Learning Environments Research

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 99–119 | Cite as

Constructivist learning and openness to diversity and challenge in higher education environments

  • Dorit Alt
Original Paper


The increasing calls for diversity research signal a need to explore contemporary learning and instruction strategies that respond to diversity in courses and curricula. The major objective of this research was to measure the level of openness to diversity and challenge (ODC) among college students as a function of their perceived constructivist learning environment in traditional lecture-based courses (LBE) and seminars (SM). The study included 243 undergraduate students. Data were gathered using the Constructivist Learning in Higher Education Settings scale (CLHES), which measures students’ perceptions of the occurrence of constructivist practices in learning environments along three dimensions of constructive activity, teacherstudent interaction and social activity, and the Openness to Diversity and Challenge scale. Structural equation modelling (SEM) results indicated a positive connection between the general factor of CLHES and ODC over and above several pre-entry variables such as gender and culture. According to a further SEM analysis, the social activity variable mainly explained the ODC variable whereas the teacherstudent interaction factor was mainly connected to the constructive activity variable. Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated that students enrolled in SM perceived this environment as more constructivist and reported having higher levels of feelings of ODC than LBE students. Interpretation of these findings, in conjunction with theory, applications, and implications for future research are discussed.


Constructivist learning environments Higher education Openness to diversity and challenge 


  1. Ali, N. (Ed.). (2013). Representation of Arab citizens in the institutions of higher education in Israel. Sikkuy: The Association for the Advancement of Civic Equality in Israel. Retrieved from
  2. Alt, D. (2014a). The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring features of constructivist learning environments in higher education. Frontline Learning Research. doi: 10.14786/flr.v2i2.68.Google Scholar
  3. Alt, D. (2014b). Assessing the connection between students’ justice experience and attitudes toward academic cheating in higher education new learning environments. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alt, D. (2014c). The contribution of constructive learning environment on democratic processes involvement. Megamot: Journal of Behavioral Science, 49(4), 75–795. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  5. Alt, D. (2014d). Using structural equation modeling and multidimensional scaling to assess students’ perceptions of the learning environment and justice experiences. International Journal of Educational Research, 69, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the contribution of constructivist based academic learning environment to academic self-efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alt, D., & Geiger, B. (2012). Goal orientations and tendency to neutralize academic cheating: An ecological perspective. Psychological Studies, 57(4), 404–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301–328). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman, N. A. (2014). Conceptualizing openness to diversity and challenge: Its relation to college experiences, achievement, and retention. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Crissman, J. L., Terenzini, P. T., Bernal, E. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20–34.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cuyjet, M. J., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2011). Introduction. In M. J. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 401–420). Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  14. De Clercq, M., Galand, B., & Frenay, M. (2014). Learning processes in higher education: Providing new insights into the effects of motivation and cognition on specific and global measures of achievement. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 141–162). London and New York: Routledge and EARLI.Google Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Dochy, F. J. R. C., & Alexander, P. A. (1995). Mapping prior knowledge: A framework for discussion among researchers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23–46.Google Scholar
  18. Dooly, M. (2008). Constructing knowledge together. In M. Dooly (Ed.), A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online (pp. 21–44). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Elicker, J. D., Thompson, M. N., Snell, A. F., & O’Malley, A. L. (2009). A training framework and follow-up observations for multiculturally inclusive teaching: Is believing that we are emphasizing diversity enough? Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(2), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erstad, O. (2011). Weaving the context of digital literacy. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 295–310). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 745–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Vanthournout, G., Struyf, E., & Van Petegem, P. (2009). Changing students’ approaches to learning: A two-year study within a university teacher training course. Educational Studies, 35(5), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer supported collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann, N. Miyake, & R. Hall (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 129–156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group and Organization Management, 29(5), 560–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hrynchak, P., & Batty, H. (2012). The educational theory basis of team-based learning. Medical Teacher, 34(10), 796–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King, P. M., Perez, R. J., & Shim, W. (2013). How college students experience intercultural learning: Key features and approaches. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(2), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kujawa, S., & Huske, L. (1995). The strategic teaching and reading project guidebook (Revised ed.). Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  30. Lahn, L. C. (2011). Professional learning as epistemic trajectories. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 53–68). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, A., Williams, R., & Kilaberia, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in first-year college classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 37(3), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lund, A., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Changing objects in knowledge-creation practices. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 206–221). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: Validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical Education, 38(5), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers’ conceptions of learners’ prior knowledge. Science Education, 88(6), 970–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Minick, N., Stone, C. A., & Forman, E. A. (1993). Introduction: Integration of individual, social, and institutional processes in accounts of children’s learning and development. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2001). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pasque, P. A., Chesler, M. A., Charbeneau, J., & Carlson, C. (2013). Pedagogical approaches to student racial conflict in the classroom. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & Perret, J.-F. (2011). A new artifact in the trade: Notes on the arrival of a computer supported manufacturing system in a technical school. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 87–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky and the social administration of the individual: constructivist pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 535–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Price, L. (2014). Modelling factors for predicting student learning outcomes in higher education. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 56–77). London and New York: Routledge and EARLI.Google Scholar
  43. Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwarz, B., & De Groot, R. (2011). Breakdowns between teachers, educators and designers in elaborating new technologies as precursors of change in education to dialogic thinking. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 261–277). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Sciame-Giesecke, S., Roden, D., & Parkinson, K. (2009). Infusing diversity into the curriculum: What are faculty members actually doing? Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shaviv, M., Binstein, N., Stone, A., & Fudem, O. (2013). Pluralism and equal opportunity in higher education expanding access for Arabs, Druze and Circassians in Israel. Report by the Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC) of the Council for Higher Education (CHE). Retrieved from
  48. Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2006). Psychology applied to teaching (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  49. Stahl, G. (2011). Social practices of group cognition in virtual match teams. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 190–205). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Stulberg, L. M., & Weinberg, S. L. (2011). Introduction. In L. M. Stulberg & S. L. Weinberg (Eds.), Diversity in American higher education: Toward a more comprehensive approach (pp. 1–4). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. The Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Women in higher education. Retrieved December 21, 2012 from (Hebrew).
  53. The Committee Report on Reforms in the Higher Education System. (2007). The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance. Retrieved from (Hebrew).
  54. The Council for Higher Education. (2009). Planning and Budgeting Committee 34/35 report. Retrieved from (Hebrew).
  55. Vermunt, J. D., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Martinez-Fernandez, J. R. (2014). The dimensionality of student learning patterns in different cultures. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 33–55). London and New York: Routledge and EARLI.Google Scholar
  56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wegerif, R., & De Laat, M. (2011). Using Bakhtin to re-think the teaching of higher-order thinking for the network society. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 313–329). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  59. Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Worthington, R. L. (2012). Advancing scholarship for the diversity imperative in higher education: An editorial. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wyatt, T. H., Krauskopf, P. B., Gaylord, N. M., Ward, A., Huffstutler-Hawkins, S., & Goodwin, L. (2010). Cooperative M-learning with nurse practitioner students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 109–113.Google Scholar
  63. Zefat Academic College (2015). Mission statement. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kinneret College on the Sea of GalileeJordan ValleyIsrael

Personalised recommendations