understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments: challenges and resolutions

15
Understanding Teacher Responses to Constructivist Learning Environments: Challenges and Resolutions MELODIE ROSENFELD Department of Psychology, University of Tilburg, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands SHERMAN ROSENFELD Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel Received 13 April 2004; revised 27 May 2005, 3 August 2005; accepted 24 August 2005 DOI 10.1002/sce.20140 Published online 3 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). ABSTRACT: The research literature is just beginning to uncover factors involved in sustain- ing constructivist learning environments, such as Project-Based Learning (PBL). Our case study investigates teacher responses to the challenges of constructivist environments, since teachers can play strong roles in supporting or undermining even the best constructivist environments or materials. We were invited to work as mediators with a middle-school science staff that was experiencing conflicts regarding two learning environments, PBL (which was the school’s “politically correct” learning environment) and traditional. With mediated group workshops, teachers were sensitized to their own and colleagues’ individual learning differences (ILDs), as measured by two styles inventories (the LSI—Kolb, 1976; and the LCI—Johnston & Dainton, 1997). Using these inventories, a learning-environment questionnaire, field notes, and delayed interviews a year later, we found that there was a relationship between teachers’ preferred styles, epistemological beliefs, and their preferred teaching environment. Moreover, when the participating teachers, including early-adopters and nonvolunteers to PBL, became more sensitive to their colleagues’ preferences, many staff conflicts were resolved and some mismatched teachers expressed more openness to PBL. We argue that having teachers understand their own ILDs and related responses to constructivist learning environments can contribute to resolving staff conflicts and sustain- ing such environments. We present a cognitive model and a strategy which illustrate this argument. C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:385 – 399, 2006 Correspondence to: Melodie Rosenfeld; e-mail: [email protected] Present address of Melodie Rosenfeld: English Department, Achva Academic College of Education, D. N. Shikmim 79800, Israel. C 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Upload: melodie-rosenfeld

Post on 06-Jul-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Understanding TeacherResponses to ConstructivistLearning Environments:Challenges and Resolutions

MELODIE ROSENFELDDepartment of Psychology, University of Tilburg, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg,The Netherlands

SHERMAN ROSENFELDDepartment of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

Received 13 April 2004; revised 27 May 2005, 3 August 2005; accepted 24 August 2005

DOI 10.1002/sce.20140Published online 3 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: The research literature is just beginning to uncover factors involved in sustain-

ing constructivist learning environments, such as Project-Based Learning (PBL). Our case

study investigates teacher responses to the challenges of constructivist environments, since

teachers can play strong roles in supporting or undermining even the best constructivist

environments or materials. We were invited to work as mediators with a middle-school

science staff that was experiencing conflicts regarding two learning environments, PBL

(which was the school’s “politically correct” learning environment) and traditional. With

mediated group workshops, teachers were sensitized to their own and colleagues’ individual

learning differences (ILDs), as measured by two styles inventories (the LSI—Kolb, 1976;

and the LCI—Johnston & Dainton, 1997). Using these inventories, a learning-environment

questionnaire, field notes, and delayed interviews a year later, we found that there was a

relationship between teachers’ preferred styles, epistemological beliefs, and their preferred

teaching environment. Moreover, when the participating teachers, including early-adopters

and nonvolunteers to PBL, became more sensitive to their colleagues’ preferences, many

staff conflicts were resolved and some mismatched teachers expressed more openness to

PBL. We argue that having teachers understand their own ILDs and related responses to

constructivist learning environments can contribute to resolving staff conflicts and sustain-

ing such environments. We present a cognitive model and a strategy which illustrate this

argument. C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 90:385–399, 2006

Correspondence to: Melodie Rosenfeld; e-mail: [email protected] address of Melodie Rosenfeld: English Department, Achva Academic College of Education,

D. N. Shikmim 79800, Israel.

C© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

386 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

INTRODUCTION

The research literature is just beginning to uncover the factors involved in sustaining con-structivist learning environments such as Project-Based Learning (PBL) (Krajcik, Czerniak,& Berger, 2003). One promising direction is the design of reform-based inquiry materialswhich help teachers to enact constructivist practices (e.g., Blumenfeld, Fishman, Krajcik,Marx, & Soloway, 2000). We believe that another equally important factor is teacher re-sponses to the challenges of constructivist environments, since teachers can play strongroles in supporting or undermining even the best constructivist environment or materials.Moreover, when an innovative pedagogy conflicts with deep-seated teacher beliefs, conflictsmay result, which can take a long time to resolve (Ladewski, Krajcik, and Harvey, 1991). Inthis paper, we argue that having teachers understand their own responses to constructivistlearning environments can contribute to sustaining these environments. As a result of ourstudy, we introduce a cognitive model and a strategy which may contribute to understand-ing and resolving staff conflicts which can arise from different teacher responses to theseenvironments.

One field of research, which could illuminate teacher responses and underlying episte-mological beliefs which drive these responses, is teachers’ individual learning differences(ILDs) (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2004), particularly teachers’ own preferred learning andcognitive styles. There are numerous studies of student ILDs (e.g., Jonassen & Grabowski,1993) and their responses to different learning environments, but almost no research focusingon teacher ILDs or their resulting responses to teaching in different learning environments.If we can understand why teachers respond differently to the same challenges, and what canbe done about negative responses, perhaps we could better support and sustain constructivistenvironments.

