A Case Study of Constructivist Learning In

Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım

Challenges of introducing a constructivist classroom culture in a predominantly teacher- centered environment 1

Hanife Akar & Ali Yıldırım Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7-10 September 2005

The purpose of this study was to understand how higher education students with teacher-centered backgrounds perceived their learning through social-constructivist learning environments. Data were collected from 76 teacher candidates through field notes, reflective diaries, video- recordings, and semi-structured interviews, and analyzed via content analysis. Findings show that social constructivist learning environments contribute to the learning of TCS. Although the learning process is perceived as motivating, interesting, and conducive to more learning, the competitive university culture mismatches with the alternative evaluation processes. TCS find alternative evaluation subjective and discouraging. Peer evaluations are evaluated from a moral developmental perspective rather than an objective perspective. Consequently, a social constructivist culture is difficult to be adopted in an environment that holds predominantly a teacher-centered culture.

Key words: Teacher Education, social constructivism, education culture

Introduction

Teaching and learning cultures in schools are socially constructed (Niemi, 2002) and teacher candidates bear with them a culture that is originated from their earlier experiences in schooling

(Greenfield, Raeff, & Quiroz, 1996). Teacher education programs generally envision bringing

1 This case study was sponsored by an integrated doctorate scholarship by the Turkish Science Academy (TUBA) that supports young researchers in the promotion of research and scientific activities in social sciences. ** For questions contact [email protected] or [email protected]

1 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım about change in teacher candidates’ passive forms of teaching and learning culture for the hope that this type of change will be translated into lower-levels of education. Pentrie (1998) stresses on the issue of change in the traditional university culture as well, and suggests initiating a shared vision within the school culture to realize school improvement. Consequently, these new visions influence teacher education programs (Emihovich, 1998).

Literature on constructivist teacher education says that practices in the culture of constructivist learning environments may enhance critical thinking and help learners to become agents of change (Kroll & Laboskey, 1996). Constructivism is often described as an alternative to traditional instructional approaches. And, an increasing number of research studies highlight the importance of “constructivist teacher education” in educating preservice teachers (Lunenberg &

Korthagen, 2003; Tatto, 1998; Tynjälä, 1999). Teachers believe that the students’ background knowledge profoundly affects how they interpret the subject matter. They also think that the best way to learning is to apply knowledge in dealing with those constructivist activities that include solving problems through engaging in dialogue. However, it is still unclear how students learn best, what it means to learn, and the image of what is possible in constructivist classrooms remains idealized. Inevitably, rather than talking about the theory itself, educators are responsible to add to the theory about their experiences in real classrooms and their concerns about those experiences (Windschitl, 1999).

Windschitl (1999) asserts that constructivism is a culture, rather than a fragmented collection of practices. Teacher educators must be aware that one cannot make use of constructivism as a set of isolated instructional methods grafted onto other traditional techniques. In other words, it “is a culture – a set of beliefs, norms, and practices that constitute the fabric of school life

(Windschitl, 1999: 752).” This culture affects the way learners can interact with peers, relate to the teacher, and experience the subject matter. When we scrutinize the literature, there is much evidence as to why teacher education programs should consider adopting a social constructivist

2 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım paradigm in educational settings. A primary benefit is that students are distant from fact-driven curricula and this allows them to focus on bigger ideas; they are empowered to follow trails of interest, make connections, reformulate ideas, and reach unique conclusions; next, it helps students build awareness that the world is complex and truth is a matter of interpretation of experiences. Consequently, students build awareness that learning and assessing learning are difficult endeavors (Brooks and Brooks, 1993).

Adopting social constructivist promise environments in which students can create their own knowledge constructions through interpreting the experiences they confront as individuals and as a member of the community. Yet, to build on the knowledge constructions one needs to understand the complex world through dialogue with peers holding different experiences then his or her. Anderson and Piazza (1996) examined aspects that indicate students’ commitment to a constructivist philosophy and point out that constructivism emerges from experience and reflection. They underscore that the constructivist learning environment is a need if we want preservice teachers to experience differently than they did in their experiential backgrounds.

Kaufman (1996) supports such view and states that for constructivist practices to emerge in schools, teacher education programs must use constructivist approaches to engage teacher candidates in interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative endeavors, and field work opportunities for experiential learning, self-observation, evaluation and reflection.

“ Constructivism” is characterized as an emergent paradigm in Turkey because it is not fully adopted into practice in preservice teacher education. The significance of this study is to examine whether social constructivist practices in the classroom help students make deeper, more meaningful knowledge constructions than those derived from traditional classroom practices in preservice teacher education to meet future educational challenges. Consequently, it is important to examine whether these constructivist practices may be effective in traditional contexts as well.

