ERIC EJ906186: The Use of Constructivist Teaching Practices by Four New Secondary School Science Teachers: A Comparison of New Teachers and Experienced Constructivist Teachers

2010·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

Lee Yuen Lew
The Use of Constructivist Teaching
Practices by Four New Secondary School
Science Teachers: A Comparison of
New Teachers and Experienced
Constructivist Teachers
Abstract sub-categories, the levels of achieve- a wealth of knowledge about the
The author examines the use of ments of the NSTs were simi- ways in which individuals construct
constructivist teaching practices by lar to those of their counterparts. their own understanding based on
four new secondary school science Qualitative data from videotapes and their personal experiences (Brooks
teachers (NSTs) from a preparation open-ended interviews further sub- & Brooks, 1993; Phillips, 1995;
program with a focus on constructiv- stantiate the finding that the NSTs Saunders, 1992; Tobin, Tippins,
ism. Data of the NSTs is compared are generally early constructivists, & Gallard, 1994; von Glasersfeld,
to data of secondary school teachers in both their practices and beliefs. 1990; Yager, 1991, 2000). The term
from two different sources: (i) new These results support the idea that “constructivism” is most commonly
teachers (NTs) from a broad-scale future educators should explicitly used to refer to the theory that stems
nationally-funded project involving be taught the theory of constructiv- from this knowledge about learning.
ten different preparation programs ism and how to use it as a basis for At the heart of constructivism is the
across the USA and (ii) experienced teaching. idea that learning is neither passive
teachers (ETs) who are nationally- nor a copying process. Rather, it is
recognized as effective constructiv- Introduction a process of active participation.
ist teachers. All three sources of data A priority of the 21st century is real Understanding is, at any given time,
were collected using the same instru- learning; that is, learning that includes organized in the network of existing
ment. As expected, it was found that the ability to think and to apply sci- knowledge within the learner’s mind
the ETs outperformed NTs in general entific knowledge for individual (Schifter & Simon, 1990).
in their perceived use of all six sub- and social purposes, as opposed to Constructivism is a cornerstone
categories of constructivist teach- merely memorizing and recalling of current reforms in science educa-
ing practices. However, it was also facts. We live in what is known as a tion. Modern day science educators
found that, in three sub-categories “knowledge society” in which infor- are echoing the ancient philosopher
of constructivist teaching practices, mation can be obtained with the click Plato: “…knowledge gained under
the NSTs outperformed their coun- of a mouse. Hence, more and more compulsion obtains no hold on the
terparts from different programs. For jobs demand advanced skills that mind” (Plato, 4 Century BCE. In
these three sub-categories, the NSTs require people to be able to learn, Hamilton & Cairns, 1966, p.768).
achieved at the level of “Student- reason, think creatively, make deci- While constructivism does not pre-
Centered/Early Constructivist,” sions, and solve problems (Bybee & scribe explicit instructional strate-
as did the ETs. For the other three Fuchs, 2006; Fensham, 2007). How gies, the idea that all learners need
does such learning take place? to construct their own learning and
Keywords: constructivism, constructivist
Research emanating from the field understanding based on their past
teaching practices, constructivist teachers,
new secondary school science teachers of cognitive psychology has provided experiences provides the framework
10 Science educator
for what is termed “constructiv- designing lessons to address been established. There are two ver-
ist teaching practices”. What, then, misconceptions. sions of CLES. The teacher version
is meant by “constructivist teach- measures a teacher’s perception of
ing practices”? Just as there is no The effectiveness of a program is his/her own use of six sub-categories
complete consensus regarding what measured by the quality of teachers of constructivist teaching practices,
constructivism is, neither is there that it produces. Although the prepa- and the student version measures
complete consensus pertaining ration of teachers is extremely com- student perceptions of these same
to what constitutes constructivist plex, this researcher contends that all factors.
teaching practices. The main data educators need to be explicitly taught Studies have indicated that student
collecting instrument used in this the principles of constructivism and perceptions are better indicators of
report, the Constructivist Learning how to use them as a foundation for classroom reality than teacher per-
Environment Survey (CLES) the development of teaching. This ceptions (Salish I Research Project,
(Taylor, Fraser, and White, 1994) report focuses on the constructiv- 1997; Yutakom, 1997). The data
is just one measure of constructiv- ist teaching practices of four new on student perceptions of the use
ist teaching practices. It ties in with secondary school science teachers of constructivist teaching practices
what many science educators sug- (NSTs) who have been educated in was provided from (i) a broad scale,
gest are actions that characterize a constructivist teaching. nationally funded project that studied
“constructivist teacher”(Brooks & 175 new secondary school teachers
Brooks, 1993; Lutz, 1996; Yager et Design and Procedure (NTs) from 10 different prepara-
al., 2000). The constructivist teacher This paper reports on parts of a tion programs across the USA dur-
understands and uses constructivist larger study that investigated the ing their second year of teaching
principles by: constructivist behaviors of new (Salish 1 Research Project, 1997)
1. encouraging and accepting secondary school science teachers and (ii) a sample of 12 experienced
student autonomy, initiation, (NSTs) from a teaching program (6 to 28 years of teaching) secondary
and leadership; that places a concentration on the school science teachers (ETs) who
2. allowing student thinking to theory of constructivism. This paper have been nationally recognized as
drive lessons and adapting con- includes the perceptions of four successful constructivist teachers
tent and instructional strategy NSTs, as well as their students’ per- (Yutakom, 1997).
