In the Developmental Teacher Education (DTE) program at the University of California at Berkeley, Piagetian developmental theory and research is used as core knowledge for preparing elementary school teachers. Developmental-constructivist principles of knowledge acquisition are particularly well-suited for this purpose because they have implications for what and how children are taught, how progress toward expertise in teaching is conceptualized, and how teachers are educated. The authors describe the 2-year, postgraduate program, whose features include small cohorts of students, course work organized to address key topics repeatedly and hierarchically, multiple student teaching placements in diverse settings, and a master’s project on a teaching-learning issue. They also comment on teaching practices of program graduates and the development of their understanding of children, learning, and teaching during and after graduation from the program.

Our initial documentation of the effects of the CAPITAL Program has implications for our own research agenda and for research on teacher education graduates in general. Interviews are a beneficial opportunity for teachers to identify and clarify their perceptions of successes, challenges, and needs in their practices. An hour of focused attention on their own performance facilitates teachers’ reflection and analysis. Thus our data collection will continue to include interviewing; however, we are aware of the need to collect additional types of data requiring different methods such as portfolio analysis, classroom observations, close reading of journals kept by students through- out the program, and interviews with mentor teachers and principals. We are currently exploring all of these and believe each additional data source will provide valuable insights useful for refining our program and supporting the continuing develop- ment of our graduates. Teacher preparation and professional development are never complete. University faculty and school colleagues must share responsibility for induction into and success in the profession. As these groups continue to collaborate, interact, and grow in unique understandings of what it means to develop as a teacher, a constructivist frame will be appropriate for all.

Parker Palmer is correct in his claims that good teaching depends more on the capacity for connectedness than on technique and that helping teacher candidates cultivate a strong sense of personal identity is crucial. However, to what extent are Palmer’s claims compatible with the various constructivist models of learning that are now prevalent in many colleges of education? Moreover, how are the goals of Palmer’s approach integrated with those of constructivism? This essay responds to these questions and negotiates between constructivism and Palmer’s educational approach. First the author lays out a predominant constructivist model of teaching and learning. Next, he explores some potential limitations facing constructivism and argues that Palmer’s notion of connectedness can help mitigate against some of the shortcomings of constructivism. Finally, the author examines a specific example from an English methods course that represents an attempt to integrate the virtues of Palmer’s approach with those of constructivism.

Key words: constructivism, connectedness, palmer, learning, teaching.