3 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım

With this theoretical framework in mind, this study aims to examine the impact of constructivist learning process on teacher candidates’ learning in Classroom Management Course. The specific research questions are:

1. How do teacher candidates in a predominantly teacher-centered culture perceive

their learning about classroom management through social constructivist learning

activities?

2. How do teacher candidates in a predominantly teacher-centered culture perceive

the use of alternative evaluation opposed to traditional paper-pencil type of tests in

Classroom Management course?

Methodology

The participants were 76 teacher candidates attending their third year as pre-service teachers in the Department of Foreign Language Education at Middle East Technical University (METU), which is a four-year undergraduate teacher education program. Although the program offered at

METU is very reputable compared to its counterparts, the instructional processes are traditional as in many undergraduate teacher education programs in Turkey. The implementers of the study were the first author of this paper and a volunteer instructor with eleven and eight years of undergraduate teaching experience respectively.

Classroom Management course is a four-hour compulsory undergraduate course in teacher education and was constructed in 2002. The course aims at improving participants' understanding of the concepts of classroom management and developing skills in establishing and maintaining an environment for learning in the classroom setting. The course is 4 hours per week and lasts for 14 weeks in total. Sessions were constructed based on social constructivist activities. Those activities entailed videotapes on classroom management issues, solving problem-based cases, conducting role plays and simulations, dealing with reflective writing tasks, and conducting

4 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım debates based on theories or research articles read, and dealing with peer teaching and peer evaluation tasks for group work activities overall. Each week, time was also devoted to theoretical hours, which were covered with recitations, discussions, small group discussions, and reflections based on the literature and research and the TCS’ personal experiences.

Consequently, TCS were exposed to social constructivist learning in which dialogue, collaboration, research, peer teaching, peer evaluation, authenticity, and problem solving tasks were emphasized.

The content of Classroom Management course is based on current literature by Fred Jones,

Carolyn Evertsen, Paul R. Burden, Larry Koenig, and Carol Weinstein. The instructional design was constructed by the authors based on Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory. Non-participant observations were conducted with an external observer for 4 weeks, and four 2 hour sessions were video-taped in each class to validate the social constructivist curriculum implementation by the instructors. The field notes based on videotapes and observations were analyzed utilizing content analysis. Finally, data were compared with the instructional plan of the particular sessions, the implementers’ reflections, and participant observers’ field notes. Cross analysis of data indicated that the implementation was reliable.

Data Collection

In order to find answers to our research questions, an interview protocol was used for formative and summative evaluation purposes. The items aimed at understanding expectations from course, fulfillment of goals, learning environment, learner roles, and assessment. Field notes and diaries focused on the same issues. However, they contained more evidence of the attitudes of the TCS towards the learning environment overall, and how they interacted with each other and with the instructor. The process of the implementation was videotaped for 4 weeks (2 hours every week) starting the 3rd week and observed for reliability purposes and obtaining a clearer understanding of the contexts created. These videos were used to grasp a deeper understanding of the learning

5 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım process, and complement the field notes and researcher diaries. Observations were conducted by the first author and a non-participant observer for four weeks. The semi-structured interview protocol was constructed by the authors. Throughout 7 weeks a group other than the research group took the same course, and the instructor utilized the same instructional process, and this enabled the researchers to pilot test the interview protocol and bring necessary changes. The final form was validated through expert opinion by a Curriculum and Evaluation professor. Each

(formative) interview consisted of 3 participants, and a total of 4 interviews were conducted.

Two of the interviews were realized by the non-participant observer to avoid any biases. Since it was the final examination week, it was hard to bring the interviewees together for summative interviews. Therefore, we were able to realize only one focus group interview with TCS and an individual interview (with Aysun).

Sampling

The participants in this study were randomly selected 76 TCS attending their third year in

Foreign Language Teacher Education. For the purposeful sampling of the focus groups, TCS’ portfolios were collected amidst the implementation. From each group, two TCS showing high class performance and enthusiasm and who had written meticulous reflections in their portfolios; two TCS with a more moderate performance and enthusiasm, and two with poorer portfolios and little enthusiasm were selected (n = 12). All interviewees were given pseudonyms.

Data Analysis

Thematic content analysis was used in this study. First data of one focus group interview were

coded; (2) themes were constructed; (3) themes were organized and data were

recoded based on the themes that yielded. Next, Themes were defined and

interpreted, and meanwhile good quotes in the data were identified to provide

evidence of the theme. Data were triangulated with the thematic content analysis

results in the transcribed interview data, and extracts from field notes and TCS’

journals, and open-ended items were selected to complement the interview data

and obtain a deeper understanding.