based on student responses; ceptions, of the extent of their use All mean scores were plotted
3. asking students to elaborate on of constructivist teaching practices onto a model that measures con-
their responses; during their second year of teach- structivist behavior expertise levels
4. allowing wait time after posing ing. It also looks at two other related (refer to Table 1). This ‘Model of
questions; studies: a broad, large-scale study of Constructivist Behavior Expertise
5. encouraging students to inter- new teachers (NTs) from 10 differ- Level’ (MCBEL) provides an addi-
act, both with the teacher and ent programs across the USA and of tional reference for comparison by
with one another; a sample of experienced secondary converting numerical values into
6. asking thoughtful, open-ended school science teachers (ETs) who ‘Expertise Levels’ (Lew, 2001). The
questions; have received national recognition as model can be used across different
7. encouraging students to reflect effective constructivist teachers. instruments (including CLES) that
on experiences and predict The three studies are related in that measure constructivist behaviors
future outcomes; they all used the same survey instru- using numerical scores following a
8. asking students to articulate ment, the Constructivist Learning Likert scale of 1 to 5, with a of score
their theories before requiring Environment Survey (CLES) ‘1’ indicating the lowest level of con-
them to present understanding (Taylor, Fraser & White 1994), to structivist teaching and a score of ‘5’
of the concepts; and measure the use of constructivist indicating the highest level of con-
9. looking for students’ alter- teaching practices. CLES is fre- structivist teaching (refer to Table 1).
native conceptions and quently used because its validity has Finally, the choice to compare new
teachers’ second year of teaching for
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, no. 2 11
Table 1: MCBEL - Defining Teacher Expertise based on Perceptions of Teachers’ Use of Constructivist not possible to provide all the rich
Practices
qualitative details in this report.
Perception Teacher Centered Transitional Student Centered However, this researcher is directly
Novice Beginner Transitional Early Constructivist Experienced involved in the program and consid-
Constructivist ers the four NSTs in this report to be
Mean Scores 1.00 - 1.49 1.50 - 2.49 2.50 - 3.49 3.50 - 4.49 4.50 - 5.00 typical graduates of the program.
this report is partly due to data avail- Here, it is important to stress that Findings
ability and partly to research find- selection of the four NSTs for the
Table 2 shows the constructivist
ings that indicate that after teachers original study was ultimately deter-
expertise levels of the four NSTs
assume control of their own class- mined based on the information
from the program with a concentra-
rooms, there tends to be a drop in available, rather than by statistical
tion on constructivism during the end
the level of their idealism from the specification. In the original longi-
of their second year of teaching. It
level that had been attained during tudinal study of NSTs from the pro-
indicates that the extent of the teach-
teacher preparatory programs and gram, complete sets of data were
ers’ use of constructivist teaching
student teaching. Year two appears obtained for these four NSTs. This
practices as perceived by the NSTs
to be a crucial transition for new includes all student CLES, all NST
themselves is closely aligned with
teachers adjusting to their positions. CLES, as well as videotaped les-
the perceptions of their students (N
The effects of socialization factors sons (N=37) and audiotape inter-
= 169). This lends support to the reli-
and the pressure of full-time respon- views (N=12). Sample description of
ability of comparing this data (mean
sibilities tend to decrease by year 3 observed constructivist practices and
values and expertise levels) with the
(Salish I Research Project, 1997). verbalized beliefs of the four NSTs
other two studies with larger sample
This paper includes sample quali- were drawn from videotaped lessons
sizes.
tative descriptions of the four NSTs’ and audiotapes of interviews. This
The findings from Table 2 can be
constructivist teaching practices and will give the readers a deeper under-
summarized as follows:
beliefs. Information was taken from standing of the six sub-categories of
1. Both the NSTs and their stu-
videotaped lessons and open-ended constructivist teaching practices as
dents perceived (year 2) NSTs
interviews. As mentioned, the four measured by the CLES, as well as
as “Early Constructivist” in
NSTs are part of a larger longitudinal substantiate the quantitative data.
