This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 19 November 2014, At: 06:00Publisher: 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

Project work in the graduateclassroom: Teachers as studentsapply skills beyond the classroomSusan Catapano aa Early Childhood Education, Division of Teaching andLearning, College of Education , University of MissouriSaint Louis , 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri,63121–4499, USA Phone: +1 314 516 5739 Fax: +1 314 516 5739E-mail:Published online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Susan Catapano (2004) Project work in the graduate classroom: Teachers asstudents apply skills beyond the classroom, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 24:4,323-330, DOI: 10.1080/1090102040240412

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102040240412

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 [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

it.

ELSEVIER Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330

Journal of y

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Innovations in Early Childhood Teacher Education: Reflections on Practice

Project work in the graduate classroom: Teachers asstudents apply skills beyond the classroom

Susan Catapano*

Early Childhood Education, Division of Teaching and Learning, College of Education University of Missouri Saint Louis,8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499, USA

Accepted 4 August 2003

Abstract

Through the use of a long-term project in a graduate teacher education course on the importance of play,students learned skills beyond those usually required in a graduate classroom. Students used their understandingand knowledge of play, constructive practice, and project work to develop a family play day at the university labschool. As part of the project, students helped to develop a play-style instrument that served as a self-study fortheir own classrooms as they observed the play among their own students. The project culminated with the studentshosting the families of the lab school at a fun day and preparing a brochure that gave families information aboutthe importance of play.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Projects; Constructive practice; Graduate teacher education; Play

The study of constructivist practice and the useof the project approach is now common in manyearly childhood teacher preparation courses. Yet,the delivery of this information does not alwaysmodel the information covered. How might teachereducators model these two teaching methods withinthe graduate course? Constructivist practice is theapplication of Piaget's developmental theory ofthe construction of knowledge. The one who isconstructing knowledge (the learner), regardless ofage, assimilates and/or accommodates (learns) newinformation as a result of a combination of interactionwith her/his surroundings, the activity engaged in, andthe learner's feeling of disequilibrium (Abdal-Haqq,1998). The disequilibrium occurs because the learnerhas encountered something that makes her/him ques-tion what has been encountered and then seek answersto those questions (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Thediscovery of information and return to equilibrium isthe result of the engagement in the activity and the

* Tel.: +1 314 516 5739; fax: +1 314 516 5348.E-mail address: catapano@umsl.edu.

learning of new information (DeVries & Kohlberg,1987). If constructivist practice is (as some havemaintained) the most natural way for learners tolearn, it is curious that many college-level graduatecourses are taught with a formula that includesdiscussion of the weekly readings, preparation of aresearch report, and presentation of that report to thegroup at the end of the semester (Rogers & Chaille,1998).

The project approach, a different method of teach-ing that has developed from the implementation ofconstructivist theory and practice in the classroom, al-lows learners to engage in an in-depth investigationof a topic that they deem worthy of knowing. The in-vestigation includes learner-driven and teacher-drivenactivities that are a result of questions or inquiries thatculminate in answers that take the form of some prod-uct. The emphasis in on the process of getting to theproduct, not on the product itself (Katz, 1994). Again,I ask, why is project work not generally used in theteacher preparation classroom, if it is thought to bea natural way that learners learn (Marlow & Page,1998)?

1090-1027/$ - see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jecte.2003.08.002

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

324 S. Catapano /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330

Table 1Students' current teaching experience

Student occupation Number of students

Preschool teacher 2Primary teacher (2nd grade) 1Kindergarten teacher 5Not employer as a teacher 2Total 10

1. The course

Early Childhood Education 413, The EducationalImportance of Play, is a graduate education course inthe master's program in early childhood education atthe University of St. Louis. The educational impor-tance of play is clear to any early childhood educator;however, as a new faculty member, I struggled to planan entire semester around the theory of play. As thesemester proceeded, two projects evolved. Like a les-son using Venn diagrams, the projects intersected attimes and stood on their own at other times. One ofthe projects, the planning and development of a com-munity play day, used the theory of play that we haddiscussed during the first 4 weeks of the semester. Thesecond project, development of a play style instrument,also used the theory of play and provided the studentswith a self-study opportunity as well.

