CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: THREE CASE STUDIES IN CONSTRUCTIVIST PEDAGOGY

¹eaching and ¹eacher Education, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 413— 427, 1998 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0742-051X/98 $19.00#0.00

PII: S0742-051X(97)00053-X

CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: THREE CASE STUDIES IN CONSTRUCTIVIST PEDAGOGY KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH Department of Teacher Education, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469—0525, U.S.A. and

PATRICK M. JENLINK Department of Secondary Education and Educational Leadership, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX 75962-3018, U.S.A.

Abstract—This article examines three case studies of educators who came together initially during a summer professional development experience. During a two-week immersion, the educators and facilitators of this experience engaged in challenging their assumptions and practice through the lens of constructivist pedagogy. The two-week immersion evolved into an on-going professional learning community. The stories that are shared offer a context within which we enhanced our understanding about constructivism as pedagogy as well as the power of professional development through a learning community. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Constructivism as a frame of educational theory, discourse, and action has been achieving increasing prominence in the 1980s and 1990s. The conceptualization of constructivism is complex, having origins and contemporary discourse in philosophy, psychology, and social sciences (Noddings, 1990; Schwandt, 1994). From a cognitive perspective, the theory espouses that all knowledge is constructed by the knower, and that constructivism is a theory of knowing (von Glaserfeld, 1990, 1995). In summarizing elements of Piaget’s contributions to the evolving construct of constructivism, von Glaserfeld (1990, p. 22) suggests, ‘‘Knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of communication. Knowledge is actively built up by the cognizing subject’’. From this perspective, knowledge as an entity ceases to be a separate entity from the knower as experiencer and becomes the ‘‘conceptual means to make sense of experience, rather than a ‘representation’ of something that is supposed to lie beyond it’’ (von Glaserfeld, 1990, p. 27).

Some have oriented discussion on constructivism to suggest that cognition and learning can only be understood by considering the social contexts in which they occur (Wertsch & Toma, 1995). Writings of Vygotsky have influenced social constructivist perspectives as educators grapple with concepts of ‘zone of proximal development’ and learning that occurs on the interpsychological and intrapsychological planes. Educators who espouse tenets of social constructivism emphasize the social and cultural rather than the individual and psychological. In efforts to develop a theory of schooling based on assisted performance within the zone of proximal development, Gallimore & Tharp (1990) built on Vygotsky’s theory by exploring the role a more capable learner, either peer or adult, can play in the social context of learning. The importance of social interaction, teacher—student and student—student, has evolved to suggestions by some educators that classrooms should be communities of learning wherein teachers and students support one

413

414

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

another in learning through the exchange of ideas (Forman & Cazden, 1985; Peterson, 1992). Calls for reform in education have been widespread as the twenty-first century approaches. Both the cognitive and social perspectives of constructivism have influenced educational policy and recommended practice. The National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (1989) issued a standards document emphasizing process and problem solving. The National Science Teachers Association (1992, 1996) suggests opportunity for ‘hands-on’ experimentation and learner-generated inquiries. Questioning as a tool to stimulate cognition as opposed to generating recall is a key feature of recommended practice (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Included in reform efforts has been increasing emphasis on meaningful and substantive professional development for educators at the preservice and inservice levels (Goodlad, 1994; Sarason, 1993). Professional development of educators beyond initial preparation programs has historically incorporated short-term, oneshot, quick-fix staff development activities rather than a means of working with teachers over time (Lieberman & Miller, 1991) Pedagogical constructivism, or ‘‘acceptance of constructivist premises about knowledge and knowers [that] implies a way of teaching that acknowledges learners as active knowers’’ (Noddings, 1990, p. 10) can only be developed in working with teachers over time. It is through challenging assumptions that educators can integrate ways of knowing with ways of teaching. Although some research related to the implications of a constructivist epistemology on the professional development of educators has appeared (Condon, Clyde, Kyle & Hovda 1993; Etchberger & Shaw, 1992; Gurney, 1989; Keiny, 1994), most of the research has been conducted either in the context of the educators’ classrooms or in teacher preparation/certification programs. Within these calls for reform and the research on implications of constructivist pedagogy for teaching and learning, however, lie inherent contradictions about constructivism itself. Oxford (1997) employs ‘shape-shifting’ as a metaphor for constructivism, suggesting multiple and contradictory visions of constructivism have negatively influenced teacher applications of constructivism. The purpose of this paper, and the research upon which it is based, is to contribute to the

ongoing conversations among educators from which basic tenets of constructivism related to teacher education and the professional development of educators will hopefully emerge. A second purpose is to enhance our understanding of the process of professional development of practicing educators. The case studies that follow describe a professional development experience for three groups of educators, teachers and administrators, who engaged in challenging their assumptions and practice through the lens of constructivist pedagogy. Cadre as a Context for Teaching and Learning The Cadre case studies are a depiction of the constructed meanings of three groups of educators who, in the summer of 1995, came together with facilitators and student learners for a twoweek professional development experience, Cadre for Authentic Education—II. Cadre is a multiple-year professional development effort funded by the Michigan Department of Education, Goals 2000 authorization. The fiscal agent for Cadre is an intermediate school district in southwest Michigan. Intermediate school districts serve as regional support for local school districts by providing professional development opportunities, technology support, vocational and technical education facilities, and various other services and programs. Funding from this project supported participation in the Cadre through stipends and release time for follow-up sessions after Summer Cadre. The first Cadre was authorized in 1994, and summer 1994 brought twenty educators (teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals) to the intermediate school district facility for the following purpose as stated in the grant proposal narrative: ‘‘The purpose of the project is to change the classroom delivery of a group of math and science teachers from a more teacherdirected, information-giving, product-oriented, delivery based on a behaviorist model of learning to a more active engagement, sense-making, inquiry-, reflective-, and process-oriented delivery framed from a constructivist perspective of learning.’’ Funding for three more Cadres was authorized for 1995. Although Cadre I set a powerful context of previous experience within which Cadre II unfolded, the Cadres in the