three sub-categories of con-
study that follows the participants The original study is huge, and it is
structivist teaching practices,
from student teaching through their Table 2: NSTs Expertise Levels in the Use of Constructivist Teaching Practice (Year 2 of Teaching)
first three years of teaching. Besides
Sub-Categories of Perceptions Student Perceptions Teacher Perceptions
yearly collection of perception data
From CLES (N = 169) (N = 4)
using the CLES surveys, yearly data
Personal Relevance (PR) Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
were also collected from videotapes
(mean 3.5) (mean = 3.6)
of actual classroom practices and
Scientific Uncertainty (SU) Transitional Transitional
from open-ended interviews. During
(mean = 3.3) (mean = 3.4)
student teaching, all NSTs were
Critical Voice (CV) Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
required to turn in a “Best Efforts”
(mean = 3.9) (mean = 3.5)
videotaped lesson to the program.
Shared Control (SC) Beginner Beginner
Additionally, university mentors
(mean = 2.9 ) (mean = 2.4 )
videotaped three consecutive days
Student Negotiation (SN) Transitional Transitional
of teaching. The mentors also con-
(mean = 3.4) (mean = 3.2)
ducted and recorded yearly open-
Attitude Towards Class (AT) Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
ended interviews for each teacher.
(mean = 3.9) (mean = 3.6)
These efforts were concentrated on
the first three years of the new teach- CLES – Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
ers’ experience. NSTs – New Science Teachers from program with a focus on constructivism
12 Science educator
namely, providing personal rel- 1. The experienced, nationally a positive attitude towards sci-
evance (PR), giving students a recognized constructivist ence learning (AT).
critical voice (CV), and build- teachers (ETs) are perceived 4. Among the six sub-categories
ing a positive attitude towards (by their students) to be more of constructivist teaching prac-
science learning (AT). efficient in their use of all six tices measured, giving students
2. Both the NSTs and their sub-categories of constructivist shared control (SC) of the
students perceived (year 2) teaching practices compared to learning process (such as play-
NSTs as “Transitional” in two new teachers in general (NTs). ing a role in decision making
sub-categories of constructiv- 2. The new science teachers about their instruction) appears
ist teaching practices, namely, (NSTs) from the program with to be the most challenging for
portraying the aspects of sci- a concentration on construc- all teachers, both new (NTs
ence as a fallible human activ- tivism are perceived (by their and NSTs) and experienced
ity (SU) and giving student students) to be more efficient (ETs).
negotiation opportunities (SN). in their use of constructivist It is expected that teachers who are
3. Both the NSTs and their teaching practices than the experienced and nationally recog-
students perceived (year 2) new teachers (NTs) from a nized as constructivist teachers (ETs)
NSTs as “Beginners” in giving combination of 10 different would be perceived as using more
students shared control (SC) of programs. constructivist teaching practices.
the learning process (such as 3. The NSTs from the construc- However, this information is purely
playing a role in decision mak- tivist program are perceived to descriptive, and several important
ing about their instruction). match their more experienced questions remain. Which factors
Results comparing student percep- counterparts (ETs) in three might be responsible for the differ-
tions of the extent of teacher use of sub-categories of constructiv- ences in student perceptions of the
six sub-categories of constructivist ist teaching practices, namely, extent to which their new teachers
teaching practices as measured by providing personal relevance (NSTs versus NTs) use constructiv-
CLES are tabulated in Table 3. (PR), giving students a criti- ist teaching practices? Which fac-
The findings from Table 3 can be cal voice (CV), and building tors might explain the reasons that
summarized as follows: the NSTs match ETs in three sub-
categories of constructivist teaching
Table 3: Comparing Expertise Levels of Student Perceptions of Their Teachers’ Use of Constructivist
practices? These questions will be
Teaching Practices
discussed later.
Student Perceptions of: Salish I (1997): 175 Program with focus on Yutakom (1997): 12 Some qualitative examples of the
NTs (Year 2 Teaching) Constructivism: 4 NSTs ETs (6 - 28 years
constructivist teaching behaviors
(Year 2 Teaching) teaching)
of the four NSTs are shared below.
N = 169
These sample qualitative data (from
Personal Relevance Transitional Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
a total of 37 yearly videotaped les-
(PR)
sons and 12 recorded open-ended
Scientific Uncertainty Transitional Transitional Early Constructivist
interviews conducted throughout
(SU)
the span of the original study) sup-
Critical Voice (CV) Transitional Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
port the findings that the four NSTs
Shared Control (SC) Beginner Beginner Transitional
used constructivist teaching prac-
Student Negotiation Transitional Transitional Early Constructivist
tices. The descriptions also serve
(SN)
to help readers better understand
Attitude Towards Class Transitional Early Constructivist Early Constructivist
the sub-categories of constructiv-
(AT)
ist teaching practices measured by
Early Constructivist (student-centered: mean scores from 3.50 to 4.49); the CLES. Amy (38 years), Bill (32
Transitional (between student-centered & teacher-centered: mean scores: 2.50 to 3.49); years), Caster (33 years), and Drake
Beginner (teacher-centered: mean scores from 1.50 to 2.49).
