Georgia State University
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 USA
Note: This paper was presented as a keynote speech at the 6th Nordic Research Conference on Science Education, Joensuu, Finland, June 1999.
This research was designed to describe a constructivist science teacher education program and investigate how students in the program experienced a constructivist learning environment. Nineteen students enrolled in a four-term program for prospective secondary science teachers participated in this one-year study. A rich description of the constructivist teacher education program established the context for the study. Three focus questions guided the study. They included 1). What depth of understanding do the students posses and communicate about constructivism. 2). What was students' experience with constructivism in their internships? 3). What pedagogical strategies did the students describe that worked in their internships? Data were collected by means of questionnaires, on-line bulletin board writing, journals, and videotapes of class sessions. Results indicated that students developed a depth of understanding of constructivism even after their internships. Most interns were able to implement constructivism in their classrooms, although nearly 33% felt they would not be able to implement constructivism in their first year of teaching. Interns reported that cooperative learning, alternative assessments, and Internet activities worked best in their internship experiences.
The purpose of this paper is to describe a constructivist science teacher education program (Teacher Education Environments in Mathematics and Science---TEEMS) and to explore how students in this program experienced a constructivist teacher education learning environment. The program is characterized as an inquiry-oriented and reflective thinking program which fosters a student-centered learning environment. In particular the students’ conceptions of constructivism were explored to find out how the concept was understood and experienced, and whether students in the program felt the concept had practical relevance. To explore the practical relevance of the concept of constructivism data was collected on what students in the program thought worked and didn’t work in their internship experiences. Links were made between these data and the data collected on students’ conception of constructivism over the course of the program period.
The theoretical framework for this study is embedded in the conversation about changing views of the pedagogy of teacher education. As Korthagen and Kessels (1999) point out, "The pressure towards more school-based teacher education programs, visible in many countries, creates the need to rethink the relationship between theory and practice (p.4)." As they point out, the traditional application-of-theory model appears to be ineffective and is being replaced by more reflective approaches.
Typically teacher education programs move from theory to practice, with education majors taking courses in a variety of departments that lack an integrated and holistic approach. The term "practice teacher" and indeed the term "student teaching" imply the "application of theory" model (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999). The underlying concept in the "application of theory" approach is that prospective teachers are taught a body of knowledge about teaching, and then apply (practice) this knowledge in school settings.
Zeichner (1983) identified four topologies of teacher education programs including 1) the behaviorist orientation, 2) psychological/personalistic orientation, 3) the craft-oriented approach and 4) the inquiry-oriented approach. The inquiry-oriented approach is a student-centered model in which the student is seen as an active learner (Harmin, 1994). In teacher education the approach fosters a constructivist environment in which prospective teachers use inquiry strategies to learn pedagogical skills, explore the nature of student learning in the context of schools, and reflect on their own learning.
However, Imig and Switzer (1996) report that teacher education programs have been increasingly putting more emphasis on knowledge bases to teach to prospective teachers. This has led to education courses that emphasize expert-knowledge (Sprinthall, Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1996) to be learned in the "application of theory" model. But as these researchers point out, many of the ideas presented as "expert-knowledge" are washed out during field experiences and the first years of teaching.
However, newer paradigms are emerging in teacher education that appear to mitigate against the results of the "application of theory" model. Korthagen and Kessels (1999, p. 6), summarizing the work of Calderhead (1989) describe the new paradigms in this way:
"Many of these attempts can be characterized by an emphasis on reflective teaching, implying that teacher education is conceptualized as an ongoing process of experiencing practical teaching and learning situations, reflecting on them under the guidance of an expert, and developing one’s own insights into teaching through the interaction between personal reflection and theoretical notions offered by the expert."
The social and psychological context for teacher education programs has been explored in the context of constructivism (Oldfather et al., 1994, Bell and Gilbert, 1996, and Tobin, Kahle, and Frasher, 1990). Using constructivism as a referent (Tobin and Fraser, 1990), learners explore pedagogy in an inquiry-oriented and active learning environment (Hassard, 1992).
Constructivism refers to the belief that human knowledge is constructed, and that it is constructed within human minds and within social communities (Richardson, 1999). In teacher education, the application of constructivism has recently been applied. Richardson (1999, pp. 152-153) describes the process of constructivist teacher education this way:
"The process of a constructivist teacher education approach involves using constructivist methods of education of preservice and inservice teachers. A process focus attempts to create a constructivist environment in the teacher education classroom that includes using the pedagogical tools of dialogue, the development of meaningful tasks, and "giving reason" to the participants. These processes are often used by teacher educators to model how they want their students to eventually teach in their own classrooms."
Teacher education programs however must deal with the issue that Lortie (1975) refers to as the teacher socialization problem. According to Lortie, teacher socialization occurs while in the role of student teacher and that quite often prospective teachers are exposed to rather conservative approaches to teaching. Any alternative view to teaching is short-lived, even during student teaching.
An approach that offers an alternative to this outcome is described as "realistic teacher education (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999, p. 7). They describe this approach in the following ways:
"To put it in its shortest form, the realistic approach goes from practice to theory. An interesting aspect is that the gap between theory and practice disappears, although it is better to say that it is not created by the educational process itself, as in the case in the traditional approach. In cognitive psychological terms one can say that the intended learning processes start from "situated knowledge", developed in the interaction of the learners with the problem situations, and that the concrete situations remain the reference points during the learning process."