Constructivist learning environments (e.g., de Kock, Sleegers, & Voeten, 2004), such asPBL, are clearly beneficial for students. For example, PBL encompasses authentic scientificinquiry (Rahm, Miller, Hartley, & Moore, 2003) and “guiding questions” of high interestto students (Krajcik et al., 2003). PBL encourages student collaboration, new technology,authentic artifacts (Marx, Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997), and supports studentlearning of science concepts and processes (Rivet & Krajcik, 2004).

Notwithstanding the benefits and popularity of such constructivist environments, teach-ers need to deal with a daunting set of challenges. In a traditional environment, the teacher’srole is being a knowledge source, the curriculum focuses on fact coverage, and assessmentis based on tests. In a constructivist environment, the teacher becomes a facilitator, the cur-riculum focuses on central concepts of the discipline, and assessment is based on authenticstudent products (Thomas, 2000). In addition, PBL tasks are often “messy” and studentproducts are difficult to guide and evaluate. Nevertheless, it is unclear why some teach-ers readily embrace these challenges while others resist them. Clearly there are differingteacher responses to such environments, but these have been only briefly mentioned in theliterature (e.g. Songer, Lee, & Kam, 2002; Rosenquist, 2000). Sparse and differing termi-nology reflecting responses to innovations ranges from “early adopters” (Rogers, 2003) to“nonvolunteers” (Brobowsky, Marx, & Fishman, 2001).

In our case study of a middle-school science and technology staff, PBL had been thedominant, “politically correct” constructivist environment for many years. Some teachersenthusiastically embraced the challenges and others considered abandoning PBL, resultingin staff conflicts. We were invited to the school to resolve these conflicts and chose to doso through workshops that helped teachers understand their own and colleagues’ ILDs andresponses to PBL.

In a previous study, we studied a continuous professional development course whichsensitized nonscience teachers to their own ILDs (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2004). We

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 387

found that the course, given in a teachers’ college of education, led individual teachersto change their language, beliefs, and practice. Among other changes, teachers expressedfewer overgeneralizations about others and became more patient with colleagues and stu-dents who had different ILDs than their own. While our present study applies a similarapproach to developing teacher sensitivities to ILDs, it expands the field by being situatedin educational practice: it involves staff conflicts, science teachers, and relationships betweenteachers’ ILDs and their responses to two learning environments (PBL and traditional). Wefocused on two questions:

1. How might a teacher’s response to a constructivist learning environment be relatedto his/her own individual learning differences (ILDs)?

2. How might sensitizing teachers to their own and colleagues’ ILDs lead to changesin teachers and staff relations which might help sustain a constructivist learningenvironment?

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The terminology to characterize individual learning differences includes over 30 dis-tinct researched constructs (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993), including cognitive styles (e.g.,serialist-sequential), and learning styles (e.g., assimilator). Styles are generally derived froma learner’s relative preference for bi-polar constructs such as cognitive styles and personalityconstructs (e.g. introversion/extroversion; Kolb, 1984). Styles can be relatively consistentand pervasive (Riding & Cheema, 1991), and they reflect how an individual needs or prefersto learn rather than how well one learns (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). Some individualsshow more flexibility, while others are surprisingly resistant to change, regardless of thedemands of the learning task (Pask, 1988).

Directly related to ILDs is the phenomenon of match/mismatch between a student’sILDs and his/her learning environment preference (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). Snow(1997) suggested that also teachers exhibit personal style profiles, leading to either matchesor mismatches in the teaching process. Similar to students, some teachers are stronglyinfluenced by their own learning styles; in contrast, they can usually control or shape thelearning tasks to match their own preferred styles (Lawrence, 1997). Missing in the literatureis investigating relationships between teachers’ ILDs, epistemological beliefs, and preferredteaching environments. In addition, little is known about what happens when teachers mustteach in a mismatched learning environment, particularly where staff communication is notfostered.

Styles inventories have been shown to sensitize teachers to their own and others’ ILDs,because inventories (1) can be an effective springboard for self-reflection and a catalyst forteacher development (Honigsfeld & Schiering, 2004) and “good conversation” (Johnston& Dainton, 1997; Rainey & Kolb, 1995); (2) include a wide variety of constructs (Riding &Raynor, 1998) which can be correlated to different learning environments; and (3) readilygive individuals concrete, visual data about themselves (Sadler-Smith,1997).

METHODOLOGY

The School Setting and Participating Staff

The setting was a large, liberal, rural Israeli middle-school located on the grounds of akibbutz, an agricultural, collective settlement whose members typically place their children’seducation as a top priority. The teachers and their students came from surrounding kibbutzimand rural communities with a middle-class socioeconomic level. The school had a long-term

388 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

culture of encouraging innovative programs; PBL had been the accepted pedagogy in thescience classes, though in the year before the study began, a new principal had arrived whogave less support to PBL than did the former principal for the previous eight years.