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, no. 2 13
(24 years) are the pseudonyms used …at times students have a ques- about cloning and genetics, and in
for the four NSTs in this study. tion and I say I think we can best vitro fertilization. There are issues
answer this by going outside. We and things that are going on that
Personal relevance. were studying electricity and our are not clear cut – in genetic engi-
This sub-category of CLES mea- school has some new tennis courts neering – that are not, um, totally
sures the extent to which teachers/ and they asked, how do those approved by everybody… debated
students feel that students under- lights come on? …and I say, well, over issues… test tube babies…
stand the relevance of school science I really don’t know, let’s go find whether there’s really a bad ozone
to their out-of-school lives. The four out. …we just got up and went problem… (Amy, year 1 and/or
NSTs promote continuity between outside. And we looked around year 2 interviews).
school science and everyday appli- and we found that there was a When Caster taught sound and
cations in various ways. Below are timer with a coin slot that you put noise, his students brainstormed in
examples from Amy and Bill. coins in. Of course, then they all small groups and came to a decision
Amy consistently provides con- wanted to get quarters and put it on their group definition of noise.
nections between the material being in the light and see how long it Later, during whole class summary,
learned in class and the outside lasted and how much light a quar- they searched for similarities among
world in the form of discussions ter would buy and things like that the different definitions, debated, and
about related careers, environmen- (Bill, year 2 interview). negotiated to arrive at a whole class
tal issues, and science-related social These teachers do not portray consensus. Caster told his students:
issues. She regularly invites her stu- science as an abstract subject. We want to come with one main
dents to share and compare personal According to the constructivist per- consensus…just the way science
experiences that they think may be spective, the classroom environment works, that is, scientists work….
related to the concepts being dis- should engage students in opportuni- Don’t worry about your personal
cussed. For example, her lesson on ties to: differences…noise as sound which
a. experience the relevance of upset…depends on personal pref-
‘acids and bases and their connec-
school science to their every- erence…still a lot of grey areas.
tion with food’ (year 3 videotapes)
day interests and activities, and That is how it is in science (Caster,
caused students to make connec-
b. use their everyday experiences year 2 videotape).
tions between acids and the Ph of the
as a meaningful context for the According to the constructivist
stomach, antacids, spicy food, stress,
development of their formal perspective, the classroom environ-
stomach ulcers, advertisements on
scientific knowledge. ment should provide students with
heartburn, chemists making money,
opportunities to be skeptical and crit-
acids in batteries, acids in fruits, and
Scientific uncertainty. ical about the nature and value of sci-
acids in drugs. Teachers and students
This sub-category of CLES is con- ence so that they are able to achieve
touched on Mark Twain’s insight
cerned with perceptions of science meaningful learning through the pro-
regarding food, McDonald’s, food
as a fallible human activity that is cess of posing questions and finding
manufacturers, diets, weight watch-
embedded in a cultural context and their own answers.
ers, nutrition, etc. When she taught
embodies human values and inter-
fluid pressure, Amy asked:
ests. The new science teachers in the Critical voice.
Examples in real life situations?
study often connect their teaching to This sub-category of CLES is
Examples in daily life? What
natural phenomena and social/con- concerned with student develop-
about in nature? …Where, …
troversial issues. They demonstrate ment as autonomous learners that
who would measure pressure on
that science is useful but has limita- are able to legitimately question the
a daily basis? (Amy, year 1 and 2
videotapes). tions, because it is a human explana- quality of their learning activities.
Bill, through both his actions and tion of nature. For example, Amy: Videotape observations indicated
words frequently conveyed to his … awareness of values like man- that all four new teachers were very
students that science is everywhere aging the earth’s resources and successful in establishing a friendly,
in their daily lives. things like that …there’s issues yet respectful learning environment.
14 Science educator
The establishment of a safe, non- curriculum content) to such an extent For example in Drake’s year 2 vid-
judgmental classroom environment that accountability for classroom eotape, his students were the ones
encourages students to speak. activities is directed largely towards who made the decision on the crite-
It’s alright to disagree. It does not an external authority. Rather, the ria of a rubric that guided the assess-
mean all have to have the same cri- teacher should be willing to demon- ment of their project on light.
teria [for a rubric] we have here. It’s strate his/her accountability to the … want you to create something
up to you to vary… (Caster, year 2 class by fostering critical attitudes special of your own. I’ll show
videotape). in students towards the teaching you the basics of the assignments;
and learning activities. This can be you show me what you want.