For prospective teachers, a realistic teacher education program would be grounded in constructivism, and would be characterized as follows (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999, p. 7):
"An approach more in line with Freudenthal’s ideas about learning would take its starting point in real problems encountered by student teachers during field experiences. The student teacher would then develop his or her own knowledge in a process of reflection on the practical situations in which a personal need for learning was created. As in the case in realistic mathematics education, the emphasis shifts toward inquiry-oriented activities, interaction amongst learners, and the development of reflective skills."
Thus teacher education programs rooted in experience (Dewey, 1938) and experiential knowledge (Maslow, 1966) provide the context for learning in which prospective teachers, in an inquiry-oriented environment, develop knowledge about teaching rooted in "realistic education." The TEEMS program, which forms the context for this research, is built upon these ideas.
The purpose of this study was to explore how students in the TEEMS program experienced a constructivist teacher education learning environment and how the approach impacted their ideas about teaching and learning in their internships. The following questions guided the research:
Context of the Research&endash;The TEEMS Program
TEEMS is a constructivist approach to science teacher education, and is based on an active-learning model, as well as nearly ten years of experience with alternative teacher preparation. The Department of Middle Secondary Education was the first department at Georgia State University (GSU) to provide alternative paths to the teaching profession (Hassard, Rawlings & Giesel, 1993). Starting in 1986, programs leading to teaching certificates were designed in foreign language, mathematics and science. Through cooperative efforts among GSU, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and many school districts throughout the state, more than 80 teachers began teaching careers through the TRIPS Program, and the Alternative Teacher Preparation Program in Foreign Language, Mathematics and Science (Hassard, Rawlings & Giesel, 1993).
One of the outcomes of these alternative teacher preparation programs was to rethink the nature of teacher education, and to begin to visualize and plan for new approaches to teacher education. As a result of the convergence of our work in alternative teacher preparation, the apparent American national crisis in science and mathematics, and the emerging epistemology of constructivism (von Glassersfeld, 1992), a new program for the preparation of mathematics and science teachers was developed.
The underlying framework for the new program is constructivism, which suggests that human beings construct knowledge through acting on their environment and interacting with other humans. In practical terms we accepted the notion that students entering this new teacher education program would have preconceptions about how to teach and how they think children learn science. As Wahl, Weinert, & Huber (1984) report, these preconceptions are resistant to change using traditional methods. To deal with this within a new framework would mean the program design would be based on an experiential and active learning model in which students would work in collaborative groups on problem solving activities and participate in reflective activities. In this way, they could monitor their ideas, and reconsider the preconceptions they had and consider alternative theories and ideas based on practical work. The work to design, and eventually implement this new program is called The TEEMS Program (Teacher Education Environments in Mathematics and Science). The research reported here focuses only on the science education component of the TEEMS program.
The TEEMS program is designed to prepare secondary science teachers who possess a range of knowledge, abilities and skills including:
Students have been admitted into the program in the spring of each year since 1994. Applicants must hold at least a bachelor's degree in science or engineering or the equivalent. Students must also provide letters of recommendation, acceptable scores on the Graduate Record Examination, or the Miller Analogies Test, a minimum GPA (grade point average) of 2.75, and a writing sample outlining why they want to become a science teacher. Candidates meeting these requirements are then interviewed by a team of professors in science education and science, and secondary school teachers. The program, which begins during the summer, is a four-term program leading to a Master's degree in science education and a license to teach science, grades 7 - 12.
Since its inception 98 students have been admitted into the TEEMS program in science. Fifty-six of the students have graduated (19 will graduate in August of 1999, while 20 are just beginning their program as of June 1999). Of the 56 who have graduated, fifty are currently teaching in either middle or high schools in Georgia, as well as in several other states.
Table 1. TEEMS Students, 1994 - 2000
Year Applicants Admitted Graduated Employed as
Teachers Teaching Currently 1994-1995 6 5 5 5 5 1995-1996 64 18 17 16 13 1996-1997 31 12 12 12 11 1997-1998 31 24 22 20 20 1998-1999 36 19 19 ** ** 1999-2000 36 20 * * * Totals 204 98 75 53 39
* Just beginning program ** Still seeking employment
Philosophically, the program encourages the construction of teaching strategies and models through an active learning format beginning in the summer term. Students are involved in hands-on/minds-on (Hassard, 1992) strategies designed to help them create active learning environments for the students they will teach. An integration of practice and theory characterizes the work that we have planned for the students. Even in the summer, TEEMS students work with teenagers in an environmental science environment. Pedagogy and practice are seen as twin vistas to help TEEMS students develop the knowledge teaching. In the TEEMS program activity leads to the development of teaching knowledge and theory.
Organization of the Experiences in TEEMS
The TEEMS Program begins each June with a Summer Institute (see Table 2). In the Summer Institute students in the program are engaged in practical activities that are based on science activities typically used with school age students. The TEEMS students participate in a series of problem solving episodes that focus the on use of science knowledge, inquiry, reflection and hands-on/minds-on activities. This approach is supported other research (Freudenthal, 1978,1991) which was characterized as "the realistic approach" which goes from practice to theory. In the TEEMS program we repeat this process each term so that students encounter new situations through guided practice activities, and school internships.
