www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2022:13 (1), 259-281 Constructivist instruction practices in Kosovo primary education: The field of languages and communication curriculum Hatixhe Ismajli1 & Beslinda Krasniqi2 Abstract The constructivist approach aims to change the traditional instruction paradigms in the primary education curriculum of Kosovo. Nonetheless, constructivist practices that aim to ensure success in teaching have not been fully understood by instructors. This study intended to examine how primary school instructors practice constructivist instruction in the field of languages and communication curriculum. The study also aimed to ascertain the differences between instructors who teach at the second curricular stage (grades three, four and five) following the constructivist and traditional instruction and the teaching activities that they develop in this curricular area. In addition, the research aimed to identify and compare practices that determine the constructivist instruction in the subjects Albanian and English languages. A mixed research methodology was used in this research. The content analysis was followed by a descriptive statistical analysis of the data obtained through a questionnaire and observation. The results indicate that the constructivist teaching practices were partially applied due to difficulties faced by instructors in understanding and implementing the constructivist philosophy in the languages and communication curriculum area. The creation of a handbook with guidelines that focus on constructivist instruction and interactive activities, training of in-service teachers in professional development and the provision of technological resources are recommended to enhance the quality of constructivist practices, and are considered key overcoming the present obstacles. Keywords: Constructivist practices, teaching activities, languages and communication field, instructor, primary education. Introduction After the war in Kosovo ended in 1999 and the legal base was created, several reforms were undertaken by international and local organisations, bringing significant progress in the design of new curricula following the principles of the European Union. The Kosovo Curriculum 1 Assoc. Prof., University of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina”, Faculty of Education, Prishtina, Kosovo, hatixhe.ismajli@uni-pr.edu (Corresponding author). 2 MSc. of Teaching and Curriculum, “International Maarif School of Kosovo”, Kosovo, beslinda.krasniqii@gmail.com mailto:hatixhe.ismajli@uni-pr.edu mailto:beslinda.krasniqii@gmail.com Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 Framework for pre-university education (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST], 2011) is expected to fully transform approaches to teaching and learning. The education system now requires strategies focused on including students in the learning process, whereby the focus is on building knowledge rather than on reproducing it (Shah, 2019). Accordingly, the philosophy of the New Curriculum is based on the constructivist approach, i.e., on ‘learning by doing’. Adequate conditions and opportunities for the construction of new knowledge are created through the actualisation of students’ skills and knowledge in real-life situations (MEST, 2016). Constructivism, as a new educational approach, emphasises that students are more capable of comprehending information that they constructed themselves (Muhammad, 2021). The curriculum needs to be organised in a spiral for the students to continuously build upon the already acquired knowledge (Bruner, 1966). Constructivist learning is a social advancement that includes language, real-life situations, interaction and collaboration among students (Bransford et al., 2000). The field of languages and communication is one of seven curricular fields that involve the Albanian language and English as a foreign language. Recent curricular trends in multiculturalism and conceptualism have surpassed the traditional approach, especially for English language learners, providing transformative and pragmatic models for 21st-century learners (Adams, 2019). Students’ perceptions concerning the native language and foreign language acquisition are influenced by the general principles of the theories on overall human cognitive development. The approaches and practices in instruction and learning of these two subjects are valuable for the entire community. The Albanian language is taught at all key curricular stages, from the preparatory until the 12th grade. The English language is the first foreign language taught, being optional in the first and the second grades and a compulsory subject from the third grade forward (Gundara & Peffers, 2006). However, based on the Kosovo Curriculum Framework, English is taught ‘from key stage one until the final grade of the upper high school. In key stage one, this language is taught through games, drawings and songs, to be continued with reading and writing in other key stages of the curriculum’ (MEST, 2011, p. 38). Bruner (1960) began curricular changes based on the idea that learning is an active social process through which students constructs new ideas or concepts based on real-life knowledge. Instructors using the constructivist approach will detach students from the mechanical memorisation of facts and encourage them to obtain knowledge by exploring information individually through Ismajli & Krasniqi 261 interaction in the classroom (Patil & Kudte, 2017). Moreover, constructivist teaching practices are becoming more prevalent in teacher education programs, showing significant success in promoting student learning. Teacher education programs should include reflection in their curricula to ensure practices that foster an increased self-efficacy in teaching (Evans-Amalu et al., 2021). Literature Review Instruction involves more than just the transmission of information. Teaching theories have increasingly focused on the learning process, and the constructivist instruction has more to offer. Several authors, have detailed the importance of the theory, prospects and practices of constructivist instruction (e.g., Beck & Kosnik, 2006; Bell, 1993; Fosnot, 2013; Fox, 2001; Marlowe & Page, 2005; Richardson, 1997; Stupiansky, 1997; Tobias & Duffy, 2009). Meanwhile, others have explained the application of the constructivist learning theory in classroom settings (Basturk, 2016; Beck et al., 2000; Brook & Brooks, 1999; Forman, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 1999; Schifter, 1996). Constructivist teaching and learning advocate students’ active participation in the process of obtaining knowledge (Sjøberg, 2007). Knowledge is not passively received but actively built by the cognising subject (Von Glasersfeld, 1991). This statement