This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 07 October 2014, At: 12:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Preservice Teachers Construct a View onTeaching and Learning StylesWilliam J. Pankratius aa University of Nevada , Las Vegas , USAPublished online: 06 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: William J. Pankratius (1997) Preservice Teachers Construct a View on Teachingand Learning Styles, Action in Teacher Education, 18:4, 68-76, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.1997.10463365

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1997.10463365

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 whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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

Acrion in Teacher Educaion Winter 1997, Vol. XVIII, No. 4, pp. 68-76

Preservice Teachers Construct A View on Teaching and Learning Styles

William J. Pankratius University of Nevada, LQS Vegas

Abstract

Preservice teachers comtruct a view on teaching and learning styles through group activities with similar personality types as established by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1989). Findings indicate that: (a) the grouping process was a signijkant learning experience for all students, and a critical high incident for most; (b) the students gained a greater awareness of differences in learning styles; (c) some saw cooperative learning in a new light; and (d) students critically examined their assumptions, values, and beliefs about teaching and learning styles.

Preservice teacher candidates come to teacher education programs with well-established teacher role identities (Crow, 1987), strong convictions about teaching and intentions on how to teach (Clark, 1988). Their beliefs about effective teaching, teaching styles and learning styles can be strongly held and appear to be resistant to change (Goodlad, 1990). Book, Byers, and Freeman argue that prior knowledge is a key reason “many candidates come to formal teacher preparation believing that they have little to learn” (cited in Lanier & Little, 1984, p. 542). A teacher education program that exposes students to an experience in learning styles and subjects their prior knowledge to the light of critical inquiry may result in the restructuring of attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning styles. This assumption became the driving force behind this inquiry. The author investigated the consequences of grouping preservice teachers, enrolled in an introductory course, according to their Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorTM (MBTI) personality type. This resulted in an inquiry into the consequence of the grouping process and the changes that transpired in their assumptions, values, and beliefs about teaching and learning styles.

Constructivist learning principles that significantly influence the teaching and learning process grounded the study and this process. Ernst von Glasersfeld (1988, p. 8) asserts two main “principles for constructivism: (a) knowledge is not passively received, but actively built up by the cognizing subject, and (b) the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality. ”

The participants in this study, preservice teacher candidates, were assumed to have constructed, and were reconstructing, knowledge about teaching in order to make sense of their “experiential world.” Since “. . . the constructive process is subject to social influences” (Confrey, 1990, p. 110) it was further assumed that they did so within a social environment. The use of Saunders’s (1992) constructivist instructional strategies, identified as hands-on investigations, active cognitive development, group work, and higher-level assessment supported the course curriculum. The teacher candidates were encouraged to examine and evaluate their assumptions, values, attitudes, and beliefs about teaching. They were actively involved in constructing their

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

positions on teaching and learning styles in order to make sense of their own experience and education.

Method

Context

Teacher candidates’ preconceptions about teaching was the focus of this 15-week, three credit course, Perspectives on Secondary Education. They entered the 36 credit secondary program as juniors, having completed the majority of their content specialization prior to pursuing teacher education. Activities and strategies designed to “promote the development of more powerful and effective constructions” (Confrey, 1990, p. 1 1 1) constituted the enabling tactics. A number of early student-centered activities provided vital pre-existing knowledge. An open-ended questionnaire revealed students’ beliefs on what constitutes good teaching, on what qualities are needed for teaching, and on how learning occurs. Concept maps of teaching exposed the important branches and concepts of students’ knowledge bases about teaching. Early, structured interviews permitted probes into these areas. As the MBTI was administered, a robust case study of each student was being constructed.

ParticiDantS

The class consisted of 10 males and 12 females. One student was African American, three were Hispanic American, and the rest were Anglo American. Half were under 25 years of age. Their backgrounds were evenly divided between urban and rural or small town. Five had a teacher in their family. Five possessed a bachelor’s degree. Eight students were seeking an English license and seven desired a mathematics license. Several of the mathematics majors wanted to teach business, history or physical education, but the prospects for employment in these fields were slim. Six wished to teach communications, science, or history. One sought a license in art.

They want to teach because they enjoy helping others (75%), believe their subject was important (60%), want their summers off (25%), or can work while their child went to school (20%). Two sought to improve the quality of education and to change schools. Teaching was not the final goal for eight students. Eleven held down a full-time job while enrolled in preservice coursework.