Table 2. Organization of the Curriculum of the TEEMS Program
Curriculum Focus Goals Internship & Teaching
Experiences Term 1: Summer 1998 TEEMS Summer
Institute Education or Science
Coursework Reconnaiss-ance of
science teaching Introduction to
inquiry-based teaching and learning Connect
preconceptions of teaching and learning to a constructivist
approach to pedagogy Reflective teaching
episodes Micro-teaching Team teaching in a
summer science camp Term 2: Fall Semester
'98 Theory and Pedagogy
of Science Teaching & Internship in Middle
School Education and/or
Science coursework Development of
pedagoical strategies in the context of middle school
classrooms Reflective analysis
of one's ability to plan, carry-out and evaluate teaching
& learning Construct knowledge
of teaching through concrete experiences, reflection and
discussion School-based
experiences in a middle school, as well as field trips, and
special projects with middle school students and
teachers. Working relationship
with a mentor teacher Term 3: Spring Semester
'99 Pedagogy and
Internship in a High School Education and/or
Science coursework Further Development
of pedagogical strategies in the context of a high
school Reflective analyisis
of one's ability to plan, carry-out and evaluate teaching
and learning. Construction of
knowledge of teahing through concrete experiences,
reflection and discussion. Apprenticeship in a
high school involving special projects. Working relationship
with a mentor teacher. Term 4: Summer 1999 Portfolio
Presentation & Assessment Education and/or
Science coursework Assessment of one's
progress as a TEEMS student Presentation of
Portfolio in a public setting Know how to use a
professional portfolio to reflect on one's growth and
development as a teacher Portfolio Assessment
and Presentation.
In TEEMS the concept of constructivism is practiced and embodied by the professors who direct the work of the students throughout their experience in the program. In one sense it our belief that teachers teach in the way they were taught. Thus, each class that we teach whenever we are directly working with the students is organized as a set of inquiry-oriented activities, discussions and reflections. We use a variety of teacher education materials that were developed along a constructivist framework (Hassard, 1992, Hassard 1996, Hassard 1998, Hassard, 1999, Wong, 1996).
Inquiry-based learning honors the integrity and prior-knowledge (Maslow, 1966) of each of the TEEMS students. We assume that they have a knowledge base about teaching, and in many cases it is quite different than the constructivist model that we are creating. They are immersed in the program from the time they walk into our classroom. The inquiry-based activities are accomplished in small team learning groups. The purpose of the inquiry-based activities is to provide a practical and concrete experience that is used as a referent for dialogue, discussion and writing. Dialogue and discussion are begun in the context of the small groups and eventually come to the whole class in the form of focus group presentations and dialog at the whole class level. Individual reflection is encouraged by asking the students to maintain a journal throughout their program.
These face-to-face sessions help establish a community of practice which is further extended by the use of an extensive web site (Hassard, 1999c). Within the site a number of reflective tools are used to foster community and individual and group reflection throughout the program. One of the most successful Internet tools we have used is the on-line bulletin board. TEEMS students also have access to other communication tools such as TEEMS chat rooms, and a private e-mail list for the group.
TEEMS students participate in two internships during the year, one in a middle school, and the other in a high school. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 10 schools that were used during the year. Two urban and three suburban schools were used in each internship, thereby providing the opportunity for the students work work in diverse communities.
During the Fall Semester, TEEMS students focus their work in a middle school by designing lessons, working side-by-side with a mentor, and carrying out project-based activities including the development and field testing of a science tool kit, and collaboration with other TEEMS students on an action research project on classroom management. Students spend seven of the 15 week semester at school. Focus is placed on the importance of reflecting on the experiences that TEEMS students have, whether in hands-on activities on the university campus, or in experiences in the middle school. Using a reflective journal, e-groups, and the on-line bulletin board in the TEEMS web site, TEEMS students are constantly discussing practice and theory as if they were one.
In the Spring Semester, TEEMS students participate in an eleven-week high school science internship that is more intense than the middle school experience. Emphasis is placed on having the TEEMS intern work with the mentor in a team teaching situation. This is done purposely to encourage collaboration and reflection rather than the usual "practice teaching model" so prevalent in traditional teacher education programs (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999). Instead TEEMS students are involved in project-based activities including the development of a relevant mini-science teaching unit, the creation of a technology-based project, and an investigation of alternative assessment strategies.
TEEMS students monitor and reflect on their work throughout the year by maintaining a professional portfolio, keeping a journal, and participating in ongoing web-based discussions within the TEEMS web site. The portfolio showcases the TEEMS students' progress and work by the inclusion of documents and artifacts that reflect work over the course of a year. In the second summer term, students present their portfolios at a "science fair" type gathering by not only showing their portfolio but by also creating a three-panel poster board display representing a reflection of their work. New TEEMS students, faculty, mentor, and other interested persons are invited to this event.
The TEEMS Constructivist Learning Environment
One of the ideas that we convey to TEEMS students is that we believe that knowledge about teaching is created by the learner, and that we hope that through an experiential approach they will have the opportunity to develop and reflect on their own knowledge construction. This is a fundamental principle guiding the professors in the TEEMS program. We also conveyed to the students that we would engage them as a community of learners in activities that would be grounded in experiential learning. It was important, we told them, that TEEMS learning experiences be characterized as hands-on, reflective, and cooperative.
