ࡱ> Ubjbjnn saaj $BBBP&<BN*bxxxx MMMMMMM$'QSMMxx4N&&&xx4Lp&M&&2 B@Ex3| |C. LN0NCrTN!T\@E@ElTEt&MM#NT B :5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2018, HYPERLINK "http://www.sgemsocial.org/" \t "_blank" www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2018 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-56-0 / ISSN 2367-5659, 26 August - 1 September, 2018, Vol. 5, Issue3.4,183-190 pp. CONSTRUCTIVIST ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FROM THE STUDENTS PERSPECTIVE PhD. Senka Gazibara 1 University of J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Croatia ABSTRACT Active learning, as an inevitable construct of contemporary teaching, is the basis of every students integral growth and development. It is based on the constructivism and socio-constructivism where the emphasis is on students as constructors and co-constructors of their own knowledge. Here, the process of learning includes the students experiences and interests, pre-knowledge, and the creation of their own interpretations. The constructivist active learning environment is directed to students  they take the active role in learning, evolve into autonomous individuals who think critically about the real world, develop their own potentials, and take the responsibility for their own actions. Students are included in planning, performing, and evaluating the learning process, through which the student-teacher partnership is cultivated, as well as the partnership between students. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine the constructivist active learning environment from the students perspective. The research included 951 primary and grammar school students. The constructivist active learning environment was operationalized through the following determinants: the students autonomy, the student participation, the pre-knowledge, the student centeredness, and the metacognition and co-construction of knowledge, i.e. individual and social aspects of active learning. The results of this research have shown that the constructivist active learning environment is not sufficiently presented in educational practice. It was assessed more positively by elementary school than grammar school students. This implies a discontinuity in educational practice, as well as the dominance of traditional teaching. The results have also shown that the constructivist active learning environment is linked to the students age, the school type, and an academic success. Finally, it can be concluded that students need greater support to be able to learn actively, which would also make the abovementioned determinants of the constructivist active learning environment more presented and recognizable in the practice of teaching. Keywords: active learning, constructivism, learning environment, students INTRODUCTION Active learning is a basis for contemporary teaching aimed at students, focusing on their overall growth and development into autonomous individuals. Furthermore, the concept is the center of attention in the area of education, especially in the context of educational reforms at all levels, from primary school to faculty [8]. Although its value is widely accepted and recognized, changes are still small and superficial in educational practice with no expected progress and, moreover, the potential and benefits of active learning have not been sufficiently exploited [4], implying the need for general consensus on understanding the very term, as well as its proper implementation. Thereby, the learning environment based on constructivist and socio-constructive setting is the key element of active learning. Active learning environment The concept of active learning refers to a classroom environment that includes social and emotional relationships affecting active student learning as well as the physical and material aspects of learning. The constructivist active learning environment is directed to students  they take an active role in learning, evolve into autonomous individuals who think critically about the real world, develop their own potentials, and take the responsibility for their own actions. Students are included in planning, performing, and evaluating the learning process, through which the student-teacher partnership is cultivated, as well as the partnership between students. Numerous authors at the theoretical and empirical level [6, 5, 14, 7, 3, 2] have been involved in the research of active learning environment. Grabinger and Dunlap [5] the notion of rich environments of active learning (REALs - Rich Environments for