This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 11:21Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Constructivist pedagogy in primaryclassrooms: Learning from teachersand their classroomsJulie Rainer Dangel a , Edi Guyton b & Christie Bowen McIntyreb

a Department of Early Childhood Education , Georgia StateUniversity , University Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA Phone:+1 404 651 2584 Fax: +1 404 651 2584 E-mail:b Department of Early Childhood Education , Georgia StateUniversity , University Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Julie Rainer Dangel , Edi Guyton & Christie Bowen McIntyre (2004)Constructivist pedagogy in primary classrooms: Learning from teachers and their classrooms,Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24:4, 237-245, DOI: 10.1080/1090102040240404

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102040240404

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

ELSEVIER Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245

Journal of £arly

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Constructivist pedagogy in primary classrooms: learningfrom teachers and their classrooms

Julie Rainer Dangel*, Edi Guyton, Christie Bowen McIntyre

Department of Early Childhood Education, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA

Accepted 20 December 2003

Abstract

In our graduate programs in early childhood education, we model constructivist practice in the belief thatteachers are better able to understand and implement constructivist principles having experienced them in theirwork. In this practice we attempt to be explicit about constructivist practice in our program and in elementaryclassrooms. As we examine and modify our constructivist pedagogy, one key question for teachers and ourselvesemerges: What does a classroom based on constructivist pedagogy look like in early childhood (K-2)? The goalof this research is a clearer understanding of constructivist pedagogy in the context of primary classrooms. Thestudy was designed using qualitative methods in order to understand the experiences in classrooms guided byconstructivist theory. The classroom participants are six teachers who graduated from a Master's degree programbased on constructivist principles. Analysis of the six classrooms indicated 24 key elements of constructivistclassrooms. A focused analysis of three constructivist teachers and their classroom supports these elements andindicates three broader characteristics: the important role of children, authentic and purposeful interactions amongclassroom participants, and engagement in academic activity. A vignette of a constructivist classroom is providedto present the essence of our findings while maintaining participants' views and voices.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Constructivist theory; Constructivist pedagogy; Elementary classroom practice

As primary schools and classrooms become increas-ingly complex, educators are searching for ways tomeet their students' varied needs. Traditional modelsand structures for teaching and learning are not al-ways working well for teachers or children. Construc-tivist theory offers an alternative to traditional trans-mission models. However, translating constructivisttheory into effective practice is difficult because of thenature of the theory, the diversity and complexity ofclassrooms, and the fact that constructivist teaching isnot a "monolithic, agreed upon concept" (Richardson,1997, p. 3). This is true for classroom teachers andteacher educators.

From a teacher educator perspective, our gradu-ate programs in early childhood education are guidedby principles of constructivist theory (Teets & Starnes,1996) suggesting that knowledge resides in the learner

* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 404 651 2584; fax: +1404 651 1495.

E-mail address: jdangel@gsu.edu (J.R. Dangel).

and that learning is a social activity enhanced by re-flection, metacognition and inquiry. We model con-structivist practice in the belief that teachers are betterable to understand and implement constructivist prin-ciples having experienced them in their work (Fosnot,1996; Putnan & Borko, 2000; Richardson, 1997). Inthis practice we attempt to be explicit about construc-tivist practice in our program and in elementary class-rooms. As we examine and modify our constructivistpedagogy, one key question for teachers and ourselvesemerges consistently: What does a classroom basedon constructivist pedagogy look like in early child-hood (K-2)? That is, what distinguishes a construc-tivist learning environment, and how can a teacher de-sign constructivist instruction?

1. Literature informing our work

Over many years, educators have defined con-structivist education and provided principles of con-

1090-1027/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jecte.2003.12.001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

238 J.R. Dangel et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245

structivist pedagogy and reflections on constructivistclassroom practice. Selley (1999) defined construc-tivist pedagogy as an "ideology that places empha-sis on the meaning and significance of what the childlearns, and the child's active participation in construct-ing this meaning" (p. 6). Howe and Berv (2000) ex-plored the relationship between constructivist learningtheory and pedagogy and suggest a "looseness of fit"(p. 30) between the views. They suggested that con-structivist pedagogy "incorporates two premises thatparallel those of constructivist learning theory: (a) in-struction must take as its starting point the knowledge,attitudes, and interests students bring to the learningsituation, and (b) instruction must be designed to pro-vide experiences that effectively interact with thesecharacteristics of students so that they may constructtheir own understanding" (p. 31). They also acknowl-edged the difficulty in applying constructivist learningtheory to instructional practice.