In the TEEMS curriculum we rarely, if ever lecture. We organize the experiences (except for the Internship experiences) using cooperative groups. Problems and activities are used to engage the students in the exploration of ideas about science and pedagogy. Using a constructivist model that we have modified from others (Hassard, 1999), the learning experiences for the TEEMS students involve four levels or stages. First, inviting them to consider their preconceived ideas as they relate to the problem at hand. Second, engaging them in an exploration of the topic in small groups followed by discussion, reporting and reflecting by explaining the results of their exploration. Finally, TEEMS students are asked to take action on their experiences. Our role as teacher educators in the TEEMS program is to be a guide or a facilitator (Richardson, 1999,Rogers, 1984) of the learning environment, and to engage the students in hands-on experiences and thoughtful discussions.
The TEEMS program uses three types of learning experiences to foster active learning and construction of science teaching knowledge. Table 3 identifies the experiences and shows how we perceive their organization and goals. The inquiry and project based experiences are examples of activities that we design to engage the TEEMS students in hands-on and experientially-based learning activities. Some of these experiences take place in face-to-face class sessions on the university campus, while others are completed in the context of a middle or a high school.
Table 3. Types of Experiences in the TEEMS Program
Inquiry and Project Based
Experiences Reflective
Experiences Internship & Teaching
Experiences
The Internet was an important communication tool that served to establish a community of learners, and to provide a medium for thoughtful reflection and discussion. We established an interactive web site using WebCT, a course management program available to all professors at Georgia State University. The WebCT environment provides a number of communication tools that we took advantage of to further the sense of community that we tried to establish through our face-to-face meetings, classes, and internships. Within the TEEMS web site we set up a bulletin board which we used for reflection and discussion, private mail which enabled the cadre to send email to each other individually or as a group, and chat rooms which allowed for real time discussion.
Research Participants
Nineteen students enrolled in the 1998-1999 TEEMS science program participated in the study. Each of the students was enrolled as a graduate student in the Department of Middle Secondary Education and Instructional Technology at Georgia State University. The group was comprised of 13 women and 6 men. The ethnicity of the group consisted of one Asian-American, one Hispanic-American, two African-Americans, and 15 European-Americans. Three of the students had master's degrees in science, while the remaining 16 had bachelor's degrees in science. None of the students had a previous degree in education, and very few had taken an education course prior to enrolling in the TEEMS program. Students majored in the following six field of science: biology (12 students), chemistry (3), earth science (1), ecology (1), medical technology (1) and physics (1). Each student had an e-mail account, and nearly all of the students had access to the Internet at home. All students are expected to receive a master’s degree in science education in August 1999. Each student in the program is actively seeking employment as a teacher of science either at the middle or high school level. Half of the students hold a Graduate Research Assistantship (GRA) at the Georgia State University, and 75% have received a H.O.P.E. scholarship to help finance their graduate work.
Participant Activities
All participants were enrolled in the TEEMS science education program which consisted of course work that began in the summer of 1998 and was completed in July 1999. Students will graduate with a master’s degree in science education and a license to teach science in grades 7 &emdash; 12.
They participated in course work for four terms (June 1998 - August 1999) that was divided into three clusters of experiences or courses as follows:
TEEMS Science Education Coursework. In their first term, students enroll in a six-semester summer institute that is designed as a hands-on, inquiry- and project-based and reflective experience. During this experience students are introduced to the culture of science teaching, work with professors, high school teachers and plan teaching experiences for middle and high school students in a summer science camp environment. Students participate in a series of constructivist activities designed to provide concrete experiences as reference points for growth and change.
Emphasis is placed on students taking on an active role in their own and others' learning. Here are some examples. On the first day of class, each student is given an assignment to plan a lesson (Reflective Teaching Episodes) which they will teach to small group of their peers. Using this experience, they reflect on their experience of teaching their peers, and begin to think about their own ideas about teaching and how this experience can be used to further their understanding of teaching. On another day, small teams of students might explore "project-based teaching" by building a paper tower, reflecting in their group on the processes used to solve the problem, and viewing video tapes of high school students doing the same activity. Later in the summer, TEEMS students participated a two-day summer science experience in which they worked with three peers to develop a set of constructivist lesson plans which they implemented with a group of middle and high school students.
During the fall semester students take a 6 semester TEEMS experience that integrates pedagogy and internship work in a middle school setting. They explore science teaching in the context of a middle school; work with students individually and small groups, and on occasion prepare teaching experiences under the guidance of a mentor for middle age students (11 &emdash; 14). Students participate in reflective activities including a personal journal, the beginning stages of the development of the professional portfolio, and participation in the TEEMS bulletin board in the program web site.
In the spring semester students enroll in a 6 semester TEEMS experience in the context of a high school. During this experience, TEEMS interns work with a science mentor teacher to explore science teaching at the high school level. The internship is designed to provide learning experiences for students in which they plan and carry out the various teaching experiences. Students design and field test teaching materials, design a technology project (such the use of an interactive Internet bulletin board, or a collaborative science project on the Internet), explore alternative forms of assessment. Reflective activities include a personal journal, the further development of a professional portfolio, and participation in the TEEMS bulletin.
All of these experiences are coordinated and taught by the same team of professors who work with the students throughout the entire program. Furthermore, two high school teachers participate as instructors in the Summer Institute. Typically these teachers also function as mentors in either the middle or the high school internships.