challenged the traditional knowledge concept. Students do not come into a classroom with empty heads. Students have knowledge and experiences that were formed by their past experiences and studies, thus having their own ideas (Wang, 2014). Naylor and Keogh (1999) point out that the core of constructivism is that students actively build knowledge and understanding from their knowledge and experience, and thus learn new concepts and explore their application through tasks. The roots of constructivism lie in Piaget’s cognitive theory, Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, and on the integration of the two theories (Aljohani, 2017). Piaget (1976) states in his book that the growth of knowledge is the result of individual constructions made by the student's understanding. Piaget’s theories (1972), are the basis of constructivist learning. According to Piaget, children are born with a basic (inherited and evolved) mental structure upon which all subsequent learning and knowledge are based (Plowden, 1967). The cognitive structure (the scheme, the mental models) provides the understanding and organisation of experiences and allows the individual to move beyond the given information (Bruner, 1986). All human beings are capable of optimally using the abilities provided by the brain and the nervous system. Language is the main means by which this is made possible. The use of language as a tool Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 to think loudly with others is a step towards the ability of inner-thinking and thinking in privacy (Bernardo-Hinesley, 2020; Keefer & Haj-Broussard, 2020). On the one hand, speech serves the intellect as thoughts are spoken. On the other, experience is also important for constructivism (Hartman, 2001). Hence, teaching and learning processes should be linked with the real world. Lev Vygotsky (1978), in his Mind in Society outlined how thought and language are independent and develop separately, although through similar processes. Vygotsky points out that reflective and rational thinking do not develop accidentally, or as a consequence of a student’s genetic richness. The social environment is important for children's development as it can foster or hinder development (Kim, 2005). Vygotsky’s theory supports the premise that all students are able to learn, and refers to two levels of development (current and potential) and to the zone of proximal development, highlighting the role of adult intervention in learning (Bermejo et al., 2021). Many researchers have conducted research studies on constructivist instruction practices concerning native and foreign language curricula (Ahmad et al., 2021; Bo, 2015; Jiang, 2020; Kaufman, 2004; Yang & Wilson, 2006). Some have identified and examined the strategies and activities that are used in constructivist instruction (Baviskaret al., 2009; Henry, 2003), while others have examined the perceptions of instructors on constructivist practices (Çolak, 2017; Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Yildirim & Kasapoglu, 2015). A constructivist instructor, provides adequate tasks and opportunities for dialogue, and thus directs the students’ attention. The instructor should also use several activities that develop the critical thinking process in the classroom. In a constructivist classroom, instructors and students consider knowledge a dynamic landscape, constantly seeking exert positive changes to our world and to our ability to explore it successfully – not as a factual landscape to be memorised (Berger et al., 1967). Following the constructivist paradigm, knowledge is obtained through a recursive process where new concepts are built on previous ones (Gallardo-Alba et al., 2021). Moreover, classes are designed and formed so that students pose questions, share ideas and experiences, and interactively exchange knowledge (Shaughnessy et al., 2008). Given the aforementioned context, this study focuses on the constructivist practices applied by the instructors in the primary school, their attitude towards the constructivist approach and the demonstration of learning activities in the field of languages and communication. The purpose of this research was to examine how primary school instructors practice constructivist instruction in Ismajli & Krasniqi 263 the field of languages and communication. The study also aimed to ascertain the differences related to constructivist instruction and teaching activities developed among instructors who teach the second curricular stage (third, fourth and fifth grades). The research targeted the identification and comparison of practices that are aligned with the constructivist instruction in the subjects of the Albanian and the English languages. Research questions The research questions used to guide the research process in this study were: 1. How do primary school instructors apply constructivist instruction in the communication and languages subjects? 2. What are the differences between instructors regarding the constructivist instruction practices in the second curriculum stage? 3. Which teaching activities demonstrate the constructivist instruction practices in the subjects of the Albanian and the English languages? Method Research Design A mixed research methodology and descriptive statistics were used in this study. According to Creswell (2009), this method produces qualitative and quantitative data. However, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) emphasise that the mixed methodology aims to maximally benefit obtained from the strong points and minimise the weak points. The content analysis was followed by a descriptive statistical analysis of the questionnaire and the collection of observation data associated with situations occurring in natural environments (Creswell et al., 2003). Participants The participants consisted of instructors and students of two urban schools in Kosovo. The participants were selected randomly since, according to Creswell (2014), the probability sampling approaches most used by researchers is random sampling, which allows representatives (teachers and students) an equal chance of getting selected. The research was conducted in the city of Prizren, in the public primary school ‘Lekë Dukagjini’ and the private ‘International Maarif School of Kosova’ (IMS of Kosova). A total of 31 instructors from two schools participated in the research Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 (Table 1), being 26 female and five male instructors (Table 2). Most instructors were between 20- 30 and 41-50 years of age, and most instructors were engaged in teaching the third graders (Table 2). Table 1 Number of Participating Instructors School Total number of instructors Percentage (%) Lekë Dukagjini 20 65% IMS of Kosova 11 35% Total 31 100% Table 2 Distribution of Instructors by Gender, Age