Using the two texts required for the course (Jones& Reynolds, 1992; Moyles, 1996) and two referencetexts (Kieff & Casbergue, 2000; Saracho & Spodek,1998), I planned the first 4 weeks of discussion usinga variety of play theories proposed by several differentexperts in the field. That took us from January throughthe first 2 weeks of February. Only 10 weeks were thenleft to make the theories of play meaningful to the 10graduate students enrolled in the class. Eight of the10 students were currently teaching, with experienceacross age levels as seen in Table 1.

I had included in the syllabus a requirement for thestudents to plan and carry out a community play day1

for the children and families at the child developmentcenter located at the university. I charged the studentswith the task of providing developmentally appropri-ate play-based activities for parents to engage in withtheir preschool-aged children. The students wanted tohave a cookout with the parents and children as partof the play day. To be able to purchase materials andfood for the event, I planned for the students to work onwriting a small grant application to the local NAEYCaffiliate.

1 The concept for the community play day had been pre-sented by the American Association for the Child's Right toPlay at the NAEYC annual conference in New Orleans inNovember, 1999, and I had seen the potential for its use aspart of a teacher preparation course.

In early February, I received an e-mail from Dr.Marvin Berkowitz, the Sanford N. McDonnell En-dowed Professor of Character Education, requestingthe name of a graduate student who would be able todo some research for The Toy Research Institute2 .The Toy Research Institute wanted to develop a wayto determine what style of play particular toys wouldsupport. The research questions were: (1) Do childrenhave specific play styles? (2) If so, what are they? and(3) Do children use specific toys to support this playstyle?

I told Dr. Berkowitz that most of my graduate stu-dents were working and not available to do additionalresearch projects. As an alternative, I suggested thatmy class develop the Play Style Instrument in ex-change for the money to host the community play day.Both Dr. Berkowitz and my students agreed to the pro-posal. This collaboration demonstrated to the studentshow to take advantage of opportunities that presentthemselves in their professional life. Looking for waysto collaborate to solve problems, save money, and useresources should be a fundamental part of every grad-uate course.

Because we made this choice, however, the stu-dents did not participate in a traditional grant-writingactivity that would have served them well, as manyschool districts offer classroom teachers opportuni-ties to write proposals for small grants for instruc-tional materials (G. Howard, personal communica-tion, February, 2000). I resolved to include small grantwriting as a future class assignment, recognizing it asa fundamental skill needed by teachers to carry outprojects.

2. Authentic assessment and revisitinglearning theories

Developing an agenda for the community play daywas an eye-opening experience. Students worked indyads to decide what event or game they would liketo offer to the parents and the children. This raisedthe questions of developmentally appropriate prac-tice and thematic units. One of the students suggestedthat since the play day was scheduled for mid-April,"spring" would be a good theme for all of the activities.I knew, of course, that themes and associated activi-ties were commonly used by teachers; but I had hopedthat students at the graduate level would be moving be-yond such usage to a more project-based curriculum.The community play day offered an excellent oppor-tunity for the teachers to participate in an emerging

2 The Toy Research Institute is an organization that teststoys for manufacturers by putting them in the hands of chil-dren in a classroom setting.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

S. Catapano /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330 325

project. I wanted the teachers to see emerging curricu-lum, experience a constructivist view of looking at thewhole field of learning, and then break it down intoparts.

I posed some questions: What does "spring" meanto 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children (Marlowe & Page,1998)? What was the purpose of the play day? The stu-dent entered into a wary discussion, clearly not want-ing to hurt each others' feelings; however several stu-dents realized the philosophical problem when I raisedthe key ideas and queried the purpose of the play day.I made several more open-ended inquiries to facilitatethe conversation. Some students sat and watched thediscussion without joining in. I wondered if they wereintimidated, if they had thoughts on this, or if they justdid not understand what we were struggling with inthe discussion. I made several statements and askedmore questions about "themes and activities" versus"concepts and opportunities" for exploration (Brooks& Brooks, 1993). These were graduate students, afterall, and I was hesitant to give them a lecture on con-structivist theory that I thought they should alreadyhave known. I soon realized, though, that the studentswere on a constructivist continuum. The student whohad suggested the theme and some activities was at oneend of the continuum. In the middle were some of theobserving students who were in their first few yearsof teaching and were still forming their philosophyof learning. At the other end of the continuum werea few reflective students who had studied construc-tivist theory, used it in practice, and recognized thestruggle some of the other students were having under-standing the difference between themes/activities andprojects.