The schools used in the internships represent a variety of school settings in the Atlanta area. Inner city and suburban schools are used in the TEEMS program. The professors who coordinate the program select the schools, and work with the teachers to establish an environment conducive to constructivist teaching. Although not always successful, we have found that each school experience is worthy in its own way. Although these are not professional development schools, four of the schools that we work with have been part of the TEEMS program for three years. In one case, a Ph.D. student in science education and a teacher at the school has coordinated the efforts to establish a reflective environment (Dias, 1998a). Using a focus group model, Dias has worked with seven interns to explore what they perceive as what constitutes effective science teaching (Dias, 1998b).
Professional Education Coursework. TEEMS students select a total of four courses in the fields of education research (many students take a course in action research), learning and cognition, human growth and development, and a course in exceptional children and youth.
Science Coursework. Students take 15 semester hours of coursework in science. Each student entered the program with a degree in science. Students' prior experiences in science are assessed to determine the nature of their graduate experiences. Their graduate experiences are designed to broaden their view of science, so that many students take courses in areas that were absent from their prior science course work. We also encourage the students to take courses in science that are activity-oriented.
Data Sources
A variety of data sources were used during this study which focused on students ideas about constructivism, and teaching experiences that they considered working in the context of classrooms during their internship experiences. Four data sources were utilized: 1). Interview questions which help gain insight over time as to what TEEMS students thought about science teaching concepts including constructivism and experiences the found working in the schools, 2) Focus group reports which brought together students in small teams to brainstorm and discuss their internship experiences, 3). Artifacts which included journal entries and web-based bulletin board discussions of their experiences, 4) video tapes of various experiences throughout the TEEMS program.
Data Analysis
Each of the research questions was answered from several perspectives because of the variety of data sources. Analysis of the questions was done by triangulating the data to expand the richness of the answers to each of the questions, and reduce bias. �To analyze the depth of understanding of the students' conceptions of constructivism, a category system (Table 4) described by Perkins, Crismond, Simmons and Unger (1995) and used in a recent study by Hoffman and Krajcik (1999) was used. Questionnaires were administered prior- and after their internships, and their written statements were analyzed using the following categories and definitions.
Table 4. Coding Categories for Depth of Content Understanding (After Hoffman and Krajcik, 1999).
Level and
Code Description Recalling Information
(RI) Recalling, stating, and
repeating facts and concepts, processes methods and
theories. This depth of understanding involves simply
stating or repeating a fact or idea from some other source.
There is little or no interpretation. Offering Explanations
(OE) Explaining, telling or
describing facts and concepts, processes, methods and
theories. This depth involves telling or describing with
examples. Statements are complete thoughts with a high
degree of coherence and meaning. Articulating Relationships
(AR) Articulating, expressing,
relating facts and concepts, processes, methods and
theories. This depth involves expressing ideas with rich
explanations, relating or linking ideas, often with
examples. Extending Explanations
(EE) Extending, expanding, revising
facts and concepts, processes, methods and theories. This
depth of understanding involves expanding ideas to new
situations or circumstances, revising information, or
providing new examples.
The results are organized around the three sets of questions, which guided the study and the data analysis. Assertions are made for each section, followed by an analysis of the data.
Question 1: What depth of understanding do TEEMS students posses and communicate about the concept of constructivism? How does their understanding compare and change at different points of their program?
Assertion: TEEMS students constructed an understanding of constructivism that was meaningful and practical. Their written explanations of constructivism included primarily offering explanations and articulating relationships. Post internship explanations were at a deeper level of understanding than the period prior to their work with middle and high school students.
To analyze students' depth of understanding of constructivism each students’ responses to questions asked in a written questionnaires prior to and after the internship period were coded using the categories described in Table 4. As shown in Table 5, the depth of understanding of constructivism was spread across three categories. When asked what is constructivism, one student responded "It is the method of trying to undo all the negative, wrong, or misconceptions about science that students have developed." A number of other TEEMS students connected misconceptions research to constructivism. For example, one student said, "In the constructivist model, the level of understanding of your students is extremely important; it enables students to correct misconceptions and learn new material in creative ways." A number of students thought of constructivism as a model, as seen in this statement. "It is a step wise model of teaching starting with inviting students to learn by sparking their interest."
Table 5. Summary of TEEMS Students' Conception of Constructivism at the Pre&emdash; and Post- Internship Points.
Pre-Internship Post-Internship Recall Information 3 0 Offer Explanations 6 10 Articulate
Relationships 5 6 Extend Explanations 0 0
Post-internship understanding of constructivism changed in the direction of more depth, as shown in Figure 2. None of the student interview responses were at the recall of information level; indeed all were at the level of either offering explanations or articulating relationships. In general their responses were richer and showed a deeper understanding of the importance of relevance ((Korthagen and Kessels, 1999). One student commented that constructivism "relates science to the real world through hands-on activities, discussion or dialog with students, and lectures that relate current events and science." One observation that was evident was that TEEMS interns referred to students in their explanations more often after their internships. For example, one TEEMS student commented that constructivism "employs students taking an active role in the learning process; the constructivist method emphasizes the student taking charge of his/her learning while the teacher guides.
Question 2: What was students’ conception of the practical relevance of constructivism? To what extent did they think they could implement constructivist practices in their internships? And to what degree do they think they will be able to implement constructivism in their first year of teaching?
Assertion: TEEMS students predicted that they would be able to implement constructivist practices in their internships and in their first year of teaching, and for the most part were able to implement constructivism during their internship experiences. However, a number of TEEMS interns do not feel they will be able to carry constructivist practices into their first year of teaching.
