Junior high schools teachers’ perceptions and practice of constructivism in Ghana: The paradox

Abstract

The study aimed to explore teachers’ perceptions and use of constructivist teaching approaches in Ghanaian junior high schools, specifically in the Sunyani-West Municipality. Data were collected through an adapted Constructivist Learning Environment Scale (CLES), a semi-structured interview guide, and field notes. The findings revealed a paradox: while teachers had a positive perception of constructivism, they seldom applied its core principles in their classrooms. Data triangulation uncovered inconsistencies between teachers’ claims and actual classroom practices. Limited resources and time constraints were cited as reasons for the rare implementation of constructivist pedagogy. Recommendations have been provided for the Ghana Education Service and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Keywords:

• constructivism
• standards-based curriculum
• teaching and learning
• Ghana education service
• NaCCA

View correction statement:

Correction

1. Introduction

The economic revolution, environmental apprehensions, social-cultural challenges, and their connected crises in the twenty-first century have resulted in the revolution of education systems globally. Especially in Africa, there has been a renewed interest in the grooming and development of learners who are fit to face these emerging societal issues (Amineh & Asl, 2015; Arioder et al., 2020; Steffe & Ulrich, 2020). This has, therefore, resulted in the restructuring of educational curricula to include pedagogical approaches that incorporate robust and functional teaching methodologies that succeed in developing students to be independent learners rather than passively relying on teacher-deposited wisdom to be responsible for their learning (O’Connor, 2022; Steffe & Ulrich, 2020). This global concern has, indeed, resulted in a significant revolution regarding education in Africa (Ampadu & Danso, 2018; Annafo et al., 2018). African countries that have embraced such an educational revolution are South Africa, Namibia, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, and others (Adom et al., 2016; Brodie et al., 2002; Hardman et al., 2008; O’Sullivan, 2004; Safori, 2019; Vavrus, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2013).

The limitations associated with the traditional behaviourist way of knowledge acquisition are obviously the major reasons why education in many countries is being revolutionised. Recent curriculum reforms have been premised on the fact that traditional behaviourist teaching is not prolific as far as nurturing students with critical thinking abilities, problem-solving skills, and decision-making skills are concerned (Boaler, 2015; Lockard & Abrams, 2004; Wakefield, 2007). This appears to be one of the major reasons why recent educational policies in Africa—including Ghana—have stressed the need for the adoption of constructivism to remedy the educational deficit associated with the traditional behaviourist forms of teaching.

In spite of the widespread support for constructivism in the teaching and learning process (Porcaro, 2011; Yilmaz, 2008), practice does not seem to reflect policy requirements (Basturk, 2016; Cansiz & Cansiz, 2019; Nie et al., 2013), as teachers as well as some students are refusing to embrace and adjust to this new educational philosophy in both African and other foreign contexts (Blignaut, 2014; O’Connor, 2022). The need for this study was, therefore, based on our suspicion that, in light of the obsessions with the long-standing traditional teaching approach, the newly introduced teaching philosophy may not be upheld as required.

1.1. The context and rationale for the study

In 2018, the government of Ghana and the Ministry of Education (MOE) charged the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NACCA) with the mandate to review the pre-tertiary curriculum in order to keep up with the worldwide pedagogical revolution. The president of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo Addo, announced this during the Nation Address in February 2019 for execution in September 2021. He stated that,

In September 2019, a new standards-based curriculum will be rolled out from kindergarten to Class 6 in primary schools. This curriculum has drawn upon the best practices from all over the world, and will focus on making Ghanaian children confident, innovative, creative-thinking, digitally-literate, well-rounded, patriotic citizens. Mathematics, Science, Reading, Writing, and Creativity are, therefore, at the heart of this new curriculum”.(www.graphic.com.gh)

He pressed that we have no alternative but to provide excellent education and opportunities for lifelong learning for all Ghanaians; and that it is the only way to retain prosperity and defend our democracy. He emphasised that efforts were made to ensure that education in Ghana is of the highest quality and meets the needs of the twenty-first century (www.graphic.com.gh). This led to the conduct of a workshop to train 152,000 primary school teachers across the country in order to prepare them to successfully implement the standards-based curriculum (Apau, 2021). Primarily, the goal of this curriculum review and reform was to shift teachers’ instruction philosophy from long-standing traditional behaviourist instruction to constructivism. Thus, learners must develop knowledge and make sense of the social context offered to them in order to reconstruct the past by describing, analysing, and evaluating past occurrences. Learners will be able to critically examine patterns of human behaviour and convey their thoughts on how the past might influence the present from an informed viewpoint (MOE, 2017, 2018).

According to the MOE (2018), the above should be the primary instructional philosophy for teachers as they aim to develop learners’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The major concern that foregrounds the conduct of the current study is that constructivism as an instructional philosophy has always faced challenges in most parts of Africa. Blignaut (2014), for instance, asserts that students fiercely despised constructivism when used as an educational paradigm in the South African context. Students’ resistance to this form of education was based on their conception that students are supposed to be taught but not to learn on their own. Earlier studies by Fletcher (2005) also show that, though constructivism appears to be a fruitful educational intervention in mathematics education in Ghana, teachers are yet to fully appreciate its educational essence because the forms of the national examination students are made to write align with the traditional educational philosophy. After the introduction of standards-based curriculum, there seems to be a limited attempt by scholars to meticulously examine the existing state of affairs as far as the execution of the constructivist teaching approach is concerned.