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

summer of 1995 created their own unique contexts for learning. A description of the entire Cadre program follows, but the focus of this story will be on the experiences of the teachers during the two-week sessions during the summer of 1995. Cadre is comprised of five components: (1) a two-week immersion in reading, dialogue and reflective journaling; (2) a period of practice with students grades one through twelve occurring during the five mornings of the second week of immersion; (3) bi-monthly follow-ups to provide refreshers and support; (4) a design process that precedes the two-week immersion and each follow-up; and (5) a one-to-four facilitation ratio between Cadre staff and participants. A description of the components follows. The two-week summer immersion experience is the core of Cadre. During the first week, the participants (groups ranged in number from 21 to 37) and the Cadre staff co-facilitators engaged in activities and dialogue about classroom experiences, personal and professional philosophy, and values and beliefs about teaching and learning. The goal of the activities and dialogue was to encourage the participants to challenge currently held assumptions about teaching and learning, seeing both anew through a constructivist lens. An immersion and distancing (Lester & Onore, 1990) process was employed during the two weeks. The immersion into readings, presentations related to pedagogy, and roleplaying were followed by distancing and reflection through dialogue. A schedule for one twoweek session is included in Appendix A. The list of readings from which we selected is included in Appendix B. The second week of the two-week experience was an essential component of Cadre. During this week students from the surrounding districts joined the participants for five mornings of student-directed learning as students and participants collaborated to solve a cross-disciplinary, real-life problem. For example, the problem in one Cadre was to create a sustainable environment under water, or a hydrosphere. One key aspect of the Cadre experience was to engage the participants (teachers and administrators) as co-learners with the student participants. As co-learners with the students, the Cadre participants approached the problem context not with predetermined solutions that

415

the students were expected to discover, but as resources, partners, and expert assisters (Tharp & Gallimore, 1990) in the learning process. The third component of Cadre was a series of bi-monthly follow-up meetings for Cadre participants following the two-week immersion. These follow-ups consisted of common readings, sharing of recent classroom experiences, and activity and deep dialogue around some aspect of constructivist teaching and learning. Fourth, a constructivist-oriented design process charted the course of Cadre. During the initial information meeting held each spring, an invitation was extended to any participant to be involved in the design team. The team met prior to the two-week immersion as well as the followup sessions and made decisions about the direction of Cadre for the group. Finally, the ratio of one facilitator to four participants was built into the Cadre design. This ratio guaranteed enough facilitators to manage logistics, attend to the learning environment needs of the participants, and to support one another as they themselves advanced their understanding of process facilitation. In addition, the separate follow-up sessions for the cofacilitators provided a context through which they were able to distance from their own performance as facilitator and learn through reflection within their own learning community. Three Cadre groups were funded and organized for the 1995—1996 school year. The Cadre activities were facilitated by staff from the intermediate school district, a process facilitator for professional development contracted to Cadre, and an evaluator contracted to Cadre. It is from the process facilitator Jenlink and evaluator Kinnucan-Welsch lenses that we have represented the professional development experiences of Cadre. One Cadre staff member was assigned as lead facilitator for each Cadre. Participants for Cadre were recruited from information meetings that were held in each of the local districts served by the intermediate school district. Most of the participants were teachers despite an effort to recruit administrators. Participants received a $500.00 stipend and $200.00 for professional materials. Constructivism served as the conceptual basis for Cadre. The basic tenets of constructivism we incorporated into Cadre blended the importance of the individual learner’s construction of

416

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

knowledge with importance of the socio-cultural context in learning. Readings relevant to creating more constructivist environments were mailed to the participants prior to the first session. The text In Search of ºnderstanding: ¹he Case for Constructivist Classrooms (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) was purchased for all participants and served as reference throughout the experience. The language and concepts of social constructivism were woven into the Cadre experience as well. Scaffolding, peer-assisted and expert-assisted learning, and building community were incorporated into the design of daily learning activities. The importance of the social context of learning was highlighted in Cadre design and in continuous adjustments during the two week immersion. Each Cadre developed a uniqueness as separate but kindred entities as the following case studies reveal. Schools and classrooms are complex sociocultural systems, and a professional development experience bounded by time and space mirrors similar complexities. The design process and the two-week immersion, or Summer Cadre, are described in the case studies. Each contributed to the ongoing evolution of the Cadre experience. Constructivism as Inquiry Cadre was primarily a constructivist-oriented professional development experience. But Cadre was also an opportunity to explore how adult learners process immersion into constructivist pedagogy in a socially bounded setting. Each Cadre as represented in this paper is a case study (Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995) of professional development wherein constructivism was both content and process. The stories depict the sociocultural experience that was Cadre and how individuals constructed meaning of constructivism as part of that experience. The data for each case study included video tape of each session, participant journals, transcripts from audio-taped focus group interviews following each Cadre, field notes, and artifacts. The participants were also asked to share their concerns and meaningful learnings in writing every day of Cadre. These were collected and became artifacts of their ongoing construction of meaning. We read the transcript data and