Active Learning) have based on constructivist values. The main features of the concept are the encouragement of student responsibility and initiative, as well as the application of generative learning activities where students work on projects and tasks that are not only personally important to them but also applicable to their life and community. With respect to that, the emphasis here is on the authenticity of learning, i.e. the actual student experience, what is related to the activity of students in the learning environment in relation to the environment in which learning will be used. This concept is also featured by authentic evaluation strategies that require both the specification of students' skills and authentic support of teachers, whereby it is necessary to take into consideration the area of approximate development of students [5]. The area of approximate development of students covers the range between two levels of performance: the lower limit  independently performing a task, and the upper limit  not independently, but can perform a task with the help of an adult or a teacher. Therefore, formative evaluation and continuous feedback to students are an integral part of the learning process, and is focused on monitoring student's progress and planning future learning activities. The authenticity of activity and learning environment as the key strategy for creating constructivist learning environments was also emphasized by Honebein et al. [6]. Another important characteristic of rich active learning environments is collaborative support integrated in all other features of rich active learning environments that are not only interdependent but also conditioned to the successful realization of the active learning process. Furthermore, Jonassen [7] proposed a model for creating a constructivist learning environment which centers a particular problem, project, case study, or issue with different interpretative possibilities, where students are involved in creating meaning for problem solving or project realization. In the environment like that students build knowledge and solve problems both individually and in a team work, with the emphasis on creating the personal meaning of learning, connecting new ideas with experience and previous knowledge, as well as reflection process [7]. Whats more, to create the active learning environment it is essential to clarify the aims and contents of the subject, create a positive classroom environment, creatively organize the learning and teaching setting, but also to acknowledge the student's interests and needs, what is something every teacher should know [9]. For a successful active learning environment, students and teachers also need to adapt their roles to the traditional learning environment, with the emphasis on the transmission of knowledge and the teachers more active role [4]. Besides that, it is also necessary to align student and teacher expectations, which implies effective communication, cooperation and partnership. Moreover, teachers need support because their concepts of the active learning environment are quite different, as De Kock and others have emphasized in their research [3]. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously monitor, evaluate and encourage the development of the constructivist active learning environment in everyday educational practice, which the traditional schools systematically neglected. With that in mind, many teachers can use a widely used application Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) [13,14] as a help in monitoring constructivist learning environments today. Nowadays, as important features of active learning environments contemporary approaches to teaching emphasize its interactivity and multimodality with the emphasis on interdisciplinary, active and multisensory approach. In other words, it is a holistic approach to life-related active learning, which takes into account different styles / ways of learning with the appreciation of different media and senses [4, 10]. In addition to that, the studies of active learning environments have confirmed its numerous advantages among which the increase in deep approaches to learning points out, as opposed to the superficial [15, 12]. However, the traditional teaching still remains dominant over the constructivist practice of active learning [1]. