1

THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL TEACHER BELIEFS AND

CONSTRUCTIVIST PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING:

A CASE STUDY

A doctoral thesis presented

by

Edna Michelle Attias

to the College of Professional Studies - Graduate School of Education

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education

In the field of Education - Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, and Leadership

Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts March 2020

Committee Members: Kristal Moore Clemons, Ph.D Lynda Beltz, Ph.D Scott Tyink, Ph.D 2

Copyright 3

ABSTRACT

This exploratory case study investigated the possible intersection between social-emotional learning (SEL) and constructivist pedagogy. The findings here led to the formulation of a new theory: social-emotional constructivism. In an era of multiple educational reforms, shifting ​ ​ needs of generation Z’s students, poor national academic achievements, and a persistent gap between theory and practice, teaching and learning must be reconsidered. The Constructivist

Learning Theory (CLT) is a complex, abstract, and demanding theory. Nevertheless, it derives many of the modern educational reforms as its implementation is linked with higher academic achievements. The theoretical frameworks utilized for this study were teachers’ beliefs and decision-making. Specifically, how did teachers’ SEL beliefs affect their pedagogical decision-making? Six urban public school teachers, who were trained by Developmental Designs

(DD) for SEL, submitted lesson plans, and were subsequently observed, interviewed, and surveyed. Following data triangulation and analysis findings showed that examining CLT through the lens of the SEL context helped shed light on its practical application. Despite teachers’ lack of training and knowledge of CLT, they displayed constructivist beliefs and practices. The DD program may have acted as a bridge that compensated for the lack of knowledge and transversed the inherent challenges of constructivist implementation.

Additionally, students exhibited a multitude of SEL competencies and skills, which may have enabled them to access higher-level cognitive engagement and constructivist pedagogy. A new theory of Social-Emotional Constructivism is, therefore, proposed here. The application of this theory can help increase student achievement, mitigate the challenges of CLT implementation, and bring about practices that are more equitable for all students.

Keywords: Constructivism, Social-Emotional Learning, Decision-Making, Teacher Beliefs, SEL and Academic ​ Integration, Pedagogy. 4

Dedication

I want to dedicate this dissertation to three important women in my life. The first is my mother, Tamar Leechen Attias, who was the first to suggest the pursuit of a teaching degree as a second career in my life. My mother consistently encouraged me to continue my doctoral path and finish my dissertation. Life happened in the middle of my thesis, and at one point, I did not think that I would be able to gather the momentum to pick up where I left off. If not for my mother, I would not have become an educator and would not have realized my life’s calling.

Further, my mother exemplifies what a life-long learner is and that it is never too late.

Despite having a successful career as a quality control manager in a microelectronic company, she went back to school. She obtained her GED at the age of 50. She also expanded to learn about numerology, became a Reiki Master, and a painter. Mom, you have been my spiritual ​ guide and soul mate. You have always been the constant and unconditional in a world where it is a rarity. This dissertation is yours as much as it is mine. ​ The second woman to whom this dissertation is also dedicated to is my daughter, Asheley

Naya Kimia. The last few years can be described as a journey of growing pains, yet this year you discovered your strength and potential. You had many moments in which you doubted yourself, did not see the relevance of school, and could not even step through the front door of the school.

You have come a long way and triumphed over the challenges that were put in your way. You have grown to be determined, goal-oriented, and a hard-worker who now sees the relevance and makes plans to tackle the goals step by step. Sharp minds make strong women, and I am happy 5 that you realize how sharp and capable you are. This dedication is to celebrate your success.

Your high school graduation coincided with my doctoral one. Hence, we are graduating in the same year, and we will always have this in common.

Lastly, the third important woman in my life is my late aunt, who did not have children of her own but considered me as her daughter, Sete Lusky. This dissertation is dedicated to you as well in recognition of the injustice made to you. You were deprived of education simply because you were a girl. When your family had to make the choice of schooling you or your brother, they chose him simply because he was a male. As a young kid, I remember chasing after you, begging to teach you how to read and write, but you always respectfully declined by saying it was too late. I wish I had known better back then not to give up on you. You represent the many girls and women across the globe who have suffered social injustice.

6

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the village that has been part of my journey and responsible for triggering and nourishing my quest for professional, personal, and spiritual growth. To my ​ father, Baruch Attias, thank you for instilling in me a thirst for knowledge and for paving the ​ road to college. You, unknowingly, commented and narrated many documentaries and movies, which piqued my curiosity in history and in the natural world. From a young age, you instilled in me the value of education. As a first-generation college student, it was instrumental in setting my direction.

To my incredibly amazing son, Jordan Cole Kimia, I am grateful and honored to be ​ your mother. Jordan, your curiosity and insatiable quest for a diversity of perspectives and insights are admirable. You model to those around you how you question your assumptions and how thoughtful you are about the support you offer to others. I enjoy our productive conversations, after which I realize how you inspire me to be a better person and how full of love you make my heart feel. To my sister Nathalie and my brother in law Serge Amer, thank you ​ ​ for giving me support in my times of need. From spoiling me with delicious treats to giving me legal advice, you have stepped up and have been there for me when I needed you the most. To ​ my brother, Yehonatan Attias, education threw you a curveball, and it was not your fault. The ​ system failed you on every level, yet I am proud of you for persevering and continuously fighting the fight. You represent so many children in this world who have suffered social injustice and racial discrimination, and you inspire me to fight for them.

I am thankful to my many teachers and mentors who unselfishly and enthusiastically ​ ​ shared their expertise and wisdom with me. Dr. Rudulph Moseley, you planted the doctorate 7 seed in my ear and have pushed me to grow and succeed; for this I will always be grateful.

Wayne Bowers, David Bourns (yes, the pseudonym “Bourns School” is named after you), Nell

Sears, Becky Coustan, Eileen Biancuzzo, Elizabeth Elmasian, Roxanne Hable, Sharon Greaves,

Jitendrapal Kundan, Matthew Christen, Vanessa Weiner, Denise Carpenter, Leslie Shapiro,

Donna Braun, Kirsten LaCroix, and Michelle Li, I am grateful for you all because you have made me wiser and smarter. To my “Bourns” School family, you are too many to be named, ​ ​ thank you. I have appreciated being your colleague, and I am thankful for sharing your experiences with me. To my closest friends and beloved colleagues, who encouraged me and ​ ​ gave me roots despite not having one place I can call home: Josie Batista, Toby Lebowitz,

Michal Navarro Edelman, Galit Raz, Naomi Kroch, Captain Victoria Tolbert, Dr. Shivohn

Garcia, Ariana Wohl, Sandy Leclerc, Leslie Brackett, Katie Alvarez, Leslie McCrea, Dinka

Morillo, Michelle Bush, Eric Charlesworth, Saundy Patrick, Janelle Clarke-Holley, Ruth Corley,

Mark Prince, and Donovan Tinsely, I appreciate you all.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. ​ ​ Kristal Clemons (chair), Dr. Lynda Beltz (second reader), and Dr. Scott Tyink (third reader) for their valuable feedback and words of encouragement. Each of you is a special gift to humanity, and I am full of gratitude that you were my mentors on this journey.

8

LIST OF TABLES

Linked Page # Table

1.1 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Proficiency (2017-18) Data 19 at the Bourns School

3.1 A Summary of Participants’ Demographics 77

3.2 The Constructive Learning Environment Survey (CLES) Scales 83

4.1 CLES Results for the Six Participants in this Study and by Each Survey 98 Scale

4.2 The Keywords Teachers Used to Describe their Teaching Style 109

4.3 Developmental Design (DD) Training Year by Teacher and Program Type 115

9

LIST OF FIGURES

Linked Page # Figure

1.1 Bishop and Whitfield’s Teacher Decision-Making Framework 25

1.2 Shavelson and Stern Teacher Decision-Making Framework 27

2.1 The Continuum of Constructivism and Knowledge Construction 40

2.2 The Instructional Core 65

3.1 The Research Process, or the, 'Onion' 73

3.2 Illustration of the Case Study Data Analysis Process 88

3.3 Illustration of the Data Triangulation Analysis Process 89

4.1 The Averages of the CLES Survey Results by Participant 99

4.2 The Averages of the CLES Questions by Scale 99

4.3 The Percentage of SEL CASEL StudentsSkills Noted During Class 121 Observations

4.4 Percentage SEL Students Skills Observed in each of the Five CASEL 122 Competencies

5.1 Model of the Suggested Social-Emotional Constructivism Theory 145

5.2 An Example of Social-Emotional Constructivist Cognitive Task 147

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Copyright 2

ABSTRACT 3

Dedication 4

Acknowledgments 6

LIST OF TABLES 8

LIST OF FIGURES 9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 13 Context and Background 15 Rationale and Significance 18 Research Problem of Practice 21 Research Question 22 Definition of Key Terminology 22 Theoretical Frameworks 24 Decision-Making Theory 24 Teacher Beliefs Theory 29 Critics of Decision-Making and Teacher-Belief theories 30 Rationale and alignment of the theoretical framework 32 Application of decision-making and teacher-belief to the study 33 Conclusion 34

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 35 Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT) 37 The historical roots of the Constructivist Learning Theory 37 Guiding principles of constructivist-based learning 39 Types of constructivism 40 The use of the constructivist approach in science and mathematics 44 Constructivism as a tool to enhance student learning in the classroom 47 Conclusion 51 Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) 54 SEL - Overview and theoretical frameworks 54 SEL programs and implementation outcomes 56 The Developmental Designs SEL program 58 SEL and academic integration 63 11

SEL and CLT compatibility 67 Conclusion 69

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY 71 Research Paradigm 72 Research Methods 74 Population and Recruitment 75 Sampling Strategies and Criteria 76 Protection of Human Subjects 77 Reciprocity 78 Data Collection 80 Reflexivity Journal and Field Notes 85 Data Storage and Management 87 Data Coding and Analysis Process 87 Limitations 90 Trustworthiness 91

CHAPTER 4 - ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 93 PARTICIPANT PROFILES 93 CLES Survey Results 97 THEME 1: SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL TEACHER BELIEF OF STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS 100 1.1: Favorite teacher 100 1.2: Rewarding aspect of teaching 101 1.3: SEL and academic connection 103 Conclusion 105 THEME 2: THE ENIGMA OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LIGHT OF LACK OF TRAINING IN IT 106 2.1: Constructivist teacher knowledge and training 106 2.2: Constructivist teaching styles 108 Conclusion 110 THEME 3: SUBCONSCIOUS DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING 111 3.1: Developmental Design training and teachers’ thoughts 111 3.2: Social-Emotional structures: proactive and reactive pedagogical decision-making 112 Conclusion 118 THEME 4: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS’ SEL SKILLS AND ACTUAL SKILLS OBSERVED 118 4.1 Teachers’ perceptions of DD structures and SEL skills students utilized 119 12

4.2: Observed SEL skills 120 Conclusion 123 Synthesis of Themes 123 Reflexivity 124 Reciprocity 126

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION 128 Purpose of the Study - Revisited 128 Interpretations of Research Findings 129 In relation to the research question 129 In relation to the research problem of practice 131 In relation to the theoretical frameworks 134 Limitations 138 Implications and Recommendations 139 Implications for practice 139 Implications for policy 142 Implications for scholarship 144 Social-Emotional Constructivism 145 CONCLUSION 148

REFERENCES 150

APPENDICES 194 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL FROM NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY 194 APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO ACCESS RESEARCH SITE 195 APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT EMAIL 196 APPENDIX D: POST DATA COLLECTION BRIEFING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT198 APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM 199 APPENDIX F: OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS 204 APPENDIX G: PERMISSION TO USE AND REVISE THE CLES 206 APPENDIX H: SURVEY INSTRUMENT CLES 2 (20) 207 APPENDIX I: ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM 209 APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONS 211 APPENDIX K: LETTER TO STUDENTS’ FAMILIES 215

13

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

How do students learn? What do teachers need to know about their learners? What impact does this understanding have on teaching? One size does not fit all in the heterogeneous inclusive classroom has been the slogan of many educational policies, research, and policymakers. Recognizing that students have different learning styles and needs prompted educators to personalize and individualize instruction (Campbell & Robinson, 2007). But, what if students’ needs have changed and we need to adjust the way we conceive of teaching and learning? What would be a modified or an alternative new framework to integrate students, needs and high leverage practical applications that could impact students’ outcomes?