viewed video tapes both together and separately. We responded to the data through individual narrative responses in our journals, and then shared those responses in search of both consonance and dissonance in our interpretations of the emerging themes (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994). The transcriptions of the focus group interviews were coded (Merriam, 1988) by the first author and we incorporated those coded segments into our narrative responses of the audio tape and participant journal data. The analysis of the data was a composite of holistic response (our journal responses) and the pulling apart of the data into codes and responding to the data by establishing relationships, patterns, and themes from the coded data. The roles of the researchers within the socially bounded contexts of Cadre were unique in that we shared in the experience, one acting as consultant/facilitator the other as evaluator. In addition to these roles we assumed, as did all Cadre participants, a co-learner status with all adult and student participants. Although the concept of co-learner was central to the development of a constructivist learning environment, all participants in Cadre including facilitators struggled with this during Cadre as the case studies reveal. The Stories of Cadre Cadre 1995 encompassed three two-week professional development sessions during the summer of 1995. They were held in three regions of a county in Southwest Michigan, and thus became designated as Cadre South, Cadre North, and Cadre West. The focus of the professional development was on theory and practice of constructivist principles in the classroom. Participants were encouraged to take a major responsibility for the design for the Summer Cadres. Indeed, the decision to regionalize the Summer Cadres was seen by the Cadre staff as an effort to bring more of the responsibility and ownership of the professional development back to the local sites. ¹he Story of Cadre South Summer Cadre-South was held at Oak Hill Junior High School (a pseudonym) June 19—30,

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

1995. This Summer Cadre began very close to the end of the school year, a factor that may have had some unintended impact on the dynamics of this Cadre. Thirty-seven educators participated in this Cadre, including teachers representing all levels pK—12 and two administrators. The setting for this experience was physically uncomfortable for participants at times due to the heat and the lack of air conditioning in the facilities. During the second week, 110 student learners joined the adult learners in a common problem context: the creation of an ecosystem capable of sustaining a human community. The initial whole group meeting for Cadre South was held in spring 1995. Over 60 potential participants attended this meeting, of which 37 registered for the two-week session. The design team formed upon invitation to the group at large during this meeting. The design team met one full day and two half days prior to Summer Cadre, and the facilitators and design team members felt that was not enough time to prepare adequately for Cadre. As one member said during the focus group interview: ‘‘I was still 2 trying to figure out what the group is even doing—I’m never sure what our role as a design team was.’’ During the Summer Cadre experience itself, the design team met during lunch to reflect on the morning activities and to address issues for the following day. Participants of the Cadre outside of the design team commented in their journals about experiencing almost a sense of relief when the design team began to assertively make decisions about the most pressing concern to all members—the week the students would be attending. As one design team member commented: Referring to the day we all decided we had to make some decisions, and it was kind of interesting, because we thought, well maybe we should have made those ahead of time, but no way. It’s nice that they [the participants] felt like they had to make us make those decisions. And so, they have stock in that as well.

Many of the participants were uncomfortable with the sense of chaos and lack of direction that was part of the process of constructing this professional development experience. It is clear that design of meaningful professional development, as these Cadre members perceived it, was not a traditional staff development activity. Yet they

417

were struggling with an approach to professional development in a more constructivist way. As one participant said: ‘‘My goal has been to do less of the sit and get 2 but I guess I could say I didn’t like the chaos.’’ However, once the two week experience actually began, the participants expressed both verbally and in their journal entries a mixture of excitement and frustration related to new concepts about teaching and learning. Many of the participants felt Cadre was one of the best professional development experiences they had ever had; many felt it was a waste of time, or worse, a negative experience. Furthermore, the journal entries reveal how the participants were processing the tenets of constructivism as incorporated into the daily learning activities. Blue Pod meeting was a source of frustration. From the start an ‘‘administrator’’ who should have been functioning as a co-learner stated, ‘‘We’re going to have 110 children descend on us. We’ve got to know what we’re going to do!’’ I withdrew from this group mentally and reviewed in my mind what I knew of my ‘‘recruits.’’ The ‘‘pod’’ planned their ‘‘activity,’’ decided who would be doing ‘‘what’’ and had our day ‘‘organized!’’ Where was the student’s need? Who was doing the dialogue? Where was the entire principle of constructivist teaching?

The key issue addressed in this journal entry was the discomfort that co-learner status created for some of the participants. Within the Cadre context, Cadre participants were asked to approach the problem-solving context for learning as co-learners with the student learners. Among other things, this co-learner status meant that the Cadre participants and the student learners approach the learning activities the second week as partners in learning. Pre-planning for the second week with the students was kept to a minimum. The rationale for this was consistent with the exploration of constructivist principles in Cadre. Constructivist pedagogy emphasizes teacher as facilitator of learning opportunities while diminishing the ‘‘teacher-as-expert’’ status. For many teachers, giving up the expert status was uncomfortable. Cadre was about asking the participants to ‘‘challenge their own assumptions’’ about teaching and learning, and for many this challenge to change threatened the inner sense of definition of who they were as educators. The following comments from several journals reveal the frustration and insecurity

418

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

that often accompanies a shift in belief and practice:

I learned how difficult it is to let kids alone to construct their own meaning and understanding and not guide them to get to where I want them to be.

Structure is a comfort crutch for adults who cannot step out of the role of ‘‘THE TEACHER.’’

Cadre incorporated many immersion activities, but we have selected one activity, the Mobiles of Learning, through which to frame the participants’ construction of meaning about Cadre and about constructivism. In describing this activity, we can catch glimpses how each Cadre as a unique social learning context shaped the professional development of the participants as they wrestled with constructivism as theory and constructivism as pedagogy. The mobiles of learning, or as the participants came to say, the mobile activity, engaged participants in comparing their current classrooms and practice with a constructivist classroom. Based on collective conceptualizations, the groups created mobiles of learning with two sides; one representing their own classroom and the other representing a constructivist classroom. This activity was key to the Cadre experience both as an immersion and distancing activity and as part of research methodology. The teacher/administrator participants had the opportunity, over the two week time frame, to graphically and spatially represent their evolving conceptualizations of constructivism as pedagogy in the construction of their mobile. They were also able to see how their evolving conceptions were beginning to challenge operant notions about teaching and learning that had been a part of their past as educators. The mobiles also became an important data source from which all participants could enhance understanding of the experience to the participants as individuals and as a collective. Many of the mobiles incorporated metaphorical representations. For example, one group represented the traditional classroom as three primary colors; within the constructivist classroom the teacher was seen as the artist’s hand holding a paintbrush and the student’s hand was laid on the artist/teacher hand. Another group used a puzzle as metaphor. In the traditional classroom, all the pieces were disconnected; in the constructivist classroom, everything fit together through the following characteristics: (1) unlimited possibilities, (2) adapt to the situation and the needs of the learner, (3) the puzzle may never be finished, and (4) there is no specific pattern.