and the Class Where They Work Class N (n=31) Percentage (%) Gender Female 26 83.87% Male 5 16.13% Age 20–30 10 32.25% 31–40 7 22.28% 41–50 10 32.25% 51–60 4 12.90% Grade Three 12 38.71% Four 10 32.26% Five 9 29.03% A total of 62 students participated in the research, comprising students from the third, fourth and fifth grades (Table 3). Two classes from each grade from both schools were included in the sampling procedure (Table 3). Table 3 The Number of Student Participants Schools Class N (n=62) Frequency Lekë Dukagjini Third 19 31% Lekë Dukagjini Third 16 26% IMS of Kosova Fourth 17 27% IMS of Kosova Fourth 10 16% Data Collection Instruments The data for this study were collected using the researcher-created instrument. The instruments used in the research were a questionnaire for the instructors and the control list in the classroom. The questionnaire for instructors included two parts, where one had demographic questions Ismajli & Krasniqi 265 followed by three closed type questions, and another had teacher’s constructivist instruction (CI) and constructivist activities (CA). The questionnaire contained 14 items divided into two sub- dimensions: constructivist instruction (items 1-7) and constructivist activities (items 8-14). The questionnaire for the instructors was closed and designed based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, 5 = very frequently). The control list was used in the subjects of the Albanian and English languages. Initially, the control list data was coded for nine items related to constructivist practices that the students showed in the classroom. The coding system used was comprised the items: student-centred activity (SCA), review of the previous topic (RPT), instructions and encouragement for work (IEW), free expression of opinion (FEO), group work (GW), individual work (IW), student cooperation (SC), peer evaluation (PE) and technology usage (TU). The aforementioned items were observed during the three lesson stages: Prediction (P), Knowledge building (KNB) and Reinforcement (R). During the observation, the number of constructivist practices shown in the third and the fourth grades were recorded, following the determined intervals: rarely=0–10 times; partially=11–21 times; fully=22–32 times. Validity of the Instrument The validity of the content obtained was examined by researchers in constructivist theory and following the literature review. The CI and CA were the first to be validated. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine construct validity. According to the metacognitive and constructivist theory, the instruments were designed to measure four hypothetical constructs associated with the constructivist practices and constructivist teaching activities. To confirm the construct validity measured by CI and CA, a confirmatory factor analysis was used including seven items (X) identified by the literature as part of Instruction (constructivist instruction) and seven items (Y) as part of Activities (constructivist activities). All items were validated through the validity test (see Table 4), once they had r values greater than 0.7 with significance levels lower than 0.05. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 Table 4 Validity Test Results X (Constructivist instruction) Y (Constructivist activities) No. r Significance Conclusion No. r Significance Conclusion X1 .737 .000 Valid Y1 .721 .000 Valid X2 .859 .000 Valid Y2 .870 .000 Valid X3 .830 .000 Valid Y3 .952 .000 Valid X4 .954 .001 Valid Y4 .856 .000 Valid X5 .723 .001 Valid Y5 .812 .000 Valid X6 .804 .002 Valid Y6 .786 .001 Valid X7 .974 .000 Valid Y7 .832 .000 Valid Data Collection Procedure The research data were collected in two primary schools located in the city of Prizren that have been involved in the piloting process and implementing the New Kosovo Curriculum. Initially, the permission was obtained from the Municipal Directorate of Education in Prizren. Research ethics was respected in the schools in which the research was conducted. Survey with instructors Pilot questionnaires were applied to third, fourth and fifth-grade instructors. Then, the required and necessary corrections were made. The data collection process commenced subsequently through a survey with the instructors. Classroom observation The instructors were initially informed regarding the classroom observation. A total of 16 hours of observation was conducted. The observation was carried out in the third and fourth grades throughout for four weeks for one hour per week (i.e., four hours in the third, four hours in the fourth grade in the subject of the Albanian language, and four hours in the third grade and four hours in the fourth grade in the English language classes). The syllabus of the Albanian language for the third grade included: Thematic areas (Language system) and Topics (Proper and common nouns, Forms of nouns and Adjectives). The syllabus for the fourth grade covered: Thematic areas (Linguistic knowledge), Topics (Conjunctions, Adverb, and Adverbials of place, time and manner). The English language syllabus of the third grade comprised: Concept (Literary and non- literary texts) and Topics (Who are we?), including Introduction, describing appearances, Characters and imaginary friends, and Numbers 11 – 20), whereas the fourth-grade syllabus Ismajli & Krasniqi 267 included the thematic area: Making connections with Topics (number games, role play and matching activities). The data collected were recorded in the control list. Data analysis The quantitative data were collected from the Likert scale of the questionnaires. The data were processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software version 26.0. A Likert scale was used once it was deemed important to calculate and report Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Items on the rational level were described using descriptive statistics [frequency %, arithmetic mean (M), standard deviation (SD)]. Chi-square tests (t-test and p-values) and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) were also performed. This study used a structural equation modelling (SEM) with quantitative measurement to assess the relationship between the variables examined. According to the theory and qualitative analysis results, the hypothetical structure equation model was built to examine both constructivist instruction and constructivist activities. The qualitative research model for teaching and learning (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009) allows students to progress through major phases of practice and learning. The qualitative data involves the use of a control list for the nine items related to the constructivist practices that the students displayed in the classroom. The reliability of the questionnaire for primary instructors was checked using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The reliabilities of the subscales were acceptable (see Table 5). Table 5 Reliability Test Results Variable Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Standardized items Constructivist instruction .766 .775 .775 .872 Constructivist activities .774 .780 .781 .863 The composite reliability results show composite reliability values for each construct greater than 0.7, indicating that they are all reliable (Table 5). Similarly, all Cronbach’s alpha values are also greater than 0.7, indicating that all the constructs are dependable. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 Findings The data from the survey among instructors Descriptive statistics were used to ascertain the average differences between the items included in the research. The descriptive statistics relating to dependent variables included in the regression model are presented in the table below (Table 6). Table 6 Constructivist Instruction and Activities in Languages and Communication Curriculum Item Mean SD t-test p-value I organise student-centred instruction 4.81 0.402 2.346 .017 I focus instruction on what students do not know rather than on what they know 3.39 1.116 6.286 .043 I use meta cognition to increase students’ awareness concerning their knowledge 4.52 0.508 -1.531 .301 During my work with students, I am more of a facilitator than a leader 4.81 0.477 6.005 .000 I rely on the principle ‘What a student can do’ 4.61 0.715 7.963 .000 I support the development of the curricular competencies 4.52 0.508 4.631 .001 I support cross-curricular integration in teaching content 4.32 0.748 0.964 .035 I use technology for an interactive teaching 4.61 0.715 6.429 .011 I engage students in projects on different topics 3.87 1.231 5.294 .021 I encourage students to comment on the text they have read 4.90 0.301 -1.027 .301 I discuss and evaluate students’ written works 4.94 0.250 7.069 .132 I use formative assessment in the classroom 4.52 0.508 2.493 .013 I use teaching techniques while working in groups 4.94 0.250 3.106 .212 Before introducing a new topic, I review the previous topic with the students 4.87 0.341 16.795 .003 Notes: p<0.05 The responses to the statement ‘I focus instruction on what students do not know rather than on what they know ‘were on average 3.39, which is lower compared to the value of the variables ‘I organise student-centred instruction’ (mean=4.81), and ‘I encourage students to comment on the texts they have read’ (mean=4.90), ‘I rely on the principle “What students can do”’ (mean= 4.61) (see Table 6). The variables ‘I focus teaching on what students do not know’ (SD=1.116), ‘I use technology for interactive teaching’ (SD=1.231) had a higher standard deviation, showing a considerable variance compared to other descriptive variables included in the research (Table 6). Apart from the above-presented statistics on the items of the questionnaire which were analysed through cross-tabulation. The data obtained on the relationship between variables were also tested using a t-test. A total of five out of seven items (except items 3 and 6), concerning the constructivist instruction, were statistically significant (Table 6). In addition, six out of seven items (except item 10), concerning learning activities, were statistically significant. The results have shown a high difference between the instructors concerning the items ‘Before introducing a new topic I review the previous topic with the students’ (t= 6.795, p = .003), ‘Use of Ismajli & Krasniqi 269 technology for interactive teaching’ (t=6.429, p = .011), ‘Focus of instruction on what students do not know’ (t=6.286, p=.43) and ‘I engage students in projects on different topics’ (t=5.294, p=.021) (Table 6). Furthermore, strong relation or statistical significance between the variable of instructors and the items was observed in the following: I discuss and evaluate students’ written work (t-test is 7.069, p = .132 and I use teaching techniques while working in groups (t-test 3.106, p = .212). The results regarding the constructivist instruction indicate that most third-grade instructors (83.3%) focus their teaching on what students do not know rather than on what they do know (Table 7). This impacts students’ ability to use previously obtained knowledge which, at the same time, hinders the development of critical thinking. In turn, 80% of the fourth-grade instructors considered that they very frequently act more as facilitators than as leaders, while 40% of them frequently support cross-curricular integration in the teaching content. The fourth-grade instructors very frequently rely on the principle of what the student can do. In addition, 22.2% of the fifth- grade instructors frequently focus their instruction on what students do not know rather than on what they know. The results concerning the encouragement of students to think about thinking (meta-cognition) are not satisfactory. A total of 66.7% of the third-grade instructors use meta-cognition, which could have been begun by the implementation of the new curriculum, which increased awareness of its importance. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics for Grades Three, Four, and Five - Constructivist Instruction Item Third Grade Fourth grade Fifth grade Total I organise student-centred instruction Frequently 8.3% 30.0% 22.2% 19.4% Very frequently 91.7% 70.0% 77.8% 80.6% I focus instruction on what students do not know rather than on what they know Rarely 41.7% 20.0% 11.1% 25.8% Sometimes 25.0% 30.0% 44.4% 32.3% Frequently 25.0% 10.0% 22.2% 19.4% Very frequently 8.3% 40.0% 22.2% 22.6% I use meta cognition as a form of increasing students’ awareness about their knowledge Sometimes 33.3% 50.0% 66.7% 48.4% Very frequently 66.7% 50.0% 33.3% 51.6% Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 During my work with students, I am more of a facilitator than a leader Sometimes 22.0% 0.0% 11.1% 3.2% Frequently 8.1.0% 20.0% 22.2% 12.9% Very frequently 69.9% 80.0% 66.7% 83.9% I rely on the principle ‘What a student can do’ Never 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 3.2% Rarely 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 3.2% Sometimes 16.7% 30.0% 22.2% 22.6% Very frequently 83.3% 70.0% 55.6% 71.0% I support the development of the curricular competences in teaching Frequently 41.7% 50.0% 55.6% 48.4% Very frequently 58.3% 50.0% 44.4% 51.6% I support cross-curricular integration in teaching content Sometimes 25.0% 10.0% 11.1% 16.1% Frequently 33.3% 40.0% 33.3% 35.5% Very frequently 41.7% 50.0% 55.6% 48.4% The results pertaining the constructivist activities of the third-grade instructors indicate that 50% of the instructors use technologies in interactive teaching while over 90% of the respondents claim that they encourage students to comment on the text students have read and that they evaluate students’ written work (Table 8). Furthermore, 90% of the fourth-grade instructors claim that they review the previous topic very frequently, while 30% of them engage students in projects on different topics. A total of 95% of the fifth-grade instructors very frequently encourage students to comment on the text they have read. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Grades Three, Four, and Five – Constructivist Activities Item Third grade Fourth grade Fifth grade Total I use technology in interactive teaching Never 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% Rarely 8.3% 10.0% 22.2% 12.9% Sometimes 25.0% 20.0% 22.2% 22.6% Frequently 8.3% 20.0% 22.2% 16.1% Very frequently 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 45.2% I engage students in projects on different topics Rarely 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 3.2% Sometimes 25.0% 30.0% 55.6% 35.5% Frequently 41.7% 20.0% 11.1% 25.8% Very frequently 33.3% 50.0% 22.2% 35.5% I encourage students to comment on the text they have read Frequently 8.3% 20.0% 5.0% 9.7% Very frequently 91.7% 80.0% 95.0% 90.3% I discuss and evaluate students’ written works Frequently 8.3% 15.0% 11.1% 6.5% Ismajli & Krasniqi 271 Very frequently 91.7% 85.0% 88.9% 93.5% I use formative assessment in the classroom Frequently 25.0% 30.0% 33.3% 29.0% Very frequently 75.0% 70.0% 66.7% 71.0% I use teaching techniques while working in groups Frequently 41.7% 45.3.0% 55.6% 48.4% Very frequently 58.3% 57.4% 44.4% 51.6% Before introducing a new topic, I review the previous topic with the students Frequently 16.7% 10.0% 11.1% 12.9% Very frequently 83.3% 90.0% 88.9% 87.1% The data from classroom observation Third and fourth-grade classes (two classes in each of the participating schools) were observed. The data was collected from the observation of Albanian and the English language classes using a checklist (see Table 9). Table 9 The Data from Observation in the Albanian Language and the English Language Classes Albanian language English Language Code Third grade (no. of times) Lesson stage Fourth grade (no. of times) Lesson stage Code Third grades (no. of times) Lesson stage Fourth grade (no. of times) Lesson stage 1 SCI 8 KNB 8 KNB SCI 10 KNB 12 KNB 2 RPT 7 P 8 P RPT 7 P 7 P 3 IEW 9 KNB 9 KNB IEW 13 KNB 12 KNB 4 FEO 9 P 8 P FEO 11 P 10 P 5 GW 7 KNB 5 KNB GW 15 KNB 13 KNB 6 IW 8 R 7 R IW 10 R 10 R 7 SC 7 KNB 8 KNB SC 12 KNB 10 KNB 8 PE 3 R 3 P PE 8 R 8 R 9 TU 4 R 4 R TU 4 R 14 R Notes: Code: student centred instruction [SCI], review of the previous topic [RPT], instructions and encouragement for work [IEW], free expression of opinion [FEO], group work [GW], individual work [IW], student cooperation [SC], peer evaluation [PE], technology usage [TU]. Lesson stage: P=Prediction; KNB= Knowledge building; R= Reinforcement For the Albanian language classes, student-centred instruction was recorded 16 times, mostly in the knowledge building stage, in both third and fourth grades. At the beginning of the lesson, in the prediction stage, the instructor reviewed the previous unit with the students in the form of a dialogue. Previous knowledge plays an important role in the active construction of knowledge Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 (Boghossian, 2006). In both grades, repetition was observed 15 times in the prediction stage. The instructions were brief and accurate; hence, rare were the occasions of students asking for clarification. Group work forms of teaching were practised 15 times in both classes altogether, mainly in the knowledge building stage. It is noteworthy that during the observation period, the instructors barely used technology or peer evaluation (3 times in each of the classes) during the reinforcement stage. For the English language classes, the instructor provided student centred instruction through games and songs as teaching activities, which were frequently of competitive character (22 times) in the stage of knowledge building in the fourth-grade class. Technological tools used in the class were: laptop, PowerPoint and video recordings. Students viewed videos, and sang and danced alongside the instructor (18 times) in the knowledge building stage. The summary of the teaching activities in the subjects of the Albanian language and English are presented below (Figure 1). Notes: rarely=0–10 times; partially =11–21 times; fully=22–32 times. Figure 1. Teaching Activities in the Albanian and the English Language Most activities, apart from the activities 3, 7 and 9, were partially demonstrated by the instructors, and were conducted by the English language instructors, despite the small difference between the classes. The teaching activities were conducted more frequently in the knowledge building stage and less in the prediction stage. 22 14 25 21 28 20 22 16 18 16 15 18 17 12 15 15 6 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 student centered teaching revision of previous topic instructions and encouragement for work freedom of expression of opinion group work individual work student collaboration peer evaluation technology use ALBANIAN LANGUAGE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Ismajli & Krasniqi 273 Discussion The constructivist approach as a concept and instruction was not very clear for the instructors. Primary school instructors perceive constructivist instruction mainly as an approach that the new Kosovo curriculum aims to apply in the teaching program, solely in the theoretical context and lacking the knowledge to connect to the practice. Constructivist practices are characterised by having many obstacles associated with the instructors’ limited professional preparation that hinders the transformation of traditional instruction. These results are similar to the findings of other studies that report the effectiveness of constructivist over the traditional instruction regarding academic achievement (Kim, 2005). In addition to best perform constructivist practices instructors must abandon the classic teaching approach and move towards constructing the holistic outlook implied in the constructivist approach and adapting the instruction to real-life situations (Pitsoe & Maila, 2012). Instructors demonstrate student centred instruction. However, the issue of the instruction student- centred instruction is the fact that many instructors alleged to have been practicing it, while they were not (Krahenbuhl, 2016). The results related to instructors as leaders, or facilitators are encouraging since the data show that they are making efforts to overcome the authoritative role in the classroom. Instruction is accomplished through self-directed learning while the instructor’s task is to facilitate students’ learning and act as a guide (Ültanır, 2012). Student centred instruction activities used by