Findings

Findings support research indicating that learning about CLM is essential in during teacher training (Butchart, 1998; Stallion & Zimpher, 1991), and in this study most of the TCS were satisfied with the training they underwent, and said they said that their goals with regard to CMC were fulfilled. Yet, the dispute about how to deal with the pedagogical development of teachers is still critical (Lunenberg & Korthagen, 2003), and in this study although it was the first time that the TCS were subjected to social constructivist learning environments, they reported that they had positive feelings towards the active learning environment. Therefore, it is important to examine the issue in depth.

Learning Culture

Aysun thought that CMC would be one of the most important education courses she ever attended when she was to attend the classes for the first time. She pointed out that all the pedagogical courses they attended previously were heavily loaded with theoretical knowledge.

These courses helped them understand about the cognitive and personal development of children.

Certainly, they were all important to know, and did think that they would be able to use them practically. She said that CMC helped them learn how to interact and communicate and cooperate with kids and she could use the knowledge they obtained in previous pedagogical courses..

Three of the interviewees voiced that they enhanced the goals of the course and their own far more than expected. They mainly stated that they thought of classroom management as bringing discipline in the class. However, they believed with the techniques they used in the course they

7 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım were able to grasp classroom management as a matter that goes beyond dealing with misbehaviors. Thus, findings indicate that CMC changed their controlling conceptions of classroom management. Yet, the TCS complained that they did not have field practice.

The goal of the course is to make us learn how to manage a class effectively. Certainly it enhances its goals, but in a certain extent. Such a goal requires lots of practice. CMC is about practicing, but this is questionable. How much do we practice? We need to practice in relation to what we learn. The theory we undertake is not difficult, but what matters is whether we can apply it, and we do not have field practice (Erkcan).

Although TCS tended to have reached their goals about learning how to deal with CLM issues, they were critical about the mismatch of the cultural contexts presented in theory and reality, and the need for field practice. One of the interviewees, Gonca, said that her goal about CMC was to learn how to become a good teacher. What characteristics does a good teacher have? And does one become better by improving these? When she was asked if she could find answers from what they were doing in CMC, she complained that she was doing some voluntarily teaching as charity work for the poor kids living in the neighborhood of the university campus. Gonca complained that she confronted a different classroom environment than the ones represented in their textbook. Thus, the class culture presented in their resources were culturally different than the ones she was actually teaching. Therefore, Gonca seemed to have difficulty in relating the theory she was reading with her classes’ reality. No matter how much she seemed to enjoy the way they were learning, it had actually not alleviated her anxiety of teaching in disadvantaged classrooms.

Fieldnotes indicate similar extracts of the latter problem voiced by Gonca. In week 3 we brought into class a number of pictures that were shot both in Turkey and in a foreign country (we did not write the name of the country since this is not a cross-cultural study). The TCS were expected to discuss and construct knowledge about the classroom environment and its functions in small groups by synthesizing and evaluating the contexts they examined in the pictures and come up with new ideas, one male student all of a sudden complained that it was impossible for them to

8 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım see a classroom environment as the ones they had in their front, and said that there were multiple schools in which there was only a blackboard and chalk. Upon this the teacher asked to the entire class: “Well, if you are teaching in such class, and you know there are no financial resources to create a class like this one (showing a picture), how can you bring some life and change in the classroom.” There was a mocking rumor going on, and he said that their teacher was too idealistic and if they became as idealistic the teacher educator wanted him to be he would not survive long as a teacher. Yet, few students emphasized the importance of teaching being an art in such cultural contexts.

TCS said that they were mostly motivated by their motivation to learn, the positive learning environment, and the positive attitude of the instructors.

Aysun emphasized that the way (social constructivist) they learned was very effective since lecturing type of instructional approaches was means to lose their concentration. She complained that in the traditional learning environments they could not retain the knowledge they heard.

However, through simulations, case studies and other type of activities they used in their CMC, their learning was perceived as very educative. Such approach was enjoyable and also increased their motivation. Interviewees said that the presentations realized by their friends remained in their mind and helped them to connect theory with practice.

TCS expressed their satisfaction with being in a relaxed classroom environment. They felt they could adapt the particular activities they did in class as models for future practices. For instance, in a group work the TCS were given revolving tasks that enabled them to become a secretary, a group leader, a time keeper, and spokesperson respectively each time they finished a small case.

Especially, having revolving duties/tasks within a group every time yielded them to think that all learners should be given opportunities to undertake different roles. Erkcan joked that it was the first time he acted as a secretary in a group, and another interviewee expressed her satisfaction with being the leader of the group after a long time. The TCS wanted to emphasize that this way

9 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım was a good model to understand their learners’ point of view when they would be assigned a certain role in a group. Emel said that she could overcome her own weaknesses in time management by evaluating the way a particular task or activity was provided by the instructor.

She added that the way they were learning impacted on her learning style and made her become more organized in her studying and time management.