I was very frustrated this morning. I felt everyone was getting too worked up. I wished they would be more flexible and less controlling. I’m struggling with what amount of freedom vs. structure is acceptable for constructivist instruction. I need to distance myself more from the group. I sometimes felt like I was directing them toward an idea too much. That too many teacher/learners are still too caught up in product and not process. Still trying to be in control all the time.

The above comments reveal that the participants were challenged by a focus on process and not on content. Many of the Cadre participants were concerned that creating learning environments more in alignment with constructivist principles was foreign to their way of being and doing. The dissonance created by challenging currently held assumptions created conflicts in the small group meetings. The participant comments at the end of each day, however, offer glimpses of how these teachers were trying to resolve the conflicts within the Cadre experience. The question of moving from traditional teacher/administrator to colearner was evident. The Cadre participants were beginning to see, especially after the student learners joined them the second week, how adult and student learners can co-construct a learning environment. It is in the following comments that the conceptualization of constructivist pedagogy began to emerge. As a school administrator struggling with opening up the decision making process, I saw a clear parallel between constructivist classroom learning and with the learning a faculty undergoes in their changing role. Problems and decision making are more openended, solutions more unclear. Procedures for making decisions are created by the faculties themselves. It has been helpful to learn more about posing problems for students in a more open way. If we want them to explore and learn, we can’t cut off their exploration possibilities right at the beginning by establishing too many parameters. It finally sank in that you don’t have students work randomly. The teacher has goals in mind, but only leads students to the goal.

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

As each group described their mobile, many of the theoretical tenets of constructivism were displayed through language and through symbolic representation. Each group, however, commented that much of their current practice would be taken from the traditional side and incorporated into a constructivist classroom. For many, this posed a dilemma as the necessity of seriously examining theoretical foundations became apparent to some. That dilemma was revealed in the following comments: I am still thinking quite a bit about how will this fit into my classroom. Realizing that constructivist ideas cannot be used all of the time, I need to give thought to when I should input this type of activity. The co-learners (teachers) seem to be struggling with some basic premises/foundational principles about constructivism. Perhaps this shouldn’t be a concern—it may be a sign of growth! Concern—lack of philosophical/foundational pieces to internalize this or attempt to integrate it.

One Cadre member revealed a personal insight about constructivism and the process of professional development during the mobile description: Really, I think that I have many of the pieces of a constructivist classroom in my classroom now and all of us did, but none of us felt that we were constructivist teachers. You can have all the pieces and not be constructivist. It’s, I think, what you do with it.

The Cadre Summer Experience-South was a case study in contrasts. Many of the members were intensely engaged in seriously challenging their own assumptions about teaching and learning; many were too caught up in the issue of control to examine without the fear of judgment. Many were exploring the philosophical tenets of constructivism, but were still tied to the need to maintain the level of practicality of current practice. For many, the two weeks was a significant learning experience. How that incorporated into their own learning contexts was an issue to be confronted in the future. ¹he Story of Cadre North Summer Cadre-North was held at Whiteford Middle School July 17—28, 1995. The second week with students was also to be held at the middle school. Due to transportation difficulties for students coming from a state-sponsored

419

youth training program, a decision was made at the end of week one to move to the Intermediate School District Area Vocational and Technical Education Center. Twenty-two educators participated in Cadre North, 13 from the elementary level, nine from the high school level. No administrators participated in this Cadre. During the second week, 68 student learners participated in explorations grounded in constructivist theory and practice. The design team for Cadre North was recruited by invitation from the group at large indicating interest in Cadre. The group met three times prior to Cadre, in May, June and July, one full day and two half days. The active participation in the design team was sporadic until Summer Cadre actually started. As one of the design team members commented, ‘‘It just felt like a typical loosely organized team working on something. Some people floating in and some people floating out and then there were those that kind of stuck around.’’ Some design team members expressed a sense of the unknown in just exactly what designing for Cadre should be all about. Despite the knowledge building through readings and videos, a sense still existed that ‘‘¼e’re not very prepared for this thing.’’ Yet there was a beginning understanding among this group that design process is different from planning in that they tried to envision what a constructivist classroom should be and to design Cadre based on that vision. Cadre North evolved a unique learning community over the two weeks shaped by the placement of Cadre North within the summer schedule, individual and collective beliefs of participants, and the relationships established among participants. The first day of Cadre, participants were asked to share their expectations for the Summer Cadre. Many of the responses indicated the expectation that Cadre provide practical, workable ideas that would incorporate into current classroom practice. As Cadre progressed, however, this expectation diminished in importance. Two needs emerged of more importance: 1) that Cadre provide more time to process and reflect on the philosophy of constructivism and 2) that ample opportunity in time and space was afforded to develop emerging relationships among the group. These two needs shaped the unique character of Cadre North and this unique character was further

420

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

shaped by their responses to the Cadre learning activities. As with Cadre South, North participants shared concerns in writing at the end of the day which were typed and discussed with the group the next day. A recurring area of concern was that the teachers needed to have time to reflect and process the day’s immersion into constructivism. Some spoke of not wanting to journal during the times designated for that purpose because they had not had a chance to talk with colleagues and to process the day’s activities. This is not to say that the teachers did not have concerns related to more pragmatic issues. Questions of assessment, of how they would deal with the students the following week, and classroom application were examples of the myriad concerns facing the group. But as a whole, the concerns revealed the high priority this group placed on reflection as part of processing. Time to explore all the valuable and meaningful experiences of cadre in depth Concern that we are finding more and more big questions that demand big blocks of time to live in the question and collectively explore, and yet we do not have the time available for living in the questions—how to get at all the Cadre needs and yet give the time for the deep inquiry and exploration we need to create meaning and understanding as a learning community. Concern that as a facilitator I get caught up in the magic and emotion—my own energy and enthusiasm—and how this impacts the Cadre.