Upon our observation of the pedagogical approaches adopted by some basic schools in the Sunyani-West Municipality (a municipality in which most of its settlement is in remote areas), we had the suspicion that these teachers seemed not to adhere to the implementation of NaCCA’s task. We were therefore motivated to examine teachers’ experiences with the constructivist teaching approach. To this end, we investigated the teachers’ general perceptions of constructivism as well as the extent to which they used the constructivist approach in delivering the standard-based curriculum. The stated goals were achieved through the following research questions:

1. What are teachers’ perceptions of constructivist pedagogy?

2. To what extent do teachers use constructivists’ pedagogy in implementing Ghana’s standards-based curriculum?

2. Review of related literature

2.1. The constructivism theory

Constructivism is a theory that reflects the idea that learners actively generate knowledge rather than passively receiving knowledge from teachers (Ampadu & Danso, 2018; Fletcher, 2005; O’Loughlin, 1992; Thompson, 2015; Wiggins, 2015). Upon our observation of the pedagogical approaches adopted by some basic schools in the Sunyani-West Municipality (a municipality in which most of its settlement is in remote areas), we had the suspicion that these teachers seemed not to adhere to the implementation of NaCCA’s task. We were therefore motivated to examine teachers’ experiences with the constructivist teaching approach. To this end, we investigated the teachers’ general perceptions of constructivism, as well as the extent to which they used the constructivist approach in delivering the standard-based curriculum.

According to Piaget, rather than the teacher teaching all of the specifics to lead to the primary idea, students are expected to independently unearth it and gain novel insights (Aljohani, 2017). Thus, the foundation of learning, according to Piaget, is discovery. Specifically, he recognises the crucial role of prior knowledge in the discovery of new knowledge. Thus, prior information stimulates the new knowledge that learners generate from fresh learning experiences. Piaget further states that an individual’s construction of knowledge through experience is aided by two complementary cognitive mechanisms called assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation, as a tenet of Piaget’s cognitive constructivism theory, describes a situation where a learner automatically integrates new ideas and experiences into existing schemas, whereas accommodation connotes a situation where learners revise or alter an existing schema to suit a new and conflicting experience or knowledge. In light of these considerations, teachers ought to develop learning experiences grounded in matters associated with students’ experiences. They are supposed to recognise those that are significant to students rather than those that are important to teachers or the educational system.

Vygotsky, on the other hand, acknowledges the role of the learners’ social interaction as a basis for constructing knowledge. He basically rejects individualistic methods of constructing knowledge (Lourenço, 2012; Trif, 2015; Zhang & Kou, 2012). He considers learning a social process where the contributions of others in the learning environment are considered key elements. Though both Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories argue for a form of education that places the learner at the centre of learning, Vygotsky’s view objects to Piaget’s view that learners can individually construct meaning. According to Vygotsky, learners do construct knowledge based on prior knowledge, but they do so effectively when they are offered the opportunity to engage in meaningful interaction with the people around them. Thus, the supportive role of teachers and peers is crucial to learners’ discovery of meaning. In his Zone of Proximal Development, for instance, Vygotsky argues that there is always a limit to what learners can understand based on prior experience; thus, at an advanced level, the learners would need the support of a more knowledgeable person to assist in the construction of knowledge. This is where the essential role of social interaction is recommended (Abtahi, 2018; Little, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978; Wass et al., 2011). Teachers are, thus, expected to create a supportive learning environment where learners will be provided with all forms of interactive resources to help them discover new meaning.

There are other forms of constructivism that deserve a brief consideration in this section of the paper: radical and critical constructivism. Radical constructivism, by Ernst von Glasersfeld, is a variant of constructivism that corresponds with idealist epistemology, which stresses the notion that there is no reality that is external to the knower (Glasersfeld, 1988). Thus, the radical constructivist view of knowing rejects the objective view of reality. The core argument of the radical constructivist is that there is no objective knowledge out there for individuals; they rather build knowledge by relating it to their experience. In other words, what is taken to be true is entirely dependent on the individual (Martínez-Delgado, 2002; Olssen, 1996). This implies that knowledge is strictly subjective in nature, and thus, teachers whose instructional practices are informed by this theoretical lens must constantly seek to facilitate the individualised construction of knowledge among learners.

The final variant is critical constructivism, which places overwhelming emphasis on “critical thinking” (Watts & Jofili, 1998). It demands educators be more concerned about training learners to acquire emancipatory potentials (Gilbert, 1994); thus, students must be guided to become critical thinkers who possess the ability to reflect on societal experiences and critique social structures and powers. In other words, critical constructivists are advocates of change. They advocate for the building of a better society. Thus, they emphasise a form of education that transcends the mere acquisition of content knowledge; they advocate for a kind of education that provokes learners’ awareness of issues of societal or national interest.

Despite the various forms of constructivism, this study is informed by both Vygotsky’s social constructivism and Piaget’s cognitive constructivism because the theoretical principles prescribed in the standards-based curriculum for classroom practice align with both theories. In this regard, our exploration is basically guided by the principles of social and cognitive constructivism. Within both theoretical explanations, we intend to consider a lesson constructivist when it recognises the role of social interaction among peers and teachers and also uses students’ prior experience as a starting point for knowledge discovery.

