Keywords: Meaningful learning, Subject Philosophy, Constructivism, Didactic intervention.

Abstract

The present study arises from one of the sub lines of research of the UNAN-Managua, such as the Training and updating of teachers and product of the research work of specialists in Didactics of Social Sciences, about the strategies that are implemented in the learning process in the subject Philosophy, which is part of the curriculum of Secondary Education of the Ministry of Education (MINED), so a case study was conducted consisting of the application of a didactic proposal in the subject Philosophy with students of 11th grade. The objective of this study was to apply a didactic proposal applying constructivist learning strategies to generate significant learning in the students. In this case, learning strategies were applied that allowed student-student, student-content and student-teacher interaction, in this process a diagnostic test was applied to identify the students’ pre-knowledge, and corporal expression was also used as a learning resource for the codification and decoding of messages, realization and analysis of case studies. During the intervention, the students assumed the role of protagonist of their learning and the teachers as facilitators of learning tools that facilitated the construction of knowledge. In addition, this type of research allowed the researchers to improve their teaching practice, which is one of MINED’s strategic lines of action, reaching the conclusion that new tools on didactic strategies were provided for other teachers to improve their teaching practice in the subject of Philosophy. The students participated actively in each of the didactic sessions, showing motivation and interest in the subject, through the didactic strategies designed with a constructivist perspective, facilitating understanding, assimilation and significant learning.

INTRODUCTION

For the realization of this research, the research that precedes the present study was reviewed, such as a thesis carried out in Colombia entitled Didactic strategy: learning of Philosophy from metacognitive processes for eleventh grade students of the San Cristóbal Sur School, study carried out by Rodríguez Hernández (2013), where they found the following contributions. Metacognition is the process that allows students to become aware of their own learning and have a clear application of various self-knowledge strategies that allow the student to recognize their academic process (p.50)

Similarly, a national thesis was found where the sociocritical paradigm and action research are used as a research method, entitled: Didactic intervention with innovative learning strategies to generate critical thinking in the discipline Philosophy in 11th grade students of the Polytechnic College of commerce during the II semester 2016, elaborated by Sandoval Ríos, et al (2016), of which it is considered as an important finding that the teacher who taught the subject Philosophy was a graduate in Mathematics and not in Social Sciences, so she presented little scientific mastery of the subject. Also, in this study it was identified that the researchers applied a diagnostic test to verify the previous constructs of the students, for this, a didactic proposal was designed related to the nature content of man in society, through this content work critical thinking. Strategies were implemented that developed creativity and the capacity for critical and reflective analysis in the student body (p.65)

This research aims to respond to academic needs in the teaching - learning - of the subject Philosophy and in the acquisition of knowledge to generate critical thinking through an intervention process in which different methods and techniques were used to respond to these difficulties. That is why this research involves the entire educational community, serving society, students who will obtain a deep knowledge and the ability to interpret, analyze, make judgments and respond to problems of a social nature; Applying a constructivist teaching methodology that generates an understanding and qualitative social progress, that students thrive and are able to develop and influence their environment in a purposeful way.

For the Faculty, it is an innovative didactic proposal based on meaningful learning to generate understanding and critical analysis in students, improve teaching practice, and refine the teaching system evident in the traditional, boring, annoying and little discoverer of the discipline of Philosophy.

Regarding the objective of this research was to carry out a didactic intervention applying learning strategies that would allow students to develop significant learning, using a diagnosis to know the previous knowledge of the students, then apply constructivist strategies and thus determine the level of knowledge acquired during the process of didactic intervention, through the implementation of a final test with the Purpose of verifying the degree of assimilation of knowledge acquired in the intervention process, which seeks to strengthen the learning processes in this subject.

Address the theory that was used during the didactic intervention, cite theorists and theories that were modeled or applied during the in situ study. At the end mention the main finding during the investigation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This research was carried out under the theoretical and epistemic principles of the socio-critical paradigm, which is the paradigm par excellence to develop competencies in students so that they are the entities responsible for the transformation of their micro and macro social context where they interact.

In this regard, Arnal and Del Rincón (1992) emphasize that “from this analytical perspective it is proposed that the socio-critical paradigm is the one that emerges as an alternative to the visions that remain in the purely empirical field.” (p.37). Therefore, this study allows us to assess all the changes throughout human and social life with a rational and liberating autonomy of the human being in life.