Generation Z students who are born after the year 2000 (Posnick-Goodwin, 2010), are not only driven by different learning preferences and motivating factors than Millenials, but are also characterized by different learning styles, academic skill sets, social practices, and social concerns (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). This generation of students prefers interactive activities, collaborative projects, kinesthetic inquiries, and challenges. Their attention span is eight seconds shorter than that of millennials’ span, as it is caused by the continuous interaction with the multimedia environment, and their need for clear goals, feedback, and rewards (Hallowell &

Ratey, 2011; Rothman, 2016). In fact, eighty-three percent of Generation Z students prefer face-to-face communication because it allows them to connect better with others, yet they are also not used to these types of interactions (Prensky, 2001; Seemiller and Grace, 2016).

Twenty-first-century students, therefore, may benefit socially and academically from self-regulated learning and social and emotional learning approaches (Prensky, 2001). According to Hainline, Gaines, Feather, Padilla, & Terry (2010) institutions need to abandon their “same 14 old, same old” approach, and provide training of new teaching pedagogies, such as active learning and self-guided instruction, to increase their understanding and effectiveness of teaching

Generation Z students.

Additionally, in the current era of educational reforms, many reform initiatives propose changes that focus on different aspects of teaching and learning (Hess, 2010). Nevertheless, limited research has been done to examine the effect or possible reciprocation of one reform on another or how reforms affect teachers (Luttenberg, Imants, & van Veen, 2013). The purpose of this case study will be to explore how school students learn and access higher-level cognitive demands in a classroom environment where social-emotional skills are explicitly taught. How do school teachers who trained in social-emotional learning apply constructivist-related pedagogical strategies in practice? And, what is the intersection between two ideologies that inspired many educational reforms: Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT), which postulates that students learn by constructing their own understanding and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), which necessitates certain skills for social and academic success. The insights gained from this study have implications for scholars, practitioners, curriculum designers, as well as policymakers. This study employed a case study methodology and relied on multiple means of data gathering, including surveys, observations, lesson plan analysis, and semi-structured interviews.

This chapter commences with an overview of the context and background of the problem of practice. Afterward, there will be an explanation of the rationale and significance of the study.

Then, the research problem, statement of purpose, research question, and definition of key terms will follow. The chapter will wrap up with a discussion of teachers’ decision-making and teacher belief theories that contextualized the findings of this investigation. 15

Context and Background

Student learning. Google the question "how students learn," and the results are ​ astounding. In fact, 971,000,000 entries with different ideas and theories will emerge. How

students learn has been on the minds of many social scientists, educators, and philosophers who

have tried to maximize teaching by understanding the process of learning. If you google "how

students learn best," 397,000,000 entries will emerge, and Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT)

will surface within the first two entries. One of the prominent theories that evolved is the CLT, a

student-centered approach, which surmises that students learn best by constructing their

understanding and knowledge by questioning, conducting inquiries, solving problems,

communicating with peers, and experiencing the phenomenon under investigation (Fosnot,

2013). This educational framework of how students gain knowledge and understanding departs

from other theoretical educational frameworks in the sense that learning is an active process that

is unique for each individual and leads to learner autonomy (Wang, 2014).

Academic reforms in education. With the newest attempt to increase student ​ achievements, math educators have been encouraged to adopt the constructivist-teaching

paradigm (Freeman et al., 2014). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) did

not explicitly specify the constructivist paradigm in the push for higher quality teachings of

mathematics, yet it called for similar characteristics in student-centered classrooms that

emphasize problem-solving, and communication to gain conceptual understanding (NCTM,

2014). 16

Similarly, although not stated, the Common Core State Standard initiative shares interesting similarities with the constructivist approach. These are evident in the repeated references to the importance of critical problem-solving, analytical skills, a more in-depth understanding of content, making real-world connections, and the implementation of cooperative learning experiences in the classroom (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Many critics of the common core standards have claimed that the implementation of these new learning goals require realignment with practical teaching strategies, as the common themes are complex and present many challenges (Applebee, 2013). Similarly to the common core and math initiatives, constructivism has been a challenge to implement (Hiebert, 2012; Riddile, 2012; Griffith, 2011).

Just like these reform initiatives, it is a broad approach rather than a particular curricular program. Therefore, it is susceptible to various interpretations and applications (Wilson, 2012).

Social-emotional reforms in education. In addition to educational reforms, aimed at the ​ academic aspects of teaching and learning, other reforms that addressed social and emotional aspects of the whole child also started to surface (Dusenbury, Zadrazil, Mart, & Weissberg,

2011). These reforms were inspired by social-emotional learning theory and include programs such as advisory groups and mindfulness training (Phillippo, 2010; Bohrnstedt, 2013). As various educational reforms continue to emerge and change the face of teaching and learning, practitioners face the growing demands of implementing multiple programs simultaneously

(Hess, 2010). As a result, their personal beliefs, knowledge, training, and approach to the curriculum may intersect and affect how practitioners implement their lessons in the classroom to keep up with the growing demands (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). For example, 17 the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) reform initiative requires a considerable change in teacher knowledge and practice (Wilson, 2013).

The school environment under investigation is a prime example of how both CLT and

SEL theories are in the background and characterize the educational philosophy of the teaching community. This study, therefore, seeks to understand how middle and high school teachers’, at the Bourns School (pseudonym), constructivist practices are affected by their SEL training and beliefs.

The Bourns School was founded in 2001. It is a public charter school whose mission is to prepare the diverse student population of Providence, RI for higher education, lifelong learning, and active citizenship. Students are taught to value and practice personal initiative, perseverance, and social responsibility through a rigorous academic program. The curriculum at the Bourns

School is enriched with experiences, fosters discovery, and critical thinking. This school grew out of the dream of a local physician who believed that the Narragansett Bay provided endless learning opportunities for inner-city students who did not thrive in the Providence Public School system. As of 2018-19 data on the Rhode-Island Department of Education’s website, the Bourns school serves 803 K-12 students. Students are chosen from the applicant pool by lottery, and the average class size is 19 students per class. Student demographics are 65% Latino, 20%

African-American, 6% Caucasian, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% Native American, and 5% two or more races. Additionally, 78% of the students are classified as economically disadvantaged, and 17% receive ELL services. There are 90 educators, and 57% of them hold advanced degrees.

This school was chosen for the study since both SEL and critical thinking are at its mission and core. 18

Rationale and Significance

Student achievement. Despite the prominence of two strong ideologies that can lead to ​ increased academic achievements (Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Barak, Ben-Chaim, & Zoller, ​ ​ 2007; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), the Bourns School’s data

indicate that student achievement is still lacking. Achievement is a topic of high relevance and

importance in the United States since it has implications for individuals, families, specific

demographic groups, various communities, our nation, and society at large (Center for

Data-Driven Reform in Education, 2011).

The Rhode-Island Comprehensive Assessment System (RICAS) indicates that there are

low proficiencies in both ELA and math at the Bourns School in grades 3-8. ELA proficiency is

at 16% as opposed to the state at 34%. In math, the percentage of Bourns students who are

proficient or exceeding math expectations is 20% while the state’s proficiency is 27% (Table

1.1). The college and career readiness benchmark, the SAT assessment, is also used to evaluate

students’ literacy and mathematics skills and their college readiness. The benchmarks used to

determine college and career readiness are based on actual data of students’ success in

entry-level college courses and are associated with at least a 75% chance of earning at least a C

in first semester courses (College Board). According to the 2018-19 SAT data of the Bourns

High School (BHS), only 31% of students met or exceeded expectations in ELA/Literacy, and

18% met or exceeded expectations in mathematics (Table 1.1). Statewide performance mirrors a

similar reality of low test scores as 50% of students in Rhode-Island met ELA/Literacy

expectations, and 30 % of students met the expectations in mathematics (Table 1.1).

19

Table 1.1 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Proficiency (2018-19) Data of the Bourns School ______

ELA/Literacy Mathematics ELA/Literacy Mathematics ​ BHS RI BHS RI Gr RI BMS Gr 3-8 3-8 ______Not Meeting the Expectation 35 28 27 33 22 20 21 22

Partially Meeting the Expectations 35 23 55 37 62 47 60 50

Meeting and Exceeding Expectations 31 50 18 30 16 34 20 27

Average SAT/ Scaled Score 449 487 456 475 484 490 485 487 ______*Note: Percentages of Bourns School students’ performance on the ELA/Literacy and Mathematics, as measured by SAT for Bourns High school (BHS) and RICAS for grades 3-8, in 2018-19. Data retrieved from: https://lms.backpack.education/public/ride. ​

Nationally, the average SAT scores are declining steadily over time. From 2006 to 2016, reading scores had a nine-point drop, math a ten-point drop, and writing a fifteen point drop

(Muniz, 2017). Lack of college and career readiness is a robust reason why we need to improve our understanding of how influential ideologies, such as SEL and CLT that impact various school reforms, are connected to teaching practices (Jones & Buffard, 2012). This understanding would, in turn, help shed light on teaching practices and consequently improve student outcomes in the investigated and potentially other similar school settings.

Bridging between theory and practice. Theory and practice have been topics of interest ​ for many scholar-practitioners (Nganga, 2011; Bushouse et al., 2011). How can we narrow the ​ ​ gap between them? Moreover, how can we create a bridge between the two so we can create a transformative experience for our learners? Bushouse et al., (2011) suggested various strategies 20 to strengthen the connection between research and practice. Nevertheless, the gap between educational research, theory, and practice is complex and difficult to bridge, so the question remains how organizations like school systems can benefit from research and theory to learn and grow (Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010)?

Constructivism is one example of how the integration between theory and practice is incongruent and unclear (Perkins, 1999). Constructivism is a theoretical framework and not a set curriculum. It is, therefore, open for subjective interpretations and misconceptions (Niaz, 2008).

According to Bendar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry (2013), it is unreasonable to assume that individuals are aware of both the empirical and the practical and synthesize them on their own ​ ​ into practical implications. These authors further cite the CLT as an example of a theory detached from practice. The application and practice of this approach are subjective, complex, and there are contradictory findings regarding the advantages of this approach, especially in the context of populations who do not have access to equitable educational opportunities. Also, there is limited information or guidance in the literature on how to best implement the constructivist learning theory into practice (Niaz, 2008; Perkins, 1999). Tinekin (2010) claimed,

"Evidence-based on data-driven decision-making has been at the forefront of education rhetoric for the past 15 years" (p. 2). Further, data-driven decision making is largely based on filling

“gaps” in skills and is, in many ways, contradictory to the exploratory, experimental and reflective nature of constructivism. It is of value, therefore, to investigate how a strong teacher's belief in social-emotional learning traverses with constructivist practices and whether it helps overcome some of the challenges posed by this considerable learning theory. 21

Enriching the literature. Continuing to propose reform initiatives is well-intentioned, ​ yet if the proposed “solutions” go unexamined, they may constitute additional burdens for

teachers rather than yield benefits (Hess, 2010). An examination of the literature reveals that

social constructivism and the social-emotional approach are in accordance with each other

(Pritchard & Woodland, 2010). Similarly to SEL, the goal of social constructivism is to help

students reach a cognitive conceptual understanding and change their prior misconceptions

through mutual interaction between the emotional, social, cultural, and cognitive aspects

(Vygotsky, 1978, 1962).

