Shaping Minds Together: Experiences of Junior High School Students in Learning Science in a Constructivist Learning Environment

A low constructivist learning environment in science classrooms remains a significant concern. This phenomenological study explored the experiences of ten Grade 9 students in Davao Oriental, focusing on how they construct understanding through schema development, assimilation, and accommodation. Interviews and focus group discussions revealed three emerging subthemes under the modified schema: adaptive cognition, reflective learning, and teacher-facilitated learning. Future research may employ mediation analysis to examine schema changes within constructivist learning environments and develop questionnaires through exploratory factor analysis using the subthemes as indicators. The study recommends forming professional learning groups and institutional programs to help teachers apply constructivist principles.

Shaping minds together, experiences of junior high school students in learning science, constructivist learning environment

1. Azizah, R., Rahman, A., & Putri, D. A. (2025). Constructivist learning practices in Indonesian TEFL classrooms: Persistent challenges and opportunities. Journal of English Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. (2022). Student engagement and reflective learning in constructivist classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 615–638. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cahyono, D., & Nastiar, R. (2025). Teacher facilitation and student engagement in constructivist- oriented classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1),221–238. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cetín-Dindar, A. (2016). Student motivation in constructivist learning environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Charmaz, K. (2018). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chase, S. E. (2021). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp.546–560). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. De Mesa, J. R., & de Guzman, A. B. (2023). Classroom engagement and constructivist learning practices in Philippine secondary schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(3), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2102345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Didik Cahyono, D., & Nastiar, E. (2025). Teacher facilitation and student autonomy in constructivist classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1), 233–248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Doan, T. H., Nguyen, L. T., & Pham, Q. M. (2025). Challenges in implementing constructivist pedagogy in Vietnamese classrooms. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 15(1),88–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gautam, A., & Agarwal, S. (2024). Teacher facilitation and learner readiness in constructivist environments. Journal of Learning Sciences, 33(4), 589–607. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2023.2289117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–150). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Harputra, Y., & Tambunan, H. (2024). Teacher scaffolding and facilitation in constructivist-based learning. Journal of Educational Innovation, 11(2),101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jadmiko, A., Mustika, R., & Bashiruddin, A. (2024). Reflective learning through journaling in constructivist education. Journal of Experiential Learning, 47(1), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lagrimas, M. J. L., & Buenaventura, R. D. (2023). Establishing credibility in qualitative educational research. Philippine Journal of Educational Research,8(2), 55–68. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Le, T. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2024). Reflective reading and discussion in constructivist classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 56(2), 215–233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2018). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mekonnen, S., Abebe, T., & Desta, M. (2025). Learner agency and meaning-making in constructivist classrooms. International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 102742. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2024.102742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Miller, J. A., Roberts, K., & Nguyen, P. (2025). Adaptive cognition in project-based science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34(1), 77–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Moos, R. H. (2002). Classroom social climates. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–540). Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Precellas, J. M., & Napil, C. A. (2024). Constructivist learning environments and student engagement in secondary education. Philippine Journal of Education, 103(2), 25–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. She, H. C., Liang, J. C., Jiang, Y., & Xing, J. (2023). Motivation, self-regulation, and adaptive cognition in constructivist learning. Learning and Instruction, 85, 101713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101713 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Smith, J. A. (2018). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Suartama, I. K., Setyosari, P., Sulthoni, & Ulfa, S. (2025). Mobile constructivist learning and creativity development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(1), 89–107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Tegegne, W., Alemu, M., & Tadesse, S. (2025). Classroom interaction and constructivist practices in Ethiopian schools. African Journal of Educational Studies, 12(1), 34–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study