Data Sources

Confrey (1990) asserted, with respect to mathematics instruction, that ”teachers must build models of students’ understanding of mathematics” (p. 112). She continued, “the result will be that a teacher creates a ‘case study’ of each student.” Preservice teacher candidates “already hold a range of attitudes, perceptions, conceptions, and abilities in relation to teaching and learning” (Baird, 1989, p. 9). They bring with them a deeply ingrained awareness of the processes of teaching. Their models of this understanding are detected by uncovering their prior knowledge, attitudes, values, and beliefs about teaching. Questionnaires, early microteaching lessons, concept maps of teaching, reflective papers, student learning journals, and interviews supported and helped to elaborate the rudimentary models. Thus a case study was built up for each teacher candidate enrolled in the course. Since “data collection and analysis is a simultaneous activity in qualitative research” (Merriam, 1988, p. 119), the general study of the class revealed a rich source of thought, change, and critical incidents in the grouping of the students. The learning journals,

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

reflective papers, critical incident reporting, informal assessments, investigator’s notes, interviews, and course evaluations were the primary source of data for this study.

Instrume ntation

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), patterned after Jung’s personality types, “was painstakingly developed over a 20-year period. . . and can identify 16 [personality] types or 16 approaches to learning (Jensen, 1987, pp. 181-182).” Barrett (1991, p. 9) found that these styles “have a positive relationship to a number of important teaching effectiveness competencies. ” Mertz and McNeely (1992, p. 11) assert that the MBTI serves to “access the constructs” students hold and the “ways in which they think about teaching.” The MBTI generated an outside-in look at how learners receive and transmit information. The grouping by styles then became an inside-out look for the learners as they progressed through the course. The MBTI measured individual preferences along four separate continua that describe (after Tieger & Barron-Tieger, 1992, p. 14): (a) our interaction with the world, extroversion (E) vs. introversion (I); (b) the kind of information we notice, sensing (S) vs. intuitive (N); how we make decisions feeling (F) vs. thinking (T); and, (d) our preference for structure and spontaneity perceiving (P) vs. judging (J).

The resulting sixteen types can be grouped under four temperaments (NT, NF, SP, SJ) (Keirsey & Bates, 1978; Tieger & Barron-Tieger, 1992). Kroeger and Thuesen (1988, p. 50) affirm, “the two-letter temperament helps us predict such things as how people teach, learn, lead others. . . and relate to others.” To reiterate: NT =Intuitive/Thinking, NF =Intuiting/Feeling, SP = Sensing/Perceiving , SJ = Sensing/Judging .

Questions have been raised over the validity and usefulness of the MBTI (Cooper & Miller, 1991; Garden, 1991; Pittenger, 1993). Pittenger, in a unified view of validation, concluded, “there is no convincing evidence to justify that knowledge of NBTr] type is a reliable or valid predictor of important behavioral conditions (p. 483). However, he continues, “there is ample evidence reviewed above that segments of the test can be used to make general predictions (p. 483).” In particular, he contends, “the data are equivocal, concerning the relation between cognitive style and the MBTI scales (p. 477).” In this particular study, the MBTI was used to establish general styles (temperaments), group the students according to those styles and examine the results. The MBTI was not used to predict or define behavior.

Other models of learning style have not been rejected for this study. Some are covered in methods courses that students take after this introductory course. In agreement with Hunt (1987, p. 39) that “most practitioners are overwhelmed and confused by these complex [learning style] schemes,” this course kept styles simple. Kiersey in 1968 found “more than 128 types of abilities and attitudes” related to learning styles.

The MBTI, form G, was administered the first week of the course. The students were then grouped according to their temperament. This resulted in six groups for the class; four groups had four members of like styles and two groups had three members.

The students remained in this configuration for six weeks as the class studied issues facing secondary school teachers. The activities consisted of scenarios, case studies, and issues analysis. Learning tactics consisted primarily of cooperative group work, seeking consensus, with whole class discussion of group findings.

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Analvsis of DaQ

Information related to the study was extracted from the primary sources. That is, all the entries in the students’ journals, critical incident reports, reflective papers, or other data sources, that referred to the MBTI process, teaching or learning styles, or class significance were entered into Data Collector, a program that “enables educators, researchers, and students to organize and analyze qualitative data” (Turner & Handler, 1991, p. v). The entries were kept to single idea paragraphs; however, all data relating to the MBTI process, teaching or learning styles, was entered. This investigator then used a constant comparative method to analyze the data, using Data Collector. Passages were coded as to the reference (i.e., “critical incident, high”, “learning styles comprehension”). The coding of these data led to several general themes and finally four findings that were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. By a “preponderance of the evidence” it is meant that sources supporting the findings predominated and there were no sources that refuted or contradicted the findings.