The constructivist learning activities the interviewees referred to were mostly evaluated from affective as well as cognitive perspectives. Voices indicated that utilizing a variety of activities in CMC were very motivating (Aysun & Erkcan). TCS believed that dealing with activities in small groups was very educative, especially, in terms of learning from a peer. Tugba said that peer teaching tasks were helpful if one had not prepared him or herself for the session, and thought that the discussions going on in a small group helped them make sense of the new knowledge constructed with the help of the entire group.

A female interviewee, voiced her satisfaction with the type of learning environment she was subjected to in the following way:

There is definitely no lecturing going on in this class. When there is lecturing the only thing I do is sleeping. I am always actively busy. We do group-work, case studies (pauses) what we do is always collaborate, and discuss these. We are having a great time (Çiçek).

A male interviewee agreed, and focused on the consistency of the teacher in applying the learner-centeredness in his instructional approach. He voiced:

I remember being suggested to sit in a semi-circle by instructors from the first year on, but none of them applied it up to now. The way we are actually imposed on to sit creates a classroom that uses cooperative learning strategies, and these strategies are the ones we really like. I mean the environment that exhibits an environment of discussions, and we think it is very nice (Cagan).

Toprak highlighted that simulations were very useful for future practice to the extent that they themselves considered new techniques or strategies for effective classroom management purposes. Another interviewee stated his satisfaction by stressing on how they related a survey or

10 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım observation of real classroom environments to the theory based on their reading materials. The learners were expected to show this link in the form of a poster presentation and reflect upon them as a group. Tan described the learning environment they were in as follows:

At the beginning we construct a baseline of what we had read, and held certain views about the reading. Next, we formed groups and started to discuss to what extent our views might be right or wrong, or what might be added to our thoughts. There (within the group) is the possibility that many of us have completely different opinions (Tan).

The piece articulated by Tan indicates that the learners were deeply involved in the dialogue and that they constructed knowledge through dialogue. TCS in this study also perceive speech as a means to learning. Speech and reflection is the main focus of social constructivist learning because language is the most important symbol system that supports learning (Vygotsky, 1986).

Use of simulations and role-plays were also mentioned as important in making sense of the learning and questioning particular cases that might come up during classes as prospective teachers. Tan said: “Simulations really make you live that particular situation. You put yourself in the shoes of the person in that situation. True we are not in the authentic learning environment that we envision ourselves, but I think and it becomes meaningful. I ask myself what I did wrong.” Tan, actually, completely agreed with his peer Toprak that simulations made him think and were useful in learning certain issues. As it can be seen in this study, simulations enabled learners to take ownership and engage themselves in the aspects of problem-solving (Hay &

Barab, 2001).

Case studies seem to have had a positive impact on learners’ knowledge construction as well.

For instance, one of the female learners (Aysun) indicated that dealing with narrative cases made them think about actual classrooms. She said that it was effective to discuss and talk about the strategies the teacher used in class for effective learning and classroom management purposes.

Discussing these issues might have produced diverse ideas and these might have provoked new

11 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım approaches to management. The female learner pointed out those case studies made her think critically.

Erkcan partially agreed and added that he always questioned himself by asking “What would I do if I were that teacher? How would I have set rules or routines in the beginning? What words would I use?” He believed that thinking about the answers might not suffice to learn, it required time. It can be inferred from this quotation that dealing with case studies made learners think critically and attempted them to build knowledge through self-improvement. This attitude also implies that by questioning the TCS became reflective learners.

Consequently, dialogue in this study facilitated the learning process, and this process exerted the zone of proximal development different than that was explained by Vygotsky. ZDP was not in the case of receiving guidance from a more competent to a less competent one, rather, classmates were complementing each other’s knowledge construction by filling the gaps.

Although the interviewees revealed a positive attitude toward dealing with constructivist activities in the form of small groups, they stated some concerns related to group work from several perspectives. TCS were very discouraged by the overcrowding and class size, and the number of small group activities, and the assignments for their portfolios.

Overcrowding of the classroom

Overcrowding of the classroom caused loss of instructional time during grouping activities (an almost repeatedly written diary extract for 5 weeks). TCS got overwhelmed with group work tasks. Specifically, the physical environment is discouraging and causes a mismatch with the requirements of social constructivist environments with respect to size. TCS’ who are more independent learners do not feel comfortable in collaborative groups. They have difficulty in engaging themselves in small group discussions. Not all group members take equal responsibility of learning of the group.

38 students are sitting crammed in groups of 4 and 5. A buzzing sound is roaming the room. All heads are together. While some are taking notes on colorful paper, others are trying to hear their mates. The teacher is standing somewhere in the middle of the room. A little mesmerized by the overcrowding and noise. Yet, everyone seems to know what they are doing. (week 3 field notes)

Gonca complained that they had difficulty to construct a group, and needed to turn the chairs for one hour. Thus, besides the overcrowding, the physical context of the classrooms was also hindering the flow of the activities to be conducted. A female learner, Emel, stated that overcrowding in the class caused discouragement when they had to do some activities.

