Years of research on change in schools have provided elements of practice that work and do not work. The process of change involves three phases ( I ) initiation: deciding on an agenda and beginning work; (2) implementation: putting the change process into action; and (3) institutionalization: change becoming embedded into the curriculum with continuous learning and improvement taking place (Stiegelbauer, 1994).

            Systemic reform aims to change teaching and learning practices (Cohen, 1995). Constructivist teaching practices in science and mathematics classrooms are intended to produce much more challenging instruction for students and thus, produce improved student reaming. Structural changes have a high symbolic value. It communicates that schools are serious about change. However, research has shown that changes in structures are not directly related to changes in teaching and learning (Elmore, 1995). The key questions then are; ( 1 ) how to change instruction so that teachers teach differently and students learn more, (2) what elements of practice have to be in place for structure to work and (3) what evidence shows that changes in structure are actually related to changes in instruction and learning practices.

            Research shows that the relationship between structural change in schools and changes in teaching and learning are related to elements such as; knowledge and skills of teachers, professional values and commitments and empowerment (Cohen, 1995; Elmore, 1995). Many times teachers approach systemic reform with little background knowledge of the type of instruction that is necessary for change to occur. Most teachers learn to teach in a traditional manner. Reformers need to focus first on developing teachers' knowledge and skills before they focus on changing structure. Teachers need the opportunity for staff development so they might learn to teach differently. In addition, teachers need the opportunity to develop shared goals, expectations and beliefs about what good teaching is, how to carry out instruction and then create an organizational structure that coincides with those goals, expectations and beliefs (Elmore, 1995). A change has to be clear in its goals and procedures and have a role within an organization that will lend to long-term support {Stiegelbauer, 1994).

            Successful systemic reform depends on more than improved teacher knowledge and skills. It requires changes in values and beliefs of acceptable professional practices and students' achievement ability. Change has to be valued by the organization and by the members within the organization (Stiegelbauer, 1994). The organization should develop a shared vision of what its change should look like. In addition, teachers must believe that students are capable of advanced work in science and mathematics. They must be committed to working with students in pursuit of improved learning. The early involvement of everyone in problem identification and the need for change helps develop commitment. This commitment increases as teachers master instructional practices and students' increase their capacity to learn.

            Research has also shown that empowerment has a significant impact on instructional practices and measured student achievement (Elmore, 1995). Empowerment means giving people within an organization responsibility and support to actualize that responsibility. When teachers share in decision making, they have a vested interest in structural change. Change has to have practical outcomes for both teachers and their students.

            These elements of practice: teachers' knowledge and skills of instructional practices and learning, professional values and commitments and empowerment are crucial to the progress of systemic reform.

            This study focused on the elements important to systemic reform. This study also examined constructivist classroom instructional practices as viewed by teachers and students. It was part of an evaluation effort after the second year of a systemic reform change process in a large urban school district. A constructivist vision statement was developed for science and mathematics teaching, learning and staff development.

Constructivism leads to new beliefs about excellence in teaching and learning and about the roles of both teachers and students in the process. In constructivist classrooms, students are active rather then passive; teachers are facilitators of learning rather than transmitters of knowledge (Stein et al., 1994, p. 26).

Extensive staff development seminars for science and mathematics teachers focused on the constructivist vision. The evaluation effort included teacher, student surveys, parent and unit head focus groups, observations of staff development sessions and case studies of selected schools. Teacher and student surveys served to probe perceptions of the frequency of use of various constructivist teaching and reaming practices in keeping with the systemic reform goals. Findings from this study indicated both teachers and students were active participants in a changing school curriculum and (a) the curriculum covered the elements of constructivist teaching and learning, (b) the teachers implemented this curriculum on a regular basis, and (c) the students reported regular experiences with constructivist teaching and learning practices.

Traditional Instruction

            In the 1970's and 1 980's research was a dominant source for ideas about how to teach. This resulted in direct instruction, where teachers directly instructed students on the content or skills to be learned and provided practice until the reaming was internalized (Steffe & Gale, 1995; Riber, 1992). Direct instruction is effective when the goal of instruction is to have students reproduce factual knowledge. However, when we make a distinction between training (to direct learning by transmitting knowledge) and teaching (to facilitate learning through hands-on experiences) we see how direct instruction can be of limited value.