Since attendance at the workshops was voluntary, the whole science-and-technology staffof 16 did not attend all of the workshops. Three of the teachers and the principal did notattend more than one workshop. One teacher “boycotted” all three workshops. He refusedto support workshops organized by the coordinator or about PBL; this teacher had led thephysics program and opposed PBL from its inception. The eleven participants in all threeworkshops were two male and nine female participants, with 6 to 20 years of experience inscience teaching. They included (a) the female science coordinator who had initiated andgiven the tone and direction of the science-and-technology program for 8 years, and (b) themale pedagogical advisor who represented the area pedagogical center and supported theteachers in PBL.

The Workshops

Three workshops, of 4 h each, were facilitated to develop teacher sensitivity to their ownILDs. The goals of the workshops were to have staff members (a) understand the researchand two models of learning styles (LSI---Kolb, 1976; LCI---Johnston & Dainton, 1997),(b) explore their own learning style profiles, (c) share personal insights based on inventoryresults and discussions with colleagues, and (d) understand their own responses to the twolearning environments. The workshops were conducted at the school in the late afternoons.They were led by the first researcher (“mediator”) who was a lecturer and group facilitatorwith 20 years of experience in teacher development.

The first workshop included an introduction to ILDs, with theoretical concepts and ex-periential exercises; an introduction to the LSI (Kolb, 1976) and the experiential learningtheory (“learning cycle”) concept (Kolb, Boyatsis, & Mainemelis, 2001). The second work-shop included background to the LCI (Johnston & Dainton, 1997) as well as analysis andinterpretation of the staff’s results on the two inventories. The third workshop included alearning environment preference questionnaire. In addition, the teachers drew conclusionsfrom the data they had collected on themselves. They were encouraged to expose learnersto both PBL and traditional contexts.

The Inventories

Teachers used two learning style inventories and a learning environment preference ques-tionnaire. The first inventory, the Learning Style Inventory (LSI; Kolb, 1976), has 12 forced-choice questions. On a visual graph, each learner identifies the strength of his/her preferencesfor one of the phases (learning styles) on the learning cycle (Table 1). The second inventory,the Learning Combination Inventory (LCI; Johnston & Dainton, 1997), has 28 questionswith a 5-point Likert scale. The learner identifies the relative strength of his/her preferencefor each of four processing styles as a “preferred, use-as-needed, or avoided” style (Table 2).A learner can indicate a preference or avoidance for all four styles. On the learning envi-ronment preference questionnaire (Figure 1), teachers rated the strength of their personalpreferences for traditional or PBL environments, from 1 point (traditional preference), 3points (no preference or balanced), to 5 points (PBL preference).

Data Collection

Before the workshops, we interviewed the coordinator and pedagogical advisor separatelyand at length. They explained their perceptions of the staff conflicts, expectations for the

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 389

TABLE 1Kolb Learning Style Inventory---LSI (Kolb, 1976)

LSI (Kolb, 1976) Explanation

Diverger style Prefers feeling-watching:Needs to personally connect to the topic in order to learn.Preferred question: Why learn the material?

Assimilator style Prefers thinking-watching:Needs to understand factual information in order to learn.Preferred question: What are the facts and theories?

Converger style Prefers thinking-doing:Needs to apply information in order to learn.Preferred question: How do the theories work?

Accommodator style Prefers feeling-doing:Needs to self-discover information in order to learn.Preferred question: What if I did it this way?

TABLE 2Learning Combination Inventory---LCI (Johnston & Dainton, 1997)

LCI Styles Explanation

1. Sequential processingstyle

Preference for clear order of cognitive tasks, reliance onteacher directions, neatness

2. Precise processingstyle

Preference for memorization of details, researched answers,taking tests

3. Technical processingstyle

Preference for construction of a product, reliance on technicalreasoning, information from previous realworld experience

4. Confluent processingstyle

Preference for independence, nonconformance and risk-taking

Figure 1. Learning environment preference questionnaire.

390 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

workshops, and the staff’s proposed solutions to the conflicts. During each workshop, thefirst researcher kept field notes of discussions and teachers’ insights and comments. Shekept copies of the scoring pages and visual graphs for each inventory and the questionnaireresults. One year after the workshops, open interviews and focus-questions of teachers for90 min each were conducted. We asked, “In your opinion, as a result of the workshops, werethere any long-term changes in you as a teacher or in staff relations? Can you explain anychanges in your responses to PBL?” We also interviewed the teacher who had boycotted theworkshops, asking whether he noticed any changes in staff relations after the workshops.

Data Analysis

Each teacher compiled his/her own results on the inventory graphs. Field notes andinterviews were analyzed by both researchers using grounded-theory methods (Charmaz,2003). We transcribed notes and interviews and analyzed them with open coding and thenbroad categories. Categories which emerged were mapped out and then focused coding wasconducted so that teachers’ responses during interview and field notes might provide insightsinto the teachers’ responses as learners and teachers of PBL, as well as their epistemologicalbeliefs. Scores on the two inventories and the questionnaire were compared (Table 3).