2.2. Empirical studies and gaps

A considerable number of studies have been conducted on the theory of constructivism as a novel teaching approach in the African context. A good number of these studies have revealed the significance of constructivism as an approach to education. Stears (2009), for example, carried out a study that sought to explore students’ responses to science education informed by the constructivist theory of learning —i.e., social and critical constructivism—in the context of South Africa. The study was conducted using a somewhat quasi-experimental method. The researcher took 45 isiXhosa-speaking students through a series of lessons based on the constructivist method for four days. The class interaction was videotaped for qualitative analysis. Moreover, students were engaged in a focus group discussion. According to the responses of the students engaged in the lesson, the method proved effective as it was able to get all of them active in the teaching and learning process. More so, the lesson was centred on the everyday experiences of the learner, which led to increased understanding of the lesson. By using critical constructivism in the lessons, students were able to really raise questions about the science curriculum, the nature of science, and the overall purpose of science education. In the same vein, Ugwuozor and Hui (2020) examined the significance of using constructivism as an approach to teaching poetry in the Nigerian context. The experimental method was used to examine the effectiveness of constructivism among junior high school students in northern Nigeria. Results from a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant difference in the performance of the control and the treatment groups; thus, the students in the treatment group exhibited an improved performance, indicating that the constructivist approach indeed had an effect on students’ learning outcomes in poetry.

Another study that lends weight to the significance of constructivism in Africa is that of Gyan et al. (2021). These researchers also carried out experimental research at Akontonbra Senior High School in Sefwi Akontonbra, Ghana, to examine the overall effectiveness of constructivism as far as the teaching of trigonometry is concerned. These scholars were motivated to carry out this study upon realising the difficulties students faced in studying trigonometry in school. After the intervention, student post-test scores were indicative of the fact that the constructivist approach to learning positively affected their learning outcome. The above studies really substantiate the fact that if teachers effectively implement the constructivist teaching philosophy, the associated goals of this novel instructional theory are likely to be achieved. We cannot entirely rely on these studies to affirm that constructivism, adopted by many educational institutions, is really working or yielding the expected result because the various studies were entirely experimental and do not reflect reality as far as constructivism is concerned in Africa. Studies that have exposed the ineffective implementation of this instructional approach as well as teacher resistance to change in Africa are copious. Jemberie and Awan (2021) investigated the perception and implementation of the constructivist learning approach at Bahir Dar University in Ethiopia. This author indicated that out of the 82 teachers randomly selected to partake in the survey, half of them were still using the teacher-centred methodology. Even those who showed positive perceptions towards constructivist pedagogy were more aligned with cognitive constructivism than social constructivism. It is crucial to note that this study did not provide a comprehensive picture of reality because little attempt was made by the researcher to observe the actual practice of the teachers, who claim they are more aligned with constructivist pedagogy.

Blignaut (2014) provides what we consider a true picture of the implementation of constructivism in African education. In a reflective case study of the application of constructivism in higher education in South Africa, Blignaut exposes how students rejected the idea of knowledge construction. According to this author, using the constructivist approach to teaching earned him a negative student assessment, as most of the students shared the view that they came to school to be taught but not to take responsibility for their own learning.

In Ghana, there seem to be limited studies that have particularly responded to how constructivism, which has been strongly advocated for by the MoE and the NaCCA, is being implemented in the standards-based curriculum. Despite the limited literature, earlier studies on teachers’ perceptions of constructivist pedagogy in Ghana are not promising. Ampadu and Danso (2018) show that constructivism is yet to be fully embraced by both teachers and students. Per the observations made by these scholars, mathematics teaching was always characterised by a culture of silence and teachers’ acknowledgement of only correct answers. As stated earlier, there is a dearth of studies focused on constructivism in the implementation of the standards-based curriculum. Moreover, the available studies are mostly surveys, which fail to connect teachers’ perceptions to their actual classroom practice. This study therefore seeks to fill this gap by unfolding the realities of the implementation of constructivism in the standards-based curriculum using a multitude of research methods—surveys, interviews, and classroom observations.

3. Research methods

A sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. In the initial phase of the study, we conducted a survey with a closed ended questionnaire that allowed the participants to share their views regarding their perceptions of the constructivist methodology and the extent to which they implemented this theoretical approach. Weeks after the quantitative data was analysed, we went back to the field to engage in an in-depth qualitative inquiry to validate the authenticity of the quantitative research results. In the second phase of the study, researchers engaged in a series of interviews with the teachers, which were also aimed at getting the teachers’ subjective views of constructivist pedagogy and how they implemented such a pedagogical approach. After reflecting on the teachers’ responses, we conducted classroom observations to gain a practical understanding of how the constructivist pedagogy was implemented by these teachers, as they claimed.