Narrative of an Activity

The first activity conducted under the grouping scheme was a scenario that required the students to select a teacher of the year from three finalists. The students were presented with short written vignettes of each finalist. The teachers could be described as traditional, facilitating, and constructivist; however, they were not labeled as such. Group discussion guidelines were not provided; the groups were encouraged to reach consensus. The following description is taken from the investigator’s notes as well as the students’ learning journals.

I was amazed at their animated interactions as I circulated among them. The SJs wanted more detailed instructions and chose a group reporter-leader right away. They wanted to know exactly what to do and seemed uncomfortable initially, yet they did not deviate from the task. The NFs were not interested in more detailed directions and spent over ten minutes getting to know each other. They smiled continuously and supported and affirmed each other. Their progress was slow.

The NTs argued from the start. They were loud and interrupted each other. They did not seem to listen to each other and few smiles were noted. They appeared frustrated that the others in their group could not see what they saw. The SPs didn’t appear to care for the activity. They were quiet and agreed on a teacher early on. There was little debate. They concentrated on surface descriptions. Other groups delved into the qualities outstanding teachers should have.

The SJs were finished first and picked the traditional teacher. They then asked, “What do we do now?” The NFs had to hurry to finish and choose the facilitator. (They liked what they did as a group; the process seemed more important than the result.) The SPs chose the facilitator but had little enthusiasm for the activity or the result. The NTs were upset and argumentative. They had votes for all three teachers and pleaded for their respective choices. There was some name calling. The three males told the single woman, “you’re just saying that because you’re a female.” She called them sexist. Their voices could be heard throughout the room. Their process was contentious, and they could not reach consensus.

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The stark contrast between the SJs and the NFs and the argumentation of the NTs was felt throughout the class for the next six weeks. The students entered the classroom with enthusiasm and an eagerness to participate in the process. They lingered after class was over, debating the fine points of the session’s activity.

Findings

The grouping process was a significant learning experience for all students, and a critical high for most. The teacher candidates advanced dramatically during the six-week period. Their initial response to this unusual manner of having class was tentative and unassuming. As the class spent more time in small groups working cooperatively, more students participated, diverse views began to be heard, and more disclosures about ways of teaching reached the table for discussion. Laura, a rural teacher’s aide and an NF, declared: “[My] most learning ‘high’ was those MBTI groups that we were put in. For me it was the best thing that you could have done. It made me relax in a class where I didn’t know anyone. . .” (critical incident report).

The concept of individual intellectual style came home to them. Each class participant reported that the MBTI grouping scheme was a critical incident in their learning in the course. Their language was emotional and the self-probing was critical. Dianne, an SJ, expressed it best in her learning journal:

The MBTI grouping was the most significant learning activity that I participated in. The ESFJs were so similar in our thought processes and emotions. There were absolutely no disagreements which frankly, did become boring towards the end of the group [time period]. I noticed a change in my desire to analyze situations more thoroughly when I moved to another group.

Dianne’s experience has helped her to construct a picture of what her classes may be like. Her “desire to analyze situations more thoroughly” shows promise of a reflective teacher in development. With formal instruction in learning styles in her next course, she will have the experience and practical knowledge to place her learning about learning styles in context.

Not all students appreciated the MBTI grouping. Ann, an NT, “hated the group thing, the MBTI thing.” Ann “never liked groups.” She was the only woman in her group. She “got a lot of ‘you only say that because you’re female’ type remarks.” She concluded, “I probably would have hated the group idea, even with three women, or two men and two women. . .” (learning journal). Another member of that same group, Jack, felt that the “activity that gave me the most intense learning ‘high’ was the first group exercise we had after we were separated into MBTI groups” (critical incident report). This group was the only group who could not come to a conclusion on the assignment given to the class. Sarah, an SJ, agreed in a critical incident report, that, “my most learning ‘high’ were those MBTI groups that we were put in.’’

The students gained a greater awareness of differences in learning styles. The realization that differences in learning styles could be significant excited many of the students. Jack, an NT, reported the following:

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

. . . We all had original minds and great drive for [our] own ideas. The MBTI model made me think of how different we are and how this difference affects how we learn and behave. It made me realize that we all don’t learn the same. We take information and process it differently (learning journal).