Nevertheless, it appears that there are not many empirical studies that explore CLT and

SEL from teachers’ perspectives. Specifically, there is not much information as to how or if the

multiplicity of the reforms affects teachers’ practices, and whether they both align equally with

teachers’ beliefs. Teachers are required to apply theories, practices, policies, and various

curricula while having to make ongoing decisions during different phases of their work. Many

teachers are often required to rethink their practices and show flexibility (Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 2011). Nevertheless, there is little empirical research that examines the interaction

and complex dynamics between context and decision-making (Hora, 2012).

Research Problem of Practice

SEL and CLT are two educational theories that inspired significant educational reforms,

yet it appears that we do not know much about how both theories manifest in practice and

whether SEL has an impact on how teachers apply CLT. 22

Furthermore, CLT is a fussy and complicated theory to apply in practice (Wilson, 2012).

The literature reveals that there are conflicting results when evaluating how CLT affects student

achievement (Kawalker & Vijapurkar, 2015; Zins, Georges & Pallas, 2010). Lastly, in the

investigated school setting, the practices of CLT and SEL are evident, yet student achievement is

lacking. Examining the abstract CLT through the lens of the concrete SEL program in this study

can help describe how this specific training affects teachers’ applications of CLT. The purpose of

this study is to explore how middle and high school teachers who trained in social-emotional

learning apply constructivist-related pedagogical strategies in practice.

Research Question

The primary research question is: How do school middle and high school teachers who

trained in the social-emotional learning approach apply constructivist-related pedagogical

strategies in practice?

Sub-Questions:

1. Is SEL enhancing CLT?

2. Does SEL lend itself to a particular type of CLT, such as social constructivism?

3. Is SEL teaching generalized across disciplines and situations?

4. Is the SEL pedagogy and structures helping teachers to overcome some of the

documented challenges associated with CLT?

Definition of Key Terminology

Several critical definitions of terms are defined here to understand the context of the

study. 23

Developmental Designs (DD) - A professional development program, provided by the ​ Minnesota based nonprofit organization Origins. This program is geared towards school teachers and administrators, and it is designed to promote the importance of social-emotional learning for student academic success and equity. It provides educators with a structure and a plethora of activities to teach skills and problem-solve with students. The DD approach premises that adolescents’ learning in school will optimize when they have (a) a healthy peer and adult relationships, (b) social competencies necessary for social and academic success, and (c) engaging instruction (Kwame-Ross, Crawford, & Klug, 2011).

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) - The learning and acquisition of attitude, skills, and ​ knowledge through which one can manage emotions effectively, develop empathy for others, and form positive and healthy relationships with others. The integration of these competencies fosters positive adjustment and practical learning (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, & Schellinger, 2011).

Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT) - A learning and teaching philosophy based on the idea ​ that learning is a cognitive activity that results from mental constructions that students make as they understand and reflect on their interactions and experiences with the world. Students relate the knowledge they already have and classify new events in mental models called schemas. As more learning occurs, schemas expand or modify. This theory describes knowledge as developmental, emergent, and subjective. Knowledge created is a result of meaning-making through social discourse and grappling (Fosnot, 2013). The following section of this chapter will include a description and discussion of decision-making and teacher belief theories, which will serve as the theoretical lenses for this study. 24

Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical frameworks that guide this study are decision-making and teacher belief

theories. Stemming from the field of cognitive psychology is the notion that teaching is a

cognitively demanding task. It requires teachers to reason and to choose between alternative

ways of acting to respond to the immediate teaching situations and evaluate possible outcomes

(Borko, Roberts & Shavelson in Clarkson & Presmeg, 2010). The decision-making framework is

opposed to teaching seen rather as a creative process that starts with early conscious conceptions

about a particular problem, voided of conscious thinking, which is then followed by the sudden

emergence of ideas (Bishop, in Borg, 2008; Lawson, 2005).

Additionally, teaching and decision-making are intimately linked to one’s beliefs (Kim,

Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). On the contrary, another dominant theory of curriculum

and teaching decision-making, such as the existing teacher orientations one, assumes that the

teacher’s experience and prior knowledge take more importance than one’s pedagogical beliefs.

Empirical studies, conducted by Boschman, McKenny, and Voogy (2014) as well as by Davis,

Beyer, Forbes, and Stevens (2011), both demonstrated that while knowledge and experience

played a role, the effect of beliefs on teacher curricular decisions was highly significant. The role

of beliefs, therefore, is vital to consider in this study to gain a better understanding of the

teacher’s decision-making.

Decision-Making Theory

Historical roots of decision-making theory. Four researchers conceptualized ​ decision-making theory, independently: Lee Shulman, Richard Shavelson, Alan Bishop, and

Richard Whitfield. Its core idea is that teaching is a cognitive task and that teachers are rational 25 beings who make judgments in a complex environment (Borko, Roberts & Shavelson, 2010).

Bishop saw the construct of decision-making as a potential link between theory and practice and wrote "I feel ignorant, however, about the relationship between educational theory and teaching processes - how other people’s ideas affect you when you are teaching? ... Do they offer criteria for judging the potential value of choices? " (Borg, 2008, p. 34). Bishop and Whitfield (1972) theorized a framework of likely teachers’ outcomes or schemas (Figure 1.1). They identified different types of decisions, including pre and within lesson decisions as well as short and long-term decisions. They specifically found that pre-lesson, long-term, decisions are made about lesson objectives, content, methods, and materials. Within-lesson, short-term decisions, on the other hand, often include judgments about implementation and modifications of the plans, which involve three aspects of teaching: cognitive, relationships, and environment. With experience and time, teachers’ decisions become idiosyncratic, and they shape their actions.

Figure 1.1. Bishop and Whitfield’s Teacher Decision-Making Framework (Bishop & Whitfield, ​ 1972, p.6)

Although slightly different, Shulman’s and Shavelson’s ideas about decision-making overlapped with Bishop’s ideas and were based on cognitive psychology. Shavelson and Stern

(1981) believed that teachers’ decision-making is a process that involves teachers’ thoughts and judgments (Figure 1.2). Shavelson conceptualized that when planning lessons, teachers take into 26 account students’ characteristics, problematic behaviors, gender, self-concept, and social competence. Further, teachers’ beliefs about the nature of learning (For example: constructive or behavioral) affect their choice of materials and their conceptions of the subject matter affects decisions such as whether to group students for instruction or not. Planning lessons and engaging in ongoing instruction require complex cognitive processes that involve teachers’ schemas, ​ scripts, and heuristics (Borko, Roberts & Shavelson, 2010; Shavelson, 1986; Shavelson & Stern, ​ 1981). While schemas can be in the organizational structure of knowledge that teachers possess, ​ ​ scripts are teachers’ routine practices or behaviors in the classroom. Schemas and scripts are ​ cognitive processes that give insight into thoughts and behaviors.

Additionally, rule-based heuristics can give insights into the interpretation of schemas ​ ​ and scripts of teachers’ decision-making (Kleider, Pezdek, Goldinger, & Kirk, 2008; Piaget,

1959; Bartlett, 1932). Realizing that teachers make decisions before and during teaching, or viewing teachers as decision-makers are useful ways of delving into teachers’ execution of educational theory, pedagogy, and lesson plans. What teachers’ do before class, what they think, and how they react during class offer insights to appreciate the multidimensional, simultaneous, immediate, and unpredictable nature of teaching (Borg, 2008; Tsui, 2003). 27

Figure 1.2. Shavelson and Stern Teacher Decision-Making Framework (Shavelson & Stern, ​ 1981, p. 461)

Empirical research on decision-making. The research on teachers’ decision-making ​ was an extension of general research on human decision-making and problem-solving which attempted to understand the factors that account for the behavior of individuals (Shulman &

Elstein, 1975; Shavelson, 1973; Edwards, 1954). Research on teachers’ cognitive processes holds two assumptions: teachers are rational professionals who behave reasonably when making various judgments and guide teachers’ actions by decisions (Shavelson & Stern, 1981). Since it is a challenge to directly measure teachers’ internal cognitive processes, researchers have analyzed decision-making processes indirectly by investigating teachers’ reflections on their teaching. Donald Schőn’s (1987) model of on-action and in-action reflections stressed the 28 significance of reflections as a way of making sense of teachers’ problem solving and decision-making. Reflection-in-action is about the cognitive processes that occur while teachers are acting. It is a reflective conversation that allows teachers to reshape what they are doing while they are working on it (Singh & Stoloff, 2008). Reflection-on-action, on the other hand, is retrospective and takes place after the action took place (Urzủa & Vảsquez, 2008).

Some of the recent studies on decision-making seek to understand whether decisions are pre-established solutions or specific to situations (Stefaniak & Tracey, 2014). Further, many researchers analyzed the factors that affect teachers’ decisions in interactive environments

(Schoenfeld, 2010). In a study by Gűn (2014), experienced teachers’ interactive or in-action reflections were analyzed to understand the motivation behind teachers’ decisions. The findings of this study indicated that the decisions that experienced teachers made indicated that they shared common pedagogical and affective characteristics. More specifically, when teachers deviated from lesson plans, they did so to consolidate or connect to a previous lesson, address the emerging needs of students, and accommodate their knowledge of their students. They also made decisions based on the weakness of the lesson materials or plans, exploit teachable moments, and provide a student-centered approach.

Additionally, the expert teachers in this study used their "heads and hearts equally"(Gűn

(2014, p. 84) as they felt accountable and responsive to students’ needs. They also displayed a sense of confidence, developed good relationships with their students, persisted when a concept was not fully understood, and lastly, they could laugh at their own mistakes. Gűn further discussed that the analysis of expert teachers’ interactive decision-making pointed out that these teachers had tacit knowledge that is the type of knowledge that is implicit, difficult to articulate 29 or to transfer. Schőn (in Gilroy, 1993) suggested that tacit knowledge might account for expert teachers’ inability to always identify the reasons or motivation behind their decisions.

Teacher Beliefs Theory

Similar to decision-making, teacher beliefs are considered to be one of the most important constructs in understanding teacher education (Kegan, 1992; Pajares, 1992).

Investigations of teacher beliefs provide a way of gaining insight into teacher practices (Ajzen &

Madden, 1986). According to Pajares (1992), beliefs refer to teachers’ subjective attitudes toward education. Beliefs are often difficult to separate from knowledge, yet knowledge is cognitive and is based on objective facts, while beliefs are affective or emotional and involve judgment. Beliefs are often used to understand teacher judgments, decision-making, and behaviors (Ng, Nicholas & Williams, 2010). For example, teachers who believe in collaboration tend to include group work in the classroom (Kagan, 1992) or teachers who believe that the source of knowledge is reasoning tend to incorporate more technological practices in their lessons (Kim et al., 2013). Teacher beliefs are essential to consider in the context of decision-making since teachers’ practices do not change without changes in beliefs (Ng,

Nicholas, & Williams, 2010).

