Excerpt: The first challenge we face in this endeavor is to define two philosophies which provide the basis for most teaching practices: positivism and || constructivism. Next, we intend to familiarize teachers with the influences these philosophies have had on teacher education programs and the classroom. Our final task is to help teachers identify these philosophies within their own practice so they may determine whether or not their teaching style actually reflects their personal beliefs.

This paper is a report of a study conducted with preservice elementary teachers at the University of Wyoming during the summer of 1993. The study had two purposes: (1) to observe the effectiveness of using a constructivist approach in teaching mathematics to preservice elementary teachers, and (2) to focus on teaching probability using a constructivist approach. The study was conducted by one instructor in one class, The Theory of Arithmetic II, a required mathematics class for preservice elementary teachers.

Key words: educational methods, teacher education, concept formation, constructivist teaching, preservice teacher education, problem solving, classroom techniques, mathematical concepts, teacher education programs

Excerpt: Constructivist theory as developed by Piaget (1936/1952) and applied to teaching young children by Kamii (1985, 1989, 1994) and DeVries and Zan (1994) is also being applied to teacher education (Fosnot, 1989). It is based on the view that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals in interaction with the environment and with others. DeVries and Zan (1994) have found that constructivist teaching engages the learner’s interest, inspires active experimentation, and fosters cooperation. Teacher education programs whose goal is to teach teachers to facilitate children’s knowledge construction attempt to involve students in their own construction of knowledge rather than explain constructivism through lecture. Duckworth (1987) describes how she engages teacher education students with phenomena such as real objects, encourages them to wonder and question about the object, and then to explain to others the sense they are making while she tries to understand their sense. In addition, Kamii (1994) and DeVries and Zan (1994) emphasize having prospective teachers attempt to understand children’s understanding by observing and questioning them as they are involved in learning. Teachers are more likely to facilitate children’s construction of knowledge if they have reflected on what it means to construct knowledge. Teacher education programs can promote this understanding through projects such as moon watching as described in this paper. Just as the moon goes through phases of waning and waxing, teacher education students go through phas-es in their construction of knowledge of the moon and of constructivist teaching.

Excerpt: In the 1990s curriculum frameworks for school mathematics and teacher education programs have increasingly carried specific references to radical and other varieties of constructivism. One often hears expressions such as the “constructivist classroom” and the “constructivist teacher” (Bossé, 1995). But what do such expressions really mean? And, when such words flow from the Tips or pens of researchers, have the researchers thought about the implications of their utterances, both with respect to the research framework within which they are operating, and from the perspective of the teachers and schools with whom they are working?

Constructivism has emerged as a very powerful model for explaining how knowledge is produced in the world as well as how students learn. Moreover, constructivist teaching practices are becoming more prevalent in teacher education programs and public schools across the nation, while demonstrating significant success in promoting student learning. In this essay, the author takes a serious look at constructivist teaching practices highlighting both the promises and potential problems of these practices. The author argues that constructivist teaching has often been misinterpreted and misused, resulting in learning practices that neither challenge students nor address their needs. He outlines some of the ways in which constructivism has been misconstrued and analyzes several ways in which constructivist teaching has been misused. The author also presents two examples that illustrate the effective use of constructivist teaching and explains what makes them successful.

Key words: constructivism, teaching, learning, misuse, effective use.

Constructivism has become the reigning paradigm in teacher education in America today. More and more teacher education programs portray themselves as following a constructivist approach (Richardson, 1997), but there remains limited understanding among teachers and the public of the meaning of constructivism. Recently constructivism has come under attack from con-servative elements who view it as too focused on empowerment, and from educators who view it as soft on content (Baines and Stanley, 2000). A deeper understanding of constructivism and the role of content in constructivist teaching is needed by both teacher educators and K-12 teachers in order to fulfill the constructivist promise of improved student learning.

Constructivism is a popular concept in contemporary teacher education programs. However, a genuine concern arises with the concept’s application because many teachers and teacher educators claim that knowledge is constructed, without appreciating the epistemological and pedagogical implications such a claim entails. This article employs Phillips’ (1995) analytic framework that divides the pedagogical applications of constructivism into three distinct categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Reviewing the constructivist epistemologies of Dewey and Vygotsky also enables the exploration of how constructivism might inform both our understanding of the impediments students confront when learning new knowledge and our understanding of general constructivist pedagogical practices. The primary objective in this article is to provide teacher educators and teachers with a richer understanding of constructivism – its limitations and its strengths – while offering concrete pedagogical strategies for its classroom application.

The benefits of constructivist settings for students’ academic, affective and social growth have been widely documented, yet raditional teacher-centered classrooms that restrict students’ active involvement in the learning process have been far more prevalent than constructivist classrooms. As teaching behavior is frequently shaped by prior educational experiences, it is unrealistic to expect teachers to initiate constructivist settings in schools if their prior educational experiences, including teacher education programs, do not include constructivist-based experiences. For constructivist practices to emerge in schools, teacher education programs must use constructivist approaches to engage teacher candidates in interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative endeavors, fieldwork opportunities for experiential learning, self observation, evaluation, and reflection. Restructuring of teacher education programs evolves as teacher educators and teacher candidates engage in a learning cycle that brings together new initiatives in response to emerging needs and leads to mutual growth and development.

Teacher education programs must begin to foster in beginning teachers of all disciplines new images of collaboration, involvement, and inquiry – images of classroom environments where students of all cultures engage in interdisciplinary activities and construct knowledge rooted in their own personal experiences. The high number of language minority students who score below the national norm in mathematics and science and avoid careers in these areas underscores the fact that uncoordinated instruction has had negative ramifications on the academic success of these students. Collaboration between ESOL teachers and teachers of other subject areas is imperative. Teacher education programs must reevaluate current pedagogical orientations and reorganize to prepare teacher candidates of all disciplines for coordinated interdisciplinary education for all students. This article describes the evolution of a collaborative initiative involving undergraduate and graduate students in two teacher education programs at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. This collaboration, motivated by constructivist approaches, integrates language pedagogy and science instruction. It is based on the premise that if teachers are to collaborate in schools and create enhanced interdisciplinary classroom environments that better foster students’ linguistic and academic growth, they must experience such pedagogy in teacher education programs at the university.

Excerpt: Call for reform in our nation’s education system typically shifts public and legislative focus to student achievement and teacher productivity, with reform efforts driven by the popular paradigm of tightening curricula and increasing standards of expectation and measurement in K-12 schools (Clark & Austuto, 1994). What Clark and Austuto (1994) overlooked in this paradigm is the impact that pedagogy and building effective relationships between teachers and students might have on elevating student motivation and success. Perhaps we need look beyond K-12 programs and into the classrooms of university teacher education programs to discover a better focal point for educational reform.