Recent attempts by educators to articulate princi-ples of constructivist pedagogy (Brooks & Brooks,1993; DeVries & Zan, 1994; Lambert et al., 1995;Marlowe & Page, 1998; Teets & Starnes, 1996)suggested theoretical frameworks for practitioners.Teachers writing about their practice (Oyler, 1996;Poduska, 1996; Seabrook, 1997; Strachata, 1996)provided insightful descriptions of their classroomsand reflections on their practice. Theoretical frame-works and insightful descriptions offer guidance forresearchers and teachers, but what is lacking is re-search by teacher educators and classroom teachers toinvestigate systematically constructivist pedagogy andlearning environments, particularly in primary class-rooms.

Several authors suggest different ways of viewingconstructivist classrooms. Wilson (1996) defined con-structivist learning environments as "a place wherelearners may work together and support each other asthey use a variety of tools and information resourcesin the guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving activities" (p. 5). He suggested analysis thatfocuses on the constituent parts or key componentsof typical learning environments. Marlowe and Page(1998) identified core components of constructivistclassrooms. They included the language used in theclassroom and the classroom communication system,student and teacher roles, classroom management, thephysical environment, student choice, how studentsinteract with content, and assessing student learning.They suggested a continuum of practice within eachof these components. Windschitl (1999) suggested weview constructivist classrooms as a culture, "a set ofbeliefs, norms and practices that constitute the fab-ric of school life" (p. 752). This culture, in turn, in-fluences interactions, relationships and experiences.DeVries and Zan (1994) also provided an in-depth

discussion of constructivist classrooms based on theirresearch in kindergarten classrooms. They argued thatimplementing constructivist education involves morethan activities, materials and classroom organizationand suggested that a sociomoral atmosphere ("the net-work of interpersonal relations that make up a child'sexperience of school," p. 22) supports and promoteschildren's development. They described constructivistclassrooms in terms of: (a) the organization, includingmeeting children's needs, encouraging peer interac-tion and facilitating children taking responsibility; (b)activities, including engaging children's interest, en-couraging active experimentation, and fostering coop-eration; and (c) the teacher's roles and relationshipswith children, including facilitating children's con-structions, fostering cooperation and interpersonal un-derstanding, and promoting moral values. This varietyof views in the literature provided us with questions toconsider and a beginning point for our study.

2. Methodology

The goal of this research was a clearer understand-ing of constructivist pedagogy in the context of pri-mary classrooms. The study was designed using qual-itative methods in order to understand the rich andcomplex experiences of classroom life. The classroomparticipants were six teachers who were successful ina Master's degree program (1 in 1996, 2 in 1997 and3 in 1998) based on constructivist principles. The fac-ulty rated each of the teachers as successful on all fiveprogram dimensions related to constructivist theory.They were purposefully chosen to represent differentgrade levels (2 of each K, 1 and 2), three diverse schoolsystems, and varied years of experience (mean is 8.5years). Two researchers participated in the study ina role described by Wolcot (1988) as privileged ob-servers, "someone who is known and trusted and giveneasy access to information" (p. 35). We are grateful tothese teachers for talking to us openly and at lengthabout their practice.

Data collection included demographic data on theteachers, classroom observations, formal interviewsand a survey of teachers' beliefs. A formal, full-dayobservation was made in each of the six classrooms.We used the five categories (physical, social, linguis-tic, intellectual, and curriculum environment of con-structivist classrooms) from the Constructivist EarlyChildhood Classroom Evaluation (DeVries, Edmias-ton, Fitzgerald, & Zan, 1998) to focus our observa-tions. Spradley (1980) termed the use of categoriessuch as these as "thinking units" (p. 143). Teach-ers were interviewed (audio-taped) after the observa-tion to document their conceptions of constructivisttheory and practice and clarify ideas based on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

J.R. Dangel et al /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245 239

observations. Two questions focused the teachers' talkon their ideas about constructivist teaching and learn-ing and how they saw teaching and learning in theirclassroom as constructivist. Two other questions weremore specific to the classroom environment and peda-gogical practices. Finally, teachers were encouraged totalk about their role as teacher and the roles that chil-dren might take. Teachers also completed a TeacherBeliefs Survey (Wooley & Wooley, 1999) to identifyteachers' beliefs about teaching related to construc-tivist and behaviorist paradigms of learning. To honorour ethical obligations to teachers who open theirclassrooms to us, we have used pseudonyms through-out the paper.