…they [students] were com- achieved by creating a social climate You determine criteria of assess-
plaining…[that they] need more in whichstudents feel that it is legiti- ing your project (Drake, year 2
requirement on…projects and mate and beneficial to: videotape).
what exactly are they supposed to a. question the teacher’s peda- Caster shared his satisfaction with
do. And I said no, that’s exactly gogical plans and methods, and the effectiveness of allowing stu-
the opposite. I don’t want more b. express concern about any dents the autonomy to write the quiz
requirements, because I won’t get impediments to their learning. themselves:
their creativity they’re supposed …I said: “Okay, we’re going to
to be showing me (Drake, year 3 Shared control. take a quiz in a week and what I’d
interview). This sub-category of CLES is like you to do, is I would like you
Drake was willing to accept stu- concerned with another important to write the questions for the quiz”
dents’ concerns while also dem- aspect of the development of student and I gave them [students] certain
onstrating his accountability to autonomy, namely, students sharing parameters by which they had to
the class. During the interview, he the control of the classroom learn- follow – like I said no true/false,
described how he explained his inno- ing environment with their teach- no multiple choice, no vocabu-
vative teaching approaches to a par- ers. The videotapes and interviews lary questions. And it was an
ticular student who was extremely provide evidence of ways that stu- interesting environment because
upset with project work, as well as dents were involved in providing the students dove right into it…I
to her parents and the administrators. material or content (for example: had a little bit of modeling, just to
He concluded with an explanation newspaper articles, advertisements, get them started, but I was really
of the ways that students learn from or food labels) and data (for exam- amazed in how well they could
having a critical voice: ple: electrical readings) that drove write higher order questions and it
She has made incredible improve- the lessons. Constructivist teachers was across the board, it was from
ment from where she was at the sometimes use student suggestions, the lower ability to higher ability
beginning…when she had to build ideas, or questions to drive their les- students were doing a terrific job
the roller coaster [first project sons, and they respond to different at it and it was good…the learn-
work]…she has learned and made interests or needs by allowing each ing environment mainly constitute
a drastic improvement on how she student to elect an appropriate learn- them,…my role just being coach
attacks a problem. At the begin- to prompt them on (Caster, year 1
ing activity that is of interest to him
ning it was a lot more complaints interview).
or her individually. These are some
– I don’t think I can do it, and I am According to the constructivist
of the ways in which constructivist
scared to do it and things like this perspective, students should not be
teachers give students some control
and now [later project] she goes required to adopt the traditional role
over their learning. In the classrooms
right at it and attacks it… (Drake, of compliant recipient of a predeter-
of teachers from the constructivist
year 3 interview). mined pedagogy controlled entirely
preparation program, in some cases,
According to the constructivist by the teacher. Rather, the teacher
student autonomy even extended to
perspective, the classroom environ- should invite students to share con-
determining and applying assess-
ment should not favor technical cur- trol of important aspects of their
ment criteria, such as developing
riculum interests (e.g. covering the
rubrics and writing quizzes.
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, no. 2 15
learning by providing opportunities tend to encourage greater student (for achievement of student-cen-
for them to participate in: criticism of teaching/learning strat- teredness). Also, the four NSTs could
a. designing and managing their egies versus allowing them to share be perceived as ‘similar’ to NTs from
own learning activities, decisions concerning those strate- general preparation programs in that:
b. determining and applying gies. These findings suggest the need Students were much more likely
assessment criteria, and to explore further what causes teach- to believe they could express their
c. negotiating the social norms of ers to not exhibit shared control more opinions about classroom instruc-
the classroom. often than they do. How can teach- tion [Critical Voice, CV] than to
ers be helped more to practice these believe they could actually play a
It is pertinent to note here that the behaviors? role in the decision making about
four NSTs and their students agreed Using the “Model of Constructivist that instruction [Shared Control,
that the least constructivist aspect of Behavior Expertise Level” (MCBEL) SC] (Salish I Research Project,
their teaching/learning was shared (refer to Table 1), all the new teachers 1997, p.20).
control (SC) of teaching/learning (both from the exemplary program On the other hand (as discussed
(refer to Tables 2 and 3.) Likewise, and those from the ten general pro- earlier), student perception of auton-
both comparative samples (the grams) were classified as “Beginner omy for the CV sub-category placed
new teachers [NTs] from ten gen- Constructivist” (mean scores = the four NSTs at a higher expertise
eral preparation programs [Salish 1.50 - 2.49) while Yutakom’s expe- level (Early Constructivist as com-
I Research Project, 1997] and the rienced teachers (ETs) were classi- pared to Transitional) than NTs from
experienced constructivist teach- fied as “Transitional Constructivists” ten general programs across the
ers [ETs] [Yutakom, 1997] ) were (mean scores = 2.50 – 3.49) in giv- United States who were involved in
also perceived as being the least ing students shared control of impor- Salish I (1997.)
