Author

Victorino T. Vinasoy, Jr.*
Northeastern College, Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines

Abstract

Constructivist pedagogies have become a dominant approach in science education, emphasizing active learning, inquiry, collaboration, and technology integration to enhance student understanding and critical thinking. However, limited empirical evidence exists on how these pedagogies are implemented in specific local contexts, particularly in public secondary schools in Santa Maria, Isabela. This study examined the level of implementation of constructivist pedagogies and the challenges encountered by science teachers using a descriptive-correlational research design. A total of 50 science teachers were selected through simple random sampling. Data were collected using a validated survey questionnaire and analyzed using statistical tools. Findings revealed that teachers often implement constructivist strategies, especially in inquiry-based learning, collaborative activities, and technology integration. Challenges related to resources and teacher beliefs were minimal, while institutional support and curriculum constraints were significant. A significant negative relationship was found between implementation and challenges, indicating that increased barriers reduce effective practice.

Keywords: Constructivist pedagogies, inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, technology integration, institutional support, science education.

*Corresponding author
DOI: http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS0502960

Recommended citation:
Vinasoy, V. T., Jr. (2026). Implementation of constructivist pedagogies and associated challenges among science teachers in public secondary schools in Santa Maria, Isabela. Pantao (The International Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences) 5 (2), 1066-1073. http://doi.org/10.69651/PIJHSS0502960

Read the full text

References

Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153

Avramidis, E., & Hudson, A. (2014). Teaching and learning in inclusive classrooms. British Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 131–149.

Barnett, M. (2021). Science teaching and learning through constructivism. Journal of Science Education, 45(2), 123–135.

Berestova, A., et al. (2022). Constructivist approaches in e-learning environments. Education Sciences, 12(3), 210.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (2019). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2014). Cognitive psychology and instruction (6th ed.). Pearson.

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. NSTA Press.

Carlone, H. B. (2016). Equity and science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 301–305.

Chan, K. K. H., et al. (2020). Translating constructivist theory into practice. Science Education International, 31(2), 123–130.

Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

Chuaungo, J., et al. (2022). Technology integration in constructivist classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 45–60.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

DeBoer, G. E. (2013). The history of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 371–380.

Department of Education. (2013). K to 12 curriculum guide. DepEd Philippines.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2014). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Guvendia, Z., & McDermott, M. (2017). Communication in constructivist classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 12–21.

Herro, D. (2016). Student-centered learning in science education. Journal of STEM Education, 17(3), 45–52.

Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2011). Learning in and from science laboratories. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 201–230.

Ilie, V. (2013). Constructivist teacher training models. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 456–460.

Jofre, M., & Mari, J. (2014). Attitudes toward science in constructivist classrooms. Physics Education, 49(2), 123–130.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools. Prentice Hall.

Jordan, R. C., et al. (2014). Citizen science and science learning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(10), 551–556.

Jůvová, A., et al. (2015). Reflection on constructivist teaching. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 124–130.

Khan, S. (2013). Challenges in implementing constructivist approaches. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(7), 56–63.

Koptseva, N. (2020). Constructivist pedagogy in digital education. Education Sciences, 10(5), 112.

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2013). Project-based learning. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.

Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism. Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 617–626.

Kurteš, S., et al. (2017). Constructivist intercultural communication. Language Learning Journal, 45(2), 203–215.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 465–491.

Liu, T. C., et al. (2009). Constructivist learning in science education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 825–832.

Loucks-Horsley, S., et al. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Corwin.

Manchulenko, O., et al. (2021). Constructivist training models. International Journal of Educational Research, 110, 101–110.

McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (2013). Performance-based assessment. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 26–31.

Means, B., et al. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning. Teachers College Press.

Muğaloğlu, E. Z. (2014). Constructivism and pseudoscience. Science Education International, 25(2), 141–156.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. National Academies Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2023). Technology in science education. NSTA.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards.

Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning theory. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

Rose, D. H., & Villegas, A. M. (2011). Differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 273–281.

Sahni, U. (2018). Critique of constructivism in education. Educational Theory, 68(4–5), 451–468.

Schell, G. P., & Janicki, T. J. (2013). Online pedagogy and constructivism. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 123–134.

Szabó, F., & Csépes, I. (2022). Constructivism in language pedagogy. Journal of Language Teaching, 56(1), 89–102.

Taber, K. S. (2017). Constructivism in science education. Science Education, 101(6), 909–915.

Thomas, G. (2020). How to do your research project (3rd ed.). Sage.

Tobin, K. (2018). Constructivist perspectives in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1151–1160.

Vaishali, & Misra, P. K. (2020). Teachers’ roles in constructivist classrooms. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(2), 45–52.

Vong, S. (2017). Constructivist teaching with archival materials. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 398–405.

Webb, N. M. (2017). Collaborative learning in science. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 114–128.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.