Research on teacher beliefs. Much of the research on teacher beliefs focused on ​ epistemological beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and learning. Schommer (1990, 1998) conceptualized and later refined (Schommer-Aikins, 2002; Schommer-Aikins, & Hutter, 2002) a framework of epistemological belief research. Schommer and Aikins (2002) identified five dimensions of beliefs, learning, and knowledge acquisition, that guide decision-making. These include: 1) the structure of knowledge ranges from unrelated pieces to integrated concepts, 2) the 30 source of knowledge ranges from authority to reasoning, 3) the stability of knowledge ranges from certain to dynamic, 4) the speed of learning changes from quick to gradual, and 5) the ability to learn ranges from fixed at birth to improvable. Additionally, Schommer and Aikins

(2002) also noted that unconscious beliefs also affect decision-making in teaching.

Research on teacher beliefs also focuses on the beliefs of teacher-centered versus student-centered approaches to teaching (Chan & Elliot, 2004; Glackin, 2016). Teacher-centered approaches tend to emphasize learning activities that are more structured and directed by the teacher, as opposed to student-centered activities in which the students are more engaged, and the environment is open-ended (Dodge, 1997). Kramarski and Michalsky (2009) demonstrated that teachers’ ability to promote self-regulated learning was dependent on their pedagogical knowledge and their belief in student-centered learning. These findings were replicated in 2012 by Dignath-van Ewijk and van der Werf who argued that beliefs affect the application of self-regulated learning, yet they further distinguished that teachers’ application did not necessarily correlate with the expertise needed to teach self-regulation to students.

Critics of Decision-Making and Teacher-Belief theories

One of the main criticisms of the decision-making theory is that teachers’ decisions are merely “a response system” and are automatic rather than cognitive decision-making (Bishop, in

Borg, 2008). Still, many researchers see decision-making as the glue that links thoughts and action Borko, Roberts, & Shavelson, 2010). Bishop’s ideas were based on practice, while

Shulman’s and Shavelson’s ideas stimulated empirical research on teacher cognition. Both theorists neglected student cognition and teacher professional knowledge, which may have accounted for the limitation of the cognitive model. 31

Nevertheless, later research focused on these aspects and showed that there is a connection between professional cognitive knowledge, decision-making, and student outcomes which proves this construct to be a useful one (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005). The second line of criticism of decision-making theory questions whether the empirical findings are applicable and valid in the context of real-world settings (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). These scholars also challenged whether the optimal choice theory, which contends that individuals consider all their possible choices before choosing the most appropriate way to act, is more applicable to real-world situations (Klein, 2008). However, in 2010 Klein, Calderwood, and Clinton-Cirocco also argued that when studying decision-making one needs to describe the nature of the situation, whether it is familiar to the person, and how it connects to prior knowledge. Yet, optimal choice leads to decision-making and does not necessarily negate the cognitive process that one undergoes to choose a course of action. Lastly, decision-making is a complex process, and research of it can be more robust if aligned with proper methodological tools (Lattuca, 2005).

After reviewing teacher decision-making research in the 1980s and 1990s, Borko, Roberts, and

Shavelson (2010) concluded that the centrality of decision-making is "revived" through the shift in the direction of the research on teacher cognition.

The construct of teacher's beliefs has also been criticized. Some scholars argued that the term ‘beliefs’ is loosely defined and inconsistently used in research. For example, Jussim and

Harber (2005) interpreted it as teacher’s expectations of student success, Tschannen-Moran and

Hoy (2001) adopted it as teachers’ self-efficacy or beliefs about their ability to teach, and Park and Ertmer (2008) utilized this construct in the context of beliefs about teaching strategies. 32

Nevertheless, in this study, the term belief is narrowly defined as the core interest is in beliefs that have implications for making pedagogical and instructional decisions to support learning.

Further, despite the studies that support the relationship between beliefs and practices

(Beswick, 2005; Mitchell & Hegde, 2007), other studies claim inconsistency between beliefs and practices and, therefore, teacher beliefs construct has a limited predictability potential (Lee, Baik,

& Charlesworth, 2006). However, after conducting a meta-analysis of over 700 studies, Fives and Buehl (2012) argued that beliefs are precursors for actions, and the degree of congruence or incongruence depends on various factors. One such factor is the role the belief plays in teacher decision-making. Beliefs serve as filters that can be less congruent with practice when the belief is hypothetical and does not act as a guide for action. Methodological concerns and inconsistencies may also explain the incongruence between beliefs and practices. Qualitative research tends to have a small sample size and questionable validity (Kim & Maslak, 2005), whereas mixed-method studies relied on inconsistent data gathering through classroom observations. These observations range from one or two short observations (Wilcox-Herzog,

2002) to multiple observations over a long period of time (Kwon, 2004).

Rationale and alignment of the theoretical framework

The selection of decision-making and teacher beliefs as the theories to frame this study was not without a careful review of other theories. Two frameworks were selected to frame this study since, often, there is more than one theory that can frame the qualitative research (Anfara

& Mertz, 2006). Therefore, flexibility, adaptability, and synthesis of various theories are at play.

An alternative theory that was considered for this study was the field, capital and habitus theory ​ ​ (Bourdieu, 1990, 1993, 1999). The French social scientist, Pierre Bourdieu, believed that the 33 field (place) or the social arena in which people act to obtain resources, the capital (action and access), and the habitus (players) of a particular group, are important concepts to consider to ​ ​ understand human interactions. This theoretical framework focuses on curriculum development

(Anfara & Mertz, 2006), which aligns well with the purpose of this research to learn how teachers apply constructivist learning theory. Applying Bourdieu's theoretical framework research study would have enhanced the understanding of the environment or the field in which teachers apply constructivism, rather than of the processes that the players or teachers go through in the classroom while applying the CLT.

Application of decision-making and teacher-belief to the study

Decision-making and teacher-beliefs are two salient constructs that are used to investigate teacher practices (Kegan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). These also provide relevant theoretical frameworks to understand and interpret the application of pedagogically related teacher decisions and actions (Gonazlez Lopez, Gomes, & Restrepo, 2015; Call, 2012). In their ​ book, Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research, Anfara and Mertz (2006) claim that ​ ​ having a theoretical or conceptual framework is important for researchers to understand since it impacts every aspect of the study. The framework helps frame the purpose, define problems, focus researchers on what to look for, and how to make sense of the data. In essence, the role of the theory is to influence and guide the study.

Furthermore, the theory does not only frame the problem of practice, methodology, and research findings, but it also adds to the depth and applicability to the research as it provides context and meaning to the findings. Decision-making and teacher beliefs are aligned with the problem of practice as they offer a unique lens for observing and analyzing the data. Specifically, 34

these frameworks can clarify how teacher beliefs of SEL affect their pedagogical decisions of

CLT both during lesson planning and interactively during the execution of the lesson.

Conclusion

With the current convergence of educational reforms influenced by constructivist

learning theory and the social-emotional theory, teachers try to balance the growing teaching

demands and improve their practices (Hess, 2010; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). The

purpose of this case study is to explore how middle and high school teachers who trained in

social-emotional learning apply constructivist related pedagogical strategies in practice. Low

academic achievements and gaps in the current literature both highlight the need for further

research to understand the processes that teachers undergo when making pedagogical decisions.

The knowledge generated from this study will benefit multiple entities, will help bridge the gap

between theory and practice, and will contribute to the existing literature on constructivism, the

intersection between SEL and CLT, and teacher decision-making. The following chapter is a

literature review of constructivism, social-emotional learning, and the empirical research of the

intersection between them.

35

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Educational reforms, theories, research, and practices are intricately woven together to form a web of a complex conceptual map with multiple pathways that lead to teaching and learning. How do teachers integrate various reforms into a meaningful system that is practical and relevant in their daily practice? How do these factors synthesize in order to maximize student learning and achievement? Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) and Constructivist

Learning Theories (CLT) are two educational theories that inspired significant educational reforms. SEL and CLT are both meant to provide students with learning environments or opportunities that will enable them to reach a cognitive plain in which they are competent abstract and analytical thinkers, yet this is not always the case (Alexander, Entwisle & Olson,

2001).

The Bourns School offers a school setting in which both SEL and CLT converge, yet despite evidence that these approaches increase student achievements (Freeman, Eddy,

McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor, Jordta, and Wenderoth, 2014; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,

Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), student achievement at the Bourns School is still lacking. Poor achievement is not isolated to this school only, as the current reality of the educational system in the United States is that many children are not reaching their potential (Darling-Hammond,

2015). The International problem-solving Assessment program (PISA) measures 15-year-old students' performance in reading, mathematics, science literacy, and problem-solving skills every three years. The 2018 PISA results indicated that among the 35 Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the United States’ performance in science 36 and reading was average and did not change since 2006 in science and 2009 in reading. The

United States also performed below average in mathematics (PISA, 2018).

According to Michael Fullan (2012), the director of Global Leadership and former dean of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), education is a field that requires continuous innovation and reform to support the changes in society and to reflect its current needs. The problem of change, Fullan claims, is that it needs to be figured out not only in relation to previous policy but also as a way of life. We need to change the way we do things.

Nevertheless, in order to bring about change, successfully, one needs to have a deeper understanding of the current situation. Examining CLT through the lens of SEL in this study can help describe how one educational reform, SEL, may impact teachers’ application of another educational reform, namely, CLT. Does social-emotional philosophy affect how teachers apply constructivism? The primary research question guiding this study is: How do school teachers who train in social-emotional learning pedagogy and structures apply constructivist theory and constructivist-related pedagogical strategies in practice? And how can this understanding impact the application of constructivism in practice and student outcomes?

The purpose of this literature review is to examine the main seminal books and articles thoughts about constructivist learning theory and social-emotional learning, gain a better understanding, and to explore why constructivism is an elusive theory to implement and how

SEL practices may affect its application. This literature review explores two bodies of literature.

The first body of literature includes a look into the historical roots of the CLT, its principles, its different types, the areas that lend themselves to the constructivist framework, and successful implementation methods. The second body of literature is a review of SEL: its historical roots, 37

link to student achievement, and SEL programs. It also explores the integration of SEL and

academics and the limited empirical research that investigated the compatibility between SEL

and CLT. This literature review will conclude with a summarized rationale for investigating the

interaction between CLT and SEL.

Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT)

The following is an overview of the historical roots of CLT, guiding principles, types,

how CLT aligns with different subject areas such as science and mathematics, and finally how

we can use CLT practices as tools to enhance learning in the classroom.

The historical roots of the Constructivist Learning Theory

Despite having early roots in the ideas of philosophers such as Socrates and Immanuel

Kant, it was not until the work of Jean Piaget and John Dewey that the framework of progressive

education, in which constructivism was in its core belief, started to become popular. Piaget was

interested in how knowledge grows, and he conceptualized that learning is constructed over time

from infancy to adulthood and gradually increases in complexity (Piaget, 1970). Additionally,

John Dewey (1938), discredited traditional authoritarian teaching and advocated for experiential

learning and self-reflection. He believed that engaging in a sustained inquiry which includes

studying, pondering, considering alternative possibilities, and arriving at one's own beliefs is the

mechanism through which learning occurs. Dewey also claimed that students’ current

understanding and prior knowledge should be taken into account (Piaget, 1970). Piaget and

Dewey brought much attention to this idea that knowledge is created and discovered (Piaget,

2014; Dewey, 1938). 38

Other thinkers who continued to influence the constructivist framework included the

American psychologist, Jerome Bruner (1960), who added the concept of active engagement. He claimed that learning is an active process that is based on and built upon the triggering of prior knowledge. David Ausubel (1968), a cognitive psychologist, examined the relationship between existing schemas and new material, and unlike other constructivists, he advocated for passive rote memorization and the importance of academic subject mastery. Under this paradigm, students memorize the content to be learned, are passive consumers of information, and the classroom is mostly teacher-centered. Subsequently, the Soviet psychologist, Lev Vygotsky

(1978) proposed a social aspect for cognitive development and defined the “zone of proximal development” according to which students can solve problems and reasons beyond their developmental level and based on their potential. Nevertheless, in order for this specific kind of learning to occur, guidance, and support from peers and adults are necessary.