the instructors were relatively efficient in encouraging students to freely express their opinions, to give instructions for work and to collaborate in group. The fact that the instructors reviewed the previous topic to form a basis to build new knowledge upon are noteworthy. Constructivist instruction assumes that learning occurs when students are actively engaged in a meaningful process of construction of knowledge as compared to passive receiving of knowledge (Selley, 2013). Students need to be involved in processes such as questioning, informing, supposing, predicting, controlling and reasoning, being aware of what they are doing (Fisher, 2013). The researchers engaged in the field of cognitive psychology define meta-cognition as ‘information and control that children have on their thinking and learning’ (Cross & Paris, 1988, p. 131). In constructivist instruction practices the use of meta-cognition is also important. However, this requirement was not clearly understood by the instructors. English language teachers gave instructions to encourage students, to evaluate each other and integrated technology Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 to develop effective constructivist practices. However, the previous topic was reviewed in the Albanian language classes more frequently to show that previous knowledge has an impact on the learning process (Treagust et al., 1996). The application of this principle helps instructors work towards the change between what students know and what they can do (Gravois et al., 2007). Technology was more frequently used in English language classes. Technology is used in the classroom environment not only to instruct students to operate computers, but also to help instructors use technology as a learning tool (Sheingold, 1990). Nevertheless, to successfully implement constructivist practices, appropriate professional training, continuous professional development of instructors (in-service training), investments in the physical infrastructure of schools providing equipment with educational technology and required didactic tools in general, and strong institutional support are more than necessary. The findings of this study are similar to those of other studies of similar nature that ascertain that in such constructivist-oriented training, instructors are advised to view students as creators of meaning, challenging the concepts of the subject (Tanase et al., 2012) and enhancing their experience through professional development (Rout & Behera, 2014). Constructivist instruction helps the instructor act more in the role of a mentor and learning facilitator than as a dominant expert of the content (Hogan & Pressley, 1997). We believe that the instructors’ interest in accomplishing this is in constant increase, although there is much to be done in this respect. Conclusion and recommendations The results of this research study provided answers to the research questions. The research revealed how instructors deliver their instruction in languages and communication, and the differences between the second curriculum stage instructors regarding constructivist practices. Moreover, activities associated with constructivist instruction in the subjects of the Albanian and the English language were identified and compared. Primary education instructors in Kosovo are seeking to link traditional teaching with student centred instruction. The constructivist instruction practices have been only partially identified in the organisation of the student-centred instruction, and in focusing instruction on what students do not know rather than on what they know. In turn, the instructors encouraged students to comment on the texts they had read and in the revision of the previous topic at the beginning of the lesson, Ismajli & Krasniqi 275 during the teaching activities. Still, constructivist practices were carried out at a slightly higher frequency in the third grade, while the project-based tasks and students’ works were carried out more often in the fourth and the fifth grades. These data indicate that instructors create the learning process and not the learning product. However, in practice, the results were not satisfactory. The instruction of the Albanian language was aligned with the constructivist instruction approach and principles, whereas the teaching activities that support constructivist instruction were practised at a slightly higher level in the English language subject. The English language teachers carried out slightly more constructivist practices with respect to applying group work and peer collaboration than the Albanian language teachers. The use of ICT for interactive instruction was not present and technological resources in schools were limited. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the constructivist instruction practices were partially applied in the languages and communication curricula since primary school instructors face difficulties in understanding the constructivist philosophy. They claim to have been practising it, when, in fact, they have shown difficulties in understanding the approach. They lack the necessary knowledge on good constructivist approaches, and, consequently, their activities are somehow limited and not sufficiently compatible with the constructivist approach. The recommendations presented below are formulated to address the problem that, based on the responses of the participants concerning the practices and activities in the languages and communication curricula faced by instructors, hinder the creation of a genuinely constructivist environment. Accordingly, it is recommended: (1) To provide opportunities for instructors, particularly of those of the Albanian language, to enhance their understanding of constructivist principles and activities in the teaching process by providing a general guidebook focused on constructivist instruction. (2) To organise training for in-service instructors supported by the government or by non- governmental organisations that are active in Kosovo, to provide clear information related to comprehending and conducting good constructivist practices. (3) To motivate instructors to enhance their instruction by using meta-cognition, not simply by transmitting it. Instruction should be related to experiences and contents that enable students to reflect on the knowledge gained. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 (4) To provide schools with technological tools and teaching materials that will facilitate the development of constructivist practices. Constructivist instruction as a new approach in the primary school curriculum in Kosovo, requires the readiness and engagement of all relevant educational factors. Building the capacity of a constructivist instructor in an adequate environment cannot be accomplished within a short period of time. This means that cooperating and adopting the efficient practices of other countries is necessary. The curricular reform of primary education through the development of constructivist practices in instruction will not only strengthen the education system but can also ensure continuous development of the society. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research This research study had two limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, it was limited to two primary schools in the second curriculum stage, and exclusively to one curriculum area in primary education. Future research could be extended to other schools and to other curriculum stages. Constructivist practices in teaching are expected to be applied by all instructors at all curriculum stages of primary education. Secondly, instructors have frequently misinterpreted constructivist instruction, which resulted in learning practices that neither challenge nor they address the needs of the students. Future research could focus on examples that illustrate the effective use of constructivist instruction in curriculum implementation to meet students’ needs. References Adams, B. L. (2019). The far reaching impact of transformative curriculum: A narrative critical ethnographic case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 1(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.12 Ahmad, A., Khan, I., Ali, A., Islam, T., & Saeed, N. (2021). Implementation of constructivist approaching teaching English grammar in primary schools. Ilkogretim Online, 20(5), 2803-2813. https://www.ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1615798561.pdf Aljohani, M. (2017). Principles of “constructivism” in foreign language teaching. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 7(1), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159- 5836%2F2017.01.013 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.12 https://www.ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1615798561.pdf https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836%2F2017.01.013 https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836%2F2017.01.013 Ismajli & Krasniqi 277 Basturk, S. (2016). Primary pre-service teachers’ perspectives on constructivism and its implementation in the schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research,4(4), 904-912. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040428 Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T.& Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education,31(4), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121 Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social constructivist approach. Suny Press. Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education,11(4), 323-343. https://doi.org:10.1023/A:1009481115135 Bell, B. F. (1993).Children's science, constructivism and learning in science. Deakin University. Bernardo-Hinesley, S. (2020). Linguistic Landscape in Educational Spaces. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(2), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.10 Bo, C. (2015). Social constructivism of language and meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy,15(43), 87-113. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/246512 Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 5812.2006.00226.x Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853 Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T., & Zifonun, D. (1967). The social construction of reality. Penguin Books. Bermejo, Ester & Morales. (2021). A constructivist intervention program for the improvement of mathematical performance based on empiric developmental results (PEIM). Frontiers in Psychology, 11(582805). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582805 Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Belmont, CA. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge (Massachusetts). Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040428 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701731121 https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1009481115135 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.10 https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/246512 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582805 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 Çolak, E. (2017). Teachers ‘experiences in a professional learning community on the constructivist lesson planning: A case study among primary school teachers. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 189-209. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6911 Creswell. J. M. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research. In Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Sage. Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,80(2), 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131 Evans-Amalu, K. L., Lucey T.A. & Lin, M. (2021). Spirituality and mindfulness practices of early childhood and elementary pre-service teachers: A snapshot. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 3(2), 207-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.12 Fisher, R. (2013). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom. A&C Black. Forman, G. (1996). The project approach in Reggio Emilia. In Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 172-181). Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 8-33). Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press. Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education,27(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980125310 Gallardo-Alba, C.,Grüning, B., & Serrano-Solano, B. (2021). A constructivist-based proposal for bioinformatics teaching practices during lockdown. PLoS Computational Biology, 17 (5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008922 Gordon, M. (2009). The misuses and effective uses of constructivist teaching. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice,15(6), 737-746. doi: 10.1080/13540600903357058 Gravois, T. A., Gickling, E. E., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). Training in instructional consultation, assessment and teaming. ICAT Publishing. Gundara, P. J., & Peffers, J. (2006). Quality Education for all in Kosovo. UNICEF. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 19). Springer Science & Business Media. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.15390%2FEB.2017.6911 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131 http://dx.doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2021.12 https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980125310 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008922 https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1080%2F13540600903357058 Ismajli & Krasniqi 279 Henry, B. B. (2003). Frequency of use of constructivist teaching strategies: Effect on academic performance, student social behaviour and relationship to class size. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida]. Hogan, K. E., & Pressley, M. E. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Brookline Books. Jiang, Y. (2020). Teacher classroom questioning practice and assessment literacy: case studies of four English language teachers in Chinese universities. Basic Education College, Guangdong Teachers College of Foreign Language and Arts (GTCFLA), 5(23). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00023 Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed method research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Journal of Educational Research, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X033007014 Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0267190504000121 Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers' beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist (student-centered) teaching (Note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29-37. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29 Keefer, N., & Haj-Broussard, M. (2020). Language in Educational Contexts. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.9 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024963 Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,89(3), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311 Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Corwin Press. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011, August). Curriculum framework for Pre- University Education in the Republic of Kosovo. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/curricula/kosovo/kv_alfw_20 11_eng.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (Revised 2016, September). The Pre-University Education Curricula Framework. https://masht.rks-gov.net/korniza-e-kurrikules-e- arsimit-parauniversitar https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00023 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X033007014 https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0267190504000121 http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.9 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024963 https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311 http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/curricula/kosovo/kv_alfw_2011_eng.pdf http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/curricula/kosovo/kv_alfw_2011_eng.pdf https://masht.rks-gov.net/korniza-e-kurrikules-e-arsimit-parauniversitar https://masht.rks-gov.net/korniza-e-kurrikules-e-arsimit-parauniversitar Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2022: 13(1), 259-281 Muhammad, A. (2021). Social constructivist approach: Opinions of history teachers at intermediate secondary schools. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1423-1436. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1423 Naylor, S. & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 93-106. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Slate, J.R., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K.M. (2009). Mixed data analysis: Advanced integration techniques. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,3, 13-33.https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.3.1.13 Patil, A. M., & Kudte, S. S. (2017). Teaching learning with constructivist approach. IEJDR, 5(4), 308-312. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of child. Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1976). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Penguin Books. Plowden, B. H. (1967). Children and their primary schools: A report (Research and Surveys). HM Stationery Office. Pitsoe, V. J., & Maila, W. M. (2012). Towards constructivist teacher professional development. Journal of Social Sciences, 8 (5), 318-324.https://doi.org/10.3844/JSSP.2012.318.324 Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. Constructivist teacher education Building a world of new understandings, 3- 14. Rout, S. & Behera, S. K. (2014). Constructivist approach in teacher professional development: An overview. American Journal of Educational Research, 2 (12 A), 8-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3488896 Schifter, D. (1996). A Constructivist Perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 1. Selley, N. (2013). Art of constructivist teaching in the primary school: A guide for students and teachers. Routledge. Shah, R. K. (2019). Effective constructivist teaching learning in the classroom. Education, 7(4), 13. https://doi.org/10.34293/ Shaughnessy, M. F., Veenman, M.,& Kennedy, C. K. (2008). Meta-cognition: A recent review of research, theory, and perspectives. Nova Publishers. Sheingold, K. (1990). Restructuring for learning with technology. The potential for synergy. Center for Technology in Education. Sjøberg, S. (2007). Constructivism and learning. International Encyclopedia of Education,3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00467-X https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1423 https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.3.1.13 https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3488896 https://doi.org/10.34293/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00467-X Ismajli & Krasniqi 281 Tanase, M., Leavitt, T., Sowder, M., & Smith, T. (2012). Constructivist practices in a teacher education program. The Constructivist, 21 (1). 67-105. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Routledge. Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. Teachers College Press. Ultanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, 5 (2), 1308-1470. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and reflexivity. 12–29. Sage Publications, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Waite-Stupiansky, S. (1997). Building understanding together: A constructivist approach to early childhood education. Cengage Learning. Wang, H. (2014). Student autonomy based on constructivism learning theory. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8(5), 1552-54.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1337231 Yang, L., & Wilson, K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist approach. The reading matrix, 6(3). Yildirim, A., & Kasapoglu, K. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of constructivist curriculum change as a predictor of their perceptions of the implementation of constructivist teaching– learning activities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 565-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9394-5 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1337231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9394-5