TABLE 3Staff Scores on the LSI, LCI, and Learning Environment Questionnaire(N = 16)

LSI (Kolb) LCI (Johnston & Dainton)a LearningEnvironment

Teacher # Style Sequential Precise Technical. Confluent Questionnaireb

1 (Coordinator) Accommodator 29 26 31 33 4.332 (Pedagogical Converger 16 22 29 21 4.75

advisor)3 Converger 30 31 22 23 34 Converger 32 28 22 24 55 Converger/ 19 20 27 29 4.25

assimilator6 Converger/ 23 19 18 21 4

assimilator7 Assimilator 23 29 23 17 38 Assimilator 32 24 19 21 2.759 Assimilator 19 24 19 27 3.7510 Assimilator 24 25 28 25 211 Diverger 31 26 10 17 4

Staff who only attended one workshop:12 (Principal) Assimilator13 Assimilator14 Assimilator15 Assimilator

The teacher who “boycotted” the workshops:16 Assimilator

aBold indicates a preferred “use first” style; underlined indicates an “avoid” style.bBold indicates PBL preference on a 5-point scale.

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 391

THE CASE STUDY

Background Regarding the Staff’s Conflicts

The science-and-technology 8th grade teachers made autonomous decisions about howmuch their teaching would adhere to the national curriculum, and how much would includethe students’ independently chosen research projects. Teachers received support from thecoordinator, advisor, and an experienced, full-time laboratory teacher in a resource room.Eighth graders chose their own projects, such as “In what ways is bottled mineral waterbetter than my tap water?” The guiding student questions were driven by individual personalinterests, not by a specific inquiry-driven curriculum (e.g., Krajcik, et al., 2003), nor by activecollaboration with research scientists. The process of generating questions and choosingone for a project was negotiated between teachers and students, reminiscent of what hasbeen termed “an emergent notion of authenticity” (Rahm et al., 2003).

There were multiple levels of conflict in this staff, based on different teacher responsesto PBL. From the advisor and teachers before the workshops, we understood that thecoordinator had been stigmatizing teachers who preferred a traditional rather than PBLenvironment. She reasoned that it was the less-capable teachers who preferred a traditionalenvironment, because they could rely on the textbook. These teachers might even harmthe students if they did PBL, because of their lack of sufficient science knowledge. In herwords,

. . . roughly two-thirds of the 15 teachers know a lot of information [about science] and love

doing science-research projects with the students. The remaining one-third know a lot less

science and just prefer to read a chapter and teach it. Look, as far as I’m concerned, let them

[use the textbook]. They do less damage to the students this way.

Clearly, staff animosity existed between the teachers and the coordinator. Reflecting onthe initial situation, teachers later explained their initial muffled grumbling about the staffconflicts and the lack of staff communication:

There was tension between the Coordinator and some of the teachers . . . The new teachers

had to do what she said and the older teachers who didn’t like PBL but had to do it, really

resented PBL. The teachers were afraid to tell the truth about what they felt (Teacher #7).

These comments raised the question of whether the coordinator understood the impor-tance of a traditional learning environment for certain teachers. Forcing PBL as the single,accepted learning environment may have resulted in more overt resistance from some teach-ers.

When we were invited to the school, the new principal allotted less money and support forPBL than the previous principal had, and the teachers felt this lack: “ . . . In years past, theteachers had to come to the meetings and kept ‘research-journals’ but now they participatea lot less since it’s optional” (Interview: Pedagogical advisor).

In the early spring, after a tumultuous meeting, the staff voted to separate in the new schoolyear into two groups---teachers and students with learning styles preferring PBL would beseparated from those preferring a traditional environment. In the late spring, we were invitedto identify and separate students and teachers according to their preferred learning stylesand learning environment. On the surface level, the staff conflicts centered on the twoconflicting learning environments. On a deeper level, the conflicts seemed to result from aclash of beliefs of the coordinator, who supported PBL, and of the teachers, many of whompreferred a traditional environment. In addition, although separation sounded reasonable to

392 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

the staff, many problems would still remain: (1) separating individuals by learning styles isnot an exact science, (2) some individuals are equally adept in both environments (balanced),(3) a relationship between learning style and preferred learning environment had not beenestablished, (4) labeling individuals can be dangerous, (5) multiple learning environmentsshould be used (Kolb, 1984), and (6) continuously matching a learning style is not alwaysoptimal for an individual’s learning (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999).

We faced an additional challenge. The advisor asked us not to discuss teachers’ volatilefeelings of stigma or animosity toward each other. The teachers were unaware that theresearchers knew about the staff conflicts. While open communication might have solvedmany problems between opposing staff members, we would need to develop an alternativesolution. Fortunately, the teachers agreed to attend workshops to understand their ownlearning styles.

Focus Question #1: How Might a Teacher’s Responses to aConstructivist Learning Environment Be Related to His/Her OwnILDs?

We found matches between teachers’ preferred learning environment and their ILDs, asmeasured on the LSI (Kolb, 1976). The teachers’ scores (Table 3) show the variety andcomplexity of teachers’ responses and ILDs. Nevertheless, a closer look reveals patternswhich were reinforced by interviews and field notes. We found that those teachers whothemselves believed in learning science from an authority (assimilator style: LSI–Kolb)were more matched to teaching in a traditional environment and expressed feelings of dis-comfort teaching in a PBL environment. Those who preferred “the right answers” preferredto teach science facts. They thought that is what teachers should be doing (i.e., a traditionalepistemology): “How can anyone consider teaching science without strongly emphasizingthe facts? I feel like there’s something missing if I can’t present the content like it shouldbe done” (Interview: Teacher #7).