Despite the spread of these ideas, it was not until much later, in the context of science reform, that the constructivist learning theory gained more popularity (Windschitl, 2002). In

1988 Lunenberg claimed that the practice of constructivism is a useful paradigm since it encourages students to take responsibility for their learning, and is at the heart of self-directed learning. In 1999, Doolittle & Camp argued that traditional learning instructions do not cultivate problem-solving skills that are developed through constructivist methods, such as problem-solving, in students, whereas constructivist-based teachings. Nowadays, an increasing number of educational institutes and nationwide initiatives stress the importance of critical thinking skills, collaboration, problem-solving, and growth mindset (PISA, 2015, 2018). 39

Nonetheless, many contemporary and constructivist-based science education reform initiatives faced implementation challenges (Windschitl, 2002).

Guiding principles of constructivist-based learning

Hein (1991) identified nine guiding principles that are at the foundation of constructivist thinking: (1) Learning is an active process, rather than a passive acceptance of information that is generated from materials or lectures. (2) People learn to learn as they learn. Learning consists of ​ ​ constructing meaning, systems, and schemas to classify information. This means that while we ​ ​ learn, we search for similar patterns in order to give our experiences meaning. (3) The crucial action of constructing meaning is mental as learning takes place in the mind. Hands-on experiences may be necessary for learning, yet they are not enough, as the learner’s mind needs to be engaged as well. Dewey (1938) called this cognitive process of the mind “reflective activity". (4) Learning involves language. Vygotsky (1962) argued that language entwines with learning. We talk to ourselves as we learn, and the language we learn influences learning. (5)

Learning is a social activity and often results from social interactions with teachers, peers, family, and even casual acquaintances. (6) Learning is contextual. We do not learn facts and ideas in isolation; rather, learning is based on previous notions and the environment. (7) One needs knowledge to learn. New knowledge assimilates into the structure of previous knowledge.

(8) It takes time to learn. Learning is not immediate, as the learner needs to revisit ideas, reflect on them, and manipulate them in his or her mind. (9) Motivation is a crucial component of learning. Understanding the relevance of learning a particular concept is an essential precursor for learning. 40

Types of constructivism

There are three main types of constructivism or perspectives on how one constructs knowledge. These perspectives are on a continuum that ranges from social constructivism

(Vygotsky, 1962), cognitive constructivism (Piaget, 1953), and radical constructivism (von

Glasersfeld, 1992); all depending on whether the focus of learning is within the individual or placed on the social context (Figure 2.1). A fourth type of constructivism, critical constructivism, is added here to overview since it is highly relevant to one of the instruments selected in this study.

Figure 2.1. The Continuum of Constructivism and Knowledge Construction ​

Social constructivism. Vygotsky’s ideas and socio-cultural theory are the foundation for ​ Social constructivism. Social constructivism theory primarily emphasizes that there is a significant social aspect to knowledge acquisition, as knowledge is a result of social interaction and language usage (Prawatt & Floden, 1994). Additionally, social interaction always takes place within a socio-cultural context, which means that community and culture mediate it and that social speech is a factor that mediates learning (Vygotsky, 1962). 41

Vygotsky argued that children go through four stages of conceptual development. His theory of development was different from Piaget’s in that he did not think that there was a set age for each stage. Vygotsky developed the notion of the zone of proximal development, (ZPD) ​ ​ which is the difference between what a learner can do without the help and what the learner can do with the help. To help learners reach independence, Vygotsky argued that learning environments should involve guided interactions or scaffolding. These would allow children to reflect and change their conceptions through speech and communication. Other significant differences between Piaget and Vygotsky are that Vygotsky claimed that learning precedes development and that internalization is an essential process for the development of inner speech ​ ​ that corresponds to reasoning skills needed for planning and problem-solving. Also, as opposed to Piaget, Vygotsky downplayed the internal mental construction of knowledge, and instead, he emphasized the co-construction of meaning through social activity (Bruffee, 1986). For example, a child’s understanding of his self-identity is constructed through experiences and interactions with other people, rather than develop separately within the person and in isolation.

Cognitive constructivism. Piaget based his ideas of cognitive development on cognitive ​ constructivism. According to Piaget (1926, 1953), there are four stages of cognitive development of the human mind. During each stage, the individual accesses information and gains knowledge through a different process. Further, the ability to think abstractly increases over time, and various constructs or structures create categorical mental representations called schemas. New ​ ​ information is continually assimilated into already existing thoughts and schemas if they fit existing structures. However, if there is a discrepancy between the new information and the existing schema, the schema may go through a process called accommodation. ​ 42

Schemas are modified or become more sophisticated through a cognitive process called accommodation. When encountering new information, individuals are in constant search for equilibrium in which there is no cognitive conflict. Equilibrium often occurs when children ​ changeover from one cognitive stage to another by adapting their behavior to the accommodated or modified schema. One of the most famous examples that illustrate this process is the dog example. When a child first learns that the image of a dog connects to the word “dog,” he starts calling all four-legged animals dogs. However, once corrected, the child learns that some four-legged animals are cats. This correction is when a cognitive accommodation to the existing dog schema takes place, and learning takes place. The equilibrium or balance, in this case, will manifest itself in the child’s behavior, which will reflect an understanding that the dog is not a cat. Learning is an internal cognitive process that sometimes depends, therefore, on external environmental factors.

Radical constructivism. Radical constructivism contends that the construction of ​ knowledge and learning takes place on the individual level, and it exists in the learner’s mind only. Ernst von Glasersfeld (1992), one of the leading advocates of radical constructivism, did not believe that knowledge had to be necessarily represented by a real phenomenon. Instead, he adopted the relativist position that individuals construct knowledge as they give meaning to their experiences rather than discovered. Learning and knowledge, therefore, are not waiting to be discovered as they do not exist independently. Instead, humans construct them. This idea is consistent with Freire’s ideas (1994) that knowledge is not an endowment that someone receives.

According to radical constructivism, textbooks and teachers are not of much use since knowledge is unique and subjective as two individuals are likely to gain completely different 43 insights from the same experience. Many argue that radical constructivism applies itself to the field of mathematics (Lerman, 1989). It holds, for example, that it is not essential for students to memorize formulas, facts, or strategies. Instead, they need to have a conceptual understanding of fundamental mathematical concepts (von Glasersfeld, 1992).

Von Glasersfeld also believed that problems have more than one solution, and therefore, should be approached from different perspectives. Furthermore, knowledge cannot be transferred via words. This means that for active learning to take place, the teacher needs to have a conceptual framework so the student will reflect on what he or she is told and self-organize.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development inspired many of von Glasersfeld's ideas as he incorporated the concepts of assimilation and accommodation as processes that result in learning

(Boudourides, 2003).

Critical constructivism. Critical constructivism (Taylor, 1996) combines fundamental ​ elements of radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 1992) and critical social theory (Habenrmas,

1978; McCarthy, 1985; Pusey, 1987). Constructivism's emphasis is on the individual's cognitive engagement while recognizing that negotiation and discourse with others are vital in the construction of knowledge. The critical constructivist theory further points us to the impact of the socio-cultural context on knowledge construction. It focuses our attention on how the environment can force conformity to the teacher and students to a political agenda of institutionalized objectivism which ethically conflicts with meaning-making and social interactions. Essentially, critical constructivism values "knowledge for its potential to enable us to communicate openly and richly, thereby realizing the full potential of our species' most distinctive attribute" (Taylor, Dawson, & Fraser, 1997). 44

The use of the constructivist approach in science and mathematics

The science field was promoted first when educational reform claimed the constructivist learning theory as a tool to cultivate conceptual and deep understanding (Bentley, 1998; Stavner,

1988). Given the nature of the scientific process of inquiry and discovery, it makes sense that students will be actively engaged in the construction of knowledge rather than rote memorization. The following is a review of the use of constructivism in science and mathematics. The term inquiry-based instruction often refers to activities through which an understanding of how the natural world works is constructed (Colburn, 2006). It is, therefore, a constructivist approach (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010).

Constructivism and science. Meta-analytical reviews of inquiry-based instruction ​ revealed that the effectiveness of the constructivist approach in the teaching of science-related fields yields mixed results (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010; Colburn, 2006; Bredderman, 1983; and Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport, 1983). Many research studies conclude that inquiry-based instruction is superior to other instructional methods (Bredderman, 1983; Schroeder, Scott,

Tolson, Huang, & Lee, 2007; Shymansky, Hedges, & Woodworth, 1990; Weinstein, Boulanger,

& Walberg, 1982). Wu & Tsai (2005) revealed that students in the science constructivist instructional group had better learning outcomes than the traditional teacher-centered teaching methods control group. This study also showed that both low and high achievers gained from the constructivist approach. Low achievers displayed better information processing, while high achievers displayed higher-level information processing such as inferring or explaining.

On the other hand, several other studies concluded a lack of significant impact of the inquiry-based approach to learning. For example, Bay, Staver, Bryan & Hale (1992) revealed no 45 significant difference in students’ content knowledge after direct versus inquiry-based instruction. However, a two-week post-study follow-up revealed that the inquiry-based instructional group displayed better retention of concepts. Special education students who had two weeks of inquiry instruction outperformed their peers who had direct instruction. These studies, nevertheless, are consistent with studies that show that inquiry learning is vital for conceptual understanding when integrated with hypothesis testing and debate.

The mixed results of the impact of inquiry-based science teaching have been hypothesized to be a result of poorly integrated teaching methods into science instruction (Lebak,

2015; Capps & Crawford, 2013; Furtak, Shavelson, Shemwell, & Figueroa, 2012; Hmelo-Silver,

Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). According to Lederman (2008), despite the last 100 years of science education, we still have not developed an adequate professional development for teachers that will help guide their planning and delivery of inquiry lessons. Saunders & Shepardson (1987) argued that the Piagetian perspective could explain this inconsistency as the research shows that inquiry skills often require deductive reasoning as in the formal operational stage. Concrete students will not be able to access abstract skills relating to the inquiry. Inquiry-based teaching, therefore, is most effective in producing student achievement when the content is more concrete than theoretical (Schneider & Renner, 1980). A meta-analysis by Futak, Seidel, Iverson & Briggs

(2012) revealed that inquiry-based teaching was a successful instructional approach to student learning when students engaged in the cognitive domain of inquiry alongside the procedural, epistemic, and social domains combined. Futak et al. (2012) also showed larger effect sizes for studies that involved teacher-led activities as opposed to student-led unstructured discovery.

Studies such as Kawalker and Vijapurkar (2015) who compared traditional and inquiry-based 46 science teaching support these claims. They found that the inquiry group showed a superior conceptual understanding, more favorable attitudes towards science, and scientific habits of mind. These students’ metacognition, evident by awareness of their learning, supported their scientific claims on evidence rather than on authority. Lastly, Walan and Rundgren’s (2015) study showed that the combination of context-based and inquiry-based learning resulted in positive learning experiences for students, and a higher perceived personal relevance for learning the science concepts. This finding is another example of how the constructivist approach is successful in science teaching.

