Eva Lyn M. Lagrimas, Viola P. Buenaventura


The aim of this study was to determine the mediating effect of a constructivist learning environment on the relationship between school culture and student engagement in technology and livelihood education in Davao del Sur, Philippines. To determine the mediating effect of constructivist learning, correlation design employing mediating analysis was employed in this study. Adapted survey questionnaires were utilized for a sample of 400 students from public schools in Matanao, Bansalan, Magsaysay (MABAMA) District, Davao del Sur. The questionnaires were validated by experts contextualizing to the local setting. Regression and Path Analysis were used to determine the mediating effect of a constructivist learning environment on the relationship between school culture and student engagement of students in TLE. The results showed that the level of constructivist learning environment is high, the level of school culture is high, the level of student engagement is very high, and there were significant relationships between constructivist learning environment and school culture and student engagement. The significant effect showed partial mediation. Thus, the TLE students’ constructivist learning environment partially mediates the relationship between school culture and student engagement.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


education, constructivist learning environment, school culture, student engagement, Philippines

Full Text:



Abla, C., & Fraumeni, B. R. (2019). Student engagement: Evidence-based strategies to boost academic and social-emotional results. McREL International.

Adom, D., Hussein E. K., & Adu-Agyem, J. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1).

Al-Huneidi, A., & Schreurs, J. (2013). Constructivism based blended learning in higher education. Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research, 581-591.

Allard, A., & Cooper, M. (2001). 'Learning to cooperate': A study of how primary teachers and children construct classroom cultures. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 153-169.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.

Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.

Bay, E. (2008). Ö÷retmen E÷itiminde YapÕlandÕrmacÕ Program UygulamalarÕnÕn Etkilili÷inin De÷erlendirilmesi. YayÕmlanmamÕú DoktoraTezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, SosyalBilimlerEnstitüsü, Erzurum

Bay, E., Gündoğdu, K., & Kaya, H. I. (2017). The perceptions of prospective teachers on the democratic aspects of the constructivist learning environment. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 8(21).

Bhattacharjee, J. (2019). Constructivist Approach to Learning–An Effective Approach of Cakir, N. K. (2017). Effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement, attitude and science process skills: Meta-analysis study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(11), 157-170.

Caldwell, M. E. (2011). Patterns of relationships between teacher engagement and student engagement. Education Doctoral, Paper 49.

Cinchez, M. F., Russell, R. L., Chavez, J., & Ortiz, R. (2017). Student engagement: Defining teacher effectiveness and teacher engagement. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 15(1).

Cirik, I., Çolak, E., & Kaya, D. (2015). Constructivist learning environments: The teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(3), 30-44.'_AND_STUDENTS'_PERSPECTIVES

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE publications.

Dagamac, N. H., Arioder, L. J., Arioder, V. Q., & Quintana, V. V. (2020). Application of constructivist teaching approach in introducing new environmental concepts to young elementary students in the Philippines: A small class sized experience from slime moulds modeling. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(2).

Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2017). Student perceptions of classroom engagement and learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(2), 13–25.

Ergin, I. (2012). Constructivist approach based 5E model and usability instructional physics. Latin-American Journal of Physics Education, 6(1).

Españo, M. V. (2017, April 11). Cultivating your organization’s culture. The Manila Times.

Fazelian, P., Ebrahim, A. N., & Soraghi, S. (2010). The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and retention of sciences for middle class students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 140-143.

Friesen, S. (2010). Student Engagement, Equity, and the Culture of Schooling. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Gabriele, E., & Caines, V. (2013). LeaderBeing: Critical reflections on context, character, and challenge in the culture of research and its administration. Research Management Review 20 (1).

Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178.

Gokalp, M. S., & Kirbulut, Z. D. (2013). Investigating pre-service elementary school teachers’ Metacognitive science learning orientations. The Anthropologist, 16(1-2), 177-184.

Har, L. B. (2019). Constructivist Learning and Teaching. The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Hart, S. R., Stewart, K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). Student engagement in schools questionnaire. PsycTESTS Dataset.

Healey, M., Flint, A. & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286.

Jones, R. (2008). Strengthening Student Engagement. International Center for Leadership in Education.

Kraft, M. A., & Dougherty, S. M. (2013). The effect of teacher–family communication on student engagement: Evidence from a randomized Field experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 199-222.

Kwan, Y. W., & Wong, A. F. (2014). The constructivist classroom learning environment and its associations with critical thinking ability of secondary school students in liberal studies. Learning Environments Research, 17(2), 191-207.

Lefoe, G. (n.d.). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education. Centre for Educational Development and Interactive Resources, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Le Cornu R., Peters J., & Collins J. (2003). What are the characteristics of constructivist learning cultures? British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2012). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 20-32.

Maheshwari, G., & Thomas, S. (2017). An analysis of the effectiveness of the constructivist approach in teaching business statistics. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 20, 083-097.

Manikandan, S. (2011). Measures of central tendency: The mean. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(2), 140.

Martin, J., & Torres, A. (2016). User’s guide and toolkit for the surveys of student engagement: The High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE) and the Middle Grades Survey of Student Engagement (MGSSE).

McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.

McREL International (2017). McREL’s smallscale study suggests big gains possible with VocabularySpellingCity. VocabularySpellingCity_SS_web.pdf

McREL International (2019). Nevada Virtual Academy High School finds a unique

path to increased rigor.

Padilla, M. A., & Veprinsky, A. (2014). Bootstrapped Deattenuated correlation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(5), 823-830.

Pappa, S., (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of student engagement and teacher self-efficacy beliefs. International Master’s Degree Program in Education.

Russell, B., & Slater, G. R. L. (2011). Factors that encourage student engagement: Insights from a case study of ‘first time’ students in a New Zealand university. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1).

San Jose, A., & Galang, J. (2015). Teaching strategies in teaching literature: Students in focus. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(4).

Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Schein's model of organizational culture explained + template. (2020, August 25). Toolshero.

Sharkey, S., & Weimer, M. (2003). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Teaching Sociology, 31(2), 251.

Smithson, M. (2000). Statistics with confidence: An introduction for psychologists. SAGE Publications.

Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European higher education. Research Gate.

Taylor P., & Fraser B. (1991). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Academia.

Toraman, C., & Demir, E. (2017). The effect of constructivism on attitudes towards lessons: A meta-analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 115-142.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Research Gate.

Tsang, K. K. (2009). Three approaches to understanding and investigating the concept of school culture and school culture phenomena: implications to school improvement and school effectiveness. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 8.

Tuna, A., & Kacar, A. (2013). The effect of 5E learning cycle model in teaching trigonometry on students’ academic achievement and the permanence of their knowledge. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(1).

Tunca, N. (2015). The regression level of constructivist learning environment characteristics on classroom environment characteristics supporting critical thinking. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 15(60), 181-200.

Tuncel, I., & Bahtiyar, A. (2015). A case study on constructivist learning environment in content knowledge courses in science teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3178-3185.

Tural, G., Akdeniz, A. R., & Alev, N. (2010). Effect of 5E teaching model on student teachers’ understanding of weightlessness. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 470-488.

Uredi, L. (2013). The relationship between the classroom teachers’ level of establishing a constructivist learning environment and their attitudes towards the constructivist approach. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(4), 50-55.

Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2017). Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every learner (2nd ed.). Corwin.

What is organizational culture? - Definition & characteristics. (n.d).

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Beyond hard outcomes: ‘soft’ outcomes and engagement as student success. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 661-673.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 Eva Lyn M. Lagrimas, Viola P. Buenaventura

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).