The student who had suggested the spring themehad a great activity in mind. Her kindergarten childrenalways enjoyed painting coffee filters and twisting pipecleaners around them, then gluing on eyes to make but-terflies. Her partner was clearly uncomfortable withthis suggestion. To support this partnership, I knew Ihad to validate both students. The discussion contin-ued on constructivism, themes, and activities. A reviewof basic developmentally appropriate practice, emer-gent curriculum, and "best practices" for young chil-dren were treated in the discussion by the students in amuch more effective way than if I had lectured on thetopics.

It was obvious that we needed to establish a titleor theme for the event so that all of the students alongthe continuum would be able to participate comfort-ably. Other students did not need the structure of atheme; however, they were willing to give the eventa title so that everyone would be comfortable. Thebutterflies were kept as a choice for the children; butthe two students sponsoring this choice agreed to putthe materials out and let the children do what they

wanted to with them. I was confident that 3-, 4-, and5-year-old children would not automatically initiatecreating butterflies unless they had participated in thisactivity in the past. Cooperation, understanding, andteamwork were established in the group through thisdiscussion. It was important for there to be an atmo-sphere where it was okay to question theory, to askquestions, and to be at different levels of professionaldevelopment.

I required the students to answer the following in-quiries about the play opportunity they were going tooffer the children and the parents: (1) How does theplay opportunity you are sponsoring support each ofthe areas (cognitive, language, social and emotional,and physical) of a child's development? (2) What isthe learning objective of the play opportunity? and (3)How does this play opportunity engage parents andchildren?

The students were required to put together a hand-out for the parents on the play opportunities and theimportance of play. They would need to include in-formation answering the inquiries in the handout. An-swering these questions helped guide the students inpreparing their play opportunity. They made severalchanges in what they had originally thought they weregoing to do, because their first plan did not match orwould not adequately allow them to respond to the in-quiries. This exercise in self-correction and selectionallowed me to support them, rather than to approvetheir ideas. The students themselves decided on whatwas appropriate and determined when it was necessaryto modify their ideas.

As a group we determined that a budget of $300was needed to carry out the project. The students poredover catalogues to find the materials needed for theirplay opportunity. To get the money for the play day,however, we had to do the research we had agreedupon; the intersecting project would be the develop-ment of the play style instrument.

3. Realistic research

First, we had to determine if there was already aplay instrument that would describe the different waysthat children play. I placed myself in the role of co-researcher along with the students. We would worktogether to develop the instrument, and we all neededto learn how to do it. A brainstorming session gaveus direction. One student tentatively asked if I thoughtthere was some connection between the psychologicaldevelopment of children and their style of play. I askedher to answer the question. She agreed to do so andheaded a group that would look at psychological in-formation on how children play (personality and playbehaviors). Another group would investigate if there

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

326 S. Catapano /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330

were any play instruments currently being used to as-sess a child's play style. A third group would look forinformation on defining "play styles," on how to cate-gorize children's play styles. Members of each groupworked together to identify descriptors and key wordsto use in ERIC searches and perusal of other data basesin the library. The students' searches supported theircollaborative group efforts.

Every member of each group had a task and had toreport back to the entire group. The psychology groupdid not find anything specific to "play styles" in theliterature. The personality/behavior group found somearticles on play therapy; however, these were not veryhelpful in regard to designing a play style instrument.The group did find, though, a study that had been con-ducted in a Head Start program that had used the So-cial Skills Rating System and Penn Interactive PeerPlay Scale to determine play interaction, play disrup-tion, and play disconnection (Fantuzzo, Sutton-Smith,& Coolahan, 1995). This article supported the sugges-tion that play and behavior are connected, but it did notsupport an identification of different play styles. Thethird group did not find anything that identified cat-egories of play styles. Reading the articles enrichedand expanded the core of the play course into otherdisciplines that made use of play theory—somethingthat would not have happened without having the as-signment to develop the instrument.