Constructivism and mathematics. When reviewing the literature for the effect of ​ constructivist-based teaching on conceptual understanding in mathematics, the results reflect that constructivism does not always result in enhanced student learning (Alsup and Sprigler, 2003).

Simon (1995) reviewed various studies on social constructivism and mathematics pedagogy. He claimed that while constructivism provides a theoretical framework for educational research in mathematics, it also poses the challenge of teaching it. Small group interactions, problem-solving, and using manipulatives can be valuable tools, yet they are not sufficient as they do not enable teachers to be the architects of producing learning experiences that can result in conceptual learning.

In response to Simon’s (1995) claim to lack of pedagogical paradigm, Hennessey,

Higley, and Chesnut (2012) claimed that social constructivism is a more appropriate model for the learning of mathematics than radical constructivism. Many studies support this claim.

Specifically, studies show that effective discussion strategies about the content promote learning

(Bozkurt, 2017; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Gupta, 2008; Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). 47

Also, when Georges and Pallas (2010) examined the relationship between teaching practices,

SES, and racial/ethnic score disparities in mathematics, they found that teaching practices that focused on reasoning and problem-solving skills had a positive effect on mathematical skills.

One of the challenges in the use of constructivism in mathematics is that, theoretically, a constructivist teacher cannot label a student’s answer as erroneous. Theoretically, if reality is indeed subjective, then there is no objective truth. This premise of constructivism weakens the teacher’s ability to address misconceptions (Hennessey et al., 2012).

Constructivism as a tool to enhance student learning in the classroom

In the following section, successful constructivist-based classroom implementation strategies cluster into three areas: student-centered, social, and intellectual.

Student-centered classroom practices. Effective constructivist pedagogy puts the ​ learner in the center (Freeman et al., 2014). In practice, it means that when teachers make pedagogical decisions, they should have their particular student in mind. The goal should be to advance the student and not the curriculum. Hannafin, Hill, and Land (1997) argue that constructivist epistemology naturally embeds student-centered approaches. Tangney (2014) claimed that constructivism provides a basis for framing the concept of student-centered education by researchers.

Nevertheless, by the same token, he noted that the lack of a clear definition of student-centered learning is also associated with constructivism in the pedagogical literature.

Starky’s (2017) theoretical framework helps provide insight and specificity of the loosely coined term ‘student-centered.’ He analyzed the student-centered literature and identified three aspects that can be used to define student-centered education. These include the cognitive aspect which 48 centers on student learning, the agentic aspect which focuses on student participation and empowerment, and the humanist aspect which highlights cultural responsiveness and knowing the student as an individual. This framework shows the complexity of the term.

The influential educator and a leader of the educational reform in the United States, Ted

Sizer (1999) once said that he could not teach a child he did not know. He further explained that he could not help the child construct knowledge if he did not know how the child’s mind works.

What is the source of his errors? Is there a pattern? Understanding each child's individual development is a necessary condition for a rigorous education. Creating a student-centered classroom also means that learning is contextual and relevant to the learners (Walan &

Rundgren, 2015) and builds on the learner's prior knowledge (Larkin, 2012). Larkin found that while preservice teachers understood the value of eliciting prior knowledge, they did not see its role in teaching in the same way. According to Larkin (2012) teachers mostly saw students’ prior knowledge as evidence of content coverage, obstacles to understanding, tools to prime students thinking, interest and activity, rather than a connection for future learning. Teachers’ perceptions of their role tend to be closely related to their beliefs about how learning takes place. These findings suggest that constructivist practices misinterpreted and not applied consistently.

Social classroom practices. The second cluster of classroom practices that can enhance ​ student learning focuses on the social aspect. Vygotsky’s social constructivism is at the heart of this claim as it recognizes the importance and the need for interactions with others in order to construct meaning (John-Steiner, & Mahn, 1996). In practicality, it means that structuring activities in the form of a jigsaw puzzle, peer tutoring, or group projects, is a great way to provide cooperative learning experiences (Davidson, Major, & Michaelsen, 2014). In each of 49 these activities, the focus is on the sharing of ideas and students challenging each other’s perspectives.

Intellectual classroom practices. One of the central premises of CLT is that learning is ​ an active process (Hein, 1991). To test the efficacy of constructivist versus traditional course design, Freeman et al. (2014) did a meta-analysis study of undergraduate student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics courses. They found that active learning led to increasing test performance of half a letter grade, while traditional teaching resulted in an increase of failure rate by 55%. Active learning, therefore, can improve student achievement in STEM education

(Freeman et al., 2014; Smith, Jones, Gilbert & Wieman, 2013; Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman,

2011; Blanchard et al., 2010; Knight & Wood, 2005; Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004).

One of the misconceptions about constructivist practice is that since teachers are not engaged in direct instruction, their role in the classroom is less important (Honomichl & Chen,

2012). On the contrary, there is much research to prove this myth wrong as the teachers are critical in constructing, modeling, and guiding the learning. Teachers are intellectually responsible to facilitate open-ended inquiries, student discourse, and making meaning that come after students’ engagement with the inquiry (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2010; Chi,

2009; Reiser, 2004). In one study by Gilles & Boyle (2008), high school teachers were audio-recorded while their students engaged in cooperative learning activities. The audiotapes revealed that teacher discourse during these activities had a significant effect on learning.

Teachers challenged students’ perspectives and asked for more cognitive and metacognitive explanations. They essentially required students to think more reflectively and deeply. 50

Further, students used the teacher discourse as a model for interaction with their peers.

For example, they demanded their peers to explain, and they challenged their perspective as well.

Effective constructivist teachers tend to monitor discussions to see if students get off track or develop misunderstandings, and they intervene in order to redirect the discussion (Brown &

Campione, 1994). Their role is, as Allison King (1993) phrased it is “from a sage on the stage to ​ guide on the side”.

Additionally, teachers who did not feel competent in carrying on the constructivist approach had a negative impact on learning. Temiz and Topcu (2013) explored the relationship between preservice teachers’ teacher-related efficacy beliefs and their constructivist-based teaching practices. The findings revealed that preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and their constructivist-based teaching were positively correlated. The higher their self-efficacy was, the less likely they were to use traditional teaching methods and more likely to utilize constructivist based instruction. This study has implications for the instructional leaders as they should be knowledgeable about constructivism and support their teachers.

Cultivating and adopting a growth mindset is another constructivist-based intellectual necessity that can enhance learning. Mindset is a catchphrase coined by Carol Dweck (2006), who claims that people’s beliefs about themselves impact their learning. A growth mindset is essential both for the constructivist teacher and the student alike. It assumes that everyone is capable of learning and developing their intelligence. The process of learning can help individuals flourish and improve. A growth mindset is not just a philosophical idea as it substantiated by scientific evidence. Studies in neuroscience showed that growth mindset is connected to increased brain mass (Ramsden et al., 2011), a higher dorsal and striatal brain 51 connectivity in their prefrontal cortex (Myers, Wang, Black, Bugescu, and Hoeft, 2016), and a higher EEG brain response (Schroder, Fisher, Lin, Lo, Danovitch, and Moser, 2017). This idea of a growth mindset is consistent with the constructivist theory particularly since its basic premise is that there is no single or wrong answer as knowledge is subjective and constructed based on the individual’s unique prior knowledge. However, this idea also presents a dilemma for practice since it puts the teacher in a tough position when “guiding” the students to a particular conception. Driver (1983) alleged that this constitutes intellectual dishonesty since teachers, in this case, assume that there is one right answer. Teachers need to encourage the students to conceptualize the solution by scaffolding and keeping the zone of proximal development in mind (Steffe & Gale, 1995). To teach constructively, teachers need to be competent in guiding students’ meaning-making and help them transfer knowledge from one context to another while avoiding directing students towards a particular solution to a problem.

This then means that the classroom must be rife with reflection and connections and teachers must be masters at both!

Conclusion Constructivism is a framework that attempts to explain how learning takes place. Its underlying assumption is that learning is an active process of cognitively constructing knowledge rather than discovering it. Experience has the utmost importance for learning to take place, yet the experience of one does not translate to the same learning as it does for another since learning is subjective. The different types of constructivism, namely cognitive, social, radical, and critical all have different implications on instruction and learning in the classroom. Lastly, the constructivist framework also has implications for implementation in particular areas of teaching. 52

Although supported by positive evidence for learning, constructivist practice is not without difficulties. As noted previously, there are challenges regarding the implementation of the constructivist framework in various subject matters (Windschitl, 2002). The effectiveness of constructivist approach in the teaching of math and science yields mixed results (Minner, Levy

& Century, 2010; Colburn, 2006; Alsup and Sprigler, 2003; Bredderman, 1983; and Shymansky et al., 1983), and misconceptions about the application of CLT may lead to lack of student success (Honomichl & Chen, 2012). It is crucial, therefore, to identify ways in which constructivism can enhance learning in practice. Based on the findings of this review, it is possible to claim that constructivist learning theory is complex to implement, yet beneficial for learning. Specifically, constructivism is a convoluted philosophical theory that conceptualizes and explains how students learn, but it does not offer much guidance for teachers on how to teach it. The complexity of constructivism is partially due to the vagueness of this approach.

Windschitl (2002) argued that “constructivism in practice” is embedded in ambiguities and tensions. He, therefore, developed a framework to help explain the types of dilemmas that teachers experience when implementing an elusive theory such as constructivism. These include: conceptual dilemmas that relate to teachers’ understanding of the subject matter, pedagogical dilemmas that arise from difficulties in designing curriculum and instruction that aligns with the theoretical demands, cultural dilemmas that stem from differences between teachers and students’ culture of learning and teaching, and lastly political dilemmas that emerge from dissonance between prior teaching norms of the school community and new ones. These dilemmas are in a continuum with conceptual dilemmas on one end, reflecting teachers’ personal and intellectual concerns, and the political dilemmas on the other end, reflecting the structural 53 and public concerns of the school community. Windschitl’s framework has been used to understand issues such as teachers’ resistance to change (Orlando, 2014), and to study conflicting reform (Tillema & Kremer-Hayon, 2005).

Teachers’ low self-efficacy regarding their beliefs about their ability to teach in a constructivist manner predicts a low implementation rate (Temiz & Topcu, 2013). Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to structure open-ended inquiries and scaffold by guiding their students to construct subjective knowledge. The dilemma of what to do when a student has a misconception or when they got the answer wrong is not an easy one to resolve. This dilemma may explain why the research shows more favorable results for the effect of constructivism on student learning in science than in math. What are educators to do when a student concludes that one plus two equals four? Should the student be enabled into accepting his subjective construction as the ultimate truth?

In essence, constructivism is a very demanding theory. To implement in a way that it will enhance learning and achievement, practitioners need to take into account a multitude of factors including students’ prior knowledge, interpersonal skills, the zone of proximal development, and communicative skills. Additionally, teachers need to consider the physical environment in which the learning takes place, and make grouping decisions that are specific to each learner, the skill, and or the content to be taught. Nevertheless, there are definite advantages to the adoption of constructivist-based strategies (Windschitl, 2002). As the data indicate, students are more engaged, have a positive effect on the learning, can grow cognitively, develop deeper conceptual understanding, and have higher academic achievements (Kawalker & Vijapurkar, 2015; Walan

& Rundgren, 2015; Mayer, 2004). Putting our future efforts on analyzing both studies that show 54 success and failure of this theory can help us understand what we need for good and consistent practice.

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

This second strand of the literature review includes a general overview of SEL and its theoretical framework, SEL programs and implementation outcomes, a review of the

Developmental Designs SEL approach, SEL and academics integration, SEL compatibility with

CLT, and finally a conclusion which highlights the rationale for investigating the interaction between SEL and CLT.

