Our challenge as teacher educators and researchers was to design a teacher education program module that centered on an ambitious constructivist teaching model. How could such a program be designed that stirred vision, motivation, and inquiry on classroom, self, and the aims of education, that furnished considerable disciplinary and design knowledge and management skills, and that hatched professional community? The project experimented with three different versions over three years. In the first year, the program generated a great deal of inspired pioneering; but technical skill and keen observation was submerged at times in ideological commitment, and understanding of the model was truncated. In the second year, the program placed great emphasis on the mastery of the model aiming at clinical tryouts. Unfortunately, this formal sapped the novices’ inspiration by over-burdening them with abstract theory and fixed pedagogical forms, thus disconnecting the model from the philosophical and moral reasons of teaching it. In the third year, the program concentrated on practical inquiry and careful bottom-up reflection to develop classroom community. Novices maintained their vision and motivation for the constructivist model, left the project with “reflective prompts, ” but missed fundamental design competencies. Thus, none of the program iterations stands out as a shining example of success, but together they demonstrate the indispensability of all the components.

The authors analyze how the staff of Summer Math for Teachers and the Writing Project, two inservice programs designed to help elementary school teachers develop constructivist teaching practices, construed the programs’ subject matter and the role that subject matter knowledge was assigned relative to other kinds of knowledge and skill in helping participating teachers learn to teach mathematics or writing in radically different ways. The analysis showed that the programs’ reformist pedagogy is based on a principled conception of the subject matter but developing teachers’ subject matter knowledge was not an explicit objective. The authors conclude that research is needed to determine whether effective constructivist teaching, as characterized by the inservice programs, depends on the depth of teachers’ subject matter knowledge.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: Peschl et al. argue that innovation, or the creation of sustainable change in the market, is a natural topic to be understood from a radical constructivist perspective and is similar in structure to von Glasersfeld’s theory of learning. I argue that this is an accurate and interesting extension of the theory, but that their understanding of innovation needs to be extended to consider the viability of the innovation in the market. It is only in the context of the market that the innovation is perceived as novel, or that it can be understood as sustainable.

This article constitutes a critique from the inside of constructivist pedagogy. It begins with a short history of constructivist pedagogy and its relationship to constructivist learning theory. It then addresses four issues in the ways in which constructivist pedagogy are being approached in research and practice. The first issue recommends more of a research focus on student learning in classrooms that engage in constructivist pedagogy. The second leads to the suggestion of theory development that provides an understanding and descriptions of more and less effective constructivist teaching. The third centers on the necessarily deep subject matter knowledge required of teachers who adopt constructivist pedagogy; and the difficulty this requirement imposes on elementary teachers who must deal with many subject matter areas. And the fourth issue raises the possibility that the vision of constructivist pedagogy, as presently recommended, if not mandated, locally and nationally, is strongly ideological and may impose, inappropriately, a dominant view of pedagogy on those who wish to operate differently.

Open peer commentary on the article “Learning How to Innovate as a Socio-epistemological Process of Co-creation: Towards a Constructivist Teaching Strategy for Innovation” by Markus F. Peschl, Gloria Bottaro, Martina Hartner-Tiefenthaler & Katharina Rötzer. Upshot: This commentary emphasizes the three levels of a teaching methodology designed to scaffold conceptual autonomy and innovation on the part of graduate students with diverse areas of expertise.

The implications of constructivist epistemology and conceptual-change ideas have received less attention in teacher education than in the case of teaching science to pupils. However, some paradoxes mentioned in the literature apply to teacher education in special ways: 1. Even if we accept the validity of a constructivist epistemology, does that imply a specific teaching strategy? 2. If we say we want learners to construct their knowledge, but we define success according to whether they change their conceptions in a certain direction, are we trying to have it both ways? These questions have two layers of meanings in the context of teacher education: what to “tell” teachers about instruction, and how to “tell” them. Teachers continually construct their views of the nature of learning and teaching science. These views are major determinants of how they carry out their teaching functions. How the informal and formal experiences of teacher education influence thses views in an important issue.

