understood that although the variability of the scores within both groups was high, there was a much higher variability in the control group. As for the effect size, Cohen’s d was estimated at 0.517, which was a medium effect according to Cohen’s (1992) guidelines. This means that the magnitude of the difference was medium and should not be ignored. Based on this finding, it could be argued that the constructivist intervention has had a positive effect on the English language skills and abilities of the participants in the treatment group.

Research Question 2

To answer this research question, data was collected from Murphy’s (1997) Constructivist Checklist. For the experimental group, out of the 18 constructivist characteristics on the checklist, the most commonly observed ones were learner control, authentic activities and contexts, knowledge collaboration, alternative viewpoints, and authentic assessments with 100% implementation rate each. This shows the class was student-centered and students were actively engaged. They moved around the classroom freely and had some control of the learning process. They were also considered as critical thinkers who could make informed decisions. Similarly, authentic real-life learning environments and learning materials were provided. Skills, content, and tasks were relevant to the needs of the learners. The teacher put students in groups and allowed them to discuss and debate issues in a collaborative way. By so doing, dialogues were fostered and broad multi-dimensional thinking and perception were promoted. Also, learning for the sake of knowledge, rather than rather to pass a test, was encouraged. Students were given tasks to perform in class to demonstrate skills and knowledge acquisition and learning was measured in multiple ways by teachers and students. The least observed traits were scaffolding, conceptual interrelatedness, previous knowledge constructions, and problem solving with 66% implementation rate each.

On the other hand, the control group was the complete opposite. Key constructivist traits, such as teachers as coaches, multiple perspectives, alternative viewpoints, and consideration of errors recorded 0% implementation rate each. The class was relatively undemocratic. The teacher was seen as the only source of knowledge. Students were not given a chance to make exploration or offer alternative viewpoints. There was more TTT (teacher talk time) than STT (students talk time). Errors were not tolerated and were instantly corrected by the teacher. Likewise, interdisciplinary learning was not so much encouraged and relationship between different aspects of knowledge. The teacher rarely elicited learners’ previous knowledge by asking probing questions which build and connect the new knowledge to the previous one. High level thinking and problem-solving skills were not promoted. Students were rarely allowed to perform tasks that were challenging and slightly beyond the limits of their ability without the teacher’s guidance or assistance. Even the most observed traits in this class, like student-directed goals, knowledge construction and exploration, recorded just 33% implementation rate.

The data from the structured observation was analyzed by adding up all the points collected by the different observers during the three observations and calculating their means. The higher the mean score, the more constructivists the learning context was assumed to be. In other words, the more constructivist traits found in a learning context, the more constructivist-compliant that learning context was assumed to be (Korcová, 2007).

Table 5: Comparison between the Mean Scores of the Experimental and the Control groups on the Classroom Observation

Group	First Observation	Second Observation	Third Observation	Mean
Experimental	10	12	13	11.66
Control	6	5	5	5.33

As shown in Table 5, the findings of the repeated classroom observations revealed that the experimental group (M = 11.66) consistently scored higher points on the constructivist checklist than the control group (M = 5.33). The higher mean of the experimental group shows that it was compliant with the constructivist approach. Conversely, the lower mean of the control group indicates its compliance with the traditional approach.

Although, according to Dörnyei (2007), descriptive statistics would suffice in analyzing the data that seeks to describe a sample without making an inference, inferential statistics was also used here to find out if the difference was statistically significant. This is based on the recommendation in a UK Essay (2015) that the type of data derived from a structured observation is quantitative in nature. The data then can be used to test the validity of an assumption or hypothesis. Consequently, a Mann Whitney U Test was conducted because, according to Abeyasekera (2008), non-parametric tests are more appropriate for analyzing data such as ranks. The result of the test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in their implementation of constructivist principles in favour of the experimental group, (Z = -1.993, p = .046), as shown in Table 6. The rank average score of the treatment group was 5.00 and their sum of rank was 15.00, while the control group had the rank average of 2.00 and the sum of ranks of 6.00. This result further suggests that the experimental class closely adhered to the constructivist teaching approach, while the control class adhered more to the non-constructivist approach. 

Table 6: Results of the Mann Whitney U Test to compare the Two Learning Contexts on their Implementation of the Constructivist Traits

Groups	N	Rank Average	Sum of Ranks	U	Z	p
Experimental Class	3	5.00	15.00	.000 -1.993 .046*
Control Class	3	2.00	6.00

* The difference is significant since p = .050.

Discussion oF Findings

The first finding of this study shows that that the constructivist group, which was taught ELCS course using the constructivist approach, had a statistically significantly higher posttest mean in the GELT, (t(78) = 2.315, p = .023) than the non-constructivist group, which was taught the same course using a non-constructivist approach. Based on this finding, it was argued that the intervention has had a positive effect on the academic achievements of the participants in the treatment group. The second finding reveals that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in their implementation of constructivist principles, in favour of the experimental group, (z = -1.993; p = .046). Based on this finding, it was argued that the experimental class closely adhered to the constructivist teaching approach, while the control group adhered more to the non-constructivist approach. 

These are not surprising or unusual findings because, according to Ayaz & Sekerci (2015), Hidayat et al. (2015), and Ugwuozor (2020), students exposed to a constructivist learning approach often demonstrate higher and better capacity to learn than those exposed to rote learning approaches. There are many possible reasons for the superior academic achievement of the participants in the treatment group in the posttest. First, their exposure to a constructivist approach may have helped them to take responsibility for their learning; to be active participants rather than passive recipients in the learning context; to be active thinkers, knowledge creators, and active collaborators, rather than empty vessels to be filled by the teachers; and to use their existing experiences to create new knowledge and understanding. Roy & Saha (2021) see a constructivist learning context as situation where students are active participants who are capable of creating knowledge. Also, Bimbola & Daniel (2010) submit that constructivist students learn by fitting new information together with what they already know. Other possible explanations for the higher achievements of students in a constructivist class, according to Chowdhury (2016), include the democratic nature of their learning context, their freedom of discovery exploration and questioning, their participation in a collaborative rather than individualized learning, and their use of technological tools that aid learning.