SEL - Overview and theoretical frameworks

In the past decade, there has been growing awareness that schools are not merely a place of learning academic content, rather they provide the perfect context for social and emotional development of children (National Research Council, 2012; Dusenbury, Zadrazil, Mart, &

Weissberg, 2011). Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) philosophy centers on the premise that children need to learn how to manage negative emotions, stay calm, focused, and maneuver relationships with adults and peers. Specific SEL programs and strategies can teach these skills

(Jones & Bouffard, 2012). The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning

(CASEL) identified five research-based inter-related competencies that are crucial for students:

Self-Awareness, Social Awareness, Self-Management and Organization, Relationship Skills, and

Responsible Decision-Making (CASEL, 2003; Elias, Zins, Weissberg, Frey, Greenberg, Haynes,

& Shriver, 1997).

There is increasing evidence that many children enter schools without these necessary social skills to succeed (Green, Malsch, Kothari, Busse & Brennan, 2012; Gilliam & Shahar, 55

2006). Children also face a rise in the number of cases of school violence and bullying

(Espelage, Rose, & Polanin, 2015), and an influx of students with trauma or Adverse Childhood

Experiences (ACEs) ( Felitti, Anda, Nordenberg, Williamson, Spitz, Edwards, & Marks, 2019). ​ ​ By high school, many students become disengaged from school (Klem & Connell, 2004), and about 30% of students engage in high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, unprotected sex, violence, and attempted suicide (Eaton et al., 2008). These explain the need for an increase in the number of SEL programs in schools. Jones & Bouffard (2012) contended that generally speaking

SEL refers to skills that individuals need in order to succeed academically, professionally, and interpersonally. Nevertheless, the set of highlighted skills is different, depending on the field in which they are applied. Psychology and neuroscience, for example, focus on emotional regulation, prosocial behavior, and aggression, whereas the education field, on the other hand, concentrates on skills that relate to character education, bullying prevention, and conflict resolution (Ruby & Doolittle, 2010). As a result of differing foci, interventions may vary, ranging from recognizing and expressing emotions to cognitive regulation such as attention skills. Given these differences, Jones & Bouffard (2012) suggested a theoretical framework of

SEL that is based on research and developmental theory. According to this framework, the development of social skills can take place in a variety of interactive contexts, such as family, peers, classroom, school, cultural and political ones (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

The core SEL skills that can develop within these contexts include emotional processes, social/interpersonal skills, and cognitive regulation. These skills link to short-and long-term outcomes that can manifest through academic achievements, behavioral adjustments, and emotional well-being of the individual. In school and classroom contexts effective 56 implementation of SEL depends on specific applications that bridge between policies, programs, and strategies (Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, and Weissberg, 2017; Durlak et al., 2011).

SEL programs and implementation outcomes

There is an extensive empirical body of evidence to support that SEL programs have positive outcomes related to emotional, behavioral, social, and academic outcomes (Abar &

Loken, 2010; Byrnes, Miller & Reynolds, 1999; Buchanan, Gueldner, Tran, & Merrell, 2009;

Durlak et al., 2011; Efklides, 2011; Elias & Arnold, 2006; Greene & Azevedo, 2010; Iver, 1990;

Winne, 2010; Zimmerman, 2008). The developmental psychologist, Dr. Clancy Blair, and the behavioral social scientist, Dr. Cybele Raver (2014), both hypothesized that “educational practices designed to support the development of executive functions will lead not only to higher academic achievement but will also be associated with beneficial change in measures of children’s attention, working memory, inhibitory control, and stress response physiology". Their study showed a positive effect on working memory, reasoning, mathematics performance, reading, attention, and levels of salivary cortisol levels. These results suggested that focus on executive functioning and self-regulation in early education can help close the achievement gap

(Blair & Raver, 2014).

Despite the positive effect of SEL programs on achievement, not all programs are alike, and studies’ effect sizes are not always robust. Differences in program effectiveness were noted due to students’ age, ethnic background, and socioeconomic status (Durlak et al., 2011). More significant effects are evident when studying at-risk students (Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2011), yet only a third of the studies on SEL include implementation measures (Domitrovich & Greenberg,

2000). Also, smaller effects of low-risk students are nonetheless important since the short-term 57 effects of high-risk students in the classroom may spill over and affect the entire class (Thomas,

Bierman, & Powers, 2011).

Meta-analytical studies of effective SEL implementation identify a set of four characteristics that are common to these programs. These include the incorporation of (1) sequences activities that lead to skill acquisition, (2) active forms of learning, (3) specific development of one or more social skills, and (4) explicitness (Durlak et al., 2011). Furthermore, other factors associated with higher effectiveness include fidelity to the program, program monitoring, and providing professional development to staff (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, Elbertson,

& Salovey, 2012), yet integration of program into daily school life has been concluded to be one of the most essential factors in predicting the success of SEL program implementation (Horner,

Sugai, & Anderson, 2010).

The integration of SEL into the daily school day means that it is applied in different contexts such as classrooms, hallways, playgrounds, lunchrooms, and by various stakeholders and staff members. Nonetheless, many schools do not integrate SEL in meaningful ways as they provide weekly short lessons that are embedded within another class period such as social studies or language arts (Jones et al., 2011). These lessons are often skipped due to the tight schedule and the school’s need to focus on academic content (Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Other factors that may contribute to unsuccessful implementation of SEL programs include the adoption of untested programs, fragmentation, and marginalization of skills taught as there is little effort to apply them and not seen as having a central role in the educational mission, and limited staff training. Teachers who received more training and coaching had more positive behavioral outcomes than teachers who had less training and implemented fewer lessons (Aber, Brown and 58

Jones, 2003). Jones and Bouffard (2012) reviewed the SEL program implementation research of the last two decades, and they concluded that many schools do not integrate SEL in meaningful ways. The limitations of existing programs include insufficient teacher buy-in, poor implementation, inadequate quality programs, and lack of funding for sustainability

(Waterhouse, 2006; Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich & Gullotta, 2015). Further, critics of SEL argue that utilizing emotional intelligence as a theoretical framework is unclear as it is difficult to associate with particular SEL programs (Qualter, Gardner, & Whiteley, 2007). A significant theme in SEL implementation literature reveals the need for systematic implementation practices

(Elias & Arnolds, 2006; Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003; Fullan, 2008; Zins & Elias,

2006).

The Developmental Designs SEL program

The Developmental Designs (DD) is a social-emotional learning program provided by the ​ ​ non-profit organization Origins, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This organization was ​ ​ founded in 1979 and has been providing SEL professional development training for educators and school leaders whose settings range from Pre-K. The mission of The Origins Program is to promote an equitable and humane multicultural society through quality education for all. One of

Origins founders, Linda Crawford, who was highly influenced by Vygotsky’s constructivist framework of social learning and development, coined the phrase developmental designs. This ​ ​ term takes into account developmental psychology, environmental analysis, human needs, and synthesis of best practices related to educational settings (Kwame-Ross, 2011).

In essence, the DD approach provides a teaching and learning framework that helps educators understand and tend to the basic needs of students. It brings strategies focused on 59 executive functioning skills and self-regulation to the context of building relationships, social skills, a safe community, cultural responsiveness, and intrinsic motivation. (The Origins

Program, 2006). Three critical areas of school life: social-emotional, relationship and community, and academic address these skills (The Origins Program, 2006). In all these areas, students are trained to construct their understanding by grappling with various relevant and contextual scenarios in which they are required to problem-solve, reflect, collaborate, and integrate new information and perspectives. Students’ basic needs for competence, autonomy, fun, safety, and relationships are met through these structures and help alleviate behavioral issues that may arise in the context of the classroom and school. It is a student-centered approach that is easily generalized to different areas around the school and disciplines. DD is not merely an advisory program as the principles are applied all day long and scaffolded during the academic engagement (Crawford & Wood, 2014; The Origins Program, 2006; The Origins program,

2018).

Developmental Designs’ structures are student-centered and constructivist. In practice, it reduced teacher talk, used modeling as a way to increase competence, structured personalized learning, focused on students listening to their peers, diversified communication, enhanced positive feedback about growth, and built equity. Structured student partnerships are at the core of DD practices as they are designed to nurture and support decision-making, self-regulatory interactions, as well as peer to peer learning experiences. DD’s strong endorsement of partnerships is rooted in Vygotskian teaching practices as well as empirical evidence (Crawford

& Wood, 2014). In one particular study, students were observed in first grade and then again in fourth grade while exploring different mathematical ways to solve a problem with a partner or 60 within a small group. The results of this study showed that students in the first grade focused on the math content, while in the fourth grade they focused both on the content and their partner’s perspective (Zuckerman, 2004). This study shows that students learned over time the decentration of thinking and the emergence of dialogue to understand each other. In DD, every routine in the classroom is an opportunity for children to use regulatory skills during social interactions (Crawford & Wood, 2014).

The Developmental Design Workshops

There are two DD workshops consisting of 28 hours, each, that are led by trained facilitators who model constructivist structures and content for the participants. During the workshops, the participants are guided to form an understanding of the approach and to practice it. For example, each morning starts with a community circle that models how to build a community. All participants set personal goals to guide them and help them focus their learning, and subsequently create a social contract that becomes the norm for the duration of the workshop. All routines are modeled and practiced if problems arise participants solve them collaboratively. Participants engage through experiential learning activities, small group work, reflection, and play. The focus of the first workshop is to learn about community building, empowering teacher language, creating and upholding clear expectations, and meeting students' needs. The second workshop builds upon the first and guides teachers to refine their practices as well as to orchestrate lessons that are thoroughly engaging and motivating for students. Below is a list of the leading DD’s practices taught and practiced during the workshop (Kwame-Ross,

Crawford & Klug, 2011). 61

The Reflective Loop - An established learning cycle - the habit of thinking and ​ planning for successful work, actions, and post reflection aimed to improve future work.

This cycle makes learning meaningful and develops the capacity of students to plan, self-assess, and reflect (Dreikurs, Peppers, & Grunwald, 1998; Jensen, 2005; Marlowe &

Page, 1998).

Whole-Class Circles - These routinely scheduled and structured community ​ times foster healthy relationships between students and teachers, provide structured opportunities for active-creative learning, cultural conversations, as well as for building an inclusive community with a connection to the school. Attuned student-teacher relationships are a dynamic and ongoing process. Students are more likely to develop prosocial attitudes and behaviors when they experience school as a supportive community (Schaps, Battistich & Solomon, 2004). The Circle of Power and Respect

(CPR) is an advisory structure with a set protocol to support relationship building, cultivate a positive community and the explicit teaching of social-emotional skills.

Goals and Declarations - Based on research that constructing one's ​ understanding and establishing own goals helps adolescents feel authentically connected to school (Dreikurs et al., 1998; Jensen, 2005), the DD approach provides a structure for students to set and declare their personal goals and intentions for the school year.

Social Contract - Adolescents are more willing to be guided by rules when they ​ have a share in creating them, rather than follow rules that are externally imposed on them. The social contract that DD enables students to create collaboratively enables them to understand the benefits of working in a supportive community. This social contract 62 prepares students for citizenship in a democracy (Berman, 1997; Dewey, 1909; Glasser,

1996).

Modeling and Practicing - For students to feel able that they can do something ​ that we expect them to do in school they need a careful experiential introduction (Rogoff,

1990; Vygotsky 1986) as well as repeated opportunities to practice in order to reach competence (Jensen, 2005; Neil, Wood & Quinn, 2006). DD approach, therefore, assumes nothing, and actively teaches and models all the skills that we expect of students in order to develop success at school.