In the process of organizing and structuring thedata gathered from the observations, interviews andsurveys, we used several analytic methods includingdeveloping constructs, writing analytic memos, anddefining conceptual schemes. Writing vignettes (Ely,1991) of the six classrooms proved helpful in viewingthe commonalities among classrooms. Member check-ing and peer debriefing were important in maintainingcredibility. Analysis moved from general to specificand descriptive to interpretive, with each precedinglevel retained and incorporated into a more compre-hensive analysis. This combination of levels and strate-gies allowed us to synthesize categories while keepingthe richness of the classrooms. The authors enhancedtrustworthiness through triangulation of data, peer de-briefing, member checking and the constant compari-son method of data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).The strength of this study is what Rubin and Rubin(1995) described as "conversational partnerships" (p.93) with individuals who feel comfortable talking tous openly and in depth. The potential limitation of thisstudy is the lack of prolonged engagement.

2.1. Findings

We found teachers and classrooms rich with avariety of ideas and practices. Having data from sixteachers, at three grade levels, in classrooms in threediverse districts provided a variety of possibilitiesfor analysis. Our focus in this study was specific, to

Table 1Teachers beliefs survey

describe constructivist pedagogy in primary (K-2)classrooms. In a post-field analysis of all data, were-created descriptions of the classrooms. From ananalysis of these descriptions and teacher interviews,commonalities among the constructivist classroomsemerged. At a more integrative level, three themesemerged to inform our findings. In a third level ofanalysis, we reconstructed a vignette to connect eachlevel of data. Each of these is described in this section.

In interviews, each of the six teachers consideredthemselves as applying principles of constructivist the-ory to their work in classrooms. Excerpts from inter-views are included in the findings as examples of theirbeliefs about and application of constructivist theory.All classrooms met the criteria for constructivist ed-ucation (interest, experimentation, and cooperation)as defined by DeVries, Zan, Hildebrandt, Edmiaston,and Sales (2002). Examining the results of the Teach-ers' Beliefs Survey (Wooley & Wooley, 1999), all sixteachers scored at or above the mean on construc-tivist teaching and constructivist work with parents.All six teachers scored high (66% or higher) on theconstructivist teaching scale, and all but one of the sixscored in the high range on beliefs about constructivistwork with parents. All six teachers scored in the mid-dle range (33-66%) on the behaviorist teaching andmanagement scales. Their beliefs about constructivistteaching were strong with less (but still recognizable)strength attributed to behaviorist teaching and man-agement (see Table 1).

2.2. Commonalities in constructivist practice

We observed a variety of constructivist practicesas suggested by current authors (DeVries et al., 2002;Marlowe&Page, 1998; Windschitl, 1999). Analysis ofthe observational and interview data indicated 24 keyelements common to the six constructivist classrooms.We categorized them in the five areas used to focus ourobservations: physical, social, linguistic, intellectualand curriculum (Table 2). These elements representedwhat we as researchers observed and teachers identi-fied as important in constructivist classrooms. Taken

Teacher

DiedreDarleneEvelynCarlaKarenSadie

Behaviorist management(r=48,m = 24.42)

28 (59%)22 (46%)22 (46%)18.5(39%)31 (65%)25 (52%)

Behaviorist teaching(f = 48, m = 22.67)

28 (59%)17 (36%)17 (36%)32 (66%)26 (54%)16 (33%)

Constructivist teaching(f=42,m = 33.5)

28 (66%)34(81%)35 (83%)34(81%)33 (78%)38 (90%)

Constructivist parents(r=24,m = 20)