Several metaphors were visually represented by the mobiles. Examples included an umbrella as encompassing many facets of constructivism and a tapestry which wove the tenets of constructivism into traditional theory and practice. The mobile constructed as a tapestry or weaving offered several symbolic representations of a constructivist classroom. The materials, natural and irregular such as ivy and wheat, were representative of children’s natural curiosity. Cheesecloth was representative of the filtering of new ideas. An electronic cable represented the flow of energy through life. Ivy represented new beginnings. The teachers emphasized in their representations what they could take from their current knowledge and practice to forge a new way of thinking about teaching and learning. The mobiles became the physical representations of how their classrooms might look. Metaphorical descriptions of thinking in more constructivist ways were also evident in focus group interview comments following the twoweek experience. One teacher described the experience this way:

A question was posed today by a fellow learner: ‘‘I’m enjoying the activities and information presented but was frustrated by the lack of closure.’’ Our dialogue revolved around this question for several minutes and was quite significant. I was able to revisit and explore further the idea that that is what constructivist teaching is all about—always under construction, starting something new before finishing something. Maybe never quite finishing—emphasis on process, dialogue, and reflection.

I was thinking of it kind of like—this is more the metaphor; like a screen saver that you would have on the computer. And, this is the screen saver I was thinking about. I was thinking about a screen that had like a hundred thousand points of light—little white dots. And, all the white dots represent ideas that we think are important for the kids to understand. And, the way that I teach right now, the way a lot of people I think teach, is to try to kind of connect the dots, and there’s a certain way to go about it and each day you try to go to the next step and there is a sequence and if you miss a link, then it’s not going to work very well because—I don’t know, it just falls apart. Whereas a constructivist approach would be like explosions where things are coming out and you’re going all different directions and eventually all the explosions manage to hit all the dots. But, it’s not the way that you might have expected and you might not hit the topics that you thought you’d hit, but you’re going to get everything eventually and it’s going to have more meaning because it’s going to be tied in so many more ways.

Over the two week period of Summer Cadre, Cadre North participants also constructed mobiles of learning. Cadre North approached this activity with enthusiasm. As one teacher commented, ‘‘Our mobile was actually our reflection of old/new teaching styles coming together for a more meaningful understanding. ¹his also leads to a need for a change to constructivism.’’

The participants in Cadre North embraced a sense of bonding that was unique to this group. Several factors contributed to this development. First, one member of the design team, John, suggested that he lead the group in role-play activities on the first day. After the first day, everyone agreed they would like to incorporate role-play into the daily routine of Cadre. So

The concern is to be sure that the students are actually co-learners.

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

important was this to the group, it was given a name, John’s Play. Second, the members of Cadre North eagerly engaged in reflection and were willing to share their thoughts. As one teacher commented: ‘‘¹eam building is the bridge to open dialogue and free thinking.’’ Third, Cadre North participants were experiencing Cadre in a most positive light. That is not to say concerns and frustrations did not exist. But most concerns were posed in a thoughtful and supportive context. As one teacher commented: ‘‘¼e need to ‘let go’ as teachers so we can experience this. I think that we need to not be so afraid we will fail or do something wrong. ¼e are all co-learners in this process.’’ For many of the teachers in the North Cadre, as in the other Cadres, the Cadre experience was a validation and support of theory and practice that was somewhat already part of who they were as professionals. Yet, a recognition did exist within this group of the magnitude of change that was entailed in embracing constructivist principles and practices. In a comment related to the importance of journaling, one teacher commented during the focus group interview: We all oppose the force of laziness within ourselves. But, I see definite value. I mean the other approach is thoughtless. To just go about my business thoughtlessly [laughing], that didn’t seem to work, so—but it’s a matter of how much time we can reasonably invest in being thoughtful about what we’re doing too—and if it becomes a habit, if we can force ourselves to—well, not force, but find a way of allowing ourselves to develop the habit, then if it truly is beneficial, then it will keep us going. The momentum will be going because it’s bringing us good feelings and good results.

¹he Story of Cadre ¼est Summer Cadre-West was held at the Intermediate School District Area Career and Technical Education Center July 31—August 11, 1995. Twenty-three educators participated in Cadre West representing kindergarten through adult education. One administrator participated full time in Cadre West. Seventy-four student learners became a part of the learning experience during the second week. Cadre West design team, as with the other Cadres, was formed from the Cadre group as a whole. Unlike the other two 1995 Cadres, the Cadre West group met as a whole twice before

421

the design team assumed responsibility. According to the Cadre facilitators considerable enthusiasm was generated for whole group design during those first meetings. When the concept of whole group design did not emerge, the facilitators thought perhaps the design team ‘‘just lost their steam.’’ As one Cadre facilitator commented during the facilitator focus group interview: WF: It was almost a complete turn around, from that Saturday, because everybody wanted to be involved Saturday. They were going have a whole group be the design group and then we thought we had pretty good representation, we had two adult Ed teachers, but it kind of fell apart, between that Saturday and the two days that we had set aside and they didn’t—I was like B, I didn’t feel like they had any ownership, they were just there to get the job done and they didn’t, we were getting close to the time when the first day was going to close and they didn’t want to come back the next day to even think about what other issues that needed to be addressed, they just said, we’ll just worry about that when we get to the two weeks. It was really a disappointment, from what the whole group was on Saturday.