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The aim of the paper was to examine the constructivist active learning environment from a student perspective. The results were conducted by surveying 951 elementary school (8th grade of a primary school, N = 458) and high school students (4th grade of a grammar school, N = 493) from Osijek-Baranja County in the Republic of Croatia. The eighth grade elementary school and the fourth grade grammar school students were selected for the survey sample since they have been involved in the educational process the longest and, consequently, it has been assumed that they are the most adequate to evaluate the constructivist active learning environments. Moreover, this research has been a part of the doctoral thesis on active learning as a didactic-methodical paradigm of contemporary teaching [4]. For the purpose of the original research, three questionnaires were constructed  Questionnaire of the constructivist active learning environment, Questionnaire of didactic-methodological determinants of active learning and Questionnaire of (self)assessment of teaching competences related to the active learning. However, for the purpose of this paper, the Questionnaire of constructivist active learning environment was used as a part of a survey questionnaire for students. The constructivist active learning environment is operationalized through the determinants of student autonomy, student participation (involvement), pre-knowledge, student centeredness, metacognition, and co-construction of knowledge, i.e. an individual and social aspect of active learning [4]. The terms and subscales of student autonomy, student participation or involvement, pre-knowledge and student centeredness have been taken, and slightly modified, from the standardized questionnaire CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments [13]. The questionnaire CLES uses four scales to measure important aspects of constructivist learning environment, but the other questionnaire subscales were created by the author referring to the relevant literature in this area. Also, a factor structure of the questionnaire was verified by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The questionnaire uses five-degree Likert scales, with higher results pointing to the greater expressiveness of each construct, and they are expressed as the average value of students evaluation on the constituents of the corresponding subscales [4]. The survey was being conducted from February to May 2017 in elementary and grammar schools in the Osijek-Baranja County during the school subject classroom lessons. Prior to conducting the survey of the eighth grade students, it was firstly necessary to conduct parents consents for childs participation in the research. Furthermore, while carrying out the research, the Code of Ethics for Children's Research was followed. In processing and interpretation of data descriptive statistics and a series of single-directional variance analyzes (with Bonferroni correction) were used in order to test the differences in the constructivist environment of active learning perception, as well as its individual dimensions with regard to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Finally, the results of the research are covered by the IBM SPSS (v. 22.0), and IBM SPSS for AMOS statistics (v. 20). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive indicators of student assessment of the constructivist active learning environment as a whole, and its particular aspects are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Students' assessment of constructivist active learning environment representation NMSDConstructivist active learning environment7253.26.65Autonomy 9003.82.70Student's participation (involvement) 9033.46.73Pre-knowledge9283.23.94Student centeredness8882.72.98Metacognition 8703.10.89Co-construction of knowledge9173.28.86As shown in the table, the results have indicated deficiency in the representation of constructivist active learning environments, what is manifested in students assessment too (the scaled value of 3, M = 3.26). In other words students both agree and disagree that the concept is represented in the teaching practice. Moreover, the same results were confirmed by Abbot and Fouts [1], i.e. they noted in their research that the use of constructivist teaching practice in only 17 % of observed classes. Taking into consideration the individual components of the constructivist active learning environment, the student centerdness was assessed by the students as the least represented component of active learning in practice (M = 2.72), which requires its greater recognition in the teaching process. In particular, that refers to acknowledging the student needs and interests, both in the planning of teaching (M = 2.44) and in its further implications in learning (M = 2.36), as shown in Table 2. To achieve that, students need to be able to independently set their own learning objectives, choose between teaching activities, participate in learning content planning, but they also need to be encouraged to give comments and reflect on their own learning and experience, as well as planning the learning sequences. Also, the intrinsic motivation in student-centered lesson is crucial. If there is no motivation, active learning as itself can not be represented in the practice. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to pay more attention to students' intrinsic motivation. In other words, they have to include the students in planning their own learning and maintaining their interest in and after classes, which is the starting point for students to take responsibility for their learning and thus for the development of self-regulated and lifelong learning. Table 2. Descriptive statistics for students assessment on the scale of constructivist active learning environment  determinant student centeredness STUDENT CENTERDNESSN M SD21. Teachers are aware and respect students living conditions and circumstances.9422.951.3022. Teachers include students in lesson planning. 9422.641.2723. Teachers help students to discover on their own the best ways to learn.9452.821.3024. Students will and interests as starting points9382.441.2525. Lessons end with the students motivation to learn more.9302.361.1726. Teachers ask students about their experiences/pre-knowledge when teaching. 9432.851.1827. Teachers acknowledge students individual differences. 9433.111.28Furthermore, the results have also shown that students of all tested variables of the constructivist active learning environments are most likely to experience autonomy in learning (M = 3.82), which moves around the scalar value of 4. In other words, according to students, autonomy in learning is a determinant that it is mostly represented in the teaching process. The later can be explained by developmental determinants, where cognitive changes occurring at the period of adolescence contribute to an increased sense of autonomy among young people [11]. The student autonomy is of crucial importance for the constructivist active learning environment, especially by looking at active learning from an individual point of view. Table 3 shows that students develop their autonomy in learning by taking responsibility for their learning (M = 4.39), but also by thinking about own ideas and their meaning (M = 4.03). The development of student autonomy, along with the mentioned determinants presented in the teaching practice, can be improved by the evaluation process so that the students discuss and record their progress and achievements, which is least represented by their judgment (M = 2.94). However, the involvement of students in the evaluation process is impossible to avoid in active learning, and it is necessary to monitor their development, and thus to understand and improve their learning competencies. In doing so, students need support of teachers as their both mentors and partners. Table 3. Descriptive statistics for students assessment on the scale of constructivist active learning environment  determinant autonomy AUTONOMYN M SD1. I formulate (set) my own learning objectives.9493.791.062. I am thinking about my ideas and their meaning.9494.031.003. I develop my own learning style.9423.961.104. I estimate the length of a given activity.9393.911.195. I take responsibility for own learning. 9354.390.866. I assess (evaluate, monitor, identify) my progress and achievements.9403.661.137. I discuss and record my progress and achievements. 9432.941.23Looking at the students' assessment of the remaining determinants of the constructive active learning environment, it is evident there is a need for their improvement because, as in the case of constructivist environments of active learning as a whole, they are both represented and not represented in the teaching process: the students' participation (involvement) (M = 3.46), pre-knowledge (M = 3.23), metacognition (M = 3.10), and knowledge co-construction (M = 3.28). For that reason, it is essential to encourage and work on the improvement of each of those determinants because that will not only lead to greater representation of the constructivist active learning environment in teaching practice, but also to more active role of students in controlling their learning processes. A more detailed analysis of students' assessment