Cognitive Constructivist Way of Teaching Scientific and Technical Contents




cognitive constructivist teaching model, science and technics, competence, professional enthusiasm, professional development


For pupils to obtain high-quality and permanent knowledge, it is important that the teaching of scientific and technical contents is based on cognitive constructivist approach. We carried out a research, during which we asked three research questions, on a sample of 167 class teachers in the Republic of Slovenia. We wanted to find out: how often class teachers included elements typical of cognitive constructivist approach; was the frequency of using elements of cognitive constructivist teaching model linked to the teacher’s concern for their own professional development, and was the frequency of using elements of cognitive constructivist teaching model linked to the factors, such as the teacher’s estimated importance, difficulty and necessity of Science and Technics, the assessment of their own competence and professional enthusiasm. Data were collected with three scales: ways of teaching scientific and technical contents; attitude to scientific and technical contents and teaching and components of professional development. Data were processed according to descriptive and inferential statistics. The research showed that the formulation and verification of hypotheses, two important elements in view of cognitive constructivist teaching model, were less often represented. With statistically significant higher frequency they were organized by teachers, who rated their competence higher, were more enthusiastic and cared more about their professional development.


Download data is not yet available.


Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of engineering education, 98(3), 283-294. DOI:

Akcay, H., & Yager, R. E. (2010). The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 602-611. DOI:

Anning, A. (1997). Drawing out ideas: Graphicacy and young children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 219-239. DOI:

Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1683-1707. DOI:

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 183-205). Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo.

Blažič, M., Ivanuš Grmek, M., Kramar, M. & Strmčnik, F. (2003). Didaktika [Didactics]. Novo mesto: Visokošolsko središče.

Boser, R. A., Palmer, J. D., & Daugherty, M. K. (1998). Students attitudes towards technology in selected technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 4-19 DOI:

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 340-370). New York: Macmillan Library.

Cakici, Y., & Yavuz, G. (2010). The effect of constructivist science teaching on 4th Grade students’ understanding of matter. AsiaPacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1-8.

Çalik, M., Ayas, A., Coll, R. K., Ünal, S., & Coştu, B. (2007). Investigating the effectiveness of a constructivist-based teaching model on student understanding of dissolution of gases in liquids. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 257-270. DOI:

Cotič, N., Plazar, J., Starčič, A. I., & Zuljan, D. (2020). The effect of outdoor lessons in natural sciences on students’ knowledge, through tablets and experiential learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(5), 747. DOI:

Crompton, H. (2020). Contextualizing STEM Learning: Frameworks & Strategies. Research on Outdoor STEM Education in the digiTal Age, 13. DOI:

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53. Retrieved from

Dumont, H., & Istance, D. (2013). Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century. In H. Dumont, D., Istance & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 19-34). Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo. DOI:

Dzan, W. Y., Tsai, H. Y., Lou, S. J., & Shih, R. C. (2015). Satisfaction analysis of experiential learning-based popular science education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 13(2), 93-109. DOI:

Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make during technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 43-59. DOI:

Fox-Turnbull, W., & Snape, P. (2011). Technology teacher education through a constructivist approach. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(2).

Gardner, P. J., Penna, C., & Brass, K. (1996). ‘Technology education in the post-compulsory years’. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Science and Technology Education in the Post-Compulsory Years (pp. 140-192). Australian Council of Educational Research, Melbourne.

Gojkov, G. (2009). Didaktika i metakognicija [Didactics and metacognition]. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn et Bacon.

Hallström, J., Elvstrand, H., & Hellberg, K. (2015). Gender and technology in free play in Swedish early childhood education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 137-149. DOI:

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Rutledge.

Hattie, J. (2018). Vidno učenje za učitelje: maksimiranje učinka na učenje [Visual learning for teachers: maximizing the impact on learning]. Griže: Svetovalno-izobraževalni center MI.

Johnson, J. R. (1989). Technology: report of the project 2061 phase 1 technology panel. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.