The perspectives of the design team members were somewhat different than those of the facilitators. The design team members felt that the two whole group meetings for Cadre West were confusing and somewhat disorienting. Comments were also made that the lack of information about Cadre itself as well as the absence of team building activities during the initial meetings may have contributed to less participation by the design team. It was in Cadre West, then, that the question of how design of professional development could be in alignment with constructivist principles was most difficult. Cadre West was the third and last of Cadre experiences held during the Summer of 1995. Unique challenges confronted the facilitators and the participants of this Cadre. Only two facilitators were available for this Cadre on a regular basis as opposed to the four or sometimes five that were facilitating the other two Cadres. The Cadre experience, from all perspectives, was demanding and draining. Many of the journal entries referred to how tired an individual was at the end of the day. Cadre West was placed in the summer schedule very close to the start of school; many participants had to return to school in less than two weeks following Cadre. These factors placed different stress on the participants and facilitators.

422

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

Despite this stress, the participants of Cadre West approached this experience with a strong commitment, sense of responsibility, and desire to learn. The following comments from initial statements of concern indicate this commitment: The need to move forward and really get into the experience is foremost. This appears to be the sort of endeavor that cannot be learned by advance discussion exclusively. The learning takes place by engaging in experiences and formation of new habits. Learning to apply constructivist methodologies into my learning and into my classroom. Personally, to be fully here and now.

One area in which the Cadre members revealed their commitment to the task at hand was in the sharing of meaningful learning every day. These comments as well as those from the participant journals, indicate that Cadre members were striving to maintain a commitment to processing the theory underlying constructivist principles and practices while completing the immediate tasks of a practical nature. Enjoyed games and how they help to create an acceptance of each other and set up atmosphere of team effort. I haven’t done much journaling, but wanted to try more with my students and for my own growth. I’m starting to feel and appreciate the idea behind a constructivist classroom. Today I learned that I need to spend time—a lot at the beginning of the year—working on team building within my classroom and cooperative groups. We are not a ‘‘family’’ just because we sit in the same classroom each day.

The educators in Cadre West also attempted to connect the principles of constructivism with their current practice. One of the facilitators commented that this group was a veteran group of teachers. Constructing a learning environment in which the student is a co-learner with the adult learner was a novel idea to many of the participants and thereby required a period of disequilibrium followed by the balancing of practice, or equilibrium. For many teachers, this process was accompanied by more questions than answers. The following journal entry reveals some of these concerns: How is this type of teaching going to be that much greater than the ‘old styles’? To me, it is like the quality school philosophy—it’s a great idea, but will it fit into our society and established system? I wonder in my physically small classroom where my students can’t even work in a group seating

arrangement, how will they react? How will they learn the skills and info for their grade level in these open end self instructed settings? How will they ever cover all the objectives and skills by June 1?

Perhaps by the very nature of the activity, the construction of the mobiles of learning afforded the Cadre members the opportunity to explore their evolving constructions of meaning about constructivism. Many of the meaningful learnings recognized that the creation of a tangible representation was helping them to bring to life concepts that were difficult to grasp. As an art form that interacts with the environment, the mobile provided a context for deconstructing ideas about current practice that were no longer viable and for constructing a vision for a more constructivist learning environment. As with Cadre South and West, this activity encouraged the use of metaphoric representation. One group portrayed the current classroom of their group collectively as a pyramid with the teacher at the top as a source of all knowledge. On the other side of the mobile, a constructivist classroom was represented as a sphere wherein everything was interconnected and the teacher was ‘‘in there somewhere.’’ Another group suspended their representations of both the current classroom and the constructivist classroom from a mobius strip, a strip of paper twisted once with ends glued presenting a single edge. The strip indicated that current practice and the construction of a constructivist environment are fluid with one another; that there must be a balance and a holistic approach to looking at practice in the classroom. Although Cadre West approached the activities of the first week with commitment and dedication, some of the learnings did not seem to transfer to the second week with the children. Two striking examples of this are the webbing activity and the introduction of John’s Play (see Cadre North). The adult learners engaged in a team building activity wherein all participants formed a circle and tossed a ball of string to another member. Each member had to hold onto the string and share something about themselves as he/she tossed the ball to the next person. The result was a huge web with several interconnections and a shared body of knowledge about each member. Cadre West was also introduced to John’s Play as the member from Cadre North spent a period of time with Cadre

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

423

West engaging the group in role play designed to build sensitivity and trust. Although journal entries and meaningful learning comments indicate these activities were well appreciated by the Cadre group, they did not carry that learning over to the activities with students the following week. Cadre West encompassed a group of serious and engaged adult learners. Creating a positive learning experience for the student learners during the second week was foremost on their minds. Yet they were able to also devote energy to processing constructivism as pedagogy and the concomitant implications for their classroom practice.

to me. I also enjoyed meeting with other people at my grade level to bounce ideas off each other. (9/26/95)

After Summer Cadre: Learning and Growing Through Practice

I really had a chance to focus on what traditional assessment is and to think about more authentic types of assessment and how to begin to budge from one to the other—also to see the purposes in both kinds of assessment. (3/13/96)