14 (58%)20 (83%)21 (88%)23 (96%)20 (83%)23 (96%)

Note, t is the total number of points possible in each category; m is the mean of each category.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

240 J.R. Dangel et al /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245

Table 2Common elements in constructivist classrooms

Physical environment• access and use of materials by children• children's and teachers ownership of environment• intentional thought about materials and how they relate

to learning• logic or coherence to environment/materials• loosely-defined spaces that have alternative uses• child-centered transitions

Social environment• children's responsibility for classroom, instruction,

schedule, routines• children have structured and spontaneous opportunities

for decision making• teachers are truly engaged with children during

interactions• self and community management• explicit opportunities for acknowledging respect, caring,

conflict, negative emotions

Linguistic environment• informal conversations rather than question and answer• purposeful talk that is related to work• real questions and real interest in answers• initiation of ideas from children• encouragement of peer interactions

Intellectual• project work develops layers of content knowledge and

allows different levels of engagement and interaction• challenges errors and acknowledges them as

opportunities• clear encouragement of self-assessment• variety of groupings for instruction

Curriculum• children encouraged to see connections in learning• balance of activity growing out of children's experience• large periods of work time• variety and choice of instructional activities

separately or at face-value, the elements were neitherunique to any theory nor representative of the rich-ness of the classrooms. Looked at holistically, theysuggested a framework for constructivist classroomsand important points for reflection and dialogue aboutconstructivist pedagogy. They intrigued us as educa-tors and pushed us to a deeper level of analysis asresearchers.

2.3. Recurring themes

A second and more integrative level of analysis ofthe data supported these elements and indicated threethemes that cut across all five areas: the important roleof children in their learning, authentic and purpose-

ful interactions among classroom participants, and en-gagement in academic activity.

2.3.1. The important role of children in learningThe important role of children in classroom life

and their learning was evident in our observations ofthe physical, social, linguistic and intellectual envi-ronment of the constructivist classrooms. The childrenreferred to the classroom as "our classroom." It was ar-ranged, with children's help, to meet their needs andestablish shared purposes for the areas. Their work(both individual and collective) was prominent andoften used as a reference. The language of the class-room was both respectful and encouraging of chil-dren's ideas and feelings. Children's talk was valuedand opportunities to collaborate were provided and en-couraged. Sharing responsibility with children was an-other example of the important role of the child. Chil-dren had opportunities for self-direction and participa-tion in decisions regarding curriculum, the classroomenvironment and management.

In our interviews with each teacher, they expressedtheir views of the importance of children and providedexamples of how this characteristic lived in their class-rooms. Eva, a first grade teacher, began our conversa-tion by saying "I am not teaching specific skills; I amteaching children." She talked about her first gradersas "key players" in all aspects of their classroom. Shedescribed how they began. "They (children) began theyear by participating in constructing the physical envi-ronment, creating their calendar, and generating classrules in the form of promises for working with eachother." For example, "at the beginning of the year, wetalked about what makes a good teacher, what makesa good student, and then what we needed to makeour classroom work for us." She believed this processhelped to guide the children's choices of behavior andacademic work.

Eva also believed children were capable of creatingtheir own knowledge. She stated, "Integrated, flexible,and open-ended projects and centers can be plannedand implemented with the children's help and basedon their interests." She described a study of arctic ar-eas that began with polar animals and led to creating atoy museum after several children wrote about Santa'sworkshop at the North Pole. Centers ranged from globework to measurement of the temperatures of ice. Shefound center work was one way to meet children'sindividual needs and interests while encouraging col-laboration.

2.3.2. Authentic and purposeful interactionsamong participants

Our observations indicated that authentic and pur-poseful interactions among classroom participants,teacher-child and child-child, were another charac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

J.R. Dangel et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245 241

teristic of these constructivist classrooms. Teachersand children in these six classrooms created a class-room community based on norms or "promises" for in-teractions that they negotiated together. These normsencouraged communication including sharing ideas,opinions and questions, and working out conflicts. Lis-tening with genuine interest was evident in formal andinformal interactions. Structures such as class meet-ings and portfolio conferences provided formal op-portunities for interaction. Peer interactions continuedthroughout the day with more informal activities, suchas centers, project work and "game day." In all theclasses, music was observed to be a powerful formof communication and parents were involved in eachclassroom community.