of the constructivist active learning environment is given below by examining the significance of differences in students' assessment regarding socio-demographic features: the age of students, type of school they attend, and general achievement at the end of the previous school year (Table 4). Table 4. The results of a series of one-way analysis variances (with Bonferroni correction) conducted to check the differences in the perception of the constructivist active learning environment with respect to the socio-demographic characteristics of the students AgeType of schoolGeneral achievement 131415171819El.Gramm.2345 N6267461136228324401391343279M3.253.473.542.883.093.113.473.092.413.113.183.41SD.61.64.74.66.59.64.66.591.02.62.67.61F(SS,SS)13.87**(5,714)67.23*** (1,723)10.07*** (3,712)14 > 17*,18**; 15 > 17*,18**El. > Gramm.5 > 2*, 3, 4*** The results have shown that there have been statistically significant differences in assessment of constructivist active learning environments with respect to all examined socio-demographic characteristics of students. Younger students evaluate the constructivist active learning environment more positively than older students, implying its greater representation in working with younger students. The data corresponds to the results obtained when examining the differences in evaluation between elementary and grammar school students. In other words, elementary school students evaluate the constructivist active learning environment more positive than grammar school students, F (1,723) = 67.23, p <.001. The later indicates that teaching at elementary schools is more adapted to students' needs and interests, but also that the learning environment is more encouraging, especially for active learning both in the individual and the social sense. One of the possible ways to explain that is that students in the age of 17 and 18 are attending the final grade of grammar schools, and are preparing, together with their teachers, for the Matura exam in order to enroll at universities they want. By doing so, firstly learning is focused on passing the exams ignoring the processes of active learning, secondly the teaching objectives are focused on memorizing and reproducing the facts, and, thirdly the learning experiences that lead to the improvement of the test results are considered to be more important than active learning. However, it is interesting to note that active learning studies point to its positive link to the improvement of students' achievement, which is exactly contrary to the practice. Active learning skills have been and will be necessary for students not only in further education at universities, but also in future workplaces. Therefore, continuity in active learning is inevitable. In that way, students will increasingly associate their learning with pre-knowledge, be more autonomous in their learning, develop their own metacognitive skills, and construct and co-construct their knowledge with others. Moreover, the student's general achievement has been also taken into account as a socio-demographic feature in assessing the constructive active learning environment due to numerous researches that point out the link between active learning and both school and student achievement. The results of this study have also shown that the students who achieved excellent general achievement at the end of a school year assess the constructivist environment of active learning positively compared to the students who achieved lower general achievements (F (3,712) = 10.07, p <.001). It is considered that students with excellent achievements have developed autonomy, metacognition and participation more in relation to the students who have achieved lower achievements. These skills develop gradually in students, but the more they are active, the more present is active learning. For this reason, it is important to promote greater representation of autonomy, metacognition and student participation during the teaching processes because, consequently, the student's success and achievement at school are also affected. CONCLUSION To sum up, the results of the study of the constructivist active learning environment from the student's perspective have shown that the concept is still insufficiently represented in practice, although it is imposed as a necessity and a starting point for contemporary schools focused on students. Elementary school students have assessed the concept more positively than grammar school students, indicating the discontinuity in practice and the prevalence of traditional