This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 05:41Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Journal of Early ChildhoodTeacher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

How Does a ConstructivistTeach Teachers?Christine Chaille aa Portland State UniversityPublished online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Christine Chaille (1997) How Does a Constructivist TeachTeachers?, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 18:2, 23-26, DOI:10.1080/1090102970180206

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102970180206

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

41 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationProceedings Issue 1997, Volume 18, No. 2

How Does a Constructivist Teach Teachers?

Christine Chaille

Portland State University

Let's begin with a basic premise: we need to apply what we know about how chil-dren learn to understanding how adults learn. From that, we can infer how to bestteach in ways that facilitate learning in our adult students.

To do this, we will review the four characteristics of young children that Lory Britainand I describe in The Young Child As Scientist (Chaille & Britain, 1991). They are:

1. Young children are theory builders.2. Young children need to build a foundation of physical knowledge.3. As they mature, young children become increasingly autonomous and indepen-

dent, both intellectually and morally.4. Young children are social beings.We'll review each one of these in turn, but first I want to tell a few stories about

events that have caused me to reflect on teacher education and its relationship toconstructivist theory.

Several years ago, I was asked to give a series of workshops to a group of ele-mentary teachers in Oregon on constructivist teaching. I presented an overview ofconstructivism for them, filled with examples from classroom, videotapes of childrenengaged in constructivist activities, and slides. We talked a lot about how young chil-dren build theories, and the importance of children's theory-building. The workshopwas a nice mix of lecture, small group, and whole group discussion. After thisoverview workshop, I gave them an assignment: a charge to return to their ownclassrooms and to collect, between then and the next workshop, concrete examplesof children's theory-building. I asked them to bring these examples to the next work-shop so we could discuss the ideas I had presented in terms of their own childrenand the problems and constraints they encountered as they tried to further imple-ment constructivist theory. The response to the workshop was enthusiastic, and Ilooked forward to returning in two weeks.

Before returning, I called the principal to discuss the upcoming workshop. She saidthat the teachers were having great difficulty doing their assigned task because "theydidn't know what to look for." In other words, despite thinking they understood what Ihad been talking about, when it came to identifying specific episodes of theory-build-ing in their classrooms, they did not have a clue what it would look like.

This led to an important realization for me. I had failed in some important way toconnect what I was talking about to the children they could see every day. Althoughthey presumably had learned what I had presented about theory-building conceptu-ally, they had not made it their own, and had not applied it to their own practices. Inother words, they had not achieved true understanding.

As a step toward facilitating their connection between theory-building conceptuallyand their own practice, I decided to go to their school a day early and go into theclassrooms with a video camera, recording examples of what I would identify as the-ory-building. I only went into those classrooms where the teachers welcomed me,

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

41 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Christine Chaille

which were a sizable number of them. I had no trouble finding a number of differentexamples of what I considered to be children's theory-building, in a variety of con-texts.

That afternoon I reviewed the tape and selected excerpts to share with them thatwould help elaborate on what I meant by theory-building. I hoped that by doing so,they would be a little further along toward being able to see it for themselves. Butmost significantly, I realized that the process itself helped me clarify what character-istics of children's activities made me feel that they were engaging in experimenta-tion, problem-solving, and, ultimately, theory-building.

I applied this same idea to a course I taught. The course was called "Research onScience Education," and it was a graduate level course for students who were al-ready familiar with constructivism and constructivist approaches to science educa-tion. I taught the class to fulfill a research requirement for the master's students whoneeded another research course, and to further my own work in defining early child-hood constructivist science.

From the beginning students were given the charge to go into classrooms (theirown or others) and observe instances of children engaging in "science," howeverthey might define it. In our weekly seminar, we would take these instances and putthem on an overhead, discuss each one, and from the observations we were bringingin discuss what we meant by "science" given what we were observing. In the processwe began to identify more clearly, and to reconceptualize in most cases, what eachof us meant by science education in early childhood classrooms. We also began toidentify more clearly under what conditions science education occurred, and whatseemed to facilitate or inhibit science in classrooms.

The experience was an extraordinary one, in which each of us learned a great dealabout what we meant by science, about how to observe it, and about what we asearly childhood teachers could do to promote it.

These two stories exemplify for me times when I have attempted to apply Piaget-ian theory to my work with adults. In hindsight, I realized that in both cases I was ap-plying the same principles that I advocate for young children to my work with adults.