In relation to this theme Popkewitz (1988) indicates that:

Some of the principles of this paradigm is to know and understand reality as praxis; unite practical theory integrating knowledge, actions and values; Orient knowledge towards the emancipation and liberation of the human being and propose the integration of all participants, including the researcher in the process of self-reflection and consensual decision-making. (p.1)

Regarding the focus of the present research, according to Blasco and Pérez (2007), they point out that “qualitative research studies reality in its natural context and how it happens, extracting and interpreting phenomena according to the indicated people” (p.25). This research is qualitative, which is one of the most used methods in educational research, because it contains reflective analyses and specific concepts of the teaching process, which in turn determine different levels of knowledge acquisition. The purpose of this study is to understand and demonstrate the advantages of this research method. In this regard, Gómez (2006) states that “the qualitative approach is usually used first to discover and refine research questions.” (p.60).

The methodology used in this study was action research, which from the perspective of Latorre (2003), cited in Orozco (2019, p.15) explicitly states that action research “is configured in four moments or phases: planning, action, observation and reflection. The moment of observation, collection and analysis of data in a systematic and rigorous way, this is what gives it the rank of research” (p.21). The teaching/learning paradigms attend to a change of attitude regarding the subject of the action that consists of the need that the student has to learn, where the role of the teaching staff becomes a companion, guide, tutor, promoter and facilitator of the learning processes.

The techniques of information collection, including documentary review, in this case we proceeded to review materials that express close relationship with the object of study of this research at international and national level in different sources with scientific character, monographic theses, as well as search for relevant information on internet sites. A visit was made to the Documentation Center (CEDOC) of the Faculty of Education and Languages of the UNAN-Managua and in the repository of the UNAN Managua, with the aim of obtaining information regarding the subject under study and found a variety of contributions from authors and monographic documents that were useful for the realization of this study. Scientific articles were also consulted, which enriched the realization of this research.

Another technique used was observation: This technique allowed researchers to detect the difficulties and problems of methodological strategies in the teaching process in the subject Philosophy, it was possible to make a description of the social and geographical context of the educational institution, its facilities and conditions and the development of the behavior of the students in relation to the subject of Philosophy. In the same way, the observation was applied during the didactic intervention process, this to observe the behavior and acceptance of the student body of the didactic strategies applied in the didactic intervention.

In relation to the instruments for collecting information, during the study a field diary was used which, according to Sanjek (1990) cited by Luna Gijón et al. (2022, p. 246), where it expresses that the field diary is a technique that through the creation of annotations serves as a support to memory, stimulating the recreation of the experiences experienced, leading the writer to reflection and self-criticism through a cathartic process, and is important in the formative process, as it gives an account of the personal opinions, frustrations and achievements of the writer. In the words of Martínez (2007, p. 77), he states that “the Field Diary is one of the instruments that day by day allows us to systematize our investigative practices; In addition, it allows us to improve, enrich and transform them”

In relation to the population and the sample, from the perspective of Hernández, et al (2006) state that “a population is the set of all cases that agree with a series of specifications. It is the totality of the phenomenon to be studied, where the entities of the population have a common characteristic which is studied and gives rise to the research data” (p.351). The population investigated in this intervention is that of the Chiquilistagua Public School of district III of Managua and consists of a population of 97 active students as a total population of 11th grade divided into 3 sections, group “A”, “B”, “C”. In this regard, Hernández, et al., (2006) state that “the sample must have all the desired information to have the possibility of extracting it, this can only be achieved with a good selection of the sample and a very careful and high quality work in the collection of data” (p.115). The sample is the whole universe, it is always a part of the population. If you have multiple populations, then you will have multiple samples.

For this didactic intervention was taken as sample 11 ° “C”, with 30 students of which 17 are female and 13 are male, for the present research to achieve its projected objectives, it is necessary to take as an object of analysis the group of individuals extracted from the population.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Diagnostic test results

To explore the previous knowledge of the students and in compliance with the steps to generate significant learning, that is, link with previous knowledge with the new, a KPSI (Knowledge and Prior Study Inventory) was applied, for its acronym in English, appears as a self-evaluation instrument, which seeks to encourage students to question their progress and contrast them against a scale during the development of the subject. positioning it as an instrument that encourages metacognitive practice, since the answers necessarily go through introspection (Peronard, 2005).