Assimilators expressed frustration with PBL. For example, one assimilator (Interview:Teacher #13) explained his inability to assess content knowledge with PBL:

There’s just no standard curriculum [in PBL] . . . Also, the educational outcome is unmea-

surable. [As an educator], you don’t even know if you’ve succeeded for 3 years . . . In the last

2 years of PBL I couldn’t meet my own minimal requirements of teaching science facts . . .

It had been a long and difficult process for him to feel comfortable with PBL:

In the beginning when I had to do PBL [8 years previously], I felt lost. It was the feeling of

not having a frame of reference or a set of rules to guide you. What could I hold on to . . . I

just didn’t feel comfortable about it. After doing PBL for a number of years I understood

that in PBL there are rules---they’re just different. There’s not a lack of frame of reference,

just a different frame of reference.

This same teacher, who only attended one of the workshops, left the middle school the yearfollowing the workshops because of the continued PBL dominance there, and returned tothe high school where a traditional environment was the norm. He expressed burn-out fromthe PBL environment: “ . . . what broke me was the homework that I had to do . . . I got tiredof this. In this type of work [PBL], the teacher and not the students always have the work!”

Another assimilator (Field Notes: Teacher #8) explained her own talent for acquir-ing factual information, and believed that everyone else values facts like she does: “The

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 393

explanation of the assimilator really explains why the science content is so important to me.I love theoretical models. . . . I also do really well on . . . multiple-choice tests. I think it’sobvious that everyone likes to know the right answers.” A heated discussion followed, andteachers realized that not everyone likes “to know the right answers.” Many of the assimi-lators were surprised to hear that there were students and colleagues (e.g. accommodators)who preferred to actively discover science principles for themselves.

Even after a year the assimilators did not change their initial preferred styles. For exam-ple, one assimilator (Interview: Teacher #7) explained her strong belief that a traditionalapproach is the most effective pedagogy: “Frankly, if I had my choice, I would like to be akindergarten teacher---I would like to pour the knowledge into the kids like a jug---they arenot yet ruined.”

The whole staff (N = 16) was highly overrepresented by the assimilator style (56%, ascompared to diverger 6%; converger/assimilator 13%; converger 19%; accommodator 6%).Thus, most preferred to learn science with factual information, which may explain this staff’slack of support for PBL. Supporting this contention were the following assimilators: the newprincipal, who withdrew support for PBL; the physics teacher (#16), who had boycotted theworkshops because he thought they supported PBL; three of the four teachers (teachers #3,7, 8, 10) who expressed a nonpreference for PBL (2–3 points) on the questionnaire; andthe three teachers (#13, 14, 15), who attended only one workshop and then found personalreasons for not attending the rest. From interviews and inventory results, we argue thatassimilators are more likely to resist the challenges of teaching with PBL and respond asnonvolunteers.

In contrast, the converger style prefers to learn by applying information (i.e., construc-tivist epistemology) and seems to be more matched to PBL than to a traditional learningenvironment. Indeed, the convergers on staff (teachers #2, 3, 4 in Table 3) indicated a balanceor preference for PBL (from 3–5 points for PBL). Teachers #5 and #6, who were balancedconvergers/assimilators, also tended to prefer PBL (4.25 and 4 points). One converger(Teacher #3), who had a use-first preference for sequential and precise styles on the LCI(Johnston & Dainton), reframed her own need to compromise between traditional and PBL.Over the years she had found a way of addressing both environments:

I believe that projects teach more that is remembered in the long run. But at the same

time, I feel bad when the 9th graders don’t know about certain specific science-knowledge

topics. So I tried to make a synthesis of my students’ interest about a topic and did a lot of

‘just-in-time’ teaching them the content material that they needed for their projects.

The pedagogical advisor (Teacher #2) also had a converger style and strongly preferredPBL over traditional (4.75 of 5 points). He argued that PBL is the best environment sincestudents are engaged in authentic problems and they learn and remember more:

. . . the best learning occurs with project-based science which has authentic and interesting

problems that the kids are responsible for bringing to class. . . . In a regular lecture class the

kids just learn the material and then forget it.

The only accommodator was the coordinator, a style which prefers learning sciencewith self-discovery. Since the inventory results were anonymously presented on a slide,the other teachers did not know the identity of the single accommodator. The coordinatorrealized she was the only accommodator and also had the strongest preference on staff forconfluent and technical processing. She discreetly shared her deepening self-understandingwith the researchers: “Now I understand why I like PBL so much! I just seem to have the

394 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

personality for it . . . You know, I also realize that my family has a ball with ‘experiencing’ ”!She explained that understanding her own style preferences helped her understand herexceptional joy with PBL:

Projects are a great way to motivate kids to engage in science. Kids chase me to help them

on their projects! Even the weak students. That never happens in a regular classroom when

a teacher gives a frontal lesson. . . Not only do they think, but they also get to be creative.

And they love it!