The study was situated in the Sunyani-West Municipality. The district is composed of 21 settlements, including Abesu, Abronye, Bofuor, Adantia, Adei Boreso, Ahyiam, Ayakomaso, Chiraa, Chiraa-Asuakwa, Dumasua, Twumasikrom, Fiapre, Kantro, Kobedi, Kwabenakumakrom, Kwatire, Tainso, Nsoatre, Odumase, Nsesereso, and Mantukwa. Of these settlements, only eight are urban. The rest of them are extremely remote, with little or no basic social amenities, especially electricity. A total of 379 teachers were identified in the municipality. Nonetheless, using the census method, we were able to reach out to only 254 teachers. We could not consider all the participants because a number of them were unavailable at the time of the quantitative data collection. In the qualitative phase, a convenient sampling technique was adopted. Twenty-five teachers willingly allowed their lessons to be observed, while 19 of them made themselves available for a face-to-face interview.

This study gathered data by using an adapted constructivist learning environment survey (CLES) questionnaire. It is composed of three sections: teachers’ demographic background, teachers’ perception of constructivism, and teachers’ practice of constructivism. The items for teachers’ perceptions of constructivist teaching were on a Likert scale where SD = strongly disagree, D = disagree, A = agree, and SA = strongly agree on a scale of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The items on the extent of the adoption of constructivism were adapted from the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor et al., 1997). Three subscales on the CLES were adapted: the personal relevance scale, which focuses on the extent to which the prior knowledge of learners is recognised; the shared control scale, which measures the extent to which learners are made to realise that they are responsible for their own learning, and the student negotiation scale, which allows learners to interact with the learning environment for knowledge construction. These scales were adapted because they perfectly reflect cognitive and socio-constructivist tenets. The critical voice scale, which emphasises democratic education, was not included because it is not explicitly outlined in the standards-based curriculum. The adapted items in the questionnaire were measured on a four-point Likert scale. The content validity of the items was cross-checked by experts in the Arts Education Department, University of Cape Coast, and the Department of Social Studies Education, University of Education, Winneba. After this, the reliability of the items was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. This is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Reliability of constructs

Constructs	Items	Cronbach’s alpha
Teachers’ perception	9	.68
Cognitive constructivism	7	.72
Social Constructivism	7	.74

The reliability analysis of the items presented in Table 1 shows that the internal consistency level of the items is acceptable. As the literature suggests, a Cronbach’s alpha value that exceeds 0.60 indicate a better internal consistency of items (Bujang et al., 2018; Christmann & Van Aelst, 2006). The qualitative data were gathered with an unstructured interview and observation guide. The particular questions we asked and the observations we made were informed by the directions of the quantitative results.

Descriptive analysis and thematic analysis were used to analyse the quantitative data and the qualitative data, respectively. The quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Frequencies and percentage counts of the Likert scale items were computed and interpreted. This was aided by the statistical package and service solution (SPSS) version 25. The interview data were transcribed and analysed deductively. Thus, the transcripts were analysed based on the set research objectives. Results that were relevant but were not directly related to the research objectives were not interpreted in the study.

The study adhered strictly to the ethical protocol for data collection and analysis. Prior to the collection of data, the researchers visited the various schools to discuss their intention to conduct the study in these schools. After their approval, a formal letter of introduction was submitted to the various schools. Participants voluntarily participated in the study. Under no circumstances was each of the participants coerced to respond to the interviews or the questionnaires. The purpose of the research was communicated to the respondents. More specifically, they were assured of the confidentiality of the responses. They were also made to understand that the information they would provide would be meant solely for academic purposes.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Research question 1: what are teachers’ perceptions of constructivists’ pedagogy?

Prior to the introduction of the standards-based curriculum, as mentioned earlier, basic school teachers were massively engaged in a series of workshops to appreciate the need to serve as facilitators rather than teachers in the classroom. Thus, it was made clear that teaching must move away from the behaviourist approach to the constructivist approach. In that vein, we purposely commenced this investigation by gaining an understanding of the general perceptions of constructivist pedagogy in the standards-based curriculum. The results, illustrated in Table 2, show that generally, teachers have an appreciable perception of constructivism.

Table 2. Teachers’ perceptions of the constructivist teaching approach

Perception	SD(%)	D (%)	A(%)	SA(%)
The constructivist instructional approach accelerates my teaching	21(8.3)	37(14.6)	74(29.1)	122(48)
Adopting constructivist teaching makes students more effective in learning	16(6.4)	41(16.1)	140(55.1)	57(22.4)
Serving as a facilitator in the class makes students acquire the set objectives	17(6.7)	60(23.6)	137(53.9)	40(15.7)
Using the constructivist approach makes assessment of students’ learning easier	11(4.3)	35(13.8)	154(60.6)	54(21.3)
The adoption of a constructivist approach helps students to avoid memorization	4(1.6)	35(13.8)	153(60.2)	62(24.4)
Adoption of constructivist instruction increases the questioning skills of my students	10(3.9)	44(17.3)	153(60.2)	47(18.5)
The constructivist instructional approach builds the problem-solving skills of my students	19(7.5)	76(29.8)	106(41.7)	53(20.9)

Source: Field Survey (2023).

The responses outlined in the table give the impression that teachers significantly appreciate constructivism as an educational approach. Teachers believe that constructivism can expedite their teaching (77.1%), make student assessment easy (81.9%), decrease memorization (84.6%), increase students’ questioning skills (78.7%), and also encourage the development of students’ problem-solving skills (62.6%). In the face-to-face interviews, teachers reiterated the significance of using constructivist approaches in teaching and learning. As a teacher postulates,

I recall taking my JHS 1 students to the science laboratory in the senior high school here for the first time; they got a sense of what I was teaching them, so when I returned, I asked them to draw and label as much laboratory equipment as they could see. Others went so far as to include the functions of many scientific instruments. The outcome of such an evaluation was huge and positive. They really enjoyed it.