The stories of the Summer Cadre experience are case studies of professional development bounded by space and time. For these teachers, and for educators committed to meaningful professional development which shapes our profession beyond the immediate experience, the summer immersion experience was just the beginning of their journey of exploring constructivist theory and pedagogy. Each Cadre group participated in a series of monthly follow-ups in which they pushed their thinking in the context of a community of learners. Each Cadre evolved into a close-knit group where monthly followups became a forum to share and to explore other aspects of constructivism related to teaching and learning. Substance of the follow-ups and the implications for classrooms practice are reported in detail elsewhere (Kinnucan-Welsch & Jenlink 1996), but we can offer some general comments about the influence Cadre has had on the practice of participants. The follow-up sessions engaged the participants in using the language of constructivism as they incorporated their own construction of knowledge into their classroom practice. Participants were asked to reflect on a meaningful learning at the end of each follow-up session. Examples from across the year following Summer Cadre follow: The most meaningful activity for me today was when our small groups responded to each other’s problems and concerns (this a.m.). The feedback was important

My most meaningful learning experience came through the small group activity on the morning. Although we chose a different route we did diligently address many issues. We concluded that we all had similar struggles, mainly stemming from lack of ownership on the students in their own learning. We also struggle with them to live through and enjoy the learning process and de-emphasize the product. (9/26/95) The meaningful learning for today, for me, was how easily the language of constructivism can be used by educators without embracing the process of constructivism as a meaningful learning process. (11/13/95) I think my most meaningful learning came with the idea of earning more how students learn, not how I should teach. (1/25/96)

The participants also reported during these follow-up sessions changes in classroom organization, a focus on broad themes in curriculum, and employing questions as a stimulus to student construction of knowledge rather than affirmation of successful transmission of knowledge from teacher to students. The teachers also reported, however, frustration with trying to balance teaching for broad themes with state-mandated proficiency exams for all students and the pervasive need to cover curriculum. Discussion These case studies have provided much food for thought as we as authors and facilitators explored constructivism as pedagogy and professional development through our experiences and through the experiences of the Cadre participants. Each case study reflects unique aspects, features, and images representing the lived experiences of participants over a two-week period of time. Images of Cadre South include frustration, tension, and a sense that this large group never really came together as a community of learners. Cadre South participants experienced considerable dissonance between core aspects of Cadre and their perceptions of who they were as

424

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

teachers. The need to bring from the Cadre experience practical application for their own classrooms shaped much of the reflection on the various immersion activities. With the exception of a small group of receptive teachers, Cadre South participants were highly skeptical of the viability of constructivist pedagogy. In depicting characteristic images of the Cadre North experience, several come to mind. First, laughter was an integral part of the daily interaction. Debriefing sessions following structured activities, although reflective, often entailed laughter and humor. A second and related image is that of the importance of John’s Play. This play group valued and enhanced the evolving spirit of camaraderie. Continued requests for periods of John’s Play were indicative of that spirit. Teacher co-learners carried this spirit over to the week in which the student co-learners attended. All groups incorporated some of John’s play into their activities with the students. Cadre West approached the learning experience of Cadre with a sense of commitment and task orientation in which participants often bypassed reflection for the immediate application to their own classroom. The teachers were willing to engage in serious thought about constructivist pedagogy, but the beginning of the school year was imminent and practical considerations were of foremost importance. In context and consideration of each Cadre’s uniqueness, what major points for consideration can we offer as part of our own learning experience? First, we recognized that each Cadre participant as well as facilitator had a powerful story to tell as he/she grappled with thinking of teaching and learning in ways that represented often radical departures from current practice. Constructivism as pedagogy was a challenging conceptualization for all participants, including facilitators. Thinking of teaching in ways that embraced the concept of learner as active knower was a major challenge for all of us. For the facilitators, the challenge lie in how to design a two-week experience that maximized the opportunities to actively build constructions of meaning about constructivism. This meant that more time was afforded to process and reflection and less time to presentation and didactic presentation. The facilitators often spoke of not ‘‘getting as far as we needed to’’ in sharing some of the principles of constructivism. For the

teachers, the challenge most often focused on not having the activities planned and answers in mind before the students came in on the first day of the second week. The radical departure from asking students to guess what is in the teacher’s head to celebrating students’ knowledge construction engaged teachers in challenging some long-standing assumptions about what the teacher’s role should be. We were all learning about constructivism as pedagogy in multiple, yet parallel contexts, and an ongoing piece of that process was continuous challenge of assumptions about teaching and learning. Second, as the facilitators became part of each Cadre as it unfolded over a two-week period of time, we recognized how each Cadre as a unique sociocultural context shaped the construction of meaning for each participant and for the Cadre group as a collective. Teachers as active constructors of their own knowledge do so within contexts that evolve incorporating the environmental factors, the dynamics of the group, and existing schemas of the participants. Professional development experiences are complex learning systems, just as classrooms are. For facilitators, the challenge is to be sensitive to the evolving culture of each group and to design learning experiences that are consistent with that evolving culture. Third, we found the mobile of learning activity a powerful context within which Cadre participants could begin to build those bridges between their current beliefs and practice and belief and practice grounded in constructivism. Each Cadre immersed themselves completely in the metaphorical representations of current and constructivist classrooms. It was as if the use of metaphors and symbolic representation freed the participants from the structures and cultures that were enveloping each day’s experiences. The descriptions of mobiles in all Cadres were replete with language that moved beyond issues of control, or sense of connection, or a pragmatic orientation. It was through the construction of a mobile that the participants allowed themselves the freedom to challenge their own assumptions about how classrooms are organized for learning. That freedom to explore opened new pathways to construct a vision of what classrooms could be. Fourth, during the course of our exploration of constructivism as pedagogy we found several