Constructivist Teaching

            Research shows that constructivist teaching has only been widely accepted in mathematics and science since the early 1980's (Steffe & Gale, 1995). Cognitive psychology has provided a basis for constructivist teaching. Piaget (1971) was one of the early contributors to this research. He suggested that new experiences are received through existing knowledge, a process of assimilation and accommodation. Learners construct knowledge as they attempt to bring meaning to their experiences. Glaserfield ( 1995) was another contributor of constructivist research. He explains that constructivism is a theory of rational knowing. Learners construct knowledge themselves on the basis of subjective experiences.

            Constructivist teaching emphasizes thinking, understanding, reasoning and applying knowledge while it does not neglect basic skills. It is based on the idea that reamers construct their own knowledge, rather than reproduce someone else's knowledge. In their book, The Young Child as Scientist: A Constructivist Approach to Early Childhood Science Education, Chaille and Britain ( 1991 ) point out in a constructivist classroom the teacher is no longer the transmitter of knowledge but the facilitator of learning. The teacher as controller of students is a myth (Tobin & Dawson, 1992). The facilitator of learning needs to keep in mind that instruction will vary depending on the learners prior knowledge, current interest, and level of involvement (Chaille & Britain, 1991). A skillful teacher will understand that students have existing knowledge, which may be incomplete or wrong, but will guide perceptions and initiate understandings (Tobin & Dawson, 1992).

            Constructivist teaching is guided by five basic elements; (1) activating prior knowledge, (2) acquiring knowledge, (3) understanding knowledge, (4) using knowledge, and (5) reflecting on knowledge (Tolman & Hardy, 1995). Activating prior knowledge is very important since what is learned is always learned in relation to what one already knows. When teachers are familiar with a students' prior knowledge they can provide learning experiences to build on these existing understandings (Steffe & D'Ambrosio, 1995). Prior knowledge can be activated in many ways for example, by asking students what they know, by brainstorming, by doing semantic mapping, by predicting outcomes or by performing some skill or process. As Simon (1995) points out in his article, "Elaborating Models of Mathematics Teaching", teacher's knowledge is constantly being constructed as he or she interacts with students. Gurney (1995) states that articulation of prior knowledge acquaints teachers with students' thinking, affording insights from which to plan instruction.

            Research has shown that students must acquire their own knowledge in a way that helps them determine the extent to which it fits their existing knowledge. Shchlenker, Yoshida and Pery (1995), describe a lesson, ("Muscle Building"), where students' build their own model of a muscle. In each step, students have to interpret new knowledge in the context of what they already know.

            Once students have been exposed to new knowledge, the process of understanding knowledge begins. Teachers can assist in this development by providing many experiences that motivate students to explore this new knowledge and have them communicate their interpretations of it. Research indicates that communicating knowledge is essential for understanding (Fensham & Gunstone, 1994). There are many ways in which knowledge can be shared for example, conferencing between teacher and student, small group activities in which students voice their interpretations, oral reports, projects, role playing and demonstrations.

            Students must activate prior knowledge in order to extend and refine this knowledge. The most effective activities for knowledge use are problem-solving activities (Steffe & Gale, 1995). This encourages students to continue to examine and build on their knowledge. When students work in groups to solve problems, it is more useful than when they work alone because they have the opportunity to constantly voice ideas and receive feedback (Chaille & Britain, 1991).

            Reflection refers to understanding what one knows. This requires providing activities that ask students to look back at what they have learned (Tobin & Dawson, 1992). Journal writing is an especially good technique to promote reflecting.

            The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the frequency of use of selected constructivist classroom instructional practices as perceived by teachers and students and to provide information about the process of systemic reform. Surveys were designed to assess the extent to which an Urban Systemic Initiative has been implemented within the schools. Significance for this study rests in four arguments: (a) establishment of baseline data on implementation of the elements of constructivist teaching practices (1996), (b) establishment of baseline data on students reporting experiences with constructivist practices (1996), (c) measuring changes in baseline data (a & b above) that will impact a large population (1997), and (d) extensive research. This study serves as a baseline for determining systemic reform change and future needs. Second, baseline data from this study will provide evidence of the implementation of regular constructivist teaching practices and learning experiences. Third, the findings of this research are likely to have implications for a large population and will be useful to science and mathematics educators. Finally, this study will attempt to examine constructivist instructional strategies used currently in science and mathematics classrooms.