The diagnostic test allows to know what the students know in relation to the expected learning in the contents planned in the pedagogical intervention, which allowed through the designed strategies to place greater emphasis on the findings found in relation to the contents with greater and lesser mastery. It also allowed listening to the expectations of the students and the disposition in which they are to acquire a new learning. The diagnostic test (KPSI) with two items was applied to 30 students of the Chiquilistagua Public School of Managua of Eleventh grade “C” and the following results were obtained:

Philosophy is for 11th grade students an unknown and complex subject, or the strategies implemented in the teaching-learning process of each content do not facilitate meaningful learning, that is, it does not generate in students a link between the knowledge he possesses with the new knowledge to be developed in class sessions. The results reflected in table #1, from the diagnostic test, confirm that there is little knowledge in most of the concepts addressed in the didactic intervention.

Table 1

Diagnostic test results

Source: Diagnostic test applied to students

Regarding the results obtained in the diagnostic test, it is worth noting that of the 8 (eight) key concepts selected for the diagnostic test, most students were located in the box I do not know, that is, between 63 and 96% were located at this level of knowledge, which indicates that the didactic intervention was of impact for the students of eleventh grade.

This shows a weakness in the learning obtained throughout the course, by resorting to methods and strategies that are not very innovative, which in the end are not appropriate to achieve meaningful learning, or is abused a lot to work the contents through the development of long study guides, which are often solved mechanically and do not encourage reflection, Contextualization and application of what has been learned with daily life, causing lack of interest and appropriation in the subject.

Other data obtained in the diagnostic test of the level “I know well” reached a percentage not greater than 30%, that is, that maximum 9 students of the sample knew about what the intervention was going to be developed, however, they do not have the necessary inputs to demonstrate them, because only between 1 to 2 students marked the category of “I know it well and I can explain it to another.”

From the previous indicator, one of the two students who marked the concept “Thought”, answered correctly, while the other student, his answer was ambiguous. From the term logic they tried to provide an explanation, which was regular, because they did it with empirical foundations being incomplete and not entirely clear their answer. One of the fundamental topics “knowledge” was marked only by one student, who wrote a correct answer, being the exception of the whole group and “communication” that should have been explained by all, 19 did not know, 9 said they only knew it and two explained correctly, providing a broad answer and with sufficient arguments.

Table 2

Diagnostic test results (Multiple choice)

Source: diagnostic test applied to students

The second part of the diagnostic evaluation the data are well related to what was marked above, where students manifest a high degree of ignorance with the concepts presented. In a margin of incorrect answers between 86.67% in the concepts of Decoding, reasoning and the other concepts between 63.33 and 73%, in the concepts of thinking, this consisted of a multiple selection exercise.

It was based on the knowledge reflected in the diagnosis to which Ausubel (1978). Find your “strength point”. At the moment in which the subject is aware of what he knows and, above all, of what he does not know with respect to information, he has the possibility of connecting between the known and the new, allowing him to reach a greater degree of understanding and, therefore, of significance.

Taking into account this theory of the importance of diagnosis, everything that the students demonstrated to know, they were recognized and feedback was made so that they knew their successes and failures, that they identified their weaknesses so that they put more effort when developing the interventions and in the case of the research teacher, He considered the weaknesses found an opportunity to give answers to young people through new learning strategies in such a way that it was always a process of learning, feedback, self-evaluation but above all the construction of new knowledge by the student, with the teacher and always thinking in function of the student.

In this regard, Escaño and Gil (2006), affirm that to carry out a meaningful learning it is necessary that the student finds meaning to learn significantly (which depends on his interest, expectations, self-concept), and that the contents have a logical significance (be coherent, clear, organized ...) and a psychological significance (according to the level of development and the previous knowledge of the student). (p. 105) This aspect was taken into account in the intervention from the field diaries that were carried out in each intervention by the external teacher and by the external observer student, the enthusiasm for the new and innovative constructivist strategies can be corroborated where the external observer student describes: “The joy at work during the philosophy class and the eagerness to correctly solve each of the playful activities and logic games, who have taken the students of 11C out of their ordinary student life”, to have a new learning environment or expressing to the teacher who performs the intervention “When do you come back again?” at the end of each class session or in the corridors when I meet him at school, are data that could be taken into account as part of the evaluation of the work that was being done.

In the words of Contreras and Contreras (2012), they state that “pedagogical practice is directly related to the different activities that educators perform daily in a classroom environment, where the main actor is represented by the students, intentionally guided by an educator.” (p. 209). With the new educational practices it is aware that the protagonist at all times is and should be the student, that traditional practices have no place in the educational system of the XXI century and success lies in the pedagogical, didactic preparation adequate with strategies that facilitate the learning of students and not based on the comfort of the teacher.

Description of the didactic intervention process.

Didactic session No 1: KPSI diagnostic test.

