This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 20 December 2014, At: 18:44Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Constructivism and classroom teachers: What canearly childhood teacher educators do to support theconstructivist journey?Julie A. Ray aa Southeast Missouri State University , One University Plaza Mail Stop 5575, Cape Girardeau, MO,63701, USA Phone: +1–573–651–2444 E-mail:Published online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Julie A. Ray (2002) Constructivism and classroom teachers: What can early childhood teachereducators do to support the constructivist journey?, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23:4, 319-325, DOI:10.1080/1090102020230404

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102020230404

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the 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 orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyoneis expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pergamon

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325

Journa y

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Constructivism and classroom teachers: what can earlychildhood teacher educators do to support

the constructivist journey?

Julie A. Ray*Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza Mail Stop 5575, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701, USA

Received 10 July 2001; received in revised form 5 December 2001; accepted 18 July 2002

Abstract

Constructivism is a theory of learning that has become increasingly accepted by educators. Yet translatinga theory of learning into practical instructional strategies has proven to be quite difficult for teachers. A qual-itative study was recently completed that examined primary grade teachers' understanding of constructivismand its influence upon their teaching practices. Analysis indicated that the teachers had several misconceptionsof constructivism and were at varying levels of understanding, based upon their experience and professionaldevelopment in constructivist education. This study has implications for the teacher education field, and earlychildhood teacher educators can play an important role in helping preservice and inservice teachers gain a deeperunderstanding of constructivism and implement teaching practices based upon this understanding. Suggestionsfor colleges of education are given.© 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Since the mid-1980s, constructivism, a theorybased upon the work of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotskyand others has increasingly gained acceptance as aviable theory of how children learn or gain knowl-edge (Clements, 1997; Fogarty, 1999; Forman, 1993;Walker & Lambert, 1995). Constructivists believethat learning occurs when children encounter newexperiences and concepts and seek to assimilate theseinto their existing cognitive structures or adjust theseschemas to accommodate the new information. Thislearning experience is personal, and schemas are"formed and reformed based on experiences, beliefs,values, sociocultural histories, and prior perceptions"(Walker & Lambert, 1995, p. 1). Knowledge cannot

*Tel.:+1-573-651-2444.E-mail address: jaray@semo.edu (J.A. Ray).

be given directly to a student, but exists within thelearner as a result of cognitive conflict or disequi-librium. Because the quest for understanding andequilibration is inherent to our species, children seekto resolve this dissonance and develop a new under-standing or construct. Learning, then, is the processof resolving "inner cognitive conflicts" that childrenexperience as a result of experiences, collaborativediscourse and reflection (Brooks & Brooks, 1993;Forman, 1993). The constructivist view of learninghas implications for what role teachers can play infacilitating this cognitive reordering, with a primaryinference being that teachers and students shareresponsibility for initiating and guiding learning ef-forts (Dolk, Uittenbogaard, & Fosnot, 1996; Good& Brophy, 1994). While there are many different in-terpretations of constructivism, regular references toit in educational journals, teachers' manuals of text-book series, state education department curriculum

1090-1027/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII:S1090-1027(02)00168-X

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

320 JA. Ray /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325

frameworks and education reform literature demon-strate the current dominance of this theory (Bransford,Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Brooks & Brooks, 1999;Chafel &• Reifel, 1996; Holloway, 1999; Steffy,Wolfe, Pasch, & Enz, 2000; Von Glasersfeld,1995).

Studies have found constructivist education tohave a positive impact upon student achievement(Bransford et al., 2000). For example, Schattgen(1997) documented kindergarten children had higherlevels of achievement in classrooms of teachers whowere implementing practices based upon their un-derstanding of constructivism than students whoseteachers used more traditional practices. Studieswithin mathematics education have found childrenconstructed a range of problem-solving strategies,used them flexibly over time, and were able to makesense of new problems using their past experiencesin classrooms where teachers were basing instructionupon constructivist principles (Cobb et al., 1991;Kamii & Housman, 2000; Whitenack, Knipping,Novinger, & Underwood, 2001).

For teachers, the overarching challenge of con-structivism is translating a theory of knowing andlearning into a theory of teaching (Abdal-Haqq,1998). Instruction that aligns with constructivismplaces special demands upon teachers. Teachers musthave a wide repertoire of teaching and assessmentstrategies, an ability to adjust those strategies andscaffold learning based upon students' responses,provide students with opportunities for choice in theirlearning, and continually reflect upon their teachingpractices (Windschitl, 1997). Several studies havenoted the challenge teachers face in applying thiscomplex theory of learning to their teaching prac-tices (Borko, Davinroy, Bliem, & Cumbo, 2000;Goldstein, 1997; Phillippi, 1998).