From the scores, interviews, and field notes, we argue that accommodators and convergersare more likely to embrace the challenges of teaching with PBL and respond as earlyadopters (or even initiators). The coordinator and pedagogical advisor were examples ofthis relationship.

The costs to individual teachers in PBL, who were strong assimilators (mismatched toPBL), included teacher frustration, teacher stress, lower teacher motivation for teachingPBL, and lower perceived (by the coordinator) abilities. These costs are remarkably similarto costs for students who have learning styles mismatched to a learning environment (seevarious costs: Brophy, 1998; Katz, 1990; Matthews, 1996; Sims & Sims, 1995).

We found that the LCI (Johnston & Dainton) score alone, without considering the LSI(Kolb) score, did not predict or explain a teacher’s response to PBL. For example, theassimilator (Teacher #10), who strongly preferred the technical style (very useful in guidingdesign projects), had the lowest preference for PBL (2 of 5 points).

Even considering the patterns from scores and interviews, the relationship betweenteacher ILDs and predicting teacher responses to PBL is not so simple. First, there aremany teachers who have no strong style or environment preference; e.g. Teacher #6 had ause-as-needed preference for each LCI (Johnston & Dainton) style and an even split betweenassimilator–converger styles on the LSI (Kolb). Second, teachers, regardless of their styles,negotiate challenges differently; e.g. teachers #3 and #4, with very similar style profiles(Table 3), had very different responses to PBL. Third, there are different strengths of stylepreference, which are not reflected in a single word like “assimilator.” Finally, how teachersrespond and negotiate challenges in both environments is dependent on far more factorsthan their own self-reported ILDs. Later in this paper, we propose a model (Figure 2) whichoutlines some of these factors.

Focus Question #2: How Might Sensitizing Teachers to TheirOwn and Colleagues’ ILDs Lead to Changes in Teachers and StaffRelations Which Can Sustain a Constructivist Environment?

The main changes seemed to center around the coordinator. In interviews after a year, thecoordinator spoke of feeling more relaxed about both learning environments. She explainedher change of attitude towards the two learning environments:

Before [the workshops], there was one way to do things [PBL], and if it wasn’t appropriate

for the pupil, then ’it was the student’s problem’ . . . Now there’s just less stigma. After the

workshops we realized that it’s not a good idea to divide up . . . It’s just better to expose

everyone to both traditional and PBL environments.

The coordinator also changed her tactics with other teachers. Even though her perceptionof teachers’ ability to teach in a PBL environment did not change, she stopped labeling them:“After the workshops we also realized that politically it was bad tactics to say ’You’re notappropriate for PBL as a teacher’. It’s not correct to put a label on a person, to say that ’this

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 395

is a projects teacher or this is a traditional teacher’.” Between the lines, she acknowledgedthe traditional teachers’ previous discomfort with PBL. She expressed empathy for theteachers’ previous conflicts and their sense of relief after the workshops: “I think that in thediscussions during the workshops, the teachers got a sense of relief. They could say that‘we’re also o.k. if we don’t want to do projects.”’ Other teachers, including the teacherwho boycotted the workshops confirmed that the coordinator had calmed down after theworkshops (Interview: Teacher #16): “I think the PBL ideology still attracts the coordinatorbut this last year she has . . . stopped hitting her head against the wall . . . Now she’s just lessobsessive about projects . . . ”

Surprisingly, when the coordinator relaxed, there were positive repercussions concerningstudents. For example, some of her students who preferred a traditional environment wereironically more willing to do a science project:

This year in my class, two girls refused to do a project. They just wanted to read the

textbook. Normally I would have made them do a research project, and they would have

hated it. But since I understood that their learning preferences were legitimate, I let them

read the material. Ironically, they chose to do a small research project for the class after

reading the text. I was just more relaxed about the whole thing, and so were they.

As a result of her changes, staff conflicts lessened. A year later, many traditional teachersacknowledged less staff conflicts because the coordinator was more relaxed about PBL, andthey felt more legitimized. As a result, both sides could accept the other side. As Teacher#8 explained:

There was a switch after the learning styles workshops . . . I think that giving legitimacy to

our different learning styles really let each side make changes after the workshops . . . The

coordinator loosened up, put less pressure on the teachers and could accept a content-

oriented approach. The teachers were freed to accept the PBL approach more . . . It’s hard

to explain, but before there were two extreme styles---afterwards, both ended up giving in

to the middle ground.

Thus, as a result of the workshops, the assimilators became more open to acceptingPBL. A year after the workshops, many assimilators, formerly critical of PBL, voluntarilyexpressed their willingness to keep PBL in their classrooms. One assimilator (Teacher #8)who did not prefer PBL on the questionnaire (2.75 of 5 points), expressed appreciation forPBL in this way:

How could they [students] possibly get these [research] skills in a traditional lecture? . . . I

know that some of my students don’t like projects but they know that they need the skills for

the future and that projects are a good tool . . . . They also don’t suffer like with lectures . . . . In

PBL, students come happy; this is important. It’s not enough, but it’s important . . .

In addition, assimilators expressed the limitations of their preferred traditional environ-ment. Even the physics teacher who had boycotted the workshops (#16) admitted that atraditional environment was not a panacea:

Years ago, the frontal lecture was a mutual punishment. I told myself then, “this is not a

good approach.” We tried many experiments in varying the lecture-approach . . . . In lectures,

there is not so much the feeling that the student is learning as that the teacher is teaching.