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

basic tenets of constructivism enriching to our practice and to our evolving personal theories of constructivism. Two seemed to resonate with Cadre participants. First, all learners, children and adult, are active constructors of their own meaning. Learning activities that support ongoing construction of meaning, and reflection on the process, benefit all. Second, the role of the learning community in supporting individual construction of meaning is critical. The participants in Cadre evolved from group membership to cohesive community, and the summer immersion experience was a powerful beginning point in that evolution. Each participant in Cadre incorporated some of that sense of community into his/her classroom, and brought stories of the classroom as community to share. Exploring constructivism as a way to think about teaching and learning was the goal of Cadre. The Cadre participants, facilitators, teachers, and student learners, explored aspects of constructivist pedagogy in ways unique to each individual learner, yet shaped by the context of each Cadre. The stories of Cadre are indicative of the power and promise of learning within a community. References Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1994). Personal experience methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413—427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Condon, M. W. F., Clyde, J. A., Kyle, D. W., & Hovda, R. A. (1993). A constructivist basis for teacher and teacher education: A framework for program development and research on graduates. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 273—278. Etchberger, M. L., & Shaw, K. L. (1992). Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: A chronology of a developing constructivist teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 411—417. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323—347). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and application of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175—205). New York: Cambridge University Press. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

425

Gurney, B. (1989). Constructivism and professional development: A stereoscopic view. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Keiny, S. (1994). Constructivism and teacher’s professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(2), 157—167. Kinnucan-Welsch & Jenlink (1996). Allegan County Cadre for Authentic Education—Cadre II: Final evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript submitted to Allegan County Michigan Intermediate School District, funding agent. Lester, N. B., & Onore, C. S. (1990). Learning change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). Teachers, their world, and their work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.) (1991). Staff development for education in the 90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science. Vol. 2. Relevant research. Washington, DC: Author. National Science Teachers Association and National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Author. Nhat Hanh, T. (1992). Peace is every step: The path of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books. Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivism is mathematics education. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics, Monograph No. 4, (pp. 7—18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. Oxford, R. L. (1997). Constructivism: Shape-shifting, substance, and teacher education applications. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 35—66. Peterson, R. (1992). Life in a crowded place: Making a learning community. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sarason, S. B. (1993). The case for change: Rethinking the preparation of educators. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118—137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press. von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics, Monograph No. 4 (pp. 19—29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

426

KATHRYN KINNUCAN-WELSCH and PATRICK M. JENLINK

von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3—15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wertsch, J. V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159—174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Appendix A Tables A1 and A2 provide an over view of the activities planned for the weeks of July 17 and July 24, respectively.

Table A1 Cadre for Authentic Education—North Region, Week of July 17

8:00

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Overview

‘‘Constructing A Learning Community Through Communication’’

Alternative Assesment Overview

Types of Questions Dialogue/Planning — re: appropriate — ‘‘Driving Question’’ to correlate to state Group engages in & national ‘‘Driving Question’’ math/science Simulation standards and favorite texts or units

Break

Break

Break

(Cont.) —

Adv. Cooperative Learning-Group Expertise and/or Regional Experts

‘‘Driving Question’’ Dialogue/planning Simulation (Con’t) re: appropriate ‘‘Driving Question’’ (Con’t)

—

Team Building activity 9: 15-9: 25 am

Break

9: 30 am

Friday

Break

11: 30am

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

12: 00

‘‘Revisiting Constructivist Principles’’

‘‘Facilitation skills & Their Alignment with Communication

Adv. Cooperative Learning (Con’t)

Assess Simulation and Assessment as use of Driving Question

Dialogue

Modeling Skills 1: 00pm-1: 15am Break

Break

Break

Break

Break

1:15pm

‘‘Revisiting Constructivist Principles’’ (Con’t) Journaling: A Reflective Practice

Sharon Hobson (Con’t)

Modeling Skills (Con’t)

Assessment (Con’t)

Dialogue

2: 15pm

Journaling: A Reflective Practice (Con’t) Days Review

Journaling

Journaling —

Journaling

Journaling Preparation/ Wrap-up/ Evaluation

2: 30pm-3:00

Reflection by DesignTeam

—:Events of ‘‘Impromptu Play’’.

Case Studies in Constructivist Pedagogy

427

Table A2 Cadre for Authentic Education—North Region, Week of July 24 Monday 8: 00am

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Oening Students Activities (Menu Choices)

Students Attend —

—

—

—

—

11: 30am

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

12: 00

Dialogue/ Reflection/ Planning

Dialogue/ Reflection/ Planning

Dialogue/ Reflection/ Planning

Dialogue/ Reflection/ Planning

Journaling

Journaling

Journaling

Journaling

Dialogue/ Reflection/ Planning Evaluation Journaling

2:30pm —:Events of ‘‘Impromptu Play’’.

Appendix B The following list of readings distributed to cadre members for constructing a knowledge base. Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring 1992, 36—44. Brandt, R. (1993). Authentic learning [themed issue]. Educational Leadership, 50, 7. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993) The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (1993). Crafting authentic instruction. Issues in Restructuring Schools. Issue Report No. 4. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Freedman, R. L. H. (1994). Open-ended questioning: A handbook for educators. New York: Addison-Wesley. Freeman, Y., Freeman, D., & Lindberg, S. (1993). Voices of teacher educators reflecting on their curriculum together. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20, 1, 37—49. Gibbs, J. with Bennett, S. (1994). Tribes: A new way of learning together. Santa Rosa, CA: Center Source Publications. Kent, K. M. (1993). The need for school-based teacher reflection. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), 83—89. Lester, N. B., & Onore, C. S. (1990). Learning change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Lockwood, A. T. (1991). From telling to coaching. Focus in Change, 3(1), 2—8. Lytle, S. L., & Fecho, R. (1991). Meeting strangers in familiar places: Teacher collaboration by cross-visitation. English Education, 23(1), 5—27. Michigan Educational Extension Service. (1990). A community of young mathematicians. Changing Minds, Summer 1990, 5—18. Onore, C., & Lester, N. B. (1985). Immersion and distancing: The ins and outs of inservice education. English Education, 17(1), 7—13. Watson, B., & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. MSTA Journal, Winter/Spring 1990, 10—17.