Regarding the group work the learners did, there were different opinions expressed. For instance, in the post interview Aysun explained that group work activities had both strengths and weaknesses. She stated that she particularly liked learning from her group members or explained an issue to the group without any anxiety of making mistakes. The weaknesses were related to whom they were grouped with. The accidental or random groupings were not considered as very fruitful. She complained that someone might group among people whom he (or she) did not like personally.

The learning environment mismatches the culture of the class. There is rare feedback from students to take part in the decision-making process in the early weeks. It is difficult for students to take that kind of autonomy and shape their portfolios. The TCS find it difficult to accept that the truth is a matter of interpretation and the approval of the teacher often emerges as a need.

Some TCS might occasionally find themselves lost and question why the teacher does not give clear instructions on how to develop their portfolios.

Taking Ownership of Learning

Another concern dealt with was taking ownership of learning. The interviewees stated that not all the participants carried equal responsibilities while they were dealing with group work tasks.

One female learner complained:

I don’t think that peer teaching in a group is useful. Some of my friends do not get prepared before the sessions, and then the time given is not sufficient. The one who is prepared tells everyone in the group and that is not fair (Tugba).

Although she felt sometimes lucky to hear different point of views from her classmates, Emel pointed that individual differences caused difficulty in their group work activities. She gave an example saying that some did not take ownership of undertaking a task, and the burden was on the shoulders of one or two individuals in the group. Consequently, she felt discouraged.

Within group-work activities, it can be seen that some learners did not take the responsibility of learning for the whole group. They easily quit because the instructor had difficulty in controlling the entire class, or all groups in a very meticulous way because of overcrowding. When this was the case, the learners did not like to form a group with the ones who were not holding ownership of learning. Perhaps a solution could be a whole group discussion or sharing of ideas.

Nevertheless, this also was considered to have some drawbacks. Tan sadly said:

I have difficulty in participation and feel always kind of discouraged. Especially, when I have to contribute to the whole class discussions I feel resistant and keep quiet. Well, the portfolio helps me to reflect what I know and what I want to say (Tan).

Gonca added that she could not be as active a participant as she wanted to be because she felt threatened in class. When I tried to elicit the reasons behind it, she sounded uncertain and said that this could be a reason of overcrowding, or the unclear instructions regarding some assignments. Consequently, not such finding shows that some TCS did not feel safe in expressing themselves openly in class. It might be drawn from such a finding that the learners’ profile in CMC is rather competitive and slow or inhibited TCS might not feel very confident to articulate their thoughts. Also, the ones who were alert and eager beavers to express themselves might have taken turns easily when they wanted to express themselves. Such a situation is critical to the extent of how to manage discussions to provide an environment that reflects equality of opportunity during reflective dialogue with the entire class. In addition to the above, field notes indicate that there were 4-5 group leaders during discussion sessions. At those

14 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım moments, the TCS did not seem to compete for tangible purposes, rather they seemed to compete to share their knowledge with others.

It is a fact that working in groups and participating in discussions were positive experiences and these helped learners to understand learning processes more deeply and found grounds to reflect on their own growth. Doubtless, some learners might have enjoyed the challenges of constructivist learning, while others might have sought for the comfort and need of more objectivist instruction because teaching and learning cultures in schools are actually socially constructed (Niemi, 2002).

Evaluation Culture

Alternative evaluation means mismatches the university culture and TCS’ culture despite they believe they foster learning. Although many of the interviewees (six of them) revealed that preparing a portfolio helped them learn better, all of them except for one learner (Cicek) expressed her dislike toward preparing the portfolio during formative interviews. Tugba underscored that preparing a portfolio fostered the retention of knowledge. She did not feel that they studied to pass an exam, rather learning was meaningful to them and was immediately related to their future profession. Aysun stated that preparing a portfolio was very useful. It enabled them to synthesize and think critically about the subject. Especially, writing reflective summaries fostered learning. Yet, they still had concerns about how to write reflective diaries effectively. She complained that they were used to doing discussions and sharing about a certain topic or theory; however, she indicated that they never thought of how much those might have contributed to their new knowledge constructions. They were certain that their philosophy towards classroom management changed, yet they were not sure what variables made them obtain this conceptual change. Also, learners expressed their uncertainty of what to write and how to write.