The didactic intervention process was carried out in the period of the II semester 2022 and 6 class sessions were held.

The diagnostic test was carried out on Friday, September 9, 2022, starting with the didactic intervention at 7:00 and ending at 7:45 in the morning, in a fresh and clean environment, that day 30/30 students were presented to class, in which upon arriving at the classroom the students were a little restless to see the presence of other teachers, Then they sat down in an orderly manner, then they were explained the activity to be carried out on the diagnostic test, some students were curious to know what the theme would be, all attentive to the Explanation of the research teacher, He gave each one two pages with the diagnostic test for later completion, they were read and explained the subparagraphs of the test and they were asked to write their full name, they responded to each subparagraph, consecutively finished and delivered during the class session.

Figure 1

Resolution of diagnostic test

Didactic session No 2: Thinking and communication

The second didactic session took place on September 19, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:45 a.m., starting with the dynamics of the communication train where students with an active attitude participated, later the teacher coordinated the formation of work groups, to which he gave them reading material, a brief explanation was made depending on the activity that the students would develop. Based on the content of thought and communication, we proceeded to the application of the strategy based on the elaboration of simplified drawings, using papers, markers, colored pencils, creativity, to conclude the intervention proceeded to the evaluation of knowledge through the explanation of the drawings, characterizing the elements involved in the process of thought and communication.

Figure 2

Learning Philosophy through drawing

Didactic session No 3: Encoding and Decoding.

The third didactic session took place on September 20, from 7:45 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., beginning with the prayer and welcome of the students, the organization of groups was carried out, through pieces of colored paper, where the teacher remembers the previous topic and explores the knowledge prior to the new topic, that presents by means of flipchart and images pasted on the blackboard mentioning the indicator of achievement to be achieved, where students socialize and share with a critical attitude their own points of view in relation to what the teacher proposes, giving continuity to the process to each group was given a letter where a coded message was released and provided the explanation to each group, that through the strategy mime as a resource of corporal expression for the coding and decoding of messages that they would present to their peers who would decode it. At the time of presenting herself to her classmates, a raffle of colors was held and the color that came out was the group that was presented, so on until everyone participated, the teacher ends arguing the importance of communication and assertiveness in the decoding and her assessment of the class received, where the students gave optimistic and significant comments of what was done during the intervention.

Figure 3

Implementation of the “Mime” strategy

Didactic session No 4: Principles of logic, identity and contradiction.

The fourth didactic session took place on September 22, from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Starting with a brief greeting, activating the students through a dynamic of group interrelation, “I have a train”, where the joy and integration of participation in a pleasant atmosphere in the practice of values was appreciated, then they were made aware of the topic along with the indicator of achievement to be achieved during the day, Recalling the previous topic with small guidelines where several students expressed themselves, then proceeded to the realization and organization of work groups, they were given comprehensive and analytical reading material, maintaining order and discipline, depending on the development of the strategy realization of didactic games, which consisted of the construction of a sentence, Riddle solution, resolution of cases, riddles, to conclude the solutions were presented in a plenary evidencing the principles of identity and contradiction.

Figure 4

Solving activities through play

Didactic session No 5: Principles of logic, the excluded third and sufficient reason

The 5th didactic session, was developed on Monday, September 26, giving continuity to the theme the principles of logic: the third excluded and sufficient reason in the first hour of class. A prayer is made to bless the day, attendance is taken, then a review of the principles was carried out with voluntary and respectful participation of the students. To connect the students a dynamic called “House, tenant and earthquake” participate with excellent disposition and joy, dynamics related to the principles to work and at once divide the students into groups of 5 for the development of the class that had as a learning strategy “Case study”.

For the understanding of the same, a competition was made to solve a first riddle and stimulate their mind to activate their reasoning, their mental agility and thus solve the prepared cases. They read and discuss the principles of the excluded third and of sufficient reason and proceed to give them the cases to be resolved, resolve by way of conclusion share solution of cases and the relationship with the principles.

Figure 5

Final test resolution

Figure 6

Learning Philosophy by applying logic

The last didactic session took place on September 27, from 7:45 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., beginning with a brief greeting, invoking a prayer to the Creator, followed by the dialogue between students and teacher on the different topics that were addressed during the visit, then they were guided that to finish, we would perform a final test, Similar to that of the first day of intervention, they were given all the recommendations, each student received their test, the teacher reads the test and the students with attitude and excellent discipline began to answer, then each student gradually delivered, at the end they were thanked for the willingness and delivery of their participation during all visits, The students also expressed their feelings, expressing that they felt privileged with the classes that the teacher taught because it was only with them and that they remembered us for sharing especially with them.