A social studies teacher also shared his experience using the constructivist approach, as follows:

As a social studies teacher, I am always pleased when I am able to take my students out into the community to experience what I teach them. It also allows them to ask questions that they would not have been able to ask previously.

Indeed, on a social studies field trip, a teacher took the students to a refuse dump, and on the day of the classroom observation, when the teacher asked the students to tell what they saw on the field, they mentioned that there was a lot of smoke on the dump due to the fire that was set on it. Others mentioned how stinky the place was. They eventually determined that there was a need to divulge alternative waste management practices in our communities in order to help lessen the harmful impact of environmental pollution. In other classroom observations where teachers used available teaching and learning materials as well as other teaching and learning techniques such as cooperative learning, small group discussion, and whole class discussion, students were deeply involved in the teaching and learning process, making them the centre of teaching and learning while teachers were merely facilitators of the teaching and learning processes.

These notwithstanding, one would, therefore, expect that teachers would translate these positive perceptions into classroom practice. Further probes revealed, however, that despite teachers acknowledging the relevance of this instructional approach, they consider the actual execution of this instructional approach prescribed by the NaCCA a herculean task. Table 3 sums up the responses of teachers when asked whether the approach is an easy task to execute.

Table 3. Teachers’ perception of the relative difficulty of constructivist instruction

Perception	SD(%)	D (%)	A(%)	SA(%)
The constructivist instructional techniques are easy to implement in my school environment	181(71.2)	39(15.4)	30(11.9)	4(1.5)
The constructivist teaching approach makes teaching an enjoyable experience	68(26.9)	57(22.4)	110(43.2)	19(7.5)

Source: Field survey, 2023.

The survey results, as shown in Table 3, suggest that teachers believe constructivist instructional strategies are difficult to employ in their respective school environments. Thus, only 13.4% of the 254 teacher respondents agreed that the atmosphere in their schools facilitates the implementation of constructivist education. A whopping 86.6% believe their school environment is incapable of facilitating the implementation of constructivist instructional strategies. Also, 26.9% and 22.4% disagree with the fact that constructivism as an instructional approach does not seem to make teaching an enjoyable experience. Respondents provided reasons behind the perceived difficulty associated with constructivist pedagogy as follows:

Sir, under modern instructional strategies, the student is supposed to be at the core of the teaching and learning process. Certain conditions must be met in order for this to be accomplished. For example, I teach integrated science. In most circumstances, there is a requirement to perform practical activities where students can apply their theoretical knowledge from the classroom in the laboratory by participating in such activities. As you can see, there is no science laboratory on this compound, whether it is a chemistry, biology, or physics lab.

The excerpt above was supported by another teacher’s view,

Look at our location, sir; you don’t need to be reminded that we are severely lacking in what it takes to deliver efficiently as trained teachers. We always do our best to improvise in order to accomplish our lesson objectives, but it is quite stressful.

The comments above are a clear indication that constructivism as an instructional approach would seem quite impossible given the absence of the required instructional resources that would help teachers encourage a learner-centred pedagogy as required by NaCCA. The classroom observations also paint an accurate picture of the difficulties as described by the individual teachers. Indeed, most ICT teachers were just at the centre of pouring out knowledge to the learners, making the learners passive receivers of knowledge because they could not all use the single laptops owned by the various teachers, so students were just imagining what they were taught at the expense of hands-on practice. Furthermore, due to the lack of science laboratories, some science teachers were simply using textbooks to educate rather than the numerous scientific instruments required to properly allow learners to discover knowledge based on practical experiences.

In a nutshell, the analysis above gives the impression that, though teachers’ perceptions of constructivism are positive, there are still doubts about the feasibility of this instructional pedagogy. The next research question, therefore, delves into detail about the extent to which constructivism is used in teaching and learning.

4.2. Research question 2: To what extent do teachers use constructivist pedagogy in implementing Ghana’s standards-based curriculum?

This research question investigated the extent to which teachers use constructivist pedagogy in implementing the standards-based curriculum. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale for frequency. The items focused, particularly, on instructional activities that provided students with the skills to reflect on their prior experience to discover new meanings (cognitive constructivism) and instructional activities that provided the students with the opportunity to interact with their social and physical environment to promote learning (social constructivism). The scales are never (N), rarely (R), sometimes (ST), often (OFT), and always (AWS). Table 4 below provides a statistical summary of the perceived frequency at which teachers used the outlined constructivist pedagogy.