Three of the interviewees agreed that portfolio preparation, or writing reflective papers made them study in a more organized way. They said that writing those reflective papers for CMC changed their approach of reading for the course; therefore, they started to undertake the reading materials for other courses from a different or more critical thinker point of view. Consequently, it changed their routines to studying written materials. For instance, Ozan stated that the way the instructional design of the course was organized was an incentive to become an active participant, and therefore he felt a need to do the readings regularly. He just wanted to be able to say a few words, to comment or to think about what they discussed. He said: “It has helped me gain a reading habit. Especially, I never used to question what I read. Now I am used to question whatever I read.” Gonca agreed with Ozan and said that she became more organized in her studies, and added that she did not feel even a need to study for the examination of this course.

Similarly, Derya pointed out:

When you have a portfolio, you need to be very organized, and be prepared for every week. Since I always reflect on what we read or discussed, I don’t feel a need to study at all. The retention of the content is much longer. We also add something from our decisions in our writings, but the grading for portfolio is too high and this discourages (Derya).

Tan added that portfolio evaluation was a chance for him to prove his development in the subject by just stating his own beliefs. Besides learners’ positive reflections about portfolio evaluation and writing reflective diaries, most of them indicated their dissatisfaction of dealing with these.

TCS’ reported that this was a result of writing reflective papers for the very first time, being uncertain of what to write in reflective diaries, the overloading of assignments they had to do, and not having clearly discussed or not being provided with detailed instructions or guidelines in preparing the portfolio.

A male learner (Toprak) indicated his uncertainty about how to write reflective diaries as follows: “I find it meaningless to say what happened in class. First, I jot down what we dealt with in class, and think how it changed my point of view, for example, in the topic about rewards

I completely changed my previous ideas about rewarding. Then, I write down whether the activity was good or bad. This way is how I do it.” Saying this he expected approval of the interviewer if it was a right or wrong approach. Another learner stated: “The main purpose of portfolio assessment is to reflect what we learned or understood. I think we have a misconception of what reflection means. Does reflection mean writing a summary or reflect what we used to think about a particular thing, and how our views retained or changed with regard to what we did in CMC.

Another type of uncertainty was uttered by Aysun. Although she agreed that writing reflective summaries made them reconsider the topics they went over, and enabled their development in learning about the theory, she had some concerns related to reflective writing. She complained that she had difficulty in differentiating what particularly was effective in holding a conceptual change about a particular topic. She said that her learning was unconsciously occurring throughout the semester, and could not notice what particularly made her think differently from what she was used to.” Doubtless portfolio assessment can provide a wealth of information about learners’ knowledge constructs. However, teacher educators should be very specific and well- articulated on how learners need to deal with portfolio assessment. Instructors should be aware that journals can provide learners with the opportunities to reflect on practice and its implications for social change and personal empowerment (Orem, 2001). Thus, reflection may lead to more effective practice in the future practices of teacher candidates.

In sum, as it can be inferred TCS felt overwhelmed by the amount of work they had to do for a single course. Another, issue is that many of the learners are inexperienced about preparing a portfolio that contains reflective diaries. It was a challenge for the TCS to synthesize and evaluate the topics they read, and relate it to their own philosophy of classroom management and adapt it to the cultural context in which they most probably would be teaching.

Ownership and Decision-Making

As regard to ownership about preparing the portfolios, the interviewees expressed that they were not used to take full responsibility of doing a particular task unless there was guided control.

Erkcan suggested that learners could be given a timetable in which was written what particular task they were expected to finish for that particular week. Actually, the learners seemed to have found difficulty to relate the time-table in their course syllabus with their portfolio guideline.

Such a finding indicates that TCS expected controlled guidance as they were used to. Yet, TCS stated they were not given “choice” because they were suggested to prepare a portfolio that contained reflective diaries.

Erkcan mockingly uttered that they were given choices but to a certain extent. They felt forced in doing group presentations. Also, continuously trying to construct knowledge in groups caused burnout, and they thought that since they were required to do group presentations, they did not feel that they were given “choice.” In other words, the notion decision-making was perceived as given the freedom of deciding what to do or not to do by learners, and this caused a conflict.

Peer Evaluation and Self-Evaluation

All the interviewees stated that they were not familiar with peer-evaluation and self-evaluation, and did not accept that this type of approach to evaluation was objective. Yet, they stated that they could evaluate a certain presentation or work accomplished by their classmates as an activity, but they never would consider such evaluation for grading purposes. One set of concerns were related to hurting their peers’ feelings when they held negative perceptions about their portfolio. Those types of concerns were mainly revealed with the researcher’s class.

Learners voiced the following concerns:

I cannot tell him (or her) that he did not do very well. Perhaps, I might tell my friend what he needs to improve in the portfolio (Tugba).

I am very skeptical and pessimistic about peer evaluation. I think this is a societal issue. If I start to criticize a classmate in class, eyebrows fall down. Therefore, I cannot do this (Ozan).

Another set of concerns about peer evaluation was related to sharing their own documents.