With the current acceptance of constructivism, be-ginning and experienced teachers are presented withthe formidable task of thinking about the learningand teaching process in ways they may not have ex-perienced themselves. Higher education faculty canbe a support for teachers in understanding how youngchildren construct knowledge and what teachingpractices can facilitate this process. The purpose ofthis study was to examine what understanding earlychildhood teachers had about constructivism, how itinfluenced their teaching practices and what implica-tions these findings had for early childhood teachereducators.

2. The study

While studies have looked at the teacher careercycle in general (Fessler, 1995; Huberman, 1995;

Sluss & Thompson, 1998; Steffy et al., 2000), fewhave studied teachers* professional development inconstructivist education. This qualitative researchproject examined early childhood teachers' under-standing and implementation of constructivism inprimary grade classrooms. Because the goal wasin-depth knowledge of teachers' beliefs and prac-tices, a trade-off in breadth of knowledge was madefor depth. A small sample size of eight teacherswas used, and the case studies of these teach-ers yielded rich data about the research questions.There were four kindergarten, one first grade andthree second grade teachers, and six of the teach-ers were White,, and two were African-American.The teachers taught in rural and urban school dis-tricts and ranged in years teaching experience from3 to 24 years. These teachers were chosen throughpurposeful sampling, to yield "information-richcases" (Patton, 1990). All teachers in the studywere chosen based upon .recommendations by oth-ers in the field of early childhood education, suchas college professors, administrators, and the stateconstructivist education institute personnel. Theteachers in this study were recommended as "good"teachers who were familiar with the constructivisttheory.

This study involved 73 h of observations andinterviews in seven different schools and five dif-ferent school districts located in a 275-mile area.Consistent with qualitative inquiry, this study wentthrough several phases to first clarify the focus ofthe inquiry, study this area of interest, and check fortrustworthiness of those findings (Lincoln & Guba,1985). The first phase involved initial interviews andclassroom observations to choose the participants,followed by the primary "focused exploration" phaseof study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This phase in-cluded ongoing interviews and observations in theclassrooms, as well as observations of each schoolbuilding, community, conversations with teachingcolleagues and interviews with administrators andother school personnel, such as curriculum spe-cialists, consultants and university professional de-velopment partners. Written data about the schoolsettings and communities were also obtained. Dataanalysis was done through a constant comparisonmethod, with an ongoing analysis of the field notes,researcher's journal and interview transcriptions, andthese findings led the direction of the study. A finaldata analysis and "member check" phase (Lincoln& Guba, 1985) was done to determine the trustwor-thiness of the findings. Each teacher was given theopportunity to give feedback on the study results,and none of the teachers disputed the study's sum-maries of the findings about their teaching beliefs andpractices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JA. Ray /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325 321

3. Results

3.1. What understanding did the teachers haveabout constructivism?

For the teachers in this study, constructivism wasprimarily a theory of teaching or an instructionalmethodology, rather than a theory of learning. Themajority of the participants described constructivismin terms of the instructional practices they used, suchas learning centers, projects, child-chosen themes oremergent literacy strategies. None of the teachersstated that children construct knowledge all of thetime, regardless of the teaching practices used. Theteachers saw constructivism as being dichotomousto "traditional" practices and did not think theywere implementing constructivism if they used cer-tain teaching practices, such as direct instruction orskills-based worksheets. However, the teachers whohad professional development relating to construc-tivism, support within the setting, and experience inimplementing this theory were committed to growingas constructivists and were shifting their focus fromconstructivism as a form of teaching to a theory ofhow children learn. This understanding of construc-tivism as a theory of learning is crucial, because theimplementation of practices perceived as construc-tivist, without an in-depth understanding of learning,will reduce constructivism to "little more than theacquisition of recipes for the teacher to use" (Blasi& Enge, 1998, p. 298). As Dolk et al. (1996) wrote,"Our present reform initiatives will be critiquedjustifiably and will once again fail, if we interpretconstructivst teaching simply as pedagogical strate-gies and do not take seriously constructivism as acognitive learning theory" (p. 14).