            For this investigation, the researcher defined constructivist instructional strategies that support constructivist learning as active learning with hands-on experiences that emphasize process and constructing meaning from these experiences and from prior knowledge. Constructivist teachers facilitate learning by assisting students in constructing knowledge. Specific research questions examined included:

1. How frequently do teachers report using constructivist practices in their classrooms?

2. How frequently do students report experiencing constructivist practices in their classrooms?

3. How do the reports of teachers and students compare with regard to using constructivist teaching practices?

4. Is there a difference in the school level (elementary, middle, high school) of the teachers with regard to the reports of using constructivist practices?

5. Is there a difference in science and mathematics teachers with regard to the reports of using constructivist practices?

6. Are there any differences in the responses of science and mathematics teachers reporting constructivist practices at various school levels (elementary/science, middle school/science, high school/science, elementary/mathematics, middle school/mathematics, high school/mathematics)?

 

            The sampling units were existing fourth, eighth and tenth grade classrooms in a large urban school district. Fifty-four schools were randomly selected from a stratified sample, stratified by school level (elementary, middle and high school) and by tier (representing the degree of implementation of the systemic reform effort tier 1, 2 and 3).

            A two stage sampling process was used for teachers. The first stage was the random selection of schools by tier ( ten elementary, five middle and three high schools). The second stage consisted of asking all mathematics and science teachers within each school to complete the teacher survey (n = 570).

            In addition, a three stage sampling process was used for students. The first stage consisted of randomly selecting schools by tiers (ten elementary, five middle and three high schools). For the second stage, two homeroom classrooms from the fourth, eighth and tenth grades were randomly selected from these schools. The third stage consisted of asking all of the students in each of these homerooms to complete the survey instrument (n= 1080).

Response Rate

            Completed surveys were received from forty-nine of the fifty-four schools for a 91% school response rate. Completed surveys were received from two hundred eighty-nine teachers for a 51% response rate and eight hundred sixty-two students for a response rate of 80%.

            A teacher survey (33 items) and a student survey (39 items) were developed to determine the frequency of various instructional practices. The teachers marked their questionnaires by indicating how often they practiced these constructivist instructional practices by circling a response for each item (1 = almost never, 2, 3 = weekly, 4, and 5 = almost daily). The students marked their questionnaires by circling a response to indicated how often they experienced constructivist practices for each item (1 = never, 2 = sometimes and 3 = almost everyday). Teacher responses were collapsed into categories (#1 and #2 responses = 1 (never), #3 responses = 3 (weekly), #4 and #5 responses = 5 (almost daily)). Parallel specific constructivist teaching survey items were selected from both teacher and student surveys and included the following areas:

1. The discussion of careers in mathematics and science technology.

2. The use of manipulative materials and hands-on activities to discover principals and relationships in mathematics and science classrooms.

3. The frequency of use of computers in mathematics and science instruction.

4. The frequency of use of calculators in mathematics and science instruction.

5. The frequency of discussing African-American and other minority groups (multicultural perspectives) in mathematics and science.

6. The frequency of use of group activities in which students work cooperatively in solving problems.

7. The frequency of use of projects in mathematics and science classrooms.

8. The frequency of writing in mathematics or science journals.

9. The frequency of opportunities for students to make choices about what they study in mathematics and science classrooms.

10. The frequency of maintaining portfolios of mathematics or science work to reflect growth over time and to document evidence of learning.

11. The frequency of personal conferences to reflect on progress and accomplishments in mathematics and science classrooms.

12. The frequency of using models to represent concepts in mathematics and science.

13. The frequency of opportunities to exercise mathematics or science skills.

 

            As a part of a previous study, teachers were asked to indicate their perceptions of the adequacy of curriculum in the areas of mathematics and science (teachers survey section B) in 1993 and again in 1996. Teachers indicated how adequate they felt the curriculum was by circling a response for each item ( I = not at all adequate, 2 = somewhat adequate, 3 = adequate enough). The following items appeared on both surveys:

1. The development of problem solving skills.

2. The development of relationships between mathematics, science, and other disciplines.

3. The adequacy of how the curriculum relates to the needs of urban students.

4. The preparation of students for a college education.

5. The preparation of students for local and national science tests.

6. The preparation of students for future jobs.

7. The development of practical skills to use scientific instruments, calculators and computers.

8. The adequacy of how the curriculum relates to social issues relevant to the student.

 

            Teachers' opinions about the adequacy of the curriculum has changes over this three year period during the implementation of this systemic reform process. Overall, teachers reported significant improvements in the science and mathematics curriculum between the 1993 and 1996 surveys. Significant improvements were noted in the adequacy of the curriculum in all areas, (p < .05) except for mathematics teachers in the area of preparation of students for local and national test and relating the curriculum to issues relevant to students. Table I provides a comparison of teacher views from 1993 to 1996.