396 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

Finally, we found that many teachers had reframed their beliefs about students. Teachersexpressed a change from feeling that “I’m OK but the student is not,” to “We’re different andperhaps mismatched.” When teachers acknowledged their own uncomfortable feelings ina mismatched environment (e.g. assimilators in PBL), they also increased their sensitivityto students’ ILDs and needs. The assimilator (Teacher #13) who attended only the firstworkshop said that the LSI (Kolb) and the learning cycle contributed to his change of beliefs:

Two years ago the coordinator had five or six 8th grade students who didn’t like PBL . . . . The

workshop helped me to see these students differently. I didn’t understand it then, but now

I think that learning with projects just did not fit them. I started seeing that they weren’t

just lazy. I had one 8th grade girl who didn’t cooperate with her projects group. When I

switched to traditional teaching, she did very well. It was a matter of mismatch. Teachers

have a tendency to say “I’m OK and he’s not.” If the student doesn’t like projects, there’s

an automatic tendency to say “something’s wrong with her.” It’s important to think about

this. Here there are not “guilty” people; there’s a problem of mismatch.

DISCUSSION

The evidence from our case study suggests that a teacher’s ILDs can reflect stable episte-mological beliefs and related learning environment preferences, thereby making it inappro-priate to fault a teacher for his/her preference. Clearly, a teacher-deficit belief, such as thatinitially held by the coordinator to explain nonvolunteer responses to PBL, did not facili-tate teacher change but rather led to more teacher resistance of PBL. Jordan, Lindsay, andStanovich (1997) found that teachers who held such deficit (pathognomonic) beliefs aboutstudents were less effective teachers, while teachers with interventionist beliefs (“How canI intervene to support this student?”) were more effective. To sustain constructivist envi-ronments, our study suggests that teacher educators should avoid pathognomonic beliefsabout teachers (“This nonvolunteer saboteur of PBL has a deficit.”) and adopt interven-tionist beliefs (“How can I anticipate and intervene to support this nonvolunteer teacher?”).Intervention for potential nonvolunteers might include more traditional, step-by-step guide-lines and clearer assessment of student products, to help them adapt to their new role in aconstructivist environment (e.g., Rosenfeld & Ben Hur, 2000). Finally, perhaps educatorsmight intervene to help early adopters temper their enthusiasm with empathy, in order notto alienate mismatched nonvolunteers who resist a constructivist environment.

One might question the value of legitimizing different ILDs which are not epistemolog-ically equal. For example, certain styles may prefer different types of knowledge, not allof which are equally desirable; e.g., the science learned in a traditional environment thatmatches an assimilator’s needs is different in quality and nature from the science learned in aconstructivist environment that matches an accommodator’s needs. Nevertheless, when theteachers in our study were sensitized to ILDs, they lowered their judgments about others’epistemological beliefs, and became more patient and accepting of responses to PBL thatwere different from their own. The staff assumed a healthier compromise position ratherthan a previous win–lose position concerning the two learning environments.

We believe that the teachers benefited from group interaction and professional mediation;if teachers had simply filled out learning style inventories as individual teachers, they mightnot have gained many of the deeper insights about themselves and their colleagues. Wesuggest that just improving communication between the coordinator and teachers mighthave smoothed over staff conflicts, but would not have sustained PBL, since a majority of thescience staff was assimilators who expressed a strong, underlying traditional epistemology.This school presented us with a unique research advantage. Because we were not allowed to

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 397

deal directly with the lack of communication or staff conflicts, the resolution of staff conflictsin this school could more directly be attributed to the workshops and their contribution tothe teachers’ professional development.

Teacher change is not easy. Sensitizing teachers to their own ILDs might be a stepin the direction of enabling teachers “to reflect upon and make explicit their personalpractical knowledge, including beliefs, attitudes, and concerns,” a necessary component forsuccessful innovative curriculum reform (Davis, 2003, p. 6).

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND A STRATEGY

To contextualize our findings, we offer a conceptual model (Figure 2) of factors whichcan influence teacher responses to constructivist learning environments. External factorsinclude school-system support, innovative and explicit science materials, and professionaldevelopment support (Schneider, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2005). We argue that there arealso internal factors, often overlooked, which can influence teacher responses and staffrelations. These internal factors center on the teacher’s own ILDs which can reflect stableepistemological beliefs and learning environment preferences. We also offer the strategy ofincreasing teacher sensitivity to their own and colleagues’ internal factors (ILDs) in orderto regulate the influence of these internal factors (ILDs). This strategy tempers teacherresponses, resulting in increased positive teacher responses to other staff and to PBL.

Our case study illustrates this model and strategy. The external factors of decreasedprincipal support and little staff communication influenced teacher responses to PBL and toeach other. In addition, the internal factors of ILDs likewise played a role; the assimilatorsresponded negatively to PBL and to the coordinator, who disparaged traditional teachers’abilities. In contrast, the coordinator, as an accommodator, responded very positively toPBL, even without administrative support of PBL. The strategy of increasing the staff’ssensitivity to ILDs tempered the coordinator’s negative responses to the traditional teachersand tempered the teachers’ negative responses to her and to PBL.