teaching. Furthermore, a more detailed analysis of the obtained results has shown the correlation between the constructivist active learning environment and the age of students, the type of school they are attending, and their general achievements at schools. Therefore, it is important to encourage students' autonomy, to include them in planning, performance and evaluation of their learning, to respect their experiences, to associate learning with their pre-knowledge, to direct teaching to students, and to also take into account the age, needs and interests of each individual student. It is hence necessary to interconnect the entire educational vertical and to continuously encourage students to active learning, as well as to create a positive learning environment, where teachers have a key role. Ultimately, it can be concluded that students need greater support to be able to learn actively, which would also make the abovementioned determinants of the constructivist active learning environment more presented and recognizable in the practice of teaching. REFERENCES [1] Abbott, M.L., Fouts, J.T., Constructivist Teaching and Student Achievement: The Results of a School-level Classroom Observation Study in Washington. Technical Report, Washington, Seattle Pacific University, Washington School Research Center, 2003. [2] Cirik, I., olak, E., Kaya, D., Constructivist Learning Environments: The Teachers' and Students' Perspectives. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, Turkey, vol. 6/issue 2, pp 3044, 2015. [3] De Kock, A., Sleegers, P., Voeten, M..M. New learning and choices of secondary school teachers when arranging learning environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, United Kingdom, vol.21/issue 7, pp 799816, 2005. [4] Gazibara S., Aktivno u enja kao didakti ko-metodi ka paradigma suvremene nastave, doktorski rad, Zagreb, Hrvatska, 2018. // Active learning as didactic-methodical paradigm of contemporary teaching, doctoral thesis, Zagreb, Croatia, 2018. [5] Grabinger, R.S., Dunlap, J.C., Rich environments for active learning: a definition. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, United Kingdom, vol. 3/issue 2, pp 534, DOI: 10.1080/0968776950030202, 1995. [6] Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., Fishman, B.J., Constructivism and the Design of Learning Environments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning. In: T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D.H. Jonassen, T. M. Welsh (eds.), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, pp 87108, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, 1993. [7] Jonassen, D.H., Designing consab4 5 6 E U b t ̴̚}m]mMm=+"h>hHp5CJOJQJ\aJh>hF5CJOJQJaJh>h]5CJOJQJaJh>h|O5CJOJQJaJh>h15CJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJ2hh0JB*OJQJfHphUq .hhB*OJQJfHphq 7jhhB*OJQJUfHphq .hhB*OJQJfHph"""q 5 6 e }}xxgdZM$dxa$gd^j $da$gd^j$  dxa$gd_^$ ,d7$8$H$a$gdbJ $dxa$gd_^$dhx@&a$gd^j$d@&a$gdB^$d@&a$gd s źyiYJ;,h>hoCJOJQJaJh>h$V&CJOJQJaJh>hCJOJQJaJh>hBq5CJOJQJaJh>hc5CJOJQJaJh>h$nOJQJh>h 5OJQJ\h>h15OJQJ]h>h%5OJQJ]h>h%OJQJ]h>h1OJQJh>h OJQJh>h H*OJQJ"h>h15CJOJQJ\aJ"h>h 5CJOJQJ\aJ ^ {  1MPeno񧘉zk^h^j5CJOJQJaJh>h_^CJOJQJaJh>h%CJOJQJaJh>h:@CJOJQJaJh>hBqCJOJQJaJh>hBq5CJOJQJaJh>hA;(CJOJQJaJh>hoCJ^JaJh>h$V&CJOJQJaJh>hoCJOJQJaJh>hCJOJQJaJ"F')AEmt ³¤³³³••³³†tbSh>h>CJOJQJaJ#h>hN'5CJPJaJmH sH #h>h>5CJPJaJmH sH h>hrCJaJmH sH h>hA;(CJaJmH sH h>h&CJaJmH sH h>hns9CJaJmH sH h>h]CJaJmH sH h>hSCJaJmH sH h>hcCJOJQJaJh>h#h5CJOJQJaJ<>TXHI~ !!]"}"!#"#%#o######$%$́ŕ́cccch>h,JCJOJQJaJh>h=DCJOJQJaJh>h_CJOJQJaJh>hqCJOJQJaJh>hF76CJOJQJaJh>hF7CJOJQJaJh>h&CJOJQJaJh=DCJOJQJaJh>h>CJ^JaJh>h>CJOJQJaJh>h>CJaJ&%$5$<$=$>$U$V$Z&s&''''(()) +:+A++y,z,-%---Y.k.n.o.ӵĦĦĦxiiiX h>hdCJPJaJmH sH h>hQCJOJQJaJh>h>CJOJQJaJh>hCJOJQJaJh>h>{6CJOJQJaJh>h>{CJOJQJaJh>h:OCJOJQJaJh>hCJOJQJaJh>hjACJOJQJaJh>h_CJOJQJaJh>h,JCJOJQJaJ '+n.o.. 9<<<O==w dxgdIA$d`a$gd} $dxa$gd+$dx`a$gd} $da$gdg $dxa$gdZM x`gdEu$dx`a$gdg$dx`a$gdZM o..//|11122B3b34505E5Z5m555"6.666666667788ܾܥܖܖ͖ܖ܆viv]Qh+CJOJQJaJh>CJOJQJaJh>6CJOJQJaJh>h>6CJOJQJaJh>h+6CJOJQJaJh>hZCJOJQJaJh>h+CJ^JaJh}CJOJQJaJh>h}CJOJQJaJh>h>CJOJQJaJh>h+CJOJQJaJ'h>hZM5CJOJQJaJnH tH 8999:<<O=X=_=a=b=l=========>>>>>>*>9>:>=>G>U>V>j>x>y>}>>>>>>>³³³³~³h>hZCJOJQJaJh>hZMCJaJh+OJQJnH tH h>hZOJQJnH tH h>h+OJQJnH tH h>hZMOJQJnH tH 'h>hZM5CJOJQJaJnH tH h+CJOJQJaJh>h+CJOJQJaJ+=====$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}====O8$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}kd$$Ifl4\c!         t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$====5kd$$Ifl4\c!         t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}===>>$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}>>,>0>O8$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}kd$$Ifl4\c!     t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$0>5>9>:>5kd$$Ifl4\c! t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}:>H>L>Q>U>$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}U>V>k>o>O8$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}kdn$$Ifl4\c! t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$o>t>x>y>5kd?