            The researcher used a teacher and student survey developed to determine the frequency of high quality curriculum covering elements of constructivist teaching practices. These instruments were found to be reliable using internal consistency techniques. The teachers instrument had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .91 and the students instrument had an internal consistency reliability coefficient of 78.

Data Collection and Analysis

            Using the teacher and student survey, average responses of constructivist items on the teacher survey were calculated and compared with similar items on the student survey. Next, similar comparisons were made by school level (elementary, middle and high school) and by subject area (mathematics and science).

Data taken from the surveys were analyzed for each research question.

Question 1: How frequently do teachers report using constructivist practices in their teaching?

            In answering this question, data obtained from the teachers survey titled "Curriculum and Practice" (section L\) served as the primary source of information. From the data it was learned that the frequency of using constructivist practices at least weekly was 50% or greater in all areas with one exception, using computers in mathematics and science instruction (28%). It should be noted that technology resources are being phased in across the school district and at the time this data were collected, these resources were not currently available to all students.

            The majority of teachers (93%) report that they regularly (weekly or more often) use group activities in which students work cooperatively to solve problems. This data indicates that most teachers tend to provide a range of activities to promote active learning. Table II gives a breakdown of the percentages of instructional constructivist practices used by teachers weekly of more often.

Question 2: How frequently do students report experiencing constructivist practices in their classrooms?

            Classroom student surveys, asking how frequently they experience constructivist practices, "In Their Mathematics Classroom" (student survey sections I) and "In Their Science Classroom" (student survey section II) provided data for this question. Student survey responses were separated by subject (student survey section I mathematics and section II science). These data provided information on the amount of constructivist instructional practices that students experienced in their classrooms. These data revealed the majority of the students do experience constructivist practices in their classrooms. The percent of students experiencing these constructivist practices at least weekly was greater than 50% for twenty of the twenty-six items. The only exceptions found were using computers in science class, (29%3 using computers in mathematics, (42%) using calculators in science class, (39%) integrating multicultural aspects into science instruction, (48%) and integrating multicultural aspects into mathematics instruction (44%). Table III provides a distribution of constructivist learning experiences. Based on these findings it is clear that students are not passively absorbing information, but are actively involved in constructing meaning from many experiences.

Question 3: How do the reports of teachers and students compare with regard to using constructivist teaching practices?

            The researcher compared certain teacher responses, "Curriculum and Practice" (teacher survey IA items) and student responses, "In Your Mathematics Class"(student survey I items) and "In Your Science Class" (student survey II items) to determine the relationship between their perceptions of the frequency of constructivist practices in their classrooms. The researcher could not do analysis to correlate these responses since teachers could not be linked with their respective students. Instead the researcher compared average responses of teachers and students for each of the specified questions (see Table IV).

            Based on these data there are strong relationships between teacher and student reported perceptions of the frequency of using constructivist practices in their classrooms in the areas of group activities, (teachers = 93%, mathematics students = 85%, science students = 93%) and making choices, (teachers = 57%, mathematics students = 61%, science students = 52%).

            Minimal differences were noted in all other areas with the exceptions of computer use, (teachers = 28%, mathematics students = 42%) calculator use, (teachers = 63%, mathematics students = 90%, science students = 40%) projects, (teachers = 56%, science students = 71 %) writing in journals, (teachers = 79%, mathematics students = 50%, science students = 55%) portfolios, (teachers = 54%, science students = 70%) conferences, (teachers = 54% mathematics students = 79% science students = 79%) using models, (teachers = 90%, mathematics students = 64%, science students = 78%) and doing exercises (teachers = 97%, science students = 73%).