Actually, this type of concerns exerted a competitive culture rather than a collaborative view of learning and portfolio assessment. Kaan said: “For instance, when I examine a friend’s portfolio, I am very much influenced by what he (or she) did. Then, I have the feeling to do more work in my portfolio. Of course, then the evaluation of my work becomes subjective.” Yet, feedback by instructors seemed to be valued much more than any other individuals’ evaluation.

Regarding self-evaluation, learners again held similar perceptions as they did for peer evaluation.

Yet, they agreed that their evaluations might be much harsher and more objective. Voices revealed that self-evaluation approaches should be facilitated by providing a criterion by the instructor because they were too inexperienced and immature to evaluate themselves (Emel &

Ozan). Others indicated that they would evaluate themselves by just mentioning the degree that they contributed to an activity, but were skeptical that the instructor would consider this type of self-evaluation for the final grading.

With respect to peer evaluation, Erkcan, trying to choose the right words, said that it was difficult to evaluate the contribution of a person and oneself to the learning or production of a group. He admitted that it was easy to see his own and others’ weaknesses in the group, but had difficulty in uttering this in the group. The reason behind this, he thought, might lay behind the fact that they themselves might not have comprehended the logic of peer evaluation per se.

Likewise, Cagan complained that he could not be critical about a peer’s presentation because they tended to misunderstand such criticism, and felt reserved to express his feelings about the presentation. When he did criticize a peer, he liked doing this without the notice of the instructor, because it would not look polite to criticize a friend in front of the instructor and would feel

19 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım oppressed to doing. Unlike other research studies, in this study peer evaluation is not supported as a means for contributing to student learning (Bain et al., 1999).

In sum, performance based evaluation is preferred over process based evaluation because there is no abstractedness in how to be evaluated. The highly competitive university culture makes it difficult for students to deal with portfolio conferencing although the main aim is for improvement purposes. Alternative evaluation is perceived as very subjective from several dimensions. Concerns were based on grading. For instance, if there is no objective reality: how will the final product, namely the portfolio, be rated. Also, the native culture, does not allow the

TCS to be critical about their peers’ work. They consider this as a betrayal to their friends and find it immoral to be critical about their works. Critical feedback is regarded as a betrayal rather than means for further development. Also, dynamics such as peers who get along or do not get along well may jeopardize the objectivity of the grades with respect to TCS’ perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Briefly, findings show that learners in the sample were satisfied with being exposed to

social constructivist learning environment. They, specifically, emphasized that

the group work, discussions, and sharing of real experiences were effective in

their learning process since it helped them to relate theory to practice. The

culture established through constructivist learning activities helped TCS to link

pedagogical theory and practice into their knowledge constructs. It enabled

them to make deep analysis to question, to look for causes and contexts, and in

return defend their views with dependence on the theory they read and

evaluated and increased their motivation to become self-regulated learners

(Spilkova, 2001). However, in this case study the organizational process for

small group work was apt to disorder due to overcrowding. This indicates that

constructivist learning may be more successfully implemented in classes with

smaller number sizes. In other words, class size emerges as an environmental

contextual factor that influences the dynamics and the culture in the class in

numerous ways.

The social constructivist learning environment is perceived as motivating, yet discouraging in the

present study. Pair and group discussions are means to new build on new ideas and

perspectives related to classroom management issues. Specifically exchange of past

and present experiences as students and teacher candidates (TCS) on classroom

management issues are educative. In whole group discussions, TCS compete to

contribute to the discussions about a specific theory or a problem on classroom

management. Yet, TCS who are more independent learners do not feel comfortable in

collaborative groups. The have difficulty in engaging themselves in small group

discussions. TCS consider that not all group members take equal responsibility of

learning of the group. In addition, the transition from teacher-dominated to student-

dominated learning environment is not an easy task for both the teacher and the

students. As a social constructivist teacher, one needs to be equipped with the essential

skills to manage groups and help the TCS to become reflective and analytical thinkers.

Alternative evaluation is found to be educative and promotes retention of knowledge, yet it is found that it mismatches the university culture and students’ culture. Findings indicate it is difficult for students to take ownership of constructing their portfolios. TCS feel unsafe when they are not prepared with detailed guidelines on how to build on the contents of their portfolio.

Another cultural difficulty in dealing with portfolio was that TCS were uncertain how to write reflective diaries and summaries. They required more instructions on that matter. The TCS find it difficult to accept that the truth is a matter of interpretation and the approval of the teacher often emerges as a need. Performance based evaluation is likely to be preferred over process-based

21 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım evaluation because there is no abstractedness in how to be evaluated, which is a message about the highly competitive university culture which makes it difficult for students share their portfolios occasionally. In addition, alternative evaluation means such as peer evaluation and self-evaluation are perceived as very subjective from several dimensions. Concerns are based on grading. For instance, if there is no objective reality how will the final product, namely the portfolio, be rated. Also, the native culture, does not allow the TCS to be critical about their peers’ work. They consider this as a betrayal to their friends and find it immoral to be critical about their works. Critical feedback is regarded as a betrayal rather than means for further development. Also, dynamics such as peers who get along or do not get along well may jeopardize the objectivity of the grades with respect to TCS’ perceptions.

