I agree with the authors, Brooks and Brooks when they state in their book, The Case for the Constructivist Classroom that, “… becoming a constructivist teacher is not as overwhelming as many teachers think.” One of the reasons I agree with the authors is because my initial teacher education and some of my graduate school education was structured around constructivist ideas. This is one of their suggestions for creating constructivist classrooms, and I agree it makes an enormous difference. The difficulty is remaining a constructivist teacher in a high stakes testing environment. When student scores are used to evaluate individual teachers, a teacher must be very confident in his or her methods to remain a constructivist teacher. Even then, if the constructivist teacher’s students test scores do not match or exceed the scores of traditionally taught students, the test scores will speak more loudly than best practice.
My constructivist teacher training started almost at birth. I can still remember my language arts teaching father showing me the huge model city his classes built. The theme was “The Greatness of the City.” His students from the exurbs of Milwaukee would pair up with students in the inner city even when there was rioting and curfews. They would ride buses to observe classrooms, courtrooms and government in downtown Milwaukee and use their research to plan a city of the future. That was just one of the many experiences he gave his students every year, and each year was different and new. Imagine my happiness when I went to college, and my first lesson plans were large webs that grew based on my students’ interests. I loved Herbert Kohl, the teacher and author and his books, 36 Children and On Teaching. When I did my final student teaching, all the constructivist ideas worked! We set up centers for students to explore everything from crystals and manipulative math items to Atari computer programs. Concepts and applications were introduced later. Letter grades were eliminated completely and number grades were only used on report cards. It was fun and exciting.
Of course, when I taught a self-contained class of 8th grade students at-risk in a
non-university city, some of my teaching became more structured and traditional, but it was still more constructivist than it is today. I think I first felt the pressure to change in the fall of 1996 when I returned from maternity leave and was teaching sixth grade. By 2004, we were being told what to teach, when to teach it and how to teach it. Common assessments and work examples had to be turned into the office along with graphs showing student progress. It was not fun and exciting.
Imagine my astonishment when my husband and I took sabbaticals and our children went to a little country school where the teachers never talked about test scores and thought a second grader’s homework should be play! When I was offered a job, we permanently moved to Portage, and I had the opportunity to be a constructivist teacher again. Unfortunately, the superintendent retired at the mid-point of my first year, and the new superintendent was charged with raising the district’s test scores. Now, the only things that keep me trying constructivist ideas are my classmates and course readings that remind me of how valuable constructivism is for students and the fact that my students’ test scores have been “above average.”
This is my first year at an “in town” school that is not known for high test scores. It also frightens me when a fellow teacher I admire is not allowed to use anything but a basal reader because her test scores were 25% lower than other teachers at her grade level. Even more disturbing is the fact that the decision was based on one year’s test scores and an intern taught the second half of the year in her classroom. I would like to remain a constructivist teacher, but it might be a race to see what happens first: I retire, the pendulum moves away from test scores, I give up or I become a subversive instructor secretly teaching in a fun and exciting way.
Despite the pressure, I have had a “meaningful victory” this year. My students can share ideas, listen to each other, form a plan and carry out a plan with everyone working together. They can do it without yelling or bashing each other’s ideas, and they can do it with only a minimal amount of adult guidance. We have built on the learning we gained at a ropes and challenge course even though it cut into our reading time for thirty minutes once a week. An additional benefit has been the way my students have worked on each week’s challenges in an adaptive physical education class with students who have special needs.
My dream this year is to have my students working together in small groups on a variety of projects at the same time. Right now, students work well (most of the time) in small flexible science groups when we are doing labs. This week, they are beginning cooperative math groups and book clubs. At some point, I would like all the students to be able to pursue different activities at the same time and at their own pace. However, I would consider it a meaningful victory if I could just get all my math and reading groups working effectively at the same time.