Dr. Berkowitz visited the class to give some di-rection on what The Toy Research Institute wantedin the instrument and provided ground rules on whatthe instrument should look like: it should be no morethan two pages long, use a graduated scale, addressthe child's personality and actions during play, and beable to be used to profile types of players. The studentsasked him many questions and brought up such issuesas who would use the instrument and to what use wouldthe collected data be put. It seemed to them that the an-swers to these questions would necessarily drive theirwork. They also discussed with Dr. Berkowitz if theinstrument should measure active versus passive, soli-tary versus group, or verbal versus non-verbal play; orrather, should it look at developmental domains suchas fine motor, gross motor, language-based versus non-language-based, or creative versus imitative play. Thestudents were applying the discussion and theory ofour first 4 weeks of class.

One student brought up Howard Gardner andasked if they should consider different intelligences(Gardner, 1983). The comment was made that theywould have to determine if they were looking at ten-dencies or abilities of the children. For the studentswho were now looking puzzled, the student who hadraised the question of multiple intelligences went onto describe the different intelligences that Gardner hadpostulated. This exchange provided the foundation for

a possible research course. I thought that this rich andvaried discussion would never have happened in theregular course without this realistic problem to solve.As a co-researcher, I sat with the students and askedquestions along with them. Dr. Berkowitz told us thatthe instrument would be used to collect data for par-ents and toy manufacturers. If we could identify playstyles, toys could be identified as supporting thosestyles.

Actually getting started on the design of the instru-ment was the most difficult thing to do. First, the stu-dents brainstormed terms to describe play. They thencategorized the terms to see if there were similaritiesin what they were describing. Serving as their scribe,I recorded their ideas, erased sections, and groupeditems as they directed. After several hours, the stu-dents had produced a long, disjointed list. They grewfrustrated and asked me for answers; however, I didnot have the answers. As they stared at the lists onthe board, I suggested that they think of the toys intheir classroom that the children played with. This be-gan a discussion of why there were toys in their earlychildhood classroom, and of what some of the studentsmeant when they said that they did not have any toys intheir classroom. The students who said they did havetoys described the importance of toys and props for thechildren to use in their learning. The students began tolist toys that should be in the classroom.

Through this process, the students combined andeliminated terms on the board to determine that, basedon domains of development and social skills, therewere five categories of play style that they would in-vestigate: (1) Fine Motor Play; (2) Social Play (groupand verbal skills); (3) Gross Motor Play; (4) Cre-ative/Active Play; and (5) Solitary Play. Working withthe list of toys and descriptors, the students dividedinto five working groups. Each group took a differentcategory and developed five potential play-style instru-ment questions that could be asked to identify play be-haviors for that category. The students decided to use agraduated five-point scale spread between "never' andalways," with "sometimes" in the middle, to describethe play style categories. Thus we had the first draftof the play-styles instrument. The students then men-tioned other things to consider—gender, siblings, age,ethnicity, and prior school experience.

At the next class meeting, the students reviewed thefirst draft of the instrument, working in groups to refineeach question. I sent Dr. Berkowitz the resulting sec-ond draft, asking for his comments. The student andI subsequently reviewed both his and our own com-ments to produce the third draft. Students were thenasked to field-test the instrument by using it to observetwo different children at play. After this first test, thestudents found that they wanted to change the two endsof the scale from "never" and "always" to "rarely" and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

S. Catapano /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330 327

"almost all the time," as during the trial, they did nothave use for the "never" and "always" choices.

Dr. Berkowitz again joined us, and the studentstold him that the instrument would have to be usedby someone who regularly had observed the child atplay—a teacher or parent. It was their determinationthat the instrument to identify play style could not becompleted by someone who did not know the chil-dren well. One student said that she had tried to usethe instrument with a child who had joined her classonly a few weeks before the observation. She foundit impossible to do. Another student who was work-ing in a homeless shelter agreed that constant contact

with the children was necessary. The class decided thatthe instrument should be used with children who wereknown and who had been observed for no fewer than4 weeks by the person completing the instrument.