He continued, “. . . one can see the different types of people that a teacher will have in the classroom. I feel that I have better insights as to why children behave the way they do.” Jack’s comments were not isolated, they were similar to many class discussions that we had over the groupings and styles. The class appeared most animated when we discussed what was going on with ourselves. Sarah (SJ) compared the different groups [in our class] and discovered, “. . . it made all of us close and made me realize that people learn the same things in all kinds of ways. Not everyone can learn the same way” (learning journal). Gene, an SJ, put it simply in his journal, “separating the class into groups showed us how people could be the same but also different.” Students looked for learning and teaching styles in their classroom observations, as well. Dan, an SJ, integrated his university work with his field observations. “The MBTI provides one structure for grouping student learning styles and can be useful in providing corresponding teaching styles. Through observations, in the schools and different classes, I am picking up on new teaching techniques and styles” (learning journal). Dan’s beliefs and goals about teaching underwent some considerable change. He reports, in a reflective paper:

There are a few educational goals that I have developed recently, First, I must identify learning styles. I am just starting to recognize the styles that the MBTI identified. I used to think that we all learned the same way, even though we had varied personalities and motivations.

Laura, an NF, felt, “it was an excellent way to help us realize why we act and react to different situations in such opposite or similar ways. This grouping helped us understand each other’s learning and teaching styles” (learning journal). Justin, an SJ, recognized in his journal, the “complex characteristics of every learner.” He indicated what he got “out of the course was the opening of his eyes in recognizing there are differences in students.” Richard, an SJ, saw his knowledge of styles as influencing his teaching:

We, as teachers, need to recognize these distinctions [about styles] and customize our format accordingly. Students do not adapt to the teacher, the teacher needs to adapt to the students. That philosophy speaks to recognizing the many learning styles our pupils have and to teaching in such a way as to reach out to all of those different learners (reflective paper).

w i v e Lea rning

Some saw cooperative learning in a new light. Cooperative learning was not on our agenda; yet, the students had been exposed to group work and were familiar with the concept. They did seem to consider any type of group work to be “cooperative.” In general, they did not seem comfortable with the idea of teaching by using groups, but enjoyed learning in groups. Eddie, an NT, said in his learning journal that the groupings, “. . . really did make me feel that cooperative learning was a legitimate tool of education.” He explained, “by putting our heads together and forgetting differences in our thought patterns, we were able to come to a compromise and a sensible solution to a question posed to us.” Most the students saw value in group discussions; yet, they did not articulate the concept of cooperative learning. Gene felt:

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

[I was] most valued as a learner when I was put in a group that featured members of a different MBTI personality (SJers) and I am an NT. I was impressed first with the MBTI in that there actually are differences between how I and this group thought and addressed situations. Previously (in a group with similar NTs) I thought this MBTI to be nothing more than a waste of good paper (critical incident report).

Jack, an NT, contrasted cooperativeness with uncooperativeness. He found, “Some students always want to participate while others are quiet. Some students can’t ever seem to get along with their classmates while others get along great” (learning journal).

Critical Inauiry

Students had critically examined their assumptions, values, and beliefs. Ana, an SJ, revealed, “Bringing my own assumptions about teaching out to the surface is the most valued learning experience I received from this course” (critical incident report). Richard, an SJ, “used to think that we all learned the same way, even though we have varied personalities and motivations” (learning journal). “It made me take a good look at how important it is to consider my own beliefs and values,” asserted Jack, an SJ, in his learning journal. Their assumptions, values, and beliefs were brought to the surface in the group and class discussions. They supported their choices and decisions by their underlying assumptions. In probing their tentative conclusions, I found that as time went on the class seemed more willing to share their assumptions, values, and beliefs with their classmates. There, they were questioned, debated, supported, rejected or transformed. Their assumptions, values, and beliefs were exposed to the light of critical inquiry, and strengthened, modified, discarded or left intact.

Implications

For Students

A noteworthy benefit mentioned by these introductory students was the personal bonding that took place. “The MBTI groups. . . made me relax in a class where I didn’t know anyone and I made some really good friends,” Sarah, an SJ, related in her learning journal. She felt that “Fer] group realize[d] that we had something in common and so we ‘bonded’.” The class was more animated than any I had taught before. They arrived early and stayed late. On their own initiative, they put out a class newsletter and kept in touch after the semester was over. Groups and learning styles were continuously discussed in an open fashion. Justin, an introverted SJ, summed it up quite well in his learning journal.

I found the ‘clumping’ of students into groups based on the MBTI quite fascinating. . . the closeness that developed among the all female group [the NFs] provided an insight into cultures within a culture. In this, I imagine, I will identify who’s who quickly, and adapt my style to theirs. Students will best learn if working with a teacher who sees them for who they are and genuinely cares about the student’s well-being. That to me is exciting.