Young Children are Theory-BuildersJust like children, adults construct knowledge. This is not a concept relating to

being developmentally appropriate, but is true across development. As we work withadults, we need to recognize that adults come into learning situations with theoriesand ideas as powerful and as ingrained, perhaps even more ingrained, than children.And, as with children, it is important not to disregard these theories but to respectthem. Showing respect for the ideas that our adult students come in with is as impor-tant as showing respect for children's sometimes "incorrect" ideas. We need to pro-vide opportunities for our adult students to voice their ideas, and to listen to eachother's. Only then can we as instructors try to figure out what is necessary to facilitatebuilding on those theories - what activities, what readings, what experiences, whatarguments, what information.

Adults construct knowledge, as children do, through interaction with their physicaland social world, and the importance of connecting those theories with the interac-tions they are having is of utmost importance. Just as the teachers in Oregon toldme, they need to see the relationship between what we are saying in theory and what

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

41 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

How Does a Constructivist Teach Teachers?

they are experiencing. True understanding is demonstrated not just by acknowledg-ing conceptual points, but by incorporating ideas into one's own practice. Providingopportunities for such application is an important part of the learning process, foradults just as much as for children.

Young Children Need to Build a Foundation of Physical KnowledgeWhile adults don't necessarily need to build a foundation of physical knowledge, I

think the issue of going from the concrete to the abstract still applies. We need toconnect what we are talking about to the world in which they work and live, and if wecannot see the connection, no true understanding will take place. Going back andforth between theory and practice is the only way that connections will be made thatwill last.

As They Mature, Young Children Become Increasingly Autonomousand Independent, Both Intellectually and Morally

Our role as teachers is to promote autonomy for all learners, whether they beadults or children. The promotion of autonomy is best achieved in a culture of mutualrespect. In teaching adults, it is important that everything we do contribute to that cul-ture and environment.

How do we show respect to other adults? One way is by acknowledging andshowing ways that we value the expertise and interest that they bring to the learningexperience. We need to provide avenues for the adult students to demonstrate whatthey already know an think of the topic at hand. And, likewise, since we are trying toachieve an environment of mutual respect, we must demonstrate why we deservetheir respect in turn. If we have expertise, it is essential to clarify its roots, to substan-tively demonstrate the value of that expertise to the student's own lives. If we ask stu-dents to do an assignment, we need to make sure the assignment is one that is valu-able and meaningful, and not trivial. If we ask students to read something particular,we need to be sure it is worth reading. That shows that we respect their time and en-ergy, and that we have carefully considered their needs in determining what we askof them in turn.

One of the most critical issues in the facilitation of theory-building is to provide asafe environment in which it can occur. Establishing that safe environment where dif-ferences of opinion and points of view are honored sometimes takes a good deal ofeffort on the part of the teacher/facilitator. Students must be able to trust the groupand the instructor, and there have to be clear ground rules for discourse that permitall voices to be heard and dialogue to occur where needed. Depending on the in-structional context, you may need to make those ground rules more or less explicit.

Young Children are Social BeingsAdults are really no different than children in this regard, either. We all learn in so-

cial contexts, and we apply what we learn in social contexts. Just as children learndifferently and significantly from each other, adults need opportunities to learn fromeach other. Just as children learn by discussion with peers, adults learn from discus-sion with peers. Just as children need a pleasant, engaging social culture in which tolearn, the social atmosphere in which learning occurs is important to adults. Both op-

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

41 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Christine Chaille

portunities for social interaction in the learning process, and a social setting that iscomfortable and conducive to sharing and thinking need to be arranged for by the fa-cilitator. Instructors often joke about the importance of food and breaks; there is agood reason, theoretically, why some degree of informality, humor, and tending topersonal needs is more conducive to a healthy learning environment. Just as chil-dren cannot process information when they are distracted by hunger, uncomfortable,or tense because of the social constraints, adults cannot process information in a so-cial learning environment that is uncomfortable.

The role of the instructor, of course, is to orchestrate the learning environment toincorporate a variety of opportunities for social interaction as well as opportunities forworking individually when desired. Choice on the part of the participants is always agood principle, again, as much for adults as for children; but the facilitator can gentlynudge participants into activities that encourage or require social interaction in orderto promote intellectual dialogue.

In conclusion, we as constructivist teacher educators need to take to heart theprinciples we adhere to when it comes to children. We need to constantly be examin-ing and re-examining our practices and beliefs to make sure that we model construc-tivism in how we teach adults, and it is not an easy task. We need more opportunitiesto share and discuss our successes and failures, because in a constructivist class-room there is no such thing as failure, only opportunities to learn from things that did-n't work.

ReferencesChaille, C, & Britain, L. (1991). The young child as scientist: A constructivist ap-

proach to early childhood science education. New York: Harper/Collins.

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

41 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014