Table 4. The extent of utilizing constructivist teaching approaches

The extent of utilizing the constructivist pedagogy	N(%)	R(%)	ST(%)	OFT(%)	AWS(%)
Cognitive Constructivism
Arousing students’ interest by relating content to a real-life context	10(3.9)	18(7.1)	62(24.4)	76(29.9)	88(34.6)
Exploring students’ prior experiences related to the topic	17(6.7)	27(10.6)	108(42.5)	68(26.8)	34(13.4)
Encouraging students to put their theoretical knowledge into practice within and outside the classroom setting	29(11.4)	46(18.1)	97(38.2)	54(21.3)	28(11.0)
Providing real-life examples to every concept	27(10.6)	54(21.3)	94(37.0)	48(18.9)	31(12.2)
Giving students tasks that require them to find answers to deal with real-life problems	7(2.8)	16(6.3)	39(15.4)	72(28.3)	120(47.2)
Giving students the chance to express their opinions on an issue before I add my voice	22(8.7)	23(9.1)	77(30.3)	71(28.0)	61(24.0)
I focus my lessons on skills that would be relevant in the daily lives of my students	7(2.8)	30(11.8)	69(27.2)	82(32.3)	66(26.0)
Social Constructivism
Encouraging discussion in teaching and learning in the classroom	2(0.8)	16(6.3)	55(21.7)	64(25.2)	117(46.1)
Collaboration among students to complete an academic task	7(2.8)	26(10.2)	82(32.3)	70(27.6)	69(27.2)
Providing students with appropriate tips to discover and comprehend information in the classroom	6(2.4)	24(9.4)	74(29.1)	84(33.1)	66(26.0)
Using technological resources to enhance teaching and learning	7(2.8)	20(7.9)	72(28.3)	87(34.3)	68(26.8)
Encouraging group presentations in the classroom	18(7.1)	42(16.5)	101(39.8)	63(24.8)	30(11.8)
Giving students the chance to express their opinions on an issue before I add my voice	22(8.7)	23(9.1)	77(30.3)	71(28.0)	61(24.0)
I embark on a field trip with my students to give them a real-life experience about an essential phenomenon	14(5.5)	36(14.2)	82(32.3)	66(26.0)	56(22.0)

Source: Field Survey (2023).

The results in Table 4 show that some teachers are using constructivist pedagogies in the implementation of standards-based curriculum. In fact, the initial phase of this particular investigation shows a promising future as far as the implementation of constructivism is concerned. The statistical results based on percentages showed the junior high school teachers’ instructional practices are adequately in line with constructivism. Per the percentages outlined in Table 4, it is safe to say that a good number of the teachers began their lessons by relating the curriculum content to real-life scenarios just to arouse the interest of the learners. Moreover, teachers confirmed that they usually encourage meaning making among students by relating students’ prior experiences to the current lesson’s topic and, most importantly, by encouraging students to express their opinions on an issue before teachers’ make any contributions. They also encouraged students to put their theoretical knowledge into practice within and outside the classroom setting. It is, thus, safe to assume that virtually, majority of the teachers also claim they incorporated all instructional activities that recognise the learners’ experiences as a basis for knowledge construction.

Moreover, the statistical responses further create the impression that teachers indeed created an interactive social environment that stimulated students to become active in the discovery of knowledge in the classroom. Per the percentages outlined in Table 4, a majority of the respondents claim that they are encouraging a social construction of knowledge by ensuring collaborative learning among students, using technological resources to enhance teaching and learning, encouraging group presentations, and also embarking on a field trip with students to give them a real-life experience about an essential phenomenon.

The initial results analysed above show that, contrary to the findings of previous literature (Ampadu & Danso, 2018; Blignaut, 2014; Jemberie & Awan, 2021), these current junior high school teachers have embraced and are ensuring an effective implementation of the constructivist instructional theory as the NaCCA would expect of them. We were, thus, motivated to substantiate these quantitative results with an in-depth qualitative inquiry, hence the gathering of further data through interviews and classroom observation. It was worth noting at this point that, the study was not longitudinal in nature, so we could not observe the practice of the entire constructivist instructional strategies the teachers claim they practise. We, therefore, discuss those that are more likely to occur in all constructivist instructional activities; particularly the cognitive constructivist activities.

At the core of the principle of constructivism is the idea that learners construct knowledge by relating new information to previous experiences. Thus, we particularly paid attention to how teachers believed they made such a form of learning possible in the classroom. In line with the statistical results outlined in Table 4, some teachers acknowledged that they usually make sure the introduction of new concepts is premised on students’ previously acquired knowledge. As a mathematics teacher declares:

I don’t believe pupils will be active participants in the teaching and learning process until their curiosity is aroused. If that happens, they become lethargic and may be unable to concentrate, which is why I piqued their curiosity. Did you notice how joyful they were?. [She questioned]

Similar to the above, another teacher also added,

To me, reviewing students’ relevant prior knowledge is critical to the teaching and learning process. As a result, I occasionally revisit pupils’ prior knowledge.

It is imperative to note, however, that the traditional ways of reviewing relevant previous knowledge, which involve asking students what they know about the topic, did not necessarily guarantee knowledge construction in the lessons observed. Teachers’ knowledge of the theory of constructivism remains questionable. The rationale for our assertion is that, per the observations, teachers reviewed students’ previous knowledge for the sake of it. They seem not to appreciate the essence of previous knowledge as a starting point for knowledge construction. This could be inferred from this teacher’s comment:

Sir, as part of my professional teacher training, reviewing students’ prior knowledge and connecting it to the current topic has always been a prerequisite for a subsequent teaching and learning process because it helps to start teaching from the known to the unknown, thereby integrating students into the teaching and learning process.