3.2. How did this understanding of constructivisminfluence the teachers' classroom practices?

In examining the teachers' understandings andimplementation of constructivism, there were threedifferent levels on which they seemed to be func-tioning. Those with a beginning understanding ofconstructivism made surface changes in their class-rooms, like room arrangement or the use of integratedthemes. At this level, the teachers' concentrationseemed to be on procedures, such as how to direct thechildren in the learning centers or how to present anidea, rather than on the children's needs. The secondlevel was the activities-centered level, where teacherscontinued to implement practices noted by teachersin the first level, but they also began to leave text-book series and chose activities that fit their themes,the children's interests or curriculum requirements.Some child choice and shared authority for learning

was seen, but most of the teachers in this level stillattempted to control the children's behaviors. Theteachers at the highest level of understanding and im-plementation of constructivism moved from choosingactivities that seemed to be "fun" or "cute" for thechildren, and instead looked at the children's learningor thinking processes, in addition to the curriculumguide standards, and made instructional decisionsbased upon that knowledge. The teachers in thislevel had much support and encouragement in theirimplementation of constructivism, several years' ex-perience in supportive environments and the personalmotivation to grow as constructivist teachers.

4. Discussion of results

This study supports DeVries and Kohlberg's(1990), Ammon and Levin's (1993) and Schifter andFosnot's (1993) findings that teachers may progressthrough levels of understanding and implementa-tion in their growth as constructivists, moving froma focus on the teachers' needs, to interest givento activities, to attention given to the individuallearner. This finding that the teachers at the begin-ning level focused on their needs as teachers and asuperficial implementation of constructivist princi-ples has implications relating to the popular earlychildhood phrase "child-centered instruction." Theseteachers did not analyze the individual children'slearning processes, and a more accurate descrip-tion of six of the teachers in this study would be"activities-centered" or "curriculum-centered." Theseteachers directed their attention to their textbookseries, district curriculum guides, or the activitiesthey thought their children would enjoy. Only twoteachers actively tried to examine their children'sthinking processes and then plan instruction thatwould help their children meet curriculum standards.Lieberman and Miller (2000) identified one of thetransitions that teachers need to make in the presentreform movement as moving "from teaching at thecenter to learning at the center," with teachers shift-ing their attention away from the technical aspectof teaching to the construction of student learning.This seems to be a difficult task for teachers, espe-cially those in the beginning stages of teaching. Allof the teachers except one described their attemptsto grow as constructivists as a "continual process"or a "learning journey" and their progress as "notall the way there yet." If teachers in the field areto understand it, the "conversation" about construc-tivism must relate to "constructivism-in-practice,"or address the pedagogical dilemmas that teachersface in trying to translate a theory of learning intoa theory of teaching (Windschitl, 1997, p. 3). Early

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

322 JA. Ray/Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325

childhood teacher educators can play a role in thisprocess.

5. Implications for teacher education

The first implication this study has for teachereducators is related to supporting preservice and in-service teachers' growing understanding of construc-tivism. The teachers and administrators in this studyhad several misconceptions about constructivism.Colleges of education must be more effective inhelping beginning and practicing teachers understandconstructivist concepts, including constructivism asa theory of learning and not a set of teaching strate-gies. If faculty members themselves do not have asophisticated understanding of constructivism, thenit will be difficult for them to help students buildtheir own understanding of constructivism.

While teacher education programs may embraceconstructivism, faculty may not necessarily modelimplementation of this theory of learning in educa-tion courses. In 1996, the National Commission onTeaching and America's Future identified problemswith teacher education programs which included"uninspired teaching methods" (Bransford et al.,2000). Bransford writes:

Although teachers are supposed to excite studentsabout learning, teacher preparation methods coursesare often lectures and recitation. So, prospectiveteachers who do not have hands-on, "minds-on" ex-periences with learning are expected to provide thesekinds of experiences for students, (p. 190)

If constructivism is presented through a transmissionmethod to preservice and inservice teachers, miscon-ceptions of constructivism may continue (Phillippi,1998). While the lecture method may be an efficientmanner to provide information in an organized man-ner, it is not the only effective teaching strategy andmay be ineffective in meeting the needs of diverselearners (Bufkin & Bryde, 1996). University facultymembers, who are often engaged in research abouteffective teaching and learning must model thosefindings in their own teaching, or as one teacher ed-ucator wrote: "Education reform must begin in myclassroom with a paradigmatic shift from 'do as Isay, and not as I do' to 'practicing what I preach'"(Marshall, 1996, p. 43).

Preservice and inservice teachers need real oppor-tunities to build upon and modify their prior knowl-edge and experiences about the learning and teachingprocess over a period of time in a supportive setting.Faculty members must first get to know studentsas individuals and explore their current concepts,attitudes and dispositions (Rodgers & Dunn, 1997).