In interviews with the teachers, they shared theirbeliefs about the potential of interactions and how theyencouraged those conversations. Deb, a second gradeteacher, believed that "if learning is social, then shar-ing among children is critical and [her] role is to facili-tate those opportunities." She accomplished this by us-ing tables rather than desks, setting up class meetings,and planning cooperative activities. In these settings,children were encouraged to share ideas, solve prob-lems, and make decisions together. Eva (first gradeteacher) believed the children's work in centers pro-vided meaningful interactions. For example, "TodayI had a poinsettia with a magnifying glass available,and a paraprofessional discussed the children's obser-vations with them." As the children wrote and illus-trated their ideas, she added vocabulary and suggestedthey read The Legend of the Poinsettia. In our analy-sis, this was an example of one connection betweenpurposeful interactions and collaborative engagementin academic activities.

2.3.3. Collaborative engagement in academicactivities

Our observations indicated that teachers and chil-dren were actively engaged in academic activities inconstructivist classrooms, with curriculum playing asignificant and interactive role, what Palmer (1998)described in his "representation of knowing" (p. 101).The curriculum was built on children's interests andexperiences; and whenever possible, these includedshared experiences such as field trips and playgroundexperiences. Curriculum was negotiated collabora-tively within the confines of county curriculum re-quirements. Children were allowed choices about howand when to engage in their work. Teachers' roles in-cluded communicating objectives, providing opportu-nities and authentic resources, encouraging thinkingand helping children make connections. Children par-ticipated in planning and managing their learning andbehavior within given school and county requirements.Teachers and children shared roles and ownership of

the learning. The children were serious about the im-portance of their work.

In interviews, teachers described many strategies toengage children in academic work. In Sadie's kinder-garten class, children researched the habitats of thebirds they chose to investigate. In Eva's first gradeclass, children planned and constructed their toy mu-seum classifying the toys according to how they move.Children in this class also initiated a study of Spanish-speaking countries. In Deb's second grade classroom,children planned their work using a Know - Want toknow more - How to learn it - Learned (KWHL) chartthat served as a planning document and a record oftheir ideas and accomplishments. This emphasis onshared academic work could be significant, given theoften-made criticism of constructivist pedagogy as anon-academic approach.

While we described each of the above themes sep-arately, they were interwoven in the classroom settingand linked by defining concepts (concepts that help de-fine and clarify a category). For example, in each cate-gory, teacher guidance, child talk and children's rolesin decision making were defining concepts. While weseparated these ideas for discussion and emphasis, theyare intertwined, as you will read in the following vi-gnette.

2.4. A vignette of a constructivist classroom

From our third and more interpretive level of anal-ysis, we created a vignette or an "inferred soliloquy"(Ely, 1991, p. 153) based on the analysis of observa-tions and interviews. A vignette represents ideas thatare considered central to the findings. The intentionis to present, in composite, the essence of our find-ings, while also maintaining "meaning, cohesion andcolor" (p. 154). While vignettes are distilled from alldata, the participants' ideas are preserved whereverpossible and presented in the present tense.

Sadie is a kindergarten teacher in an affluent schoolin a large, fast growing system. There are 22 childrenin her class, 8 representing minorities. Today is a rainyFriday in early December. I arrive early and am greetedby a giant pink flamingo on the classroom door (anunusual sight given the array of snowy, holiday sceneson the other doors).

Sadie describes "constructivist views of teachingand learning as providing a foundation for her peda-gogy and a rationale for designing opportunities forchildren to take as much responsibility for learningas appropriate," and she suggests, "in the process, shelearns more herself." She identifies her "goal for thechildren as autonomy" and states, "I provide as manyopportunities as possible for them to take initiative,make decisions, and follow through with work," Shebelieves that her "children are very capable." This is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

242 J.R. Dangel et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245

evidenced in the important role of children in class-room life, the purposeful interactions, and collabora-tive engagement in academic activity.