The impression we get from this excerpt is that teachers’ motivation for reviewing students’ previous knowledge is because it is an established practice to always begin lessons by refreshing what students have been taught in the previous lesson. We argue in this regard because, in most classrooms, it was observed that the revision of students’ background knowledge was mostly tied to what had been taught previously. Most often, students’ answers to teachers’ questions had no relation to the current lesson. Thus, in most of our observations, there was always a disconnect between the reviewed previous knowledge and the goal of the current lesson. Moreover, little attempt was made by the teachers to review students’ real-world experiences; they rather focused on asking students what they learned in the previous lesson, whether it related to the current lesson or not. In most cases, we discovered that following the review of previous knowledge was always a transition into a practically teacher-centred form of instruction because teachers barely gave the students the opportunity to independently discover the meaning of concepts based on what they already knew. It appeared teachers were still influenced by the traditional teacher-centred philosophy because most of the lessons observed were significantly teacher-dominated.

Some teachers, on the other hand, failed to review students’ relevant prior knowledge, which usually culminated in difficulty linking the topics to the students’ understanding. Such teachers ended up making the entire class about the teacher rather than the student. The excuses some gave for not grounding the lessons on the students’ previous knowledge are as follows:

Some topics are fairly familiar to students; therefore, I assume they know them, and there is little use in revisiting students’ past knowledge. Although it is not ideal to skip reviewing students’ relevant prior knowledge, I sometimes do so because of time constraints.

Teachers’ failure to adhere to the core principle of constructivism—the culture of building on learners’ previous experiences—is based on their assumption that students already have the knowledge; hence, there is no need to review and connect the new lesson to their previous knowledge. Another teacher added the following:

Students have fresh minds and are able to absorb practically anything in the morning like this, which is why I went straight to teaching what I meant to teach.

It appears from the above comment that, to this teacher, teaching and learning are a kind of disconnected set of cognitive activities learners go through. He seems not to appreciate the fact that effective learning is a function of the learners’ previous knowledge, for which reason there should always be a need for a review of the learners’ previous knowledge. Further, after a classroom observation, a teacher was engaged to provide reasons for not considering the learners’ prior experience in a particular lesson. He responded as follows:

This is a continuation of what we taught yesterday; they clearly comprehended what we did, so I jumped right into what I planned to teach today. However, after self-evaluation, I realised I needed to examine their prior knowledge. Because they were not actively involved in the teaching and learning process from the start, they became passive receivers of knowledge as a result of my failure to do so.

The qualitative findings appear to discredit the quantitative findings with respect to using students’ prior experiences to enhance knowledge construction and what the constructivist theory would expect of every teacher. In the quantitative findings, the majority of the participants acknowledged that they “sometimes” and “always” appreciated the need for a foregrounding of a lesson on the previous knowledge of students. The observation and subsequent interview with a teacher, for instance, revealed that reviewing the students’ previous knowledge was sometimes skipped, especially when the lesson was a continuation of a previously taught lesson.

It would be frank to acknowledge that, as teachers claimed, there were various instances where teachers constantly used real-world situations as examples to explain particular concepts. Nonetheless, we argue, based on our observation, that these teachers were merely acting in accordance with the prescribed techniques outlined in the standards-based curriculum. Practically, we did not appreciate how such practices translated into the construction of knowledge because these real-world scenarios were usually created by the teacher. Little opportunity was given to the students to use real-world examples to discover meaning. Although the teachers’ usage of the real-world examples stimulated the students’ interest, we argue that since the teachers do not elicit such examples from the students, their independent ability to construct knowledge could be inhibited.

With regard to social constructivism, we also claim that there is limited evidence of knowledge construction. In fact, as the NaCCA demands, students must be seated in groups to encourage collaboration among each other. The classroom seating arrangement indicates compliance with such a rule. In some classes, students were already in groups, indicating that children are indeed made to learn collaboratively together. We are tempted to declare that teachers do not actually navigate this instructional approach appropriately. In line with Taylor et al. (1997), the focus on student negotiation goes beyond the traditional social activity in which students are made to collaborate together to work out the correct answer. The construction of knowledge, however, demands a more scientific discourse in which teachers create opportunities for students to discuss and justify their ideas to other students and pay attention to the contributions of other studies to enable them to critically evaluate the viability of these contributions. Based on these explanations, we assert that, though teachers created a social learning environment, little evidence of knowledge construction emerged from that instructional activity. Opportunities were not created to foster a reflective learning environment among students.

5. Discussion of results

Constructivists assert that learners actively develop knowledge rather than passively receive it in the learning environment (O’Connor, 2022; Steffe & Ulrich, 2020). It places the learner at the centre of learning so that they become responsible for discovering new ideas and concepts in a creative way while drawing on prior knowledge and experience. Despite gaining popularity in the African educational context, it appears that teachers are still playing around with the effective implementation of constructivist instruction. Various educational institutions are still battling with the new reality; i.e., the need to shift from the behaviourist form of teaching to the constructivist approach. O’Connor (2022), for instance, highlights some of the realities associated with adjusting to constructivist pedagogies in higher education in the Australian context. The situation in the African context has always been negative. Blignaut (2014), for instance, reported how students resisted the idea of independent learning among students in a South African higher education institution. The current study in Ghana has shown how teachers in Ghana are relenting in their efforts to adjust to the new reality.

