Expanding Our View of Teaching and Learning: Applying Constructivist Theory(s) to Teachers Education.
TITLE Expanding Our View of Teaching and Learning: Applying Constructivist Theory(s) to Teachers Education. PUB DATE 2003-00-00 NOTE 33p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (New Orleans, LA, January 24-27, 2003). PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Portfolio Assessment; Action Research; *Constructivism (Learning); Cooperative Learning; Educational Environment; Elementary Secondary Education; Field Experience Programs; Higher Education; *Inservice Teacher Education; Interpersonal Relationship; *Preservice Teacher Education; Problem Solving; Reflective Teaching; Student Attitudes; Student Participation; Teacher Attitudes IDENTIFIERS Authenticity; Learner Centered Instruction
A Developmental-Constructivist Approach to Teacher Education
In the Developmental Teacher Education (DTE) program at the University of California at Berkeley, Piagetian developmental theory and research is used as core knowledge for preparing elementary school teachers. Developmental-constructivist principles of knowledge acquisition are particularly well-suited for this purpose because they have implications for what and how children are taught, how progress toward expertise in teaching is conceptualized, and how teachers are educated. The authors describe the 2-year, postgraduate program, whose features include small cohorts of students, course work organized to address key topics repeatedly and hierarchically, multiple student teaching placements in diverse settings, and a master's project on a teaching-learning issue. They also comment on teaching practices of program graduates and the development of their understanding of children, learning, and teaching during and after graduation from the program.
The New ‘U’
Today's talk about tenure must be framed within broader discussions about the role of the university. Our university system is now over one hundred years old, the “Old-Time College” is gone, the “cold war” university is no longer viable, and the foundations of the modern “multiversity” are cracking, so it is time to talk about change. But change is not necessarily reform, and resisting change probably will not keep things the way they are, so academics must understand the forces reshaping the university. Whenever I listen to colleagues defend the status quo by saying that the United States has a university system that is the envy of the world, I hear echoes of the Detroit automobile industry's casual dismissal of foreign competitors in the early 1960s. The decision not to change did not preserve the auto industry, and it is unlikely to preserve public universities as we know them. The current debates about tenure began with ideological attacks on “tenured radicals” who used their secure jobs to subvert conservative cultural values. The attack on tenure gathered steam as fiscal hawks in financially-strapped states looked for ways to save money and found huge state university systems with budgets to match. When asked why he robbed banks, the legendary Willie Sutton replied, “Because that's where the money is.” When asked why they are robbing tenure, legislators, regents, and administrators reply, “Because that's where the money is.” Personnel costs are a large share of university budgets and tenure ties the hands of administrators and legislators accustomed to using purse strings to control universities.