constructivist in this sub-category tant decisions pertaining to learning
(compared to the other five sub- (refer to Table 3). This paper will not Student negotiation.
categories of the CLES). This result delve into the possible differences This sub-category of CLES is con-
is consistent with the results of past in interpretation of statement in this cerned with negotiation amongst stu-
studies that made use of the CLES sub-category of CLES. It should be dents, including the amount of verbal
instrument. The measure of percep- noted, however, that the ETs selected interaction that students engage in
tions regarding Shared Control (SC) for the Yutakom’s study were nation- while building their scientific knowl-
is generally rated lowest, regardless ally (USA) recognized constructiv- edge. Videotape lessons indicate that
of whether student autonomy was ist teachers. Their surprisingly low the structure of classroom lessons of
looked at from the new teacher per- scores for the Shared Control sub- the four NSTs often focus on engage-
spective (Tillotson, 1996; Waggett, category of CLES (despite observa- ment in small group discussions,
1999; Lew, 2008) or from the stu- tions to the contrary) led Yutakom to brainstorming, whole class discus-
dent perspective (Salish I Research comment: ”The scores suggest that sions, summaries, presentations,
Project, 1997; Taylor et al., 1994; the [experienced] teachers do not debates, group projects, and other
Tillotson, 1996; Lew, 2008). This involve students in planning, con- activities that involve interaction
outcome may not be unusual given ducting lessons, and assessing their between students.
the fact that the teachers are still in own learning as much as construc- Have a safe learning environ-
the process of developing their peda- tivist philosophy would suggest is ment where everybody feels safe
gogy and establishing a curriculum. desirable” (1997, p.107). Similarly, to be able to speak and do the
These challenging tasks require time in this study, while qualitative data activities…and working together,
to refine, and thus, many new teach- does indicate the four NSTs shared you know, cooperative efforts
ers are more control-oriented in their control of learning with their stu- with other students (Amy, year 2
first few years of teaching (Brooks dents, student involvement in impor- interview).
According to the constructivist
& Brooks 1995; Lounghran 1994). tant decision-making pertaining to
perspective, the classroom environ-
Apparently, the ETs became less learning may not occur on a regular
ment should not require students to
control-oriented. However, they too basis or as frequently as is desirable
16 Science educator
learn in isolation from other students DNA testing on O.J. Simpson crit- out between the sample new science
or to regard the teacher or textbook ical?” I think the they [students] teachers (NSTs) of this study and the
as the main arbiter of viable scien- might care to learn about DNA sample of experienced constructivist
tific knowledge. The four NSTs dem- fingerprinting a little bit more than teachers (ETs) or other NTs.
onstrate their belief in this idea by if I said, ”Today we’re going to Recall the earlier two questions:
taking steps to ensure that their class- learn about DNA fingerprinting”. Which factors might be responsible
room environment provides students Setting the stage for something’s for the differences in student per-
with opportunities to: meaningful,…is just so important ceptions of the extent to which their
a. explain and justify their (Amy, year 1 interview). new teachers (NSTs versus NTs) use
newly developing ideas to one During Drake’s 2nd year, his les- constructivist teaching practices?
another, sons on light, lasers, and fiber optics Which factors might explain the
b. make sense of other students’ consistently motivated learning by reasons that the NSTs match ETs
ideas and reflect on the viabil- capitalizing on the novelty and new- in their perceived use of three sub-
ity of those ideas, and ness of demonstrations performed by categories of constructivist teaching
c. reflect critically on the viability the teacher and the students. There practices? This researcher argues
of their own ideas. were over half a dozen exclamations that the four NSTs had the advan-
of “cool,” “wow,” and “neat!’” from tage of preparation from a program
Attitude toward class. students as they viewed red-lighted with a concentration on constructiv-
This sub-category of CLES mea- water shooting out of holes in a plas- ism. Pre-service students need to be
sures teacher/student interpretation tic bottle. The students showed simi- provided with a model of construc-
of student attitudes about important lar enthusiasm for the many other tivist learning situation so they can
aspects of the overall classroom- demonstrations about refraction and learn the requisite skills to teach in
learning environment, including: reflection of colored light. Curiosity a constructivist manner (Shymansky,
a. student anticipation of the was often evident in student remarks 1992; Brooks & Brook, 1993; Raizen
learning activities, such as “How did you do that?” and & Michelsohn, 1994).