Focusing only on teaching practices, without recog-nizing the importance of the attitudes and beliefs thatthese teachers hold may not be sufficient for helpingthem grow as constructivists (Bredekamp, 1996).Journals, e-mail correspondence, interviews, classdiscussions and activities designed to build com-munity can be useful methods to learn more aboutstudents' knowledge and experiences with the learn-ing and teaching process. Opportunities to openlydiscuss and debate beliefs in a trusting environmentwhere faculty and students are mutually respectfulof each others' views can be a powerful method inhelping students clarify and modify existing beliefsabout teaching (Rodgers & Dunn, 2000; Stuart &Thurlow, 2000). Professors can also introduce dise-quilibrium into these discussions and establish smallcollaborative discussion groups to support studentsin the construction of new understandings (Castle,1997; Rand, 1999). Other suggestions for imple-menting constructivism in teacher education coursesinclude faculty members explaining why decisionswere made to teach a concept using a particularstrategy, giving students choices about how to learnand demonstrate their understanding of concepts,assignments that require active learning, such as sim-ulations, cooperative learning and projects. Posingquestions that require critical thinking and may nothave one correct answer can also engage students inlearning (Bufkin & Bryde, 1996).

This study demonstrated the importance of focus-ing on the learner, rather than activities. Students canlearn to analyze children's thinking processes and er-rors through case studies and field work. Obviously,a strong child development knowledge base, goodobservational skills and an understanding of authen-tic assessment are essential components in this pro-cess. Students also need opportunities for long-termobservations of children to give them experience inanalyzing children's needs and abilities and formu-lating appropriate instructional responses. Video casestudies may provide alternatives to traditional fieldwork to meet this need.

Field experiences also offer students invaluableexperiences in observing learner-centered teachers.However, observation of good teaching or teachermodeling is not enough. Students must have opportu-nities to learn about the underlying "why" of teachers'actions (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000; Rodgers &Chaille, 1998). Expert classroom teachers' knowl-edge is often "unarticulated, tacit in nature, andgrounded in experience" and dialogue may need tobe facilitated between students and the cooperatingteachers they are placed within the field to give thestudents access to the intentions behind decisionsthe teachers made about the learning and teachingprocess (Ethell & McMeniman, 2000, p. 88).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

J.A. Ray /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325 323

Just as district policies were vital in the teachers'growth as constructivists, the structure of colleges ofeducation must also be supportive of constructivisteducation. Providing adequate supplies and materials,such as movable desks or tables and adequate spaceis essential for collaborative work (Bufkin & Bryde,1996). Because the emphasis is on depth of knowl-edge and learning, rather than breadth of factualinformation, the issue of time to adequately exploreconcepts in courses that are bound by 50-min classsessions and semester schedules should be exam-ined, with creative options for year-long integratedcourses in block schedules investigated (Buchanan,Burts, & Pellar, 1998; Bufkin & Bryde, 1996). Es-tablishing cohort groups can lead to supportive re-lationships among students. Teacher educators oftenwork in a culture of isolation with "little ongoingcommunication" with one another. They too, canlearn from one another and need opportunities forregular discussions about their beliefs and practices(Bransford et al., 2000; Buchanan et al., 1998). Withtechnological advances, distance learning is becom-ing increasingly popular, and while distance learninginstruction can be effective, issues such as supportivefield experiences, opportunities for active learner par-ticipation, interaction and collaboration among learn-ers and the instructor, and the challenge of creatinga nurturing learning environment or community oflearners must be considered (Glascott & Stone, 1998;Wheeler, Wilson, & Berkeley, 2001). Finally, similarto the teachers in this study, higher education facultyalso benefit from administrative practices of shareddecision making and having input into decisions thataffect their implementation of constructivism.

Implementing constructivism in teacher educationis a "task fraught with conflict and difficulty for theteacher educator and the students" (Buchanan et al.,1998, p. 276). Students are often uncomfortable withdisequilibrium, small group work and open-endedguidelines for assignments, and it is difficult to buildupon the prior knowledge and experiences of indi-vidual students with differing knowledge, abilitiesand motivation (Buchanan et al., 1998). However, ifpreservice and inservice teachers are to understandconstructivism as a theory of learning, they mustobserve teacher educators demonstrating their un-derstanding of constructivism, as well as experienceteaching practices based upon this understanding.