A first look at the physical environment of theclassroom indicates the importance of the children.The space, furnishings, materials and their arrange-ment are designed for usefulness and accessibility bythe children. Sadie shared that "the children helpedcreate the classroom space at the beginning of theyear. They created personal and community space."There is also a lived-in (what some would considermessy with an order that works) look indicating thatthe areas are frequented and the materials are wellloved, including Snuggles the Guinea Pig. You seecommercial materials, such as books, paints, puzzles,games, and blocks. However, many of the materialsare non-traditional. For example, children collect ma-terials such as bird nests, feathers, reference books andpaper towel rolls used to create binoculars to supporttheir current study of birds. Children's individual workand class work are displayed for easy reference. Theseinclude discussions recorded by class (such as top-ics of study for year) and children's representationalwork.

The responsibility given and taken by the childrenand the interactions best exemplify the social environ-ment. The class schedule is flexible, with long blocksof uninterrupted time, allowing for spontaneity and in-teractions of the children. Sadie is proud of the classrules or "promises" which originated with the childrenearly in the school year and are signed and posted foreasy reference. Children handle all routines such as at-tendance, lunch count, cleaning, and "pack and stack"when its time to go home. They are responsible for in-structional time; for example, during calendar time onechild leads the others, while Sadie moves to the backof the group in the role of a participant. Children alsonegotiate their work in a daily planning time. Classand individual projects add to their decision-makingopportunities. Opportunities to work together, such asproject work and cooperative games, encourage peerinteraction. Children are responsible for each other,from helping with projects, to comforting a child dur-ing a sad moment. In Sadie's role, she encourages themto help each other with tasks and with conflicts to re-solve. She confides, "Conflicts are opportunities forchildren to practice their skills." When a child is upset,Sadie acknowledges that he/she is mad and that feel-ings are okay when communicated respectfully. Thereare loving and demanding moments. Sadie is alwayswarm and respectful of the children. She is carefulto explain "why and how" she does things. The pas-sionate engagement of Sadie and her children camethrough in music. As she plays the guitar, every childsings full-voice, and from the heart, the songs theyhave come to know as a class.

Standing back and looking, you see an active butcalm classroom. Sadie says she prefers a "low noiselevel" but this does not exclude conversation. Commu-nication is an integral component of this classroom.Communication is conversation-like rather than thequestions-answer tradition. There are more peer in-teractions than teacher-child interactions. Sadie saysshe encourages peer interactions "more by providingopportunities to work together than by her words." Peerinteractions are task-oriented, purposeful and func-tional, for example, how to play a game or put to-gether a pair of binoculars. Sharing personal experi-ences occurs more during lunch and recess together.Sadie believes "teacher interactions should encourageand extend children's thinking." She sits with the chil-dren during work time and is genuinely engaged inconversation with them. She encourages children toextend their thinking and attend to details. She oftenasks questions like "How can we figure that out?" and"How could you add to that?" From there, childrentake over. Today they discuss ways to create the colorsthey need to paint the various birds they researchedearlier in the week. Sadie also encourages responsiblebehaviors (for example, sitting while you are painting)and reminds children of ongoing work.

Sadie describes constructivist teaching as "chal-lenging as well as nurturing children." Because shebelieves in the children, she feels she "pushes themacademically; they push each other; and she and thechildren learn more." This is a productive, intellectu-ally challenging classroom. Time for children to workin small groups encompasses most of the day. The longblocks of work time allow the children to work deeplyand finish projects. Large group times provide oppor-tunities for curriculum planning, music and stories.Quiet time is dedicated to reading and journal writingas morning work time ends.

The curriculum during this observation is a child-initiated study of birds. It is one of four units of studychosen by the children. They will also engage in twotopics required by the county. Content areas are inte-grated within this unit with a heavy emphasis on sci-ence, art, language and music. Today, many childrenare researching the distinguishing marking of variousbirds, so that they could accurately paint their papiermache models. Others are constructing binoculars touse in the birdwatching excursion they have planned.Most activities are self-directed. However, you do seetraditional activities interspersed when small time seg-ments need to be filled. For example, a "D is for duck"cut and paste activity is interjected during a 20-minlull before outside time to fulfill a grade-level require-ment. Several layers of content and different levels ofengagement are evident during work time.