Key words: teacher education, concept formation, educational methods, constructivist teaching, cognitive restructuring, constructivism, inservice teacher education, preservice teacher education, emppowering students

Over the past twenty years, constructivism, as a theory of learning, has taken on an increasingly important role in music education. Efforts to shift music education toward a more constructivist practice have significant implications for policymaking at all levels of music education. In this article, I seek to recalibrate our thinking about what it might or might not mean to take a constructivist teaching stance in the music classroom. Building on constructivism as a theory of learning, I revisit its principles and their implications for our work with learners, the nature of knowledge, and the musics and musical experiences we bring into our classrooms. Further, I consider how constructivism has informed music education reform efforts. Throughout, I discuss ways in which a constructivist view of learning and teaching might better inform our professional practice by finding a balance between progressive and traditional views of music education. Through this, we can find a constructivist view that is more resonant with music educators.

Key words: constructivism, learning, music education, music education reform, teaching.

FOCIS is a recently-completed five-year project to develop a program that integrates science instructional planning and teacher enhancement. Separate modules of videotaped and printed materials have been developed (1) for use by science methods instructors in college-based courses for teachers and teacher candidates and (2) for inservice teachers and their local curriculum coordinators or workshop leaders in school district-based programs for teacher enhancement and curriculum design. The underlying FOCIS intention is to help teachers approach their curriculum planning and teaching in ways that restructure their own understanding, as well as their students’ understanding, of the science topic. From a constructivist perspective, the primary planning strategy employs studying the structure and evolution of students’ ideas on the science topic – with assistance from a science consultant who has expertise on the topic and from a “learning activity” consultant who has experience and expertise on teaching the topic by means of activities that help to challenge and refine students’ ideas in the direction of scientists’ ideas on the topic. Concept mapping and associated interviews constitute the main FOCIS strategies for studying student ideas. The primary FOCIS teaching strategy employs accessing, analyzing, and challenging student ideas. The paper emphasizes the nature and use of the FOCIS videotape/print modules for teachers (and teacher candidates) and their “science methods” instructors and for in-service teachers and their in-service leaders.

Key words: teacher education, philosophy, concept formation, constructivism, scientific concepts, concept mapping, constructivist teaching, inservice teacher education, methods courses

Constructivist theory has been prominent in recent research on mathematics learning and has provided a basis for recent mathematics education reform efforts. Although constructivism has the potential to inform changes in mathematics teaching, it offers no particular vision of how mathematics should be taught; models of teaching based on constructivism are needed. Data are presented from a whole-class, constructivist teaching experiment in which problems of teaching practice required the teacher/researcher to explore the pedagogical implications of his theoretical (constructivist) perspectives. The analysis of the data led to the development of a model of teacher decision making with respect to mathematical tasks. Central to this model is the creative tension between the teacher’s goals with regard to student learning and his responsibility to be sensitive and responsive to the mathematical thinking of the students.

Calls for the reform of instruction in U. S. classrooms, particularly those in secondary schools, are growing and often strident. Many reformers advocate a move away from traditional, teacher-centered, (didactic) direct instruction, where students are passive receptors of knowledge, toward more student-centered understanding-based (constructivist) teaching that focuses on exploration and experimentation. In this study we investigate the issue of access to these two types of instruction in U. S. high-school science classrooms. We use a nationally representative sample of 3, 660 students and their science teachers drawn from the first two waves of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88). Although didactic instruction is more common among higher-SES and female students, constructivist instruction is practiced more often among students of lower ability. Constructivist teaching is also more common in both higher-level science courses (i.e., chemistry) and lower-level courses (i.e., basic biology and physical science). The students of average social and academic status appear to be the forgotten majority with respect to constructivist instruction. We offer explanations for the findings and discuss implications for educational policy and social equity in high-school science.