A final implication of this study for colleges ofeducation is the need for constructivist education foradministrators of all grade levels. The administratorsin each school setting were crucial in the teachers'growth as constructivists, and their lack of under-standing of this theory and the needs of teachers inimplementing constructivism hampered the teachers'attempts. Constructivism is becoming a topic of in-

terest for administrators, as evidenced by the Educa-tional Leadership journal's November 1999 specialedition on constructivism, and teacher educators canplay a role in helping administrators build their ownunderstanding of constructivism, as well as an un-derstanding of the important role they play in theirteachers' professional growth.

6. Further study

Sluss and Thompson (1998) called for more at-tention to the "stages of teacher development." Inthis study; "stages" were not identified, but the ques-tion exists about further levels of understanding ofconstructivism and its implementation. The teachersat the highest level in this study both thought theywere on a "journey" and "not there yet," leading tothe question of what the next level of understandingand implementation of constructivism might looklike. Further study of exemplary constructivist teach-ers is needed, including what helped them reachthis status. Bransford et al. (2000) stated that moreresearch is needed to determine the effectiveness ofvarious forms of professional development, and re-search about the types of professional developmentthat are supportive of exemplary teachers' growth inconstructivism would be useful.

Early childhood educators have embraced the ideaof child-centered instruction, yet many of the teach-ers in this study did not have an in-depth focus ontheir children's thinking processes. Further study isneeded about this perceived lack of learner-centeredteachers in a field that overwhelmingly supports suchpractices. Does a lack of understanding of the term"child-centered" exist? Is there a need for more pro-fessional development relating to helping teachersfocus on individual children's thinking processes andthen planning instruction based upon those observa-tions? If so, what forms of professional developmentwould be the most effective in helping teachers movetoward more leamer-centered practices? This studyhad a small sample size, so further study is neededto learn more about this unexpected finding.

Finally, it was not within the scope of this studyto examine student performance in the classroomsof teachers with a constructivist belief system, butmore research is needed relating to this issue. Thisstudy raises the question of how student performancemay vary in classrooms of teachers at the differ-ing levels of understanding and implementation ofconstructivism. Dolk et al. (1996) warned that im-plementation of "surface pedagogical [constructivist]principles... without an in-depth understanding oflearning, has often resulted in little content beinglearned" (p. 14). What are the effects upon student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

324 J.A. Ray/Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325

achievement in classrooms where teachers do notunderstand constructivism to be anything more than

• arranging a classroom in centers or choosing themesthat are "fun" or "cute"? If it takes time and supportfor teachers to reach a learner-centered level of un-derstanding and implementation of constructivism,what effects does this have upon student achieve-ment? More research that focuses on the level ofunderstanding and implementation of constructivismby the teachers and the accompanying achievementof their students is needed.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teachereducation: Consideration for those who would linkpractice to theory (Report SP 038 284). Washington,DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and TeacherEducation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 426 986).

Ammon, P., & Levin, B. B. (1993). Expertise in teachingfrom a developmental perspective: The developmentalteacher education program at Berkeley. Learning andIndividual Differences, 5(4), 319-326.

Blasi, M. J., & Enge, N. (1998). Under construction: Deve-lopmentally appropriate practice. What is constructivistabout the revised developmentally appropriate practice?Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19(3),293-300.

Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L., & Cumbo. K.B. (2000). Exploring and supporting teacher change:Two third-grade teachers' experiences in a mathematicsand literacy staff development project. The ElementarySchool Journal, 100(4), 273-306.

Bransford, J. K., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.).(2000). How people learn: Brain mind, experience andschool (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

Bredekamp, S. (1996). Early childhood education. In J.Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbookof research on teacher education (pp. 323-347). NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1993). In search ofunderstanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to beconstructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.

Buchanan, T. K., Burts, D. C., & Pellar, L. (1998).Developmentally appropriate practices in teachereducation: Lessons from one semester. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 19(3), 275-284.

Bufkin, L. J., & Bryde. S. (1996). Implementing aconstructivist approach in higher education with earlychildhood educators. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education, 17(2), 58-65.

Castle, K. (1997). Constructing knowledge of constructi-vism. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,18(1), 55-67.

Chafel, J., & Reifel, S. (Eds.). (1996). Advances in earlyeducation and day care: Theory and practice in earlychildhood teaching (Vol. 8). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Clements, D. (1997). (Mis?)constructing constructivism.Teaching Children Mathematics, 4(4), 198-200.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley,G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment ofa problem-centered second-grade mathematics project.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1),3-29.

DeVries, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1990). Constructivistearly education: Overview and comparison with otherprograms. Washington, DC: National Association forthe Education of Young Children.