$$Ifl4\c! t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}y>>>>>$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}>>>>O8$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}d$& #$/Ifb$gd}kd$$Ifl4\c! t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$>>>>5kd$$Ifl4\c!     t 6 0!644 lae4ytc$$d$& #$/Ifa$b$gd}>>>>>??B?C?L?V?d?n?o?s?.@3@6@@@F@G@H@i@@@Ǹ~n~[[ǸLh>hgCJOJQJaJ$h>hgCJOJQJaJnH tH h+CJOJQJaJnH tH $h>hZMCJOJQJaJnH tH h>h+OJQJnH tH h+OJQJnH tH h+CJOJQJaJh>hjCJOJQJaJ$h>hjCJOJQJaJnH tH $h>hCJOJQJaJnH tH $h>hZCJOJQJaJnH tH @@@@@$A7ACCDDDD4E@EnEpEEEF F(FpFrFFBGDGϼvgvXIvgh}h+OJQJnH tH h}hOJQJnH tH h}hZMOJQJnH tH h}hgOJQJnH tH h+CJOJQJaJh}CJOJQJaJh>hg6CJOJQJaJh>hgCJOJQJaJ$h>hjCJOJQJaJnH tH $h>hZMCJOJQJaJnH tH h>hjCJOJQJaJh>h+CJOJQJaJ>@FDGlGG Sd$Ifgd}$ Sd$Ifa$gd}$dxa$gd}$dx`a$gd}DGjGlGGGHH/H[H\H]HqHHHHHIGI[IIIIJJ$JKK/L4LDNKNuNvNNNOOOOOøøøθθθθΩsdhIAhZMOJQJnH tH hIAhIAOJQJnH tH h>hMcCJOJQJaJhMcCJOJQJaJh+CJOJQJaJh>hT@CJOJQJaJh>hOJQJh>hgOJQJh>hZMOJQJh>hZM56OJQJh>hZM5OJQJh>h _5OJQJ'GGH H%H*H{iTTT$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd$$IfTl{0!   t0644 laytZMT*H+H^HbHgHlHWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd$$IfTl\L!   Y  t0644 laytc$TlHmHHHHHWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd$$IfTl\L!Y t0644 laytc$THHHII IWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd $$IfTl\L!Y t0644 laytc$T I IHILIQIVIWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd $$IfTl\L!Y t0644 laytc$TVIWIIIIIWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd $$IfTl\L!Y t0644 laytc$TIIIIIJWE000$ Sd$Ifa$gd} Sd$Ifgd}kd $$IfTl\L!Y t0644 laytc$TJJOPWD5$dxa$gdIA$dx`a$gd}kd $$IfTl\L!   Y  t0644 laytc$TOP4PPPPP Q"Q(QQQQQRRRR6RERFRIRsRRRRRRRRSSSSS!SKSZS[StSǻqh>h-*CJOJQJaJhMcOJQJh>hROJQJh>hZMOJQJh>hZMCJOJQJaJh>hZM56OJQJh>hZM5OJQJh>hT@5OJQJhIAhZMOJQJnH tH hIAhMcOJQJnH tH hIAhT@OJQJnH tH 'PP Q"QQQQQZH Sd$IfgdR~kd$$Ifl90]9!   t0!44 laytc$ Sd$IfgdZM$ Sd$Ifa$gdZMQQRR RR]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdRkd9$$Ifl\]9! 7 S R  t0!44 laytc$RR7R;R@RER]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdRkd$$Ifl\]9!7SR t0!44 laytc$ERFRtRxR}RR]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdRkd$$Ifl\]9!7SR t0!44 laytc$RRRRRR]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdMckd$$Ifl\]9!7SR t0!44 laytc$RRS SSS]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdRkd7$$Ifl\]9!7SR t0!44 laytc$SSLSPSUSZS]K666$ Sd$Ifa$gdZM Sd$IfgdMckd$$Ifl\]9!7SR t0!44 laytc$ZS[SoVWXX]JJ;-d$IfgdIA$dxa$gdIA$dx`a$gdIAkd$$Ifl\]9! 7 S R  t0!44 laytc$tS~SSUUIVTVkVmVnVoVVVVW%W&WWWWXXXXXXXXXX YYYY Y!Y"Y%YMYNYOYQYYֻ֤֯yymymh>hZM6OJQJh>hZM6h>hZM5OJQJh>h-*5OJQJh>hZMOJQJh>h-*OJQJhIACJOJQJaJh>hMcCJOJQJaJhMcCJOJQJaJh>h-*CJOJQJaJh>hMcOJQJnH tH hMcOJQJnH tH *XXXXXXXYY[Md$IfgdIAkdd$$Ifl\o!1      t!44 lap(ytc$$d$Ifa$gdIAYY Y YYYYYY Y!Y"Y%Y'Y+Y.Y1Y5Y8YZ`ZƸƸƪƸƪƸƸƸƸƞƞƸƸxh>h)CJOJQJaJ-h>hZMB*CJOJQJaJnH phtH h>h-*5OJQJh>hZM5H*OJQJh>hZM5H*OJQJh>hZM5OJQJh>hZM6H*OJQJh>hZM6OJQJh>hZMOJQJh>hZM6-YYYYYYYYYYYYYY$d$Ifa$gdIAd$IfgdIAFf$$d$Ifa$gdIA YZZZSE4$d$Ifa$gdIAd$IfgdIAkd'$$Ifl4ro! E t!44 lap2ytc$ZZ,ZhMcCJOJQJaJh>hMcOJQJnH tH hMcOJQJnH tH h>h)CJOJQJaJhMcCJOJQJaJ6ffffffff ggghhNhOhWhzhiiiijj@kLkmmmm/mmızeS"h>hZM6CJOJQJ]aJ(h>hZM5B* CJOJQJaJphh>hZM5CJOJQJaJh>hZMCJOJQJaJhIACJOJQJaJh3yCJOJQJaJ$h>hZMCJOJQJaJnH tH +h>hZM5CJOJPJQJaJnH tH  hIAhIAhIAhCJOJQJaJh>h)CJOJQJaJfffmm nnoqrsD$dx7$8$H$a$gd^j$dxa$gdZM$dx`a$gd^j$dxa$gd^j $da$gdIAmmnnzooqq1rXr}sssst (<aZX 45Y[1^eo'S}hbzCJOJQJaJhgtvjhgtvUh>hhZMCJOJQJ]aJ"h>hZM6CJOJQJ]aJUh^jCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh>hZMCJOJQJaJh>hZM6CJOJQJaJ1tructivist learning environments. In: C.M. Reigeluth (ur.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, vol. II, pp 215239. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. [8] Matsushita K., Deep Active Learning: Toward Greater Depth in University Education, Singapore, Springer, 2018. [9] Meyers, C., Jones, T.B., Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993. [10] Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments, Educational Psychology Review, Netherlands, vol. 19/issue 3, pp 309 326, 2007. [11] Rudan, V. Normalni adolescentni razvoj //Normal Adolescent Development, Medix: specijalizirani medicinski dvomjese nik, vol. 10/issue52, pp 36 39, 2004. [12] Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Gielen, S., On the dynamics of students approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, United Kingdom, vol. 16/issue 4, pp 279294, 2006. [13] Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., Development of an instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L. A., 1991. [14] Taylor, P., Fraser, B., Fisher, D., Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 27/issue 4, pp 293302, 1997. [15] Wilson, K., Fowler, J., Assessing the impact of learning environments on students approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, United Kingdom, vol. 30/issue 1, pp 87101, 2005.     5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Art SGEM 2018 |}~$dx7$8$H$a$gd^jh]hgdB2gd# 9!&dPgdVw &dPgdp+QY{|}ȴslhYh>h666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmHnHsHtHJ`J ~X0Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH ||O Heading 1.$$$ & F dP@&a$":CJOJPJQJaJmHnHurrO Heading 2 $$ & Fdx<@&%6CJOJPJQJ]aJmHnHunnO Heading 3$ & Fd@&a$%6CJOJPJQJ]aJmHnHurrO Heading 4 $ & Fd((@&a$%6CJOJPJQJ]aJmHnHuDA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List 6U`6 0 Hyperlink >*B*ph$$ Ostyle7T/T O Affiliation$a$OJPJQJ_HmH sH tH \^"\ ^ Normal (Web)ddd[$\$CJOJPJQJaJ*W 1*  ^`Strong5\HBH E List Paragraph ^m$PJ4 @R4 B2Footer  p#.)a. B2 Page Number@@r@ B2Header  p# mHsHtHZB@Z = Body Text$da$OJPJQJaJmH sH tH >> = reference^`.X . #h@Emphasis6]L/L rstyle531#5CJOJQJ\^JaJo(ph/ thps6/6 p+ Header CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭Vc:E3v@P~Ds |w<v k8 j %$o.8>@DGOtSY`Zfm:<=>?@BCPQS\eimnpw ====>0>:>U>o>y>>>>G*HlHH IVIIJPQRERRRSZSXYIYYYZf;ADEFGHIJKLMNORTUVWXYZ[]^_`abcdfghjklovakX@ @H 0(  0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK10k1k%.FN##,,Y.c.`3e3U4`4775I?IK^P^9_>_D_I_!`%`+`3`9`?``aa aaaaaa-a.a7a8aAaBaIaKaTabajaaabb`cfcmcuccc9dBdDdFdeepfufzffffffffffffffggg#g)g1g7g=gjjjjjjjjjjjjPkWkXkakbkekfkqkrkzkkk22A`F`ffjjjjjjjjjjPkzkkk3336 xyz~%%%%%%))4,4,//x0x011663939*<*< B BBBDDGGHHIIIIfKfK@V@VtVyV X XXX'X3XXX;Y8J@d|b8"7dp!&rrPxip#P_@K*_>NS\>@@q>`Aj-\JȀL<_S(^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHop^p`OJQJo(hH@ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`5CJOJPJQJo(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`5PJo(.hhhhhhhhh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`56hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.;@`789;<B*CJH*OJQJS*TX^JaJo(ph.G h^ `56789;<B*CJH*OJQJS*TX\]^JaJo(ph.G`56789;<B*CJH*OJQJS*TX\]^JaJo(ph)#h`h56CJOJQJ\]^JaJo()@  ^@ o(x^o(()H^o(()^o(()^o(()^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(hHop^p`OJQJo(hH@ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHi@K*>`A&rr7d~}|\>-\J_>_S#:D        T}/                  L|Jq WHb*(&5Id         6Q                  1ib`%v -1t31& Y;wY& Y;ovY1ib`+,^9^9)F#py>H?4UBVfUE , e- W  x E aqr27 3B-*YC[ap}V\Xm3 M?s6v+Z1GCdHpU?v-*GEO 6,!Vj!# #$*$c$B%$V&k&N'r' u'A;(eS(*@;*(+ ,5,]/l0I80~X01{C1[22B23}v3+4,6y7F7d7Wr78e8Np8$9B:9ns9B<2=>"?i9@:@H@lK@MS@d@FAJBepC0E FF; GfGIbJ4$L2MXMZM=-NOoO])g]B^ _^`O6`a}eb'dsKds=fRg"hGNioii^jXk\n$no p1pvDpBqUq{r7rwir4 s4pss@tgtt?*t%0txt-u~v'vN6vXvgtvVwSwb]wxx@y3y kybzQ|m]|,~Z=DEuDFJmLyVT2*yV bZJW>M>"1 c,J&Zs %>+@lwj +k=RH; tDcduPRxPd[\[k{t ()8| 1rn]7(i~w0K|O+>#*+N/Sb#hN}8ukJ_^o{ `iY+v}]Bt0~JNkD_r/X/O:P{ %Xs9goc>/zT,\]#I. )H>{T@sbVpb#OjQUZLXc<{FwPMc ^w?0@Zup !up+O:G(qwM'v>d&-UnIAK%.50Z:Opj(_+@-jAw;zUjj__Grammarly_42____i__Grammarly_42___14H4sIAAAAAAAEAKtWckksSQxILCpxzi/NK1GyMqwFAAEhoTITAAAATH4sIAAAAAAAEAKtWcslP9kxRslIyNDY0NzIyNTMxsDAwNTK0NDdV0lEKTi0uzszPAykwqgUAbcRD/SwAAAA=@X 66)&)')9):)B)Cabdfgjk@ @4@ D@2h@F@P@p@@@@Unknown G.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .[x Arial7.*{$ Calibri5..[`)Tahoma?= .Cx Courier New;WingdingsG  MS Mincho-3 fgA$BCambria Math#1hk'k'ĆZ 6Z 6!24^j^j 3qHP $PF2!xx  SGEM 2016 Social Sciences & Artspaper templateSGEM Organizing Team Windows User\               Oh+'0H\ t    $SGEM 2016 Social Sciences & Artspaper templateSGEM Organizing Team0http://www.sgemsocial.org sgem@sgemsocial.org Normal.dotmWindows User2Microsoft Office Word@@@ 7p@ 7p Z ՜.+,D՜.+,L hp|  6^j !SGEM 2016 Social Sciences & Arts Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAp8?http://www.sgemsocial.org/  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{|}~Root Entry F|@Data z(1TableTWordDocument sSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore@|3|2W32KB3XVJEA==2@|3|Item  PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q