Question 4: Is there a difference in the school level (elementary, middle, high school) of the teachers with regard to their reports of using constructivist practices?

            To address this question data were collected from teacher surveys and then separated by school level (elementary, middle school, high school). An examination of this data revealed the following distribution of the frequency of constructivist practices used by teachers at different school levels (see Table V). Elementary and middle school teachers report using constructivist practices in their classrooms most often (50% use it weekly or more often in all areas with the exception of computers 43%). The percentage of use of constructivist practices was highest for the elementary school level. Overall, high school teachers reported using constructivist practices least often, with only seven of the thirteen areas being greater than 50%.

            There was a notable decrease in reported constructivist teaching practices from elementary to high school With regard to the use of computers, (elementary 43% and high school 23%) multicultural aspects, (elementary 91% and high school 49%) projects, (elementary 63% and high school 48%) and portfolios (elementary 61% and high school 46%).

Table V

Constructivist Practices as Reported by Teachers at Various School Levels

Question 5: Is there a difference in the responses of constructivist teaching practices in subject area (science or mathematics) of the teachers with regard to the reports of using constructivist practices?

            Data for this question were examined by separating teacher certification (science, mathematics) and looking at their responses to survey items, "Curriculum and Practice" (teacher survey section IA). The tally on subject area and use of constructivist practices is shown in Table VI. In these classrooms the only differences found were with the use of calculators, (survey item IA-13), integrating multicultural perspectives (survey item IA- 14), and the use of projects to observe students at work (survey item IA- l 9 ) Science teachers integrate multicultural perspectives into their curriculum and use projects more often than mathematics teachers. Mathematics teachers use calculators with their instruction more often than science teachers.

Question 6: Are there any differences in the responses of teachers reporting constructivist practices after combining grade level and subject area (elementary/science, middle school/science, high school/science, elementary/mathematics, middle school/mathematics, high school/science)?

            The data shows some significant differences with regard to constructivist practices after combining grade and subject area (see Table VI). In the elementary level noticeable differences in frequency of use of constructivist instructional practices were found for the use of calculators (elementary/mathematics 66%, elementary/science 53%). At the middle school level the following differences were noted in the frequency of use of constructivist practices, the use of calculators, (middle school/mathematics 76%, middle school/science 51%) integrating multicultural aspects, (middle school/mathematics 54%, middle school/science 63%) use of projects, (middle school/mathematics 45%, middle school/science 54%) writing, (middle school\mathematics 73%, middle school\science 84%) and using portfolios (middle school/mathematics 56%, middle school/science 48%). Differences were also noted at the high school level with the use of projects (high school/mathematics 32%, high school/science 62%) writing, (high school/mathematics 76% high school/science 88%) and making choices (high school/mathematics 46% high school/science 56%).

Table Vl

Constructivist Teaching Practices used at Least Weekly Separated by Level and Subject

            Understanding the elements of practice which influence the success of systemic reform opens the door to improving teaching and learning practices. The findings of this study document the nature and extent of growth and future needs of a systemic reform process, resulting from extensive staff development seminars and intensive classroom constructive instructional practices. One form of systemic reform growth was evident in the teachers' opinions about how the adequacy of the curriculum has changed during the implementation of this process (see changes in teachers views from 1993 to 1996, Table I). It is our speculation that the reported improvements are associated with a number of components including, 1 ) adoption of a shared vision statement, 2) broad support involving the school and community in the systemic reform process 3) staff development workshops focusing on constructivist instructional techniques and where constructivist teaching strategies were modeled by workshop instructors, 4) administrative support (unit heads, principals, area office and central office supervisors) and 5) continuous monitoring of the change effort.

            Another evidence of systemic reform process can be found in the use of constructivist practices by science and mathematics teachers. Teachers identified the frequency with which they implemented various elements of constructivist teaching practices (Table II). These data indicated that teachers implement constructivist practices regularly in their classrooms. The frequency of implementing constructivist practices weekly or more often was 50% or greater in most areas. The only exception was using computers (28%), although this was due to the fact that computers are just now being phased in across the school district. These constructivist elements consisted of providing hands-on experiences using manipulative materials, using computers in instruction, using calculators in instruction, integrating multicultural aspects into the curriculum, providing group activities for students to problem solve, using projects to assess student learning, offering opportunities for students to write and communicate their experiences, maintaining student portfolios, providing several one-on-one conferences to discuss student progress, using models to teach concepts and offering many opportunities for students to do exercises.