It seems clear that the idea of teachers serving as facilitators remains a fantasy in the Ghanaian educational context. On the one hand, it appears the GES has been relenting in their efforts to ensure the effective implementation of this instructional approach. Teachers believe that constructivism as an approach to teaching is a potential way of ensuring instructional effectiveness; nonetheless, they do not seem to have the requisite logistics to ensure its realisation. Most instructors believe that their different school contexts make it difficult for them to use constructivist pedagogies. Their particular concern was about a lack of resources, both financial and teaching and learning resources, posing a barrier to the implementation of constructivist pedagogy in the study area. The issue of limited educational resources has always been a barrier to education in Ghana (Nyamekye et al., 2021). It is imperative to note that the significant role of resources, especially, technological resources, in ensuring knowledge construction among students has been emphasised by earlier scholars (Nicaise & Barnes, 1996; Perkins, 1991) and scholars of recent times (Felix, 2005; Kala et al., 2010; Nanjappa & Grant, 2003). The existing state of affairs in the study area does not seem to reflect the ideal situation because, per the claims of the teachers in their context, there seem to be limited resources that would help teachers provide the necessary scaffolding for learners to independently construct knowledge. On the other hand, it appears teachers are yet to fully appreciate what constructivism as an educational theory entails.

While Fletcher (2005) attributes the lack of constructivist teaching among mathematics teachers in Ghana to resistance to change and teachers obsession with the traditional direct teaching methods, we attribute this difficulty to the lack of available resources and, possibly, teachers limited understanding of what it means to construct knowledge. Teachers seem to demonstrate little understanding of the core principle of constructivism—i.e., helping students construct their own understanding of the world based on their previous experiences. The findings of Annafo et al. (2018) make it prudent to conclude in this study that teachers’ conception of knowledge construction is extremely at variance with the core arguments raised by the proponents of constructivism, i.e., What teachers believed to be constructivism shares little resemblance with ideal constructivism. They consider the mere revision of students’ previously learned topics a form of constructivism without necessarily creating enough opportunities for students to discover meaning.

In a nutshell, it is worth noting that teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties and challenges associated with constructivist techniques could continually drive them to embrace the traditional, teacher-centred approach at the expense of constructivism or student-centred approaches (Akyeampong et al., 2006; Altinyelken, 2010; Muganga & Ssenkusu, 2019). The onus is therefore on the government and civil society organisations to provide schools with the necessary teaching and learning materials in order to realise the implementation of constructivist instructional techniques that will help put the learners at the centre of the instruction.

6. Recommendation

The government of Ghana, in collaboration with the Ghana Education Service, past students of various schools, non-governmental organisations, charitable institutions, and civil society organisations, should collaborate in divulging strategies to assist in the provision of necessary teaching and learning materials to various schools. Furthermore, they should collaborate to create school environments that are conducive to the adoption of constructivist pedagogies. Again, money should be readily available, along with well-defined criteria, to aid in the promotion of field trips. All of this will aid in the effective application of constructivist pedagogies in order to promote reflective and critical thinking as well as problem-solving competencies in learners through active participation in the teaching and learning process, thereby achieving the intended learning outcomes. This will allow students to apply their academic knowledge to real-world challenges, resulting in national and sustainable development. Again, in-service training should be provided to teachers on a regular basis to remind them of the need to use constructivist pedagogies in the delivery of their mandates.

7. Limitation and suggestions for further studies

Like any other study, this one has some limitations that can perhaps be addressed in future research. The foremost challenge with the study is that it was not longitudinal; hence, we declare that we did not spend enough time on the field to monitor all instructional strategies that are constructivist in nature. Moreover, we did consider learners’ views to ascertain how they responded to constructivist pedagogy. We, therefore, suggest that future studies take into account the stated limitations in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the problem under study. Further, the study is limited in scope; it considered two aspects of constructivism: social and cognitive constructivism. In this regard, we suggest that future research consider both radical and critical constructivism.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2325812)

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ernest Nyamekye

Mr. Ernest Nyamekye is a dedicated and accomplished academic professional currently serving as an Assistant Lecturer and a PhD candidate at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He has a passion for exploring the intricate intersections of language, identity, and education, Mr. Nyamekye’s research interests include Language in Education Policy, Language Teaching Research, Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Applied Linguistics, Curriculum and Instruction, as well as the nexus between Language, Education and Critical Thinking Development of Ghanaian Children. He also aims to gain more understanding of how the Ghanaian Culture impacts the implementation of constructivist instruction and critical pedagogy.

John Zengulaaru

John Zengulaaru is a PhD. Social Studies candidate at the University of Education, Winneba, Winneba Ghana. He holds an MPhil. Development Studies, from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, and Bachelor of Education (Social Studies) from the University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. His research interest is in pedagogy, constructivism, educational development and reforms, curriculum development, instructional technology, online education, education for sustainable development, social sector policy, citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and sustainable development.

Akromah Conrad Nana Frimpong

Akromah Conrad Nana Frimpong is a PhD Social Studies candidate at the University of Education Winneba, Winneba, Ghana. He holds an MPhil in Social Studies Education and a Bachelor of Arts in Social Studies Education from the University of Education Winneba, Winneba Ghana. He is currently a tutor at Amedzofe Evangelical Presbyterian College of Education, Ghana. His research interests are in pedagogy, curriculum development and gender.