A summary of the analysis of a series of questions related to the students’ predictions about implementing constructivism and whether they were able to use constructivist approaches in their internships is shown in Figure 3. Students were asked the following three questions: 1). To what extent do you anticipate being able to implement a constructivist approach to teaching the middle school this semester? 2). To what extent were you able to implement a constructivist approach to science teaching in your internship experiences this year? 3). To what extend do you think you will be able to implement a constructivist approach to science teaching in your first year of teaching.
Seventy-eight percent of the students felt they would be able to implement constructivism in their internships. Student commented that their predictions about implementing constructivsm would depend upon the mentor teacher.
One student stated that "a big part depends upon the teacher; most lessons can be incorporated into a constructivist approach." However most students were quite sure they could implement and made very affirmative statements such as:
"I hope to use the constructivist approach as often as I can because I believe that middle school children need that kind of motivation and structure to approach a task or subject. I think that the constructivist model makes learning fun and I am all for that---I think the students will be too!"
When TEEMS students were asked if they were able to implement a constructivist approach, 64% said they did. This is slightly less that the percentage that predicted they could. Furthermore three of the students reported that they did not implement a constructivist approach, and two indicated they were only able to implement constructivist lessons some of the time. One student, who implemented constructivism, also commented that the approach allowed too much freedom. The student put it this way: "I was able to implement the constructivist method in the middle school, but it allowed too much freedom; implementing at the high school level was constrained by the content. Overall it would have been better implemented in a more disciplined middle school setting."
Students began to understand some of the benefits of a constructivist or more active-learning approach. Here’s what one of the TEEMS students said:
"When I started observing the classrooms I would teach in, I noticed these students were very bright and smart, but very quiet. I began to wonder if they would benefit more from more active participation. Whenever I've had the chance to teach them, I have tried to encourage their participation, always trying to probe their prior knowledge and clarifying misconceptions, so when they hear any new concept, they can make a connection in their cognitive concept map. It is very satisfying to observe them understanding, asking challenging questions. Confusion is many a times integral part of learning new concepts in science."
Students during their internships had successful experiences using a constructivist approach. They found some success implementing active learning lessons and using reflective approaches such as journals, electronic bulletin boards, and portfolios. One student commented when interviewed about what types of "cool" pedagogy they were using this way:
"The cool pedagogy I have bee using is of course "TEEMist." One example is an activity in which the kids created and acted out skits explaining the evolution of the modern atomic model of matter. I grouped the kids according to the main scientists and their models of matter. It was quite entertaining and much better than me lecturing about these scientists. I also completed my alternative assessment and technology project. The kids kept reflective journals/learning logs which were very informative form me and hopefully educational for the class. For the technology project the students built an interactive carbon atom on the www.pbs.com web site. The site is called of course Atom Builder. After they built their atoms they completed an Internet Scavenger Hunt."
Students were also asked to consider the degree to which they might be able to implement constructivism in their first year of teaching, which for these TEEMS’ students would be the 1999-2000 school year. Figure 3 shows that 8 of the students (57%) felt they would implement constructivism. However, 5 of the students (36%) thought they would not be able to implement constructivist activities. One student predicted difficulties in this way: "I see it as a hard thing to do because I will be trying to keep my head above water. Maybe I will use it in a couple of plans, but the whole year will be rough." However even students who felt they could not implement in their first year perceived their development as a "constructivist teacher" as a long-term process. The student put the problem this way:
"The basics of the constructivist model seem logical but require a lot of planning and preparation. Although I feel more comfortable with the constructivist model now, I am afraid my attention will be divided amongst many issues in my first year that it will be difficult to implement the model 100%. Over time, as I settle into my teaching style, I will keep what I feel works for me and modify that which doesn’t. I’m sure my overall approach to teaching will be based on the constructivist mindframe but who knows what new models will have caught my eye by then!"
The view of the students with regard to the possibility of implementing a constructivist approach in their first year of teaching is very positive.
Question 3: What pedagogical strategies did TEEMS students describe that "worked" in the classroom during their internships? What pedagogies did they think they should "let go?" How did these pedagogies relate to their understanding of constructivism?
Assertion: TEEMS students identified four broad categories of activities that worked in their internships. Activities that worked were student-centered, and involved group work. Students also found that using alternative assessments and the Internet were successful.
A summary of the analysis of the question "What worked for you during your internships?" is shown in Figure 4. At the end of their internship experiences, students answered this question as part of the Post-TEEMS Survey. Analysis of the student comments resulted in the emergence of four categories, which were then used to code the student comments. The categories of "activities" included 1) cooperative learning or group activities, 2) pedagogical variety, 3) alternative assessments and 4) Internet experiences.
In both the middle school internship and the high school internship TEEMS students emerged with cooperative learning or group work as a fundamental strategy that worked for them. Cooperative learning appeared to work in diverse settings as well, including urban middle and high schools, as well as suburban schools. Students also learned that group work led to social problems within the class. Students quickly found that smaller sized groups were not only a solution to the many of the social problems that emerged in group work, that smaller sized groups led to more active learning on the part of the students.