            The responses of teachers about their use of constructivist practices were validated by student responses (see Table III for student responses). Students generally agreed with teachers about the frequency of use of constructivist instructional practices (see Table IV). The most frequent instructional experience reported by students was working in groups (mathematics students 85%, science students 93%). This supports the research on the value of group learning (Steffe & Gale, 1995). These findings suggest that minimal differences in perceptions of teacher and student responses are present.

            The reported use of constructivist instructional practices was further examined by school level. Strong relationships in the perceptions of teachers and students were present in the areas of group activities and making choices. In general both teachers and students agreed that constructivist teaching was taking place on a regular basis (see "Constructivist Practices as Reported by Teachers at Various School Levels", Table V). The percentages of use of constructivist practices was highest for elementary school level. High school level reported using constructivist practices least often. This difference in school level might be attributed to the heavier emphasis on subject matter content over process as one progresses from elementary school to high school. Higher grade level teachers might feel the pressure to teach more traditionally to cover the more extensive amount of content at that level.

            In addition, differences in the response of science and mathematics teachers were examined with regard to their reported use of constructivist instructional practices (see Table Vl). These findings suggest that science teachers use constructivist practices more often than mathematics teachers. However, mathematics teachers use computers, calculators and conference with their students more often than science teachers.

            The reported changes and use of constructivist instructional practices will be monitored in successive years of the systemic change process. The preliminary evidence provided here indicate that teachers are using constructivist instructional practices and have changed their views about the adequacy of the curriculum awing this systemic change process.

            The findings of this study provide evidence that; 1 ) teachers feel the science and mathematics curriculum is much more adequate since the implementation of the systemic reform process, 2) teachers report using a variety of constructivist strategies in their classrooms (weekly or more often) and 3) students also report experiencing constructivist practices in their classrooms. Overall, teachers and students report using several constructivist practices in their classrooms.

            The necessary elements of systemic reform and constructivist practices appear to be present in this school district. Teachers and students report using activities that support activating prior knowledge. In addition, teachers appear to be aware of the most current research, that students must acquire their own knowledge as a part of the constructivist theory. The majority of teachers report using models (90% weekly of more often) and hands-on experiences (90% weekly or more often). Dialog between teacher and student through conferencing is essential for a student to understand knowledge. Teachers and students reported conferencing 54% weekly or more often, having group activities (93%) and using projects (56%). Students use their new knowledge through problem solving (93% weekly or more often) and reflect on knowledge through writing (78%).

            A curriculum built upon constructivist beliefs is concerned with the aspects of learning in which students make sense of experiences in terms of existing knowledge. Research has shown that much can be gained by the infusion of constructivism into instructional design. It can provide environments in which learning is achieved through discovery and inquiry. It offers promise in the development of successful learning experiences by producing students who think, apply knowledge and solve problems.

            Inferences can be drawn from these findings, if teaching, learning and staff development are planned with a shared vision, then it is possible to make changes in classroom instruction to improve the learning environment. Research associated with improving student outcomes indicates that constructivist practices are educationally advantages for all students. However, additional research is needed to continue assisting science and mathematics teachers, and indeed all teachers, to demonstrate competency in constructivist teaching practices. A constructivist approach to in-service teachers may require us to elicit prior knowledge held by teachers about teaching and learning. Additional follow-up studies will help us determine what is necessary to provide teachers with the skills and motivation needed to enable them to continue experiencing growth in developing the knowledge base characteristic of experienced and competent constructivist educators. Additional studies might include; what could be done to promote more change with upper grade level teachers, which elements of the systemic change process were most critical for effecting changes in teachers views about the adequacy of the curriculum and indeed about the change in instructional practices.

Bereiter, C. (1994, October). Constructivism, Socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3. Educational Researcher 23 (7). 21 -23.

Bodner, G. M. (1986, October). Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education 63 (10), 873-78.

Chaille, C., & Britain, L., (1991). The Young Child as Scientist: A Constructivist Approach to Early Childhood Science Education. New York, N.Y.: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.

Cobb, P. (1994, October). Where is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development. Educational Researcher 23 (7). l 320.