When the fourth draft was completed, the studentswere given their final assignment—complete 20 formswith children whom you know and have previouslyobserved at play for at least 4 weeks. The two studentswho were not currently working in a classroom settingwere told to each find a classroom teacher who wouldbe willing to complete the instrument on 20 children.These two students were also to interview the teacherscompleting the instruments to provide feedback on the

ft)

ft)

y m yj

ft i §LU

V)

)

TYPES OF PLAY

FUNCTIONAL

CONSTRUCTIVE

SAMBS WITH RULES

DRAMATIC PLAY

LAR6E MOTOR/ACTTVE

PURPOSE

Allows children to explore, examine andunderstand (he functions of objects, andtheir environment; open-ended, noparticular product/goal expected.

Allows children to go beyond exploringmaterials, to play with a goal or purposem mind.

Helps children to concentrate andunderstand rules, control behaviorin order to conform (o rules, howto compete, deal with winning/losing.tum-takin g/cooperation.

Helpi children "try-on" the role* of othersand learn more about how adults of theirculture and others, live and work. Allowschildren to pretend to do or be things theycould not do in real life.

Helps children develop muscles andcoordination, and understand how theirbody moves.

CORRESPONDINS ACnVXTIES/TOyS

Sand, water, p!av-dohM paint, musical instruments,bubbles, collections (shells, rocks, etc.). cars andtrucks, blocks

Blocks, puzzles, Legos, beads, art materials.

Hopscotch, Hidc-n-Seek, Duck, Duck Goose,board games, sports

Dress-up clothes, store/kitchen props, dolls, puppets,empty boxes, tools-

Balls, bikes, skates, jump-ropes, playground structures.sports, dancing, gymnastics, swimming-

Fig. 1. Brochure developed by students for family event.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

WHAT IS PLAY?

Young children learn the most important things not by being told but byconstructing knowledge for themselves in interaction with the physical world andwith other children—and the way they do this is by playing.

-Piaget

Play is the natural activity of children. It is what they dobest. Play is one of the necessary stages in a developmentalsequence. Play is a learning opportunity. Play provides anopportunity for children to be creative, to use language and toacquire skills. Children also form ideas of how things work and usethis time to ask questions.

ADULT'S ROLE I N PLAYBecause children are not born knowing how to play, adults

must assist children in their play development by:

• Modeling appropriate behavior,• Asking open-ended questions during and after play to

increase language development,• Becoming actively involved in the child's play,• Allowing the child enough time for playing and exploring,• Being flexible and supportive of the child's play style,• Observing the child to gain insights into his or her interests,

strengths and weaknesses.

ACTIVITY OBJECTIVESWhat Do They Learn?

1. Sink and Float:> How to make a boat that will float in water.> A boat has to stay balanced or it will sink.> Predictions about what will sink and float.

2. Water Colors:"> How to mix colors.> What happens to colors when they are mixed.> How to express verbally what happens when colors are

mixed.> How to experiment with colors to make their own project

unique.

3. Bubbles:> Concepts of size, color, change, permanence, patterns and

combinations through observing, experimenting andmanipulating bubbles.

4. Musical Glasses and Bottle Organs:> Knowledge of basic science principles and concepts relating

to sound.> Letter and color recognition.> How to have fun with music.

5. Nature Collage Bird Feeders:> A bird feeder is useful and educational all year round.> Bird feeders are a fun way to observe and help nature.

^ How to make a unique bird feeder using a reusable bottle.

Jo

I

I

Ia.

Fig. 1. (Continued).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

S. Catapano / Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330 329

instrument. This activity helped some of the studentsto develop interviewing skills.