Children's ideas are formally acknowledged, dis-cussed each morning, implemented during the day, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

J.R. Dangel et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245 243

reflected on in the afternoon. They begin the day witha planning session, where they discuss their plans andreflect on their progress. Today, some children describetheir plans to finish painting their birds, while othersplan to construct their binoculars. The day ends witha brief class meeting where the children share compli-ments with each other and reflect on their accomplish-ments during the day.

Assessment strategies emerge from the children'swork. Sadie thinks children's ideas form the basisfor assessment. Assessment is ongoing and anecdo-tal, with checklists, conferences and portfolios to help.Errors are challenged respectfully. Sadie views themas "opportunities for presenting children with anotherviewpoint." Sadie says, "My goal is to involve the chil-dren more in assessment in the future."

3. Conclusions and significance

Our observations and interviews provide a glimpseinto teachers' and children's work in real class-rooms. Watching and listening to teachers and theirchildren, then looking at them as a whole pro-vides underlying commonalties. These findings sug-gest important constructs to consider in constructivisteducation:

• respectful relationships;• real conversations and purposeful talking;• intellectual engagement; and• shared ownership and responsibility in behavior,

learning and the classroom environment.

Interestingly, these constructs are also those that arereported in the literature on learning communities(Oyler, 1996; Peterson, 1992;Sergiovanni, 1994). Thispotential connection to learning communities wouldbe important to pursue in future work. We recommendfurther study that includes prolonged engagement withteachers in their classrooms, a case study or ethnogra-phy of constructivist classrooms. We also encourageresearchers to push the boundaries beyond the class-room walls to include the context of schooling as animportant next step.

The value of our work can be considered in thecontext of the existing literature. We observed a va-riety of constructivist dimensions suggested by Mar-lowe and Page (1996). We observed what Kohn (1996)describes as "working with" classrooms as opposed to"doing to" classrooms. We confirmed Oldfather's find-ings (1992) relating to self-expression, honored voice,and sharing wonderful ideas. We found examples con-sistent with Windschitl (1999) and DeVries and Ed-miaston (1998) that suggest research must look be-yond discrete practices (or elements) associated with

constructivism (hands-on experience, performance as-sessments, cooperative learning) and examine the fun-damental norms of classrooms, that is, the beliefsteachers hold about teaching and children, the kindsof discourse encouraged in the classroom, the way au-thority and decision making are controlled, and whatcounts as learning.

These ideas help provide an image of what is pos-sible in constructivist classrooms. All six participantsare good teachers; all six teachers share characteris-tics of developmentally appropriate classrooms, suchas respect for children, motivating and engaging ac-tivities, and effective management. However, our ob-servations and conversations with these teachers pro-vide a clearer picture for other teachers who want touse constructivist approaches in their K-2 classrooms.Somewhat frustrating but not surprising, we can de-scribe constructivist classrooms, and yet cannot spec-ify or prescribe exactly what such a place should lookand sound like. This is consistent with Richardson'sview (1997) that constructivist theory is a descrip-tive rather than prescriptive theory of learning. Ourfindings present only a framework of ideas as a be-ginning point to guide teachers' practice and an op-portunity to "add layers of dialogue about real class-room experiences" as suggested by Windschitl (1999,p. 752).

This framework also has the potential to inform re-search on developing teacher evaluation instrumentsbased on constructivist theory (for example, see Stork& Engel, 1999). "A critical responsibility we havein the change process is knowing how to 'look at'our students' teaching during their field placements"(Dittmer, Fischetti, & Kyle, 1993, p. 41). Another ob-server in a constructivist classroom would note dif-ferent norms, discourses, and changes in the role ofthe teacher. Rather than evaluating how efficiently theteacher disseminated content knowledge, the observermight comment on how the teacher facilitates educa-tive moments in the classroom where children are con-structing an understanding of concepts. As teacher ed-ucators begin to identify guidelines or principles ofconstructivist practice, they can explore the applica-tion of these to assessment instruments for pre-serviceand in-service teachers.