Jones, A. & Carr, M. (1992). Teachers’ perceptions of technology education: Implications for curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 22, 230-239. DOI:

Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7-19. DOI:

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development, 42, 68. DOI:

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lin, K. Y., Hsiao, H. S., Williams, P. J., & Chen, Y. H. (2020). Effects of 6E-oriented STEM practical activities in cultivating middle school students’ attitudes toward technology and technological inquiry ability. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(1), 1-18. DOI:

Lončarić, D., & Pejić Papak, P. (2009). Profiliranje učiteljskih kompetencija [Profiling of teacher competencies]. Odgojne znanosti, 11(2), 479-497. DOI:

Marentič Požarnik, B. (1987). Nova pota v izobraževanju učiteljev [A new path in teacher education]. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije.

Marentič Požarnik, B. (2004). Konstruktivizem v šoli in izobraževanje učiteljev [Constructivism in school and teacher education]. Ljubljana: Center za pedagoško izobraževanje Filozofske fakultete.

Marentič Požarnik, B. (2018). Psihologija učenja in pouka [Psychology of learning and teaching]. Ljubljana: DZS.

Marentič Požarnik, B., & Cencič, M. (2003). Konstruktivizem v izobraževanju [Constructivism in education]. Pedagoška obzorja, 18(2), 34-39.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2006). Nastavne strategije: kako primijeniti devet najuspješnijih nastavnih strategija [Teaching strategies: how to apply the nine most successful teaching strategies]. Zagreb: Educa.

Mattes, W. (2007). Nastavne metode: 75 kompaktnih pregleda za nastavnike i učenike [Teaching methods: 75 compact reviews for teachers and students]. Zagreb: Naklada Ljevak.

Mawson, B. (2007). Factors affecting learning in technology in the early years at school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(3), 253-269. DOI:

Mawson, B. (2010). Children’s developing understanding of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 1-13. DOI:

Mawson, W. B. (2013). Emergent technological literacy: what do children bring to school?. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 443-453. DOI:

Moustafa, A., Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., & Eshach, H. (2013). Do junior high school students perceive their learning environment as constructivist?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 418-431. DOI:

McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 81-101. DOI:

Mezak, J., & Papak, P. P. (2019, May). Problem based learning for primary school junior grade students using digital tools. In 2019 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 697-702). IEEE. DOI:

Miao, Z., Reynolds, D., Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2015). Comparing performance: a cross-national investigation into the teaching of mathematics in primary classrooms in England and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(3), 392-403. DOI:

Mihaliček, S. (2011). Zadovoljstvo i sreća učitelja [Teacher satisfaction and happiness]. Napredak: Časopis za interdisciplinarna istraživanja u odgoju i obrazovanju, 152(3-4), 389-402. Retrieved from

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3-15.

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. Sage. Retrieved from

Orbanić Dolenc, N., Dimec, D. S., & Cencič, M. (2016). The effectiveness of a constructivist teaching model on student’s understanding of photosynthesis. Journal of Baltic science education, 15(5). Retrieved from DOI:

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 345-375. Retrieved from DOI:

Parker, V., & Gerber, B. (2000). Effects of a science intervention program on middle-grade student achievement and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 100(5), 236-242. DOI:

Parker-Rees, R. (1997). Learning from play: Design and technology, imagination and playful thinking. IDATER 1997 conference (pp. 20-25). Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1521-1558. Retrieved from DOI:

Pečar, M. (2018). Izkušnje in stališča učiteljev o prilagajanju pouka predznanju in interesom učencev: doktorska disertacija [Teachers ‘experiences and attitudes towards adapting lessons to students’ prior knowledge and interests: doctoral dissertation] [Doctoral dissertation], Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedagoška fakulteta.