Final test results

Table 3

Final Test Results (KPSI)

Source: Final test

After each class session of the didactic intervention, we proceeded to apply a final or posttest test to each student, this to see the level of progress or difficulties they had had during the development of the contents addressed in the didactic proposal. For example, in the diagnostic test or pretest in 100% of the concepts addressed, students had difficulty mastering the contents. On the other hand, after the application of the didactic proposal, 100% of the concepts had modifications in the mental structures of the students, that is, they changed from one level of knowledge to another higher.

Table 4

Final test results (true and false)

Source: Final test applied to students

The results of table No. 5, reflect the level of depth that the students reached in relation to the contents developed during the didactic intervention, that is, to see if the results obtained in the KPSI (Inventory of previous knowledge) were true, a test item was designed and applied that consisted of an item of true or false, this was built with the same concepts of the KPS and as you can see, the students showed mastery in all the concepts developed during the didactic intervention.

Table 5

Comparison diagnostic test vs final test

Source: Final test

As the last step of the intervention, we proceeded to evaluate the contents developed with the 30 students who participated in the study, initially applying the concepts measured in the diagnosis, data reflected in the previous table, which in turn allows to visualize what was obtained in the diagnosis and final test and thus be able to assess if with the implemented strategies it was possible to achieve the objectives set with the didactic intervention. which was for students to develop meaningful learning.

Proof of the impact of the didactic intervention in the subject Philosophy is the percentage of students who increased in terms of scientific mastery of the concepts addressed in the didactic proposal, such is the case of the concept decoding, that in the diagnostic test 97% of students checked the box I do not know, instead, In the final test, 80% checked the box I know well and 10% that they could explain it to others. The same happened with the concept of coding, in the diagnostic test 90% checked the box I do not know, instead in the final or posttest test, 77% marked that they knew it well and 13% that they could explain it to others.

Table 6

Results of the logical thinking exercise

The results shown in table No. 7, represent the success obtained in the class session where students solved situations where they should apply the principles of logic, this in order that they put into practice memory, analysis and interpretation. These exercises were solved individually and there was no interaction during the development or resolution of the situations raised in the analysis of the cases posed to the students. As can be seen in the first activity linked to the principles of logic, 73% of the students obtained excellent results and 27% were at the level of very good. The same happened in exercise No. 1 of solving puzzles, where 63% were located in the scale of excellent and 37 in the very good and in the second part of the exercises the success was greater, 93% was located in the scale or level of knowledge of excellent. This means that the students managed to solve the exercises of analysis and interpretation of topics related to Philosophy and the daily work of society.

CONCLUSIONS

After having carried out the didactic intervention with significant learning strategies in the subject Philosophy for the development of significant learning, the following conclusions were reached:

The application of the diagnostic test at the beginning of the intervention, aimed to explore the previous knowledge of the students, the initial diagnostic test presented to the students was a KPSI that includes the terms or concepts related to the unit of study and contents to be developed, which allowed us to have a broader perception about the level of knowledge and mastery that students have until then.

For greater clarity, it is explained that, in each class session of the didactic intervention, group dynamics related to the content to be developed were carried out, in these it was observed that the class ceased to be monotonous and traditional, since the student participated in each of the strategies actively. In addition, it was possible to arouse interest through the learning strategy, for example, in the strategy the simplified drawing, allowed students to relate the concepts under study, taking them into practice, this generated reflection and analysis in the students, this was evidenced at the time they practiced collaborative work in the resolution of each didactic game. The content, logic and principles of logic, was developed through the strategy of case studies, this strategy facilitated compression and assimilation of the contents of the subject Philosophy, which allowed to establish a comparison between the content and the problems of daily life and its possible solution.

It should be noted that, the didactic intervention was executed in the Chiquilistagua Public School of Managua, generated a positive impact on the educational community by providing new tools of didactic strategies for philosophical teaching to the teachers who teach it, was applied and served as pedagogical training to the teacher the application of constructivist strategies, which led to opportunities for the student to be the protagonist of the construction and reconstruction of knowledge. The importance of the use of strategies is highlighted, which the teacher applies within the classroom so that it is always active, participatory, so that the student can be willing to understand and learn more. The mastery of the students and the learning achieved through the analysis of contracted data between the initial test (KPSI) and the final test that positively demonstrated the success achieved with the application of the didactic strategies was verified.

---