Cooperative learning (or some form of group work) was identified in the post-TEEMS survey and in on-line bulletin board discussions most frequently as a pedagogy that worked (see Figure 4). Although this is not surprising since the professors that directed the TEEMS science education experiences used cooperative learning strategies nearly all of the time, students began to experience cooperative learning as a professional teacher. One student made this observation about cooperative learning:
"I tried out a jigsaw method with my students. It was very much like the activity we did this past summer when we split into four groups and each group learned a different model of teaching, and then we split up and taught the model to the other groups. I used this for the periodic trends (ionization energy, atomic size, electron affinity and electronegativity). I think it worked really well. The students got to learn by helping each other out in their own groups. Everyone participated because each person had to understand the material well enough to be able to teach it to another group. I circulated among the groups while they were preparing in order to clear up any confusion or misconceptions. The students enjoyed it and it was definitely better than a lecture!"
Pedagogical variety was term invented for coding. After examining the post TEEMS survey, on-line discussion, and focus group sessions, students sited a number of different pedagogical strategies that worked. These tended to be specific "tools" that began to use during the middle school internship and because of success there, carried them forward into the high school internship. Some examples included using T-charts (Hassard, 1998) to uncover students prior-knowledge, using EEEPs (Hassard, 1999a) which are inquiry-based cooperative learning demonstrations, and others. One student’s comment on the survey, which was coded as pedagogical variety made this comment: "What worked for me---T-charts and toolkit activities. I invented my own strategy for doing labs in a constructivist manner. Student loved my web page activities and other Internet activities."
Throughout the TEEMS program, students experienced and reflected on the value of using alternative assessments methods. Indeed the TEEMS students experienced alternative assessment first-hand. They kept a reflective journal throughout their program. They developed two different portfolios---one in the summer term and the other over the course of their internships. We also conducted seminars on alternative assessment, and their resource materials (texts) included much material on this. Thus it was no surprise that in the area of assessment, TEEMS students were reflective in their internships about assessment. Students tried out a variety of assessment strategies in their internships including student learning logs, portfolios, having students complete projects, performance-based tests, group presentations, and the use of rubrics to assess student performance.
The Internet was also a pedagogical strategy with which students found success. In some cases TEEMS students were more experienced using the Internet than their mentors, and this created a role-reversal. In the case of Internet applications and use in the classroom, the TEEMS students led the way in many of the internship classes. These TEEMS students introduced the Internet into their mentor's classrooms. Although the access to the Internet in most of the schools was in the media center where 10-20 computers were located; students managed to incorporate the Internet into their lessons.
When TEEMS students were asked what things did not work, they listed items including:
Although most of the TEEMS students agreed that the above strategies tended not to work, they also discovered that a strategy that worked one day, did not necessarily work the next day. Here is how one student viewed this issue:
changed (and that was very often). What worked one-day to calm the students didn't always work again. The kids loved group work but they performed better in a structured environment (the more instructions the better). I found that when given time to "discover" on their own, they did just that... they discovered 101 ways to be off task. Also, these kids love to talk to each other, to me, to anyone that will listen so I found that large groups are much harder for them to manage. Assigning tasks in groups worked better than not since there was no question who was responsible for what. And, presenting in front of the class was a big hit with them. Getting to know the kids also worked well with me. The hardest students to deal with, though, were those with ADHD. No amount of getting to know them or calling out their names in class seemed to work, consequently, these students were my worst behavior problems in class. Putting a new spin on an old activity can really draw the students into a lesson. I did a demonstration involving chemical reactions that the kids had seen before but they didn't know that each reaction produced a different gas. I had them use a candle flame to identify the new gas (either CO2 or O2) and each has a unique effect on the flame. The kids really enjoyed it and because they had previous experience with the reactions, it made teaching the lesson even easier. I also found it to be true that asking higher order questions of the students held their attention better than asking simple questions. These students needed more practice in problem solving skills since most of their work is based on fill-in-the-blank worksheets but they seemed to rise to the challenge of pondering some slightly off-beat questions I posed to them."
The purpose of this study was to explore how students in the TEEMS program experienced a constructivist teacher education learning environment and how the approach impacted their ideas about teaching and learning. The study used a methodology that incorporated the opinions and ideas of 19 prospective secondary science teachers enrolled in four-term teacher education program. Data was collected using questionnaires, on-line bulletin board discussions, interviews, journal records, and video tapes of some of the TEEMS class sessions.
The results of this qualitative study lead to a number of conclusions about the experience of students in a constructivist teacher education program. The conclusions drawn must be tempered with the realization that these are prospective teachers who have not begun their formal careers as secondary science teachers. However data from multiple sources provides some insight into prospective science teachers ideas about constructivism, the degree to which they were able to implement constructivist practices in their internships, and their predictions about how constructivism will play a role in their first year of teaching.
Firstly, we can assert that these prospective teachers described constructivism as a construct beyond mere recall (stating and repeating) and were able to go beyond this category of understanding to offer explanations and articulate relationships. One of the problems in teacher education programs is that many of the concepts "taught" in education courses appear to fall by the wayside once prospective teachers participate in internship or student teaching experiences (Sprinthall, Reiman, & Thies-Sprinthall, 1996). TEEMS interns in this study developed more depth in their understanding of constructivsm after their middle and high school internships. Indeed they appeared to embody the concept even more strongly as they reflected on their internship experiences. We can speculate that the continuous dialog and reflection on constructivist as a referent for their teaching contributed to this knowledge growth. Further investigation is needed here to see what happens to these prospective sciecne teachers as they enter teaching next year.