Plešec, G. R. & Zuljan, M. V. (2019). Učne oblike v osnovni šoli in obrnjeno učenje in poučevanje [Learning forms in primary school and reverse learning and teaching]. Journal of Elementary Education, 12(3), 267-290. DOI:

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. DOI:

Reynolds D., & Farrell, S. (1996). Worlds Apart? A Review of International Studies of Educational Achivement Involving England. London: HMSO.

Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings. Psychology Press.

Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707. DOI:

Rosenshine, B. (1970). Enthusiastic teaching: A research review. The School Review, 78(4), 499-514. Retrieved from DOI:

Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications (pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp.122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80(5), 535-560.<535::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-C DOI:<535::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-C

Sparks-Langer, G. M., Pasch, M., Starko, A. J., Moody, C. D. & Gardner, T. G. (2000). Teaching as decision making: successful practices for the secondary teacher. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2). DOI:

Šteh Kure, B. (1999). Pojmovanja učenja, poučevanja in znanja v povezavi z učnim procesom in uspehom [Concepts of learning, teaching and knowledge in relation to the learning process and success]. Sodobna pedagogika, 50(1), 250-265.

Strmčnik, F. (2001). Didaktika: osrednje teoretične teme [Didactics: central theoretical topics]. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.

Swain, J. R. L. (1991). The nature and assessment of scientific explorations in the classroom. School Science Review, 72(260), 65-77. DOI:

Tigchelaar, A., Brouwer, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2010). Tailor-made: Towards a pedagogy for educating second-career teachers. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 164-183. DOI:

Turja, L., Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Chatoney, M. (2009). A conceptual framework for developing the curriculum and delivery of technology education in early childhood. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(4), 353-365. DOI:

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730–745. DOI:

Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E. M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 32-48. Retrieved from

Tyler, R. (1992). Independent research projects in school science: Case studies of autonomous behavior. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 393-411. DOI:

Valenčić Zuljan, M. (2016). Pupil’s assessment of teaching and of him/herself as learner–relevant items in the teacher’s creation of effective learning environment. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 18(Sp. Ed. 1), 213-230. DOI:

Valenčič Zuljan M., & Kalin J. (2020). Učne metode in razvoj učiteljeve metodične competence [Teaching methods and development of teacher methodological competence]. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta.

Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2002). Kognitivno-konstruktivistični model pouka in nadarjeni učenci [Cognitive-constructivist model of teaching and gifted students]. Pedagoška obzorja, 17(3-4), 3-12.

Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2007). Students’ conceptions of knowledge, the role of the teacher and learner as important factors in a didactic school reform. Educational Studies, 33(1), 29-40. DOI:

Valenčič Zuljan, M. (2018). Factors of teachers’ professional development. In N. Tatković, F. Šuran & M. Diković (Eds.), Reaching horizons in contemporary education (pp. 9-31). Pula: Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Faculty of Educational Sciences.

van der Lans, R. M., van de Grift, W. J., & van Veen, K. (2017). Individual differences in teacher development: an exploration of the applicability of a stage model to assess individual teachers. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 46-55. DOI:

Vogrinc, J., & Zuljan, M. V. (2009). Action research in schools–an important factor in teachers’ professional development. Educational studies, 35(1), 53-63. DOI:

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and instruction, 11(4-5), 381-419. DOI:

Vujičić, L., Pejić Papak, P., & Valenčić-Zuljan, M. (2020). Okruženje za učenje i kultura ustanove [Learning environment and culture institutions], Rijeka: Sveučilište u Rijeci, Učiteljski fakultet.

Wilen, W., Hutchison, J., & Ishler, M. (2008). Dynamics of effective secondary teaching. Boston: Pearson.

Wolters, F. D. K. (1989). A PATT study among 10 to 12-year old students in the Netherlands. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1). Retrieved from DOI:

Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.



How to Cite

Zuljan, D., Valenčič Zuljan, M., & Pejić Papak, P. (2021). Cognitive Constructivist Way of Teaching Scientific and Technical Contents . International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 9(1), 23–36.



Received 2021-03-17
Accepted 2021-04-15
Published 2021-04-20