b. student perception of the “But where did you start from?” A limitation of the presented quan-
worthwhileness of the learning Excitement was also evident as stu- titative data from CLES is the sam-
activities, and dents exclaimed “Oh my” and shared ple size (four NSTs and the number
c. the impact of the learning laughter. It was clear that these stu- of their year two students, n = 169)
activities on student interest, dents enjoyed their science classes. from the program with a focus on
enjoyment, and understanding. Positive attitude was very evident constructivism. It can be argued that
Evidences of ways the four new in almost all the classes of the four perhaps individual characteristics of
teachers strived to ensure positive new teachers. Other ways the new the four NSTs, such as school cul-
student attitude were numerous. teachers made learning exciting and ture, socioeconomic status, and other
Some examples are the innovative positive included extending learn- uncontrolled variables contributed
projects in Drake’s classes, the rock- ing outside the classroom, decreas- to their increased use of construc-
ets that Caster’s students designed ing dependency on text books, and tivist teaching practices as com-
and launched, and Bill’s class trip establishing a non-judgmental and pared to NTs in general. However,
to an amusement park to learn about respectful learning environment. the four NSTs were not specifically
physics. The new teachers believed selected for purposes of compari-
in stimulating their students’ curi- Discussions son, but rather based on the avail-
osity and often used science-related Unfortunately, other than CLES, ability of complete datasets due to
social events outside of school to different qualitative and quantitative their participation in an original lon-
accomplish that objective. instruments were used to triangulate gitudinal study. Appendix A shows
…start with a question or some data for teacher use of constructivist background information about the
sort of challenge or even just teaching practices in each of the three four NSTs. They ranged in age from
explaining …what they…be able studies. Hence further detailed in- 24 to 38 years and taught in different
to apply…if I …say, “Why is depth comparison cannot be carried school cultures. Their undergraduate
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, no. 2 17
GPA ranged from 2.6 to 3.38. They in developing constructivist teach- teaching. When they started as full-
were typical graduates and represen- ing strategies, I will provide a brief time teachers, the new teachers in
tative of the program. In this report, description of pertinent program this study were mentally prepared
it is not possible to delve into an features. All faculties are knowl- with student-centered knowledge
extensive qualitative description of edgeable about constructivism and and beliefs that enabled them to
the constructivist teaching practices purposefully model a variety of con- translate these principles into class-
of the four NSTs, but data is avail- structivist teaching practices (not room practices.
able upon request. merely those measured by CLES) in Finally, support for the NSTs does
The findings in this study con- their classrooms. Pre-service NSTs not stop at the end of student teaching.
trast with the generalized findings were explicitly taught the theory of Research has shown the importance
of the large scale Salish I Research constructivism throughout the entire of induction programs in maintaining
Project (1997) sponsored by the US sequence and across all coursework. the idealism learned during teacher
Department of Education that fol- Pre-service NSTs were also consis- preparatory programs. What type and
lowed new teachers (NTs) from 10 tently encouraged to put into action form of induction program is needed
different programs across America constructivist teaching approaches to ensure that fledging science teach-
from years 1 to 3 of their teaching. in every step of the program. These ers are not left unaided to cope with
Salish I was shocking, because it opportunities are described below: the unexpected stresses and demands
illustrated that much of the idealism (i) Extensive field experiences (up of running a class alone? How do
of new teachers disappeared as they to 149 hours prior to student we provide new teachers with the
found themselves alone and, often, teaching, followed by 16 weeks mentoring and support necessary
without the support of caring men- of student teaching) take place to ensure that they do not drop out
tors that they had experienced during over four consecutive semesters of the teaching profession? Roehrig
student teaching. ”Most [new teach- in several different schools and and Luft (2006) recommend special-
ers] reverted to much more teacher at different grade levels while ized support programs for beginning
directed instruction and more text- under the supervision of care- science teachers. In an earlier study,
book dominated content” (Salish I fully selected veteran teachers Luft, Roehrig, & Patterson asserted:
Research Project, 1997, p.35). In who are knowledgeable about “…when supported by a science
contrast, the NSTs in this report held constructivism. focused induction program, begin-
onto many constructivist teaching (ii) Ongoing reflective practices, ning teachers experienced fewer
practices. This controversy mimics including regular self-analysis constraints, and were more likely to
the widespread disagreement in the and group critiques of video- implement inquiry-based instruction
literature about the overall impact tapes of the field experiences, in their classrooms than did second-
of teacher preparation programs. In teach pre-service teachers to ary science teachers receiving gen-
an Education Commission of the analyze lesson effectiveness eral induction support or no formal
State report, Michael B. Allen sum- based on constructivist episte- induction support versus generalized
marizes the ongoing disagreement: mology and current research induction programs or no induction at
“How well the nation [USA] is findings. all” (2003, in Roehrig & Luft, 2006,
doing at preparing teachers is a mat- (iii) Ongoing development of a p. 964). New science teachers from
ter of considerable debate” (2003, research-based rationale for the program in this report were regu-
p. 7). He concluded that ”While the effective constructivist teach- larly mentored by professors from
research on teacher preparation is ing practices (via journaling, the program. Their induction was
limited, it does provide guidance for changing earlier rationale, and specific to science teaching practices
policymakers and others on a num- verbally defending reflective that are oriented by constructivism.