The findings of this study are in consonance with many findings in the literature. For instance, Ugwuozor (2020), who examined the impact of constructivism on poetry learning among junior high school students in southeast Nigeria, found that the constructivist method had a significant impact on the achievement in poetry among students in the treatment group compared to those in the control group. Based on that, it was concluded that “the application of the constructivist method during teaching and learning grooms and produces higher achievers, since students in these poetry classes who were exposed to constructivist teaching performed better than those who were not” (Ugwuozor, 2020, p. 13).

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study investigated the effect of a constructivist teaching approach on the academic achievements of ESL students enrolled in an NCE programme at FCE Zaria. Using a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research design, it specifically aimed to find out whether students who were taught ELCS course using a constructivist approach will have higher academic achievements in a GELT than other students who were taught the same course using a non-constructivist approach. The rationale for this was to find effective teaching approaches that enrich learning experiences and, at the same time, improve academic achievements. Similarly, the study examined the extent to which the treatment and control groups adhered to constructivist and non-constructivist approaches respectively during the experiment. The rationale for this was to ensure that any differences found in the posttest results will be due to the effect of the intervention, not chance or any pre-existing differences. Two tools, namely GELT and Murphy’s Constructivist Checklist, were used to collect data, which was analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The key findings of this study were:

1. Nigerian ESL students who were taught using a constructivist approach had statistically significantly higher academic achievements in the GELT than their peers, who were taught using a non-constructivist approach (t(78) = 2.315, p = .023). Based on this, it was concluded that the constructivist teaching intervention has had a significant positive effect on the academic achievements of the participants in the treatment group.

2. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in their implementation of constructivist principles in favor of the experimental group, (Z = -1.993, p = .046). Based on this, it was concluded that the experimental class closely adhered to the constructivist teaching approach, while the control class adhered more to the non-constructivist approach.

Based on these findings, the following recommendations are made for teachers, educational policy makers, and researchers:

1. Teachers should endeavour to use the constructivist teaching approach in their classes because research has found that it improves students’ cognitive retention and academic achievement.

2. Educational policy makers should promote the implementation of constructivist teaching approaches at all levels of education because of their effectiveness and their positive effect on students’ academic achievements.

3. Researchers should conduct more studies on the impact of other teaching approaches on the academic achievements of students at different levels of education and in different learning situations.

References

Abeysekera, I. (2008). Intellectual capital disclosure trends: Singapore and Sri Lanka. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 8(2), 329-345.

Akimenko, O. (2016). Teaching approaches: Theory and practice. NUGSE Research in Education, 1(2), 2-8. https://nugserie.nu.edu.kz. 

Al Mukhallafi, T. R. (2014). Computer assisted language learning for learning English in Saudi Arabia. [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Technology, Sydney.‏

Ayaz, M. F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The Effects of the constructivist learning approach on student's academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 143-156.‏

Bimbola, O., & Daniel, O. I. (2010). Effect of constructivist-based teaching strategy on academic performance of students in integrated science at the junior secondary school level. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(7), 347-353.‏

Bybee, R. W. (1993). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS, 24.‏

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1).

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Doumas, K. (2012). Students' experiences and perceptions of in-depth approaches in teaching and understanding subject matter. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 295-313.

Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill College.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Hein, G. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. The museum and the needs of people. CECA (International Committee of Museum Educators) Conference, Jerusalem Israel.

Herring, M. C. (1997). Design and training for implementation of constructivist-based distance learning environments. [Doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University Capstones.

Hidayat, I., Lesmini, B., Sukaryawan, M., & Mujamil, J. (2015). Implementation and the impact of Constructivism-based module on students’ academic achievement. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 513, 64-69.‏

Hoagland, M. A. (2000). Utilizing constructivism in the history classroom. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482436.

Hoque, Md. (2016).Teaching Approaches, methods, and techniques - Enamul Hoque. https://doi.10.13140/RG.2.2.21377.66400.

Hwang, D., & Embi, M. (2007). Approaches employed by secondary schools teachers to teaching the literature component in English. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, 22, 1-23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253989107.

Korcová, K. (2007). Do teachers use the constructivist approach? http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/166153.htm.

Maheshwari, G., & Thomas, S. (2017). An analysis of the effectiveness of the constructivist approach in teaching business statistics. Informing Science, 20.‏

Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: From philosophy to practice.‏ https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444966. .

Mvududu, N., & Thiel-Burgess, J. (2012). Constructivism in practice: The case for English language learners. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 108-118.

Roy, S., & Saha, B. (2021). Essence of social constructivist approach in teaching-learning scenario and revolving questions on its relevance in technological era. IAR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5).

Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Pretest-posttest designs. https://explorable.com/pretest-posttest-designs.

Ugwuozor, F. O. (2020). Constructivism as pedagogical framework and poetry learning outcomes among Nigerian students: An experimental study. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1818410.

UK Essay (2015). What is involved in structured observation? https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/what-is-involved-in-structured-observation-psychology-essay.php

University at Buffalo. (n.d.). Constructivism - Creating experiences that facilitate the construction of knowledge. https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/develop/theory/constructivism.html.

Yeager, R. (1991). The Constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education dalam. The Science Teacher, 56(6).