Secondly these interns not only predicted they would be able to utilize a constructivst approach in their internships, but reported that they were able to do so after their middle and high school internships. As pointed out in the description of the TEEMS program, students interned in groups of three to eight persons in urban and suburban schools in the Atlanta region. TEEMS interns in each of these settings reported they were able to implement constructivist ideas. It is important to point out that the interns reported experiences with constructivism in terms of what did and did not work in middle and high school classrooms. Students realized that " What worked one day didn't always work again." This is a good example of the general principle of "situated knowledge" in which students in TEEMS through their interaction with problem situations and learners began to use these concrete situations to develop "teacher knowledge."
We can also conclude that these prospective secondary science teachers described as "what worked" in the internship experiences as constructivist pedagogies. Cooperative learning, alternative assessment strategies, and reflective internet activities emerged as the strategies that TEEMS interns identified as most useful. When students first entered the TEEMS program, most of the students did not have positive experiences with group learning, especially in their university studies. In TEEMS they were immersed in a constructivist learning environment in which most activities were organized using cooperative learning. Cooperative learning, alternative assessment and the Internet became a "way of life" for the TEEMS interns, whether on campus throughout the year, or in their internship experiences.
TEEMS is a paradigm rooted in the epistemology of constructivism. Inquiry-based learning activities and reflective practices on the part of TEEMS students in the context of school-based internships provided the environment that Korthagen and Kessels call "realistic teacher education." The constructivist teacher education environment of TEEMS appears to contribute to a deep understanding of constructivism and the teaching practices needed to implement such practices in internship-type experiences.
This research project was descriptive and contributed to our understanding of students understanding and application of constructivist practices while in the program. What happens to these students once they enter the profession? Dias (1998) plans to investigate the pedagogical decisions that TEEMS students in this program make during their first year of teaching. Four to six of the participants in this study will be part of a one-year investigation of the challenges that these TEEMS students face. Most of them indicated that they would be apply to carry the construct of constructivism with them into their first year; however five TEEMS students felt they would be impeded, and might have to temper their use of constructivist practices. It will be important to follow these students into their first year of teaching.
This study also needs to be repeated with a new group of TEEMS interns. Other questions that should be examined include the following:
1. What is the connection between the inquiry-oriented practices presented in TEEMS and the kind of teaching exhibited by the mentor teachers that participate in the TEEMS program? 2. What are the initial preconceptions that TEEMS students have about teaching and learning, and how do these compare to constructivism? To what extent does a realistic teacher education program impact prospective teachers' views of learning?
3. What kinds of environments are conducive to the implementation of constructivist teaching?
Another area that needs to be investigated is the role of teacher education professors in a program such as TEEMS (Howey and Zimpher, 1999). What knowledge and beliefs among professors foster the creation of constructivist environments? What pedagogical knowledge do professors need to possess?
Teacher education programs that are rooted in the epistemology of constructivism, and create practical and experiential learning environments show promise for the development of prospective teachers who use their experiences to develop insights and knowledge about teaching.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London/Washington: Falmer Press.
Calderhead, J. (1989). Reflective teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5 (1), 1-8.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.
Dias, M. (1998a) On becoming a science teacher: A qualitative study of the early conceptions of self among participants of an alternative induction program. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University.
Dias, M. (1998b). Focus group and interview pilot study of perceptions of teaching among TEEMS science education interns at Harrison high school. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University.
Harmin, M. (1994). Inspiring active learning: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hassard, J. (1998). Increasing your students' science achievement. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research.
Hassard, J. (1992). Minds on science. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Hassard, J. (2000). Science as Inquiry. Parsippany, NJ:Good Year Books Hassard, J. (1999a). EEEPs. [On-line] (http://www.gsu.edu/~mstjrh/eeeps.html). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University
Hassard, J. (1999b). Using the internet as an effective science teaching tool. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research.
Hassard, J. (1999c). TEEMS on-line [On-line] (http://www.gsu.edu/~mstjrh/teems.html). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Hassard, J. (1996). Using cooperative learning to enhance your science instruction. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education and Research.
Hassard, J., Rawlings, J. A. & Giesel, D. (1993). The TEEMS project: A report on alternative teacher preparation of secondary teachers. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Hoffman, J. L. & Krajcik, J. S. (1999). Assessing the nature of learners' science content understandings as a result of utilizing on-line resources. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Howey, K. R. & Zimpher, N. L. (1999). In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 279-305). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Imig, d. G., & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 213-226). New York: Macmillan.
Korthagen, F. A. J. & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.4-17.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
Oldfather, P., Bonds, S., & Bray, T. (1994). Stalking the "fuzzy sunshine seeds": Constructivist processes for teaching about constructivism in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 21 (5), 5-14.
Perkins, d. N., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Unger, C. (1995). Inside understanding. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske (Eds.) Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 70-87). New York: NY: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, V. (1999). Teacher education and the construction of meaning. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 145-166). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, C. (1984). Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishers.
Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher professional development. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 666-703). New York: Macmillan.
Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary science teacher? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 27, 3-25.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. New York: The Falmer Press.
Von Glassersfeld, E. (1992). Constructivist approach to teaching. Paper presented at the Conference on Epistemology, University of Georgia.
Wahl, D., Weinert, F. E., Huber, G. L. (1984). Psychology for teaching practice. Muchen: Kosel Verlag.
Wong, H. (1998). The first days of school. Berkeley, CA: Wong and Associates.
Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Research in teacher education.