Figure 2. A conceptual model: Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learning environments. Con-

structivist environments present challenges which elicit various teacher responses. Both external and internal factors

can influence these responses. Internal factors include ILDs, which can reflect different epistemological beliefs.

398 ROSENFELD AND ROSENFELD

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are no simple answers to complicated issues. Even teachers whose ILDs “match”constructivist learning environments experience frustrations with PBL. While the studyilluminated important issues, the conclusions need to be critically examined in light offurther studies with other groups of teachers. In addition, style inventories cannot capturethe amazing complexity of teacher ILDs. While inventories can raise the conversationlevel of teacher ILDs and help educators anticipate legitimate challenges, they are self-report instruments and by definition not always reliable (Curry-Swan, 1990). It wouldalso be incorrect and counterproductive to typecast all assimilators as nonvolunteers orall accommodators as early adoptors. Nevertheless, addressing the issue of teachers asindividuals, with individual needs, is an important area for future research. We suggestusing additional ILDs tools which offer different perspectives and may hold promise inpredicting or explaining different teacher responses to constructivist learning environments,e.g., the triarchic model (Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996). Finally, inorder to sustain such environments, it may be useful to explore the matches and mismatchesbetween teacher ILDs, student ILDs, and different learning environments (e.g., Rosenfeld& Rosenfeld, 1999).

We wish to thank Professors Joe Krajcik, Anne Wilson, and Warren Wilde for their helpful comments

on previous versions of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations

in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational

Psychologist, 35, 149–164.

Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R., & Fishman, B. (2001). The empirical base for professional development in science

education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of

Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.A. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curry-Swann, L., (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50–57.

Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of

innovative practices. Science Education, 83, 3–30.

de Kock, A., Sleegers, P, & Voeten, M. (2004). New learning and the classification of learning environments in

secondary education. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 141–170.

Honigsfeld, A., & Schiering, M. (2004). Diverse approaches to the diversity of learning styles in teacher education.

Educational Psychology, 24(4), 487–508.

Johnston, C., & Dainton, G. (1997). Learning Combination Inventory (LCI) users’ manual. Glassboro, NJ: Rowan

University.

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. (1997). Classroom teachers’ instructional interactions with students who

are exceptional, at risk, and typically achieving. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 82–93.

Katz, N. (1990). Problem-solving and time: Functions of learning style and teaching methods. The Occupational

Therapy Journal of Research, 10(4), 221–236 .

Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer & Co.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and

new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles

(pp. 227–247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER RESPONSES 399

Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M. L., & Berger, C. F. (2003). Teaching science in elementary and middle school

classrooms: A project-based approach, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ladewski, B. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Harvey, C. L. (1991). A middle grade science teacher’s emerging understanding

of project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 498–515.

Lawrence, M. (1997). Secondary school teachers’ and learning style preferences: Action or watching in the

classroom? Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 157–171.

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The

Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.

Matthews, D. B. (1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school

students. Clearing House, 69(4), 249–255.

Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style. In R. R. Schmeck (Eds.),

Learning strategies and learning styles (Chap. 4, pp. 83–100). New York: Plenum.

Rahm, J., Miller, H. C., Hartley, L., & Moore, J. C. (2003). The value of an emergent notion of authencity:

Examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

40(8), 737–756.

Rainey, M.A., & Kolb, D. (1995). Using experiential learning theory and learning styles in diversity education. In

R. Sims & S. Sims (Eds), The importance of learning styles (Chap. 8, pp. 129–146). Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.

Riding, R., & Raynor, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in

learning and behavior. London: David Fulton.

Riding, R. & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11,

196–215.

Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade

project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.

Rosenfeld, S., & Ben Hur, Y. (2000). Project-based learning (PBL) in science and technology: A case study of

professional development. In N. Valanides (Ed.), Science and technology education: Preparing future citizens,

Proceedings of the 1st IOSTE Symposium in Southern Europe, Paralimni, Cyprus.

Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (1999). Understanding the “surprises” in project-based learning (PBL); an explo-

ration into the learning styles of teachers and their students. Paper presented at Proceedings of the European

Association for Research in Learning and Instruction---EARLI Conference, University of Gothenberg, Sweden

August, 1999. Available at URL: http://www.designworlds.com/techscape/Sherm LStyles.html.

Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2004). Developing teacher sensitivity to individual learning differences. Educa-

tional Psychology, 24(4), 465–486.

Rosenquist, R. L. (2000). A comparison of learning styles between alternative and traditional educators in the

state of Iowa. Ph.D. dissertation at Iowa State University. Digital dissertation #AAT 9962842.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Learning styles: Frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17, 51–65.

Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher

enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.

Sims, S. J., & Sims, R. R. (1995). Learning and learning styles: A review and look to the future. In R. Sims and

S. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Snow, R. E. (1997). Aptitudes and symbol systems in adaptive classroom teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5),

354–361.

Songer, N. B., Lee, H-S., & Kam (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the

barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.

Sternberg, R., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment

of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(3), 129–137.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg

& L. Zhang (Eds), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and

Instruction, 9, 257–280.