ber of issues, including the value and essays) occurs throughout the This was done mainly by means of a
impact of certain kinds of course- four semesters of the program. one-on-one support system through-
work, field experience…” (p.viii). In short, the program directly out the duration of the study (through
In order to support the contention addresses the principles of construc- their third year of teaching).
that program experiences aid NSTs tivism and ways to use it to frame
18 Science educator
Another limitation of this study is world application. The practice of “Old” Solution to a “New” Problem?
the lack of data on student achieve- constructivism should be explicitly Paper presented and published in
ments that would objectively capture addressed during the preparation of peer-reviewed Proceedings of the XIII
IOSTE Symposium, 21-26
the effectiveness of constructivist all new teachers. Preparation such as
teaching. Further and better research this will give students and teachers September, 2008, 642-653.Loughran, J.
should, “Make the connections to alike a profound understanding of the (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis
of the needs of second-year science
student achievement as explicit as complexities of science. Yager sums
teachers. Science Education, 78(4),
possible” (Allen, 2003, p. ix). On the it well: “Science education must por-
365-386.
other hand, there is much literature tray science and constructivist prac-
in different parts of the world that tices if the reforms envisioned by Luft, J.A. , Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson,
N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes:
indicates research and instructional NSES are to flourish” (2004, p. 26).
A comparison of the impact of differ-
programs that make use of construc-
ent induction programs on beginning
tivist instructional strategies lead to References
secondary science teachers’ practices,
improved science learning by pro- Allen, M.B. (2003). Eight Questions beliefs, and experiences. Journal of
ducing students who are able to think on Teacher Preparation: What Does Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77
critically and use their knowledge the Research Say? An Education -97.
in new situations (Bybee & Fuchs, Commission of the States (ECS, USA)
Lutz, M. V. (1996). The congruency of
Teaching Quality Research Report.
2006; Hand & Peterson, 1995;
the STS approach and constructivism.
Loughran, 1994; Schifter & Simon Brooks, J., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In R. Yager (Ed.), Science/Technology/
1990; Trumper, 2006; Yager & Weld The case for constructivist class- Society as reforms in science educa-
1997). Furthermore, the National rooms. Alexandria, VA: Association tion, 39-49. Albany: State University
Science Education Standards (NSES) for Supervision and Curriculum of New York Press.
Development.
(National Research Council, 1996) National Research Council. (1996).
were developed based on construc- Bybee, R.W., Fuchs B. (2006). Editorial: National science education standards.
tivist principles about how people Preparing a 21st Century Workforce: Washington DC: National Academy
effectively teach and learn. A new reform in science and technol- Press.
ogy. Journal of Research in Science
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad,
Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
Conclusion and the ugly: The many faces of con-
Fensham, P. (2007). Policy Issues for structivism. Educational Researcher,
Teaching is an art. While it is not
Science Education. Paper prepared for 24(7), 5-12.
easy to prepare constructivist sci-
the UNESCO International Science
ence teachers, study after study indi- Education Policy Forum, Perth, Plato (4 Century BCE). In E. Hamilton
& H. Cairns (Eds.), Plato: The col-
cates that beginning teachers can be Australia.
lected dialogues including the letters
student-centered. Preparing science
Hand, B., & Peterson, R. (1995). The (1966, p.768). Bollingen Series LXXI.
teachers who can think and who
development, trail and evaluation of Pantheon Books.
can guide their students to think is a constructivist teaching and learning
Raizen , S. A., & Michelsohn, A. M.
vital for a digitalized world in which approach in a science teacher educa-
(1994). The future of science in ele-
information (and misinformation) is tion program. Research in Science
mentary schools: Educating prospec-
just a click away. Education, 25(1), 75-88.
tive teachers. San Francisco, CA:
Constructivism is one of many Lew, L. Y. (2001). Development of Jossey-Bass Publishers.
intellectual practices that can be used Constructivist Behaviors Among Four
Roehrig, G. H. & Luft, J. A. (2006).
in education. Although it is extremely New Science Teachers Prepared at
Does One Size Fit All ? The Induction
important that we consider other the University of Iowa. Unpublished
Experience of Beginning Science
doctoral dissertation, Iowa City, The
methodologies in teaching, construc-
Teachers from Different Teacher-
University of Iowa.
tivism remains an extremely valuable Preparation Programs. Journal of
tool, because it allows teachers and Lew, L. Y. (2008). Preparing Effective Research in Science Teaching, 43(9),
students to develop a comprehensive New Science Teachers for a Changing 879-906.
Society: The Iowa STS/Constructivist
understanding of science and its real
Teacher preparation Program as an
Fall 2010 Vol. 19, No. 2 19