Findings of this study may contribute to the literature about higher education and learning from several respects. There are only few studies that investigated higher education students’ perceptions about the social constructivist learning environment they are subjected to in higher education. Social constructivism is a culture and the learning and evaluation process needs to reflect that culture. Therefore, it is a challenge for educators to bring a new learning culture within their higher education programs. The findings of this study show that such trial is an aching process for higher education students who come from predominantly teacher centered environments. Also, these TCS find it difficult to adopt themselves to a social constructivist culture in a single course. With this respect, we assume that the entire institution needs to hold a social constructivist culture to facilitate student learning and evaluation like suggested by

Windschitl (1999).

To sum up, the changing roles of teachers and students are difficult to be adopted. Although social constructivist environments necessitate the students to socialize and build knowledge through exchange of symbols and dialogue, in this study TCS expected the approval of the teacher. In other words, TCS with teacher-centered backgrounds found it hard to adapt a social

22 Paper presented at ECER, Dublin, Sept. 6-10, 2005 Akar & Yıldırım constructivist role both for their own and the teacher’s. It is suggested that new research facilitate such smooth transition by utilizing more student-centered activities into social constructivist learning environments. Moreover, TCS who identify themselves as independent learners, find it hard to cope with the new social paradigm. This finding may lead to new discussions whether learning needs to be social in higher education. A limitation in this study is that it is a single case study, but its implications may shed light into the studies that deal with higher education learning in teacher centered environments and provide implications for change toward constructivist learning environments.

Moreover, this study also suggests that alternative evaluation complements the learning culture of the students, and students used to paper and pencil type of tests find the former ones subjective. It is suggested that future research sheds light on the use of alternative evaluation processes in higher education programs that aim at bringing change in their institutional learning culture. Portfolio preparation is regarded as an effective tool, in knowledge construction.

Learners agreed that writing reflective diaries helped them synthesize and evaluate the knowledge they constructed from several means. Yet, portfolio preparation, was considered very time consuming and TCS were overwhelmed by the amount of work they had to do. Also, classroom dynamics such as group size make the TCS feel overwhelmed while dealing with socio-constructivist activities. Thus, as teacher educators we need to consider the central challenge in such constructivist environments, and determine how to support learners in the more challenging areas of their work without stealing ownership. Discussing or debating over what ownership and choice indicate under the umbrella of social constructivist learning environment might be one solution (Hay and Barab, 2001).

References Anderson, D. S., & Piazza, J. A. (1996). Changing beliefs: Teaching and learning mathematics in constructivist preservice classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 51-66. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search for understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Butchart, R.E. (1998). Punishments, penalties, prizes, and procedures: A history of discipline in U.S. schools. In R.E. Butchart and B. McEwan (eds.), Classroom discipline in American Schools: Problems and possibilities for democratic education (pp. 19-50). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Emihovich, C. (1998). Beyond teaching: learning to lead trough action research. In Jacobson, S. L., Emihovich, C., Helfrich, J., & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.) pp. 47-70. Transforming schools and schools for education: A new vision for preparing educators. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Greenfield, P. M., Raeff, C., & Quiroz, B. (1996). Cultural values in learning and education. In B. Williams pp 37-55. Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices. Alexandria: ASCD.

Hay, K. E., & Barab, S. A. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 281-322. Kaufman, D. (1996). Constructivist-based experiential learning in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 40-50. Kroll, L. R., & LaBoskey, V. K. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a teacher education program. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 63-72.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, A. J. (2003). Teacher educators and student-directed learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 29-44.

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning _ A cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763-780.

Petrie, H.G. (1998). From “my work” to “our work,” In. S.L. Jacopson, C. Emihovich, Helfrich, J., H.G. Petrie, & R.B. Stevenson (Eds.) pp. 47-70, Transforming schools of education, California: Corwin Press.

Pilarski, M. J. (1994). Student teachers: Unprepared for classroom management? Teaching Education, 6(1), 77-80.

Stallion, B.K., & Zimpher, N.L. (1991). Classroom management intervention: The effects of training and mentoring on the inductee teacher’s behavior. Action in Teacher Education, 13(1), 42-50. Spilkova, V. (2001). Professional development of teachers and student teachers through reflection on practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(1).59-65.

Tatto, M. T. (1998). Improving teacher education in rural Mexico: The challenges and tensions of constructivist reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 15-35.

Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442.

Windschitl, M. (1999) The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), p. 751-754.