For Teacher Educators

This study began with the assumption that a teacher education program that exposes students to an experience in learning styles and subjects their prior knowledge to the light of critical inquiry may result in the restructuring of attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

styles. In this limited context we find substantial support for that assumption. The “learning styles” approach in this study was not meant to teach any particular framework in learning styles or learner preferences. The process of recognizing individual differences in learners was emphasized.

I believe that our teacher candidates bring much about teaching to our classes, and that if we don’t address what they already know, there can be no growth. If we don’t help them to place their assumptions about teaching and learning styles into appropriate contexts, their untested assumptions will likely become teacher beliefs.

Of course that strengthens my belief in the process that has been described in this study. Our students’ voices can only be heard if we give them an environment and an opportunity to be heard. If teacher candidates come to us with established, yet poorly articulated teaching styles and ideas about learning styles, then we need to examine their views and aid our candidates in bringing their assumptions, values, and beliefs to the surface and to the light of critical inquiry. It is clear that this small attempt to have teacher candidates experience individual differences in style brought their embryonic ideas about the topic to open discussion and reflective and critical inquiry. This experience encourages programs that emphasize reflection and inquiry on the part of teacher candidates and helps them to “identify and defend their own perspectives” (Cronin-Jones, 1991, p. 221).

I have personally learned to be a listener as a result of this inquiry. What my students, and future teachers, bring to the program is often as valuable as what I bring. Perhaps not in terms of a formal knowledge base on teaching; but moreso, in terms of what will ultimately drive their decision making in the classroom. I then view knowledge as what is suitable for my learners in their world. A constructivist approach requires that teacher candidates build, or restructure, their knowledge about teaching so that it makes sense to them. Exposing their attitudes, values, and beliefs to the light of critical inquiry builds teachers who have a sense of learning--and how students learn.

References

Baird, J. R. (1989, March). Intellectual and methodological imperatives for individual teacher development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 308 178)

MBTI personality types. Paper presented at the International Conference for the Association of Psychological Type, Richmond, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 357)

Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, I7(2), 5-12.

Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, 107-122.

Cooper, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (1991). MBTI learning style-teaching style discongruencies. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 51 , 699-706.

Cronin-Jones, L. (1991). Interpretive research methods as a tool for educating science teachers. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Interpretive research in science education. NARST Monograph,

Barrett, L. A. (1991, July). Relationship of observable teaching efectiveness behaviors to

NO. 4, 217-133.

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Crow, N. A. (1987, April). Preservice teachers’ biography: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Garden, A. M. (1991). Unresolved issues with the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 22, 3-14.

Golay, K. (1982). Learning patterns and temperament styles. Fullerton, CA: Manas Systems. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hunt, R. J. (1987). Beginning with ourself in practice, theory, and human affairs. Cambridge,

Jensen, G. H. (1987). Learning styles. In J. A. Provost & S. Anchors (Eds.), Applications of MA: Brookline Books.

the Myers-Briggs type indicator in higher education (pp. 181-208). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Claremont Graduate School, California.

Mar, CA: Prometheus.

Kiersey , D. (1968). A polarity theory of intelligence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me: An essay on temperament styles. Del

Kroeger, O., & Thuesen, J. M. (1988). Type talk. New York: Dell Publishing. Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1984, October). Research on teacher education. (Occasional

Paper No. 80). University of Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251 450)

Meisgeier, C., Murphy, E., & Meisgeier, C. (1989). A teachers guide to type: A new perspective on individual diflerences in the classroom. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertz, N . T., & McNeely , S. R. ( 1992, April). Pre-existing teaching constructs: How students “see ” teaching prior to training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 346 075)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Research, 63(4), 467-488.

School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.

Myers, I. B. (1989). Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of the

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Review of Educational

Saunders, W. L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and strategies for science.

Turner, S . , & Handler, M. (1991). Data collector. Santa Barbara, CA: Intellimation. Tieger, P. D., & Barron-Tieger, B. (1992). Do what you are: Discover the perjiect career for

von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). Constructivism as a scientific method. Scientijic Reasoning you through the secrets of personality type. Boston, MA: Little & Brown.

Research Institute Newsletter, 3(2), 8-9.

William J. Pankratius is a teacher educator with a background in physics and science education. He was instrumental in developing a constructivist approach to teacher education, coordinates the undergraduate secondary teacher preparation program and administers the Professional Development Degree in Science and Education (PDDSE) program at UNLV. He has interests in teacher development and constructivism in a postmodern pluralistic society.

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 1

2:45

07

Oct

ober

201

4