The three constructs evolving from this study areconsistent with the guidelines created by others seek-ing to evaluate constructivist teaching. The importantrole of children is evident in Stork and Engel's rubricunder the following criterion: "teacher incorporatesnew directions for instruction in response to studentvariation and responses; opportunities are providedfor a variety of child-initiated projects; children areprovided a choice" (1999, pp. 23-27). Authentic andpurposeful interactions among classroom participantsare addressed by Kyle et al. as guiding principles: "ere-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

244 J.R. Dangel et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245

ating a classroom community, emphasizing coopera-tion; establishing classroom rules that stress studentchoice, responsibility, roles, and power; helping chil-dren value the unique individuality of each child inthe classroom" (1993, p. 41). The final construct, be-ing actively and collaboratively engaged in academicactivities, also resonates with Stork and Engel's crite-rion: "activities are presented so as not to predisposechildren to externally imposed goals; the teacher con-siders children's interests and experiences when de-signing learning situations; activities allow transfer oflearning to new contexts" (1999, p. 27). A continueddialogue among constructivist teacher educators andteachers will be important as we continue to pursueinquiry into constructivist classrooms.

Our findings also have relevance for school re-form and teacher education. Advocates for construc-tivist models of teacher education (Rainer & Guyton,1998; Richardson, 1997) suggest these same ideasfor teacher education programs. Those who work inschool reform (Glickman, 1998; Sergiovanni, 1994)make similar recommendations for teacher devel-opment and K-12 classrooms. Respectful relation-ships, purposeful communication, intellectual engage-ment, and shared ownership have relevance for alllearning.

References

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of under-standing: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexan-dria, VA: ASCD.

DeVries, R., & Edmiaston, R. (1998). Misconceptionsabout constructivist education. The Constructivist, 13(1),12-18.

DeVries, R., Edmiaston, R., Fitzgerald, L., & Zan, B. (1998).Regents' center classroom observation instrument. Un-published manuscript.

DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moralchildren: Creating a constructivist atmosphere in earlyeducation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

DeVries, R., Zan, B., Hildebrandt, C , Edmiaston, R., &Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist early child-hood curriculum: Practical principles and activities.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dittmer, A., Fischetti, J., & Kyle, D. (1993). Constructivistteaching and student empowerment: Educational equitythrough school reform. Equity and Excellence in Educa-tion, 26(1), 40-45.

Duckworth, E. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning fromeach other. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ely, M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles withincircles. London, UK: Falmer Press.

Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectivesand practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. (1998). Revolutionizing America's schools. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Howe, K., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing constructivism,epistemological and pedagogical. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.),Constructivism in Education (pp. 19-40). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educa-tional Leadership, 53(6), 54-55.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gard-ner, M. E., & Slack, P. J. F. (1995). The constructivistleader. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustain-ing the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.

Oldfather, P. (1992, December). Sharing the ownership ofknowing: A constructivist concept of motivation for liter-acy learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place: Making a learn-ing community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Poduska, K. (1996). To give my students wings. In L. Beyer(Ed.), Creating democratic classrooms. New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Putnan, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowl-edge and thinking have to say about research on teacherlearning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Rainer, J., & Guyton, E. (1998, April). Teacher change: Thestrategies and effects of a constructivist teacher educa-tion program. Paper presented at American EducationalResearch Association, San Diego, CA.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education.London, UK: Falmer.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: Theart of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions.

Seabrook, G. (1997). A teacher learns in the context of asocial studies workshop. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, &E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on theirown classroom practice (pp. 165-179). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Educational Review.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Strachata, B. (1996). On their side. Greenfield, MA: North-east Foundation for Children.

Selley, N. (1999). The art of constructivist teaching in theprimary school. London, UK: David Fulton.

Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Building community in schools. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stork, S., & Engel, S. (1999). So, what is constructivist teach-ing: A rubric for evaluation. Dimensions of Early Child-hood, 27(1), 20-27.

Teets, S., & Starnes, B. (1996). Foxfire: Constructivism forteachers and learners. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2),331-339.

Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a con-structivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10),751-755.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4

J.R. Dangel et at /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 237-245 245

Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments. En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publica-tions.

Wolcott, H. (1988). Writing up qualitative research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Wooley, S., & Wooley, A. (1999, April). Student teachers'beliefs related to behaviorist and constructivist theoriesof learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Education Research Association, Montreal,CAN.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:21

08

Oct

ober

201

4