4. Culminating projects

The student completed their administrations ofthe play style instrument and returned their results ontheir 20 children on the final day of class. Their trialprovided additional suggestions of refinement forthe instrument. More importantly, the students madecomments on the effects on their own developmentof using the play style instrument. They noted thatusing the play style instrument had made them morereflective when thinking about the activities they wereproviding the children in their classrooms, and theywere surprised about how much they now knew aboutchildren's play. Children that they found difficult toassess using the instrument were those children whonever chose to participate in the same play activitytwice. There were also children whom the studentsfound they knew less about that they had thoughtthey did. Several of the students said that they wereable to "see" the children's play for the first time, andthat they, subsequently, had made changes in theirclassroom structure and instructional strategies tomeet the individual needs of some of the children. Onestudent commented that she had noticed a child whoalways was following her around and never engagedin play. She then determined what the child's interestswere and provided materials for his play during choicetime. The child began using the materials and becamemore engaged in the classroom. Other students agreedand commented that they were able to identify soloplayers and tried to engage them with other children tosupport their social development. All of the studentswho were classroom teachers commented that theinstrument had helped them reflect on the variety andchoices of play materials that they had made availableto the children. The instrument had supported whatthey knew about some children and had helped themassess other children who, they discovered, had notbeen fully engaged in the classroom.

The community play day was a huge success. Thestudents used all of the play information that they haddiscussed in class and during the development of theplay style instrument to design a handout for the par-ents (Fig. 1). On the date set, they prepared and demon-strated the play opportunities for the parents in the uni-versity child development center. Parents enjoyed par-ticipating in all of the opportunities and appreciated thecookout that the student provided. Several of the stu-dents duplicated the event at their individual schools.

The students were asked to reflect on the use ofopen-ended materials in their play opportunity, andon how they might change the opportunity for use

in their classrooms. The butterfly activity had turnedout to be a success, yet few recognizable butterflieshad been made. The student who had developedthat activity commented on how amazed she wasthat the children had used the materials in so manydifferent ways. This made the same point that I asinstructor could have made, but it was the student'sown discovery, and thus, it was more meaningful toher than it might otherwise have been.

5. Lessons learned

Reflecting on the semester's work, I concluded thatthat the materials used and the projects completed gavethe students enrolled in the course a model of how touse realistic projects in a constructivist setting. Nineof the 10 course evaluations agreed with my reflection.One student, however, wrote that she wished there hadbeen more lecture and coverage of play theory insteadof so many things to get done. This response again pro-vided me with evidence that teachers are developingconstructivist practices along a continuum and chal-lenged me to develop projects that will allow them tomove themselves along that continuum.

Next time, I would spend more time building ateam. The students sometimes found it difficult to talkhonestly with each other and with me, because wedid not know each other well. A few team-buildingactivities would help establish relationships beforewe worked together to carry out projects. Anothersuggestion on one of the evaluations was to let thestudents do more of the set up and preparation for thecommunity play day. Out of respect for the students'full-time jobs, I had purchased and made available allthe materials that they had needed. I also had takentheir draft of the handout for parents, had edited it,and had had it printed. One student commented thatshe wished I had made them more responsible for thedetails of the project. Next time, I will not assume thatthe students want me to take so active a role. Thesecomments made me wonder how much project workteachers do that children could do for themselves.The cycle of inquiry continues.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education:Consideration for those who would link practice to the-ory. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teachingand Teacher Education (ED426986).

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

330 S. Catapano /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 24 (2004) 323-330

DeVries, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Constructivist early ed-ucation: Overview and comparison with other programs.Washington, DC: National Association for the Educationof Young Children.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Sutton-Smith, B., & Coolahan, K.C. (1995,March). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,105-120.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multipleintelligences. New York: Basic Books Publisher.

Jones, E., & Reynolds, G. (1992). The play's the thing: Teach-ers' roles in children's play. New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Katz, L. (1994). The project approach. Urbana, IL: Universityof Illinois Press (EDO-PS-94-6).

Kieff, J. E., & Casbergue, R. M. (2000). Playful learn-ing and teaching: Integrating play into preschool

and primary programs. Boston, MA: Allyn andBacon.

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

Moyles, J. R. (1989). Just playing? The role and status of playin early childhood classrooms. Philadelphia, PA: OpenUniversity Press.

Rogers, D. B., & Chaille, C. (1998). Being a construc-tivist teacher educator: An invitation for dialogue. Jour-nal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19(2), 203-211.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1998). Multiple perspectiveson play in early childhood education. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

00 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014