Dolk, M., Uittsnbogaard, W., & Fosnot, C. T. (1996).Teaching to facilitate progressive schematization. TheConstructivist, 11(1), 10-14.

Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000). Unlocking theknowledge in action of an expert practitioner. Journalof Teacher Education, 51(2), 87-101.

Fessler, R. (1995). Dynamics of teacher career stages.In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professiondevelopment in education: New paradigms and practices(pp. 171-192). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fogarty, R. (1999). Architects of the intellect. EducationalLeadership, 57(3), 76-78.

Forman, G. (1993). The constructivist perspective toearly education. In J. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson(Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education(2nd ed., pp. 137-155). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Glascott, K. P.. & Stone, S. J. (1998). Technology inhigher education: Exploring distance learning from aconstructivist perspective. Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher Education. 19(1), 17-24.

Goldstein, L. S. (1997). Between a rock and a hard placein the primary grades: The challenge of providingdevelopmentally appropriate early childhood educationin an elementary school setting. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 12, 3-27.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (1994). Looking in classrooms.New York: Harper Collins.

Holloway, J. H. (1999). Caution: Constructivism ahead.Educational Leadership, 57(3), 85-86.

Huberman, M. (1995). Professional careers and professionaldevelopment: Some intersections. In T. R. Guskey& M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development ineducation: New paradigms and practices (pp. 193-224).New York: Teachers College Press.

Kamii, C., & Housman, L. B. (2000). Young childrenreinvent arithmetic (2nd ed.). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2000). Teaching and teacherdevelopment: A new synthesis for a new century. In R. S.Brandt (Ed.), Education in a new era: ASCD yearbook2000 (pp. 47-66). Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Marshall, C. S. (1996). Constructivist teaching in an earlychildhood teacher preparation program: A personal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JA. Ray/Joumal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 319-325 325

journey. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,17(1), 43-51.

Pattern, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and researchmethods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Phillippi, K. (1998). Mandating a constructivist approach toearly elementary literacy instruction: The intended andunintended consequences in one school district (ReportNo. PS 026 597). Paper presented at the Annual Meetingof the American Educational Research Association, SanDiego, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 420 424).

Rand, M. (1999). Supporting constructivism throughalternative assessment in early childhood teachereducation. Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 20(2), 125-135.

Rodgers, D. B., & Chaille, C. (1998). Being a constructivistteacher educator: An invitation for dialogue. Journalof Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19(3), 203-211.

Rodgers, D. B., & Dunn, M. (1997). And never thetwain shall meet: One student's practical theoryencounters constructivist teacher practices. Journal ofEarly Childhood Teacher Education, 18(3), 10-25.

Rodgers, D. B., & Dunn, M. (2000). Communication,collaboration, and complexity: Personal theory buildingin context. Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 21(2), 273-280.

Schattgen, S. F. (1997). Constructivist early childhoodteachers through Project Construct. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 18(2), 34-40.

Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructingmathematics education: Stories of teachers meetingthe challenge of reform. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Sluss, D., & Thompson, E. (1998). In search of thezone of proximal development: A sociocultural view ofthe stages of teaching as experienced by novice andexperienced early childhood teachers. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 19(3), 193-201.

Steffy, B. E., Wolfe, M. P., Pasch, S. H., & Enz, B. J. (2000).Life cycle of the career teacher. Thousands Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own:Preservice teachers' experiences, beliefs, and classroompractices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 113-121.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach toteaching. In L. Steffe & I. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism ineducation (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NI: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Walker, D. & Lambert, L. (1995). Learning and leadingtheory: A century in the making. In L. Lambert, D.Walker, D. P. Zimmerman, J. E. Cooper, M. D. Lambert,M. E. Gardner, & P. J. Slack (Eds.), The constructivistleader (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wheeler, E. J., Wilson, G. P., & Berkeley, T. R. (2001).Bringing web-enhanced courses to communities oflearners in early childhood teacher education. Journalof Early Childhood Teacher Education, 22(4), 237-242.

Whitenack, J. W., Knipping, N., Novinger, S., &Underwood, G. (2001). Second graders circumventaddition and subtraction difficulties. Teaching ChildrenMathematics, 8(4), 228-233.

Windschitl, M. (1997). The pedagogical, cultural, andpolitical challenges of creating a constructivistclassroom (Report No. SP 038 045). Paperpresented at the International Congress of PersonalConstruct Psychology, Seattle, WA (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 421 473).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

8:44

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14