Cobb, P. (ed.) (1994). Learning Mathematics Constructivist and Interactions theories of Mathematical Development. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cohen, D. K. (1995, December). What is the System in Systemic Reform? Educational Researcher 24 (91. 11- 17, 31.

Condon, M. W. F., Clyde, J. A., Kyle, D. W., & Hovda, R. A. (1993, September, October). A constructivist Basis for Teaching and Teacher Education: A Framework for Program Development and Research on Graduates. Journal of Teacher Education 44 (4). 273-278.

David, J. L. (1994). Realizing the Promise of Technology: The Need for Systemic Education Reform. In R. J. Anson, U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1994). Systemic Reform Perspectives on Personalizing Education. (Publication No: ISBN 0-16-045326-7). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. ( l 990). Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4 7-166.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994, October). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher 23 (7). 5-12.

Driver, R., Oldham, V. (1986). A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13 105-22.

Elmore, R. F. (1995, December). Structural Reform and Educational Practice. Educational Researcher 24 (9). 23-26.

Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White R. T. (eds.). (1994). The Content of Science: A Constructivist Approach to its Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.

Glaserfield, E. V. (1996, August-September). Footnotes to "The Many Faces of Constructivism". Educational Researcher 25 (6). 19-20.

Glaserfield, E. V. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press.

Gurney, B. F. (1995). Tugboats and Tennis Games: Preservice Conceptions of Teaching and Learning Revealed through Metaphors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (6), 569-83.

Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. in R. J. Anson, U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Systemic Reform Perspectives on Personalizing Education. (Publication No: ISBN 0-16-045326-7). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Piaget, J., (1971). Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Richardson, V. (1994, June-July). Conducting Research on Practice. Educational Researcher 23 (5). 5-10.

Rieber, L. P., (1992). Computer-Based Microworlds: A Bridge Between Constructivism and Direct Instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development 40 (1), 93-106

Saunders, W. L. (1992, March). The Constructivist Perspective: Implications and Teaching Strategies for Science. School Science and Mathematics 92 (3). 136-141.

Schlenker, R. M., Yoshida, S. J., & Perry, C. M., (1995, Spring). Muscle Building. Science Activities, 32-35.

Shapiro, B. L. (1994). What Children Bring to Light A Constructivist Perspective on Children's Learning in Science. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Shields, P. M. (1994). Bring Schools and Communities Together in Preparation for the 21 st Century: Implications of the Current Educational Reform Movements for Family and Community Involvement Policies. in R. J. Anson, U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Systemic Reform Perspectives on Personalizing Education. (Publication No: ISBN 0-16-045326-7). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Simon, M. (1995). Elaborating Models of Mathematics Teaching: A Response to Steffe and D'Ambrosio. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 26 (2), 160-62.

Steffe, L. P., & D'Ambrosio, B. S. (1995). Toward A Working Model of Constructivist Teaching: A Reaction to Simon. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 26 (2), 146 59

Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (eds.). (1995). Constructivism in Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Stein, M., Edwards, T., Norman, J., Roberts, S., Sales, J., Alec, R., & Chambers, J. (1994). A Constructivist Vision for Teaching, Learning and Staff Development. Unpublished manuscript, Wayne State University Detroit, MI.

Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1994). Change has Changed: Implications for Implementation of Assessments for the Organizational Change Literature. In R. J. Anson, U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Systemic Reform Perspectives on Personalizing Education. (Publication No: ISBN 0-16-045326-7). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Tobin, K., & Dawson, G. (1992). Constraints to Curriculum Reform: Teachers and the Myths of Schooling. Education Technology, Research and Development 40 (1), 81 -92.

Tolman, M. N., & Hardy, G. R. (1995). Discovering Elementary Science Method' Content, and Problem-Solving Activities. Needham Heights, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.

Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J., (eds.). (19960. Improving teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wells, A. S., Hirshberg, D., Lipton, M., & Oaks, J. (1995, June-July). Bonding the Case Within It's Context: A Constructivist Approach to Studying Detracking Reform. Educational Research 24 (5). 18-24.

Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning. Science Education 75 (1). 9-21.

Yager, R. E. (1991, September). The Constructivist Learning Model Towards Real Reform in Science Education. Science Teacher, 58, 52-57.

Go back to Table of Contents  

Go back to 1997 AETS Conference Proceedings  

Date of last revision/update : Nov 12, 1997