Pathways to Self-Control - A set of structures that teachers use to help students ​ regain self-control when they deviate from the social contract. These structures provide support for students to strengthen their autonomy. Students respond positively and endorse these mechanisms as they are without external rewards or making them feel undermined (Deci, 1996; Dreikurs et al., 1998). Structures include Take a Break (TAB),

TAB Out which are opportunities for the learner to reflect and regain control, as well as various types of reminders, and redirections.

Empowering Teacher Language - A focus on monitoring teacher language to ​ support student growth. Providing clear and explicit directions, promoting student endorsement and self-determination (Deci, 1996; Dreikurs et al., 1998), reinforcing success without external rewards or praising (Dreikurs et al., 1998; Marzano, 2003), reminding, redirecting respectfully (Dreikurs et al., 1998), and encouraging student reflection (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1993) are all examples of empowering teacher language. 63

Power of Play - The use of play as leverage for teaching and learning. Play often ​ ​ ​ enhances social bonding (Fall, Holden & Marquis, 2011), and when mixed with learning

mental skills can develop more easily (Goleman, 2012). DD, therefore, uses structured

play as a powerful tool to enhance learning.

Collaborative Problem-Solving - Thinking and reasoning in a collaborative way ​ to develop the capacity of students to exchange ideas, hear multiple perspectives, and

problem-solve together. (Dreikurs et al., 1998; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky 1986). DD

creates structures and opportunities for students to problem-solve collaboratively.

Ways of Managing Conversations - Enhancing equity of voices in the classroom ​ by scaffolding and utilizing a variety of methods to allow student participation.

Engaged Learning Practices - Structuring student partnerships, personalizing ​ student learning, and using exploratory formats for learning all help increase student

motivation, which in turn, influences engagement in learning (Deci, 1996; Dewy, 1938;

Dreikurs et al., 1998; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Rogoff, 1990;

Vygotsky 1986).

SEL and academic integration

Integrating social and emotional skills with daily classroom activities is well endorsed by empirical research (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning 2003; Liew and

McTigue 2010), which shows that social-emotional learning and content 'go hand in hand' and help students develop into academically socially competent young adults. A good reason why

SEL and academics should be integrated is that the academic demands have shifted with the adoption of the Common Core standards. 64

As stated in the introduction, the common core requires students to access higher-level cognitive processes that are constructivist (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). One district math coordinator in New York said, "this is not just a change in content - it is a change in the whole way we think about math in the classroom. It requires teachers to put much more control in the hands of students; it requires students to think about the mathematical ideas, not just the procedures; and it requires a significantly higher level of mathematical knowledge than teachers have been expected to have" (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2018, p. 21). Cohen,

Raudenbush, and Ball (2003) elaborated David Hawkins's framework of "I" (the teacher), the

"thou" (the student), and the "it" (the content) (1974) to indicate that it is the relationship between the teacher, student, and the content that determines instructional practices. The instructional task, or the actual work that students are required to do, is at the center of the core, and it derives the content, teacher's actions, and what the student will do. This instructional core framework (Figure 2.2) can guide how to improve the quality and level of student learning, and is driven by seven principles (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2018):

i. Increases in student learning occur as a result of an improvement in the level of content,

teacher knowledge and skills, and student engagement.

ii. Any change to one of the elements of the instructional core should be followed by

changing the other two. iii. If you can not see it in the core, it is not there. iv. Task predicts performance.

v. The real accountability is the tasks that students are asked to do. vi. We learn to do the work by doing the work ourselves and providing feedback to others. 65 vii. Description before analysis, analysis before prediction, and prediction before evaluation -

Develop a common language to describe what is seen in the classroom, groups observed

information into categories, and learns to use observation evidence to predict what the

teacher has done.

Figure 2.2. The Instructional Core (City., Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel, 2018). ​

In order to leverage student engagement, teachers and curricular material needs to take into account the social-emotional aspects of learning (CASEL, 2003; Blair & Raver, 2014;

Dusenbury, Zadrazil, Mart, & Weissberg, 2011; Elias, Zins, Weissberg, Frey, Greenberg,

Haynes, & Shriver, 1997; Jones & Bouffard, 2012; National Research Council, 2012). A classroom that can meet the needs of students through effective SEL is an engaged classroom

(Durlak et al., 2011; Elias, 2006; Elliot & Gable, 2001; Shechtman & Abu Yaman, 2012).

The work of DD is to move schools from coercion to community, which requires engagement. More and more school districts are now integrating SEL reforms with academic ones. One school district in Plainfield, New Jersey integrated standards-based language arts and 66 social-emotional learning in 2011. Many children in Plainfield presented with emotional and behavioral challenges that impacted their ability to persevere and succeed as learners.

Additionally, since standards-based instruction is often interpreted and taught in prescriptive ways by teachers (Achinstein, & Ogawa, 2006), did not see how their system allowed room for

SEL pedagogy. District leaders, therefore, decided to foster the SEL curriculum so students could feel they had an active role as producers of knowledge rather than passive recipients of it.

The SEL curriculum was designed to explicitly build the prosocial skills that these children needed in order to participate in and benefit from a pedagogical approach that required classroom interaction and a "loosening" of teacher control (Elias & Leverett, 2011). Ultimately, the goal was for students' interpersonal literacy to mediate their learning. If students did not learn emotional intelligence, to what benefit would any of their academic skills be put?

According to CASEL SEL Trends (2018), integrating SEL with academic content has become a growing priority. The integration is happening by fostering academic mindsets, aligning SEL and academic content, making learning interactive, and elevating students' voices.

Increased awareness of the impact that SEL has on academic achievement drives integration efforts. District leaders in Naperville, Illinois, did not see the alignment between academic content and SEL as something additional that had to teach. For them, it meant improving instructional practices to align with the higher cognitive demands of the Common Core State

Standards in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and the Next-Generation Science Standards.

Self-regulation, or self-management, has been identified as a critical skill for keen learners, yet it is not a trait that students are born with (Zimmerman, 2002). It involves the selective use of processes that need to be modified for each learning task. Pintrich (2000) defined 67 self-regulation as an active constructive process that learners use to set their goals, monitor, and control their cognition, behavior, and motivation. Self-regulated learners are in charge of their learning, and they show persistence, ability to reflect and to adapt themselves in order to reach their learning goals. Teachers who have the most interactions with students play a significant role in creating self-regulated learning environments (Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008;

Liew & McTigue, 2011). Teachers can create positive learning environments through scaffolding, and structuring opportunities for exploration as well as giving students immediate performance feedback (Thomas, Strage, & Curley, 1988).

Furthermore, a large body of research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs are essential for self-regulated learning (Pajares 2003; Wigfield, Ecdes, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis Kean,

2006; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). "If people believe they have no power to produce results, they will not attempt to make things happen" (Bandura 1997, 3). Academic self-efficacy predicts persistence on a steep learning task and is associated with positive academic achievement (Bandura, Саргага, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Liew,

McTigue, Barrois, & Hughes, 2008; Wigfield et al., 2006).

SEL and CLT compatibility

Academic success and social-emotional skills are correlated (Collaborative for Academic,

Social and Emotional Learning 2003; Liew and McTigue 2010; Weissberg et al., 2015), and there are various explanations as to why. Nevertheless, there is not much literature that connects how SEL can mitigate the challenges of teaching constructively. Constructivist practices have been linked both to high achievements, and the optimal conditions needed to engage Generation

Z students (Polákova and Klímová, 2019). For example, many researchers agree that cooperative 68 learning can have a positive effect on student achievement (Slavin, 2014; Durlak et al., 2011;

Farrington et al., 2012; Sklad et al., 2012), and there are different explanations as to why. Slavin

(2014) identifies a motivational perspective in which he claims that social interactions act as a reward that enhances students' motivation to learn. Other theorists suggest that the effect of cooperative learning on achievement is more cognitive as interactions among peers allow for cognitive elaboration or restructuring of the material (Schunk, 2012). Further, according to the developmental perspective, social interactions lead to increased mastery via adult scaffolding and the contributions of peers in different zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).

Nevertheless, social-emotional skills may enhance academic competencies because they provide explicit teaching of the cognitive skills utilized in the process of knowledge construction.

Weissberg et al. (2015) made the claim that SEL is associated with long-term outcomes of school success. Students are more successful at school when they take the perspective of others and make better social decisions. Further, emotional and academic competencies may be linked not only because social-emotional skills lead to positive self-efficacy, confidence, empathy, persistence, and commitment to school (Weissberg et al., 2015). Instead, they may be linked because the process of learning and acquiring emotional skills help students explicitly learn and handle constructivist-related skills such as cognitive assimilation and dissonance (Piaget, 1993), growth mindset (Dweck, 2006), perspective taking (von Glasersfeld, 1992), communication

(Vygotsky, 1962), and taking ownership over one's learning (Hein, 1991). Additionally, grit and persistence are social-emotional characteristics and skills that scientists often depend on.

Researchers emphasize this to science students, as these non-cognitive skills are essential for 69 success in long-term goals (Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik & Worrell, 2015; Duckworth,

Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly, 2007).

Conclusion The purpose of this literature review was to explore why constructivism is an elusive theory to implement and how SEL practices affect its application. Despite the many different types of constructivism, the foundational guiding principles (Heins, 1991) maintain that learning is active, ongoing, is cognitive, involves language, a social activity, contextual, based on prior knowledge, takes time, and requires motivation. Empirical research regarding the effectiveness of the constructivist approach on learning reveal mixed results (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010;

Colburn, 2006; Bredderman, 1983; and Shymansky, Kyle, & Alport, 1983), which have been hypothesized to be a result of poorly integrated teaching methods into instruction (Lebak, 2015;

Capps & Crawford, 2013; Furtak, Shavelson, Shemwell, & Figueroa, 2012; Hmelo-Silver,

Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). According to Lederman (2008), we still have not developed an adequate professional development for teachers that will help guide their planning and delivery of inquiry lessons. Hannafin, Hill, and Land (1997) argue that student-centered approaches embed in a constructivist epistemology. Tangney (2014) claimed that constructivism provides a basis for framing the concept of student-centered education by researchers. Still, in the same token, he noted that the lack of a clear definition of student-centered learning is also associated with constructivism in the pedagogical literature.

Research evidence from 213 studies indicates that SEL boosts students' academic achievement and positive social behavior while reducing students' conduct problems and emotional distress (Durlak et al., 2011). The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional 70

Learning (CASEL) defines self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and social awareness as the five core competencies in the heart of social-emotional learning (CASEL, 2013). Since social-emotional learning (SEL) is positively linked to enhanced academic achievements, teachers are pivotal in guiding students' learning of both social-emotional skills and the construction of knowledge. Their beliefs affect their decision-making (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector & DeMeester, 2013; Ng, Nicholas and Williams,

2010), and their sense of familiarity and self-efficacy influence their selection of instructional pedagogy (Temiz & Topcu, 2013). It is possible, therefore, that DD's structures and practices can act as mitigators that enhance academic achievement and more successful implementation of constructivist learning. It is the purpose of the ensuing investigation, therefore, to explore a possible connection between SEL structures set by DD and their use and occurrence in constructivist teaching pedagogy. The insights gained from this investigation will help bridge between theory and practice as well as add to the body of literature in an area that is current, relevant, and much needed to be understood. 71

CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore and identify how teachers who trained in a Social-Emotional approach made constructivist pedagogical decisions. This type of case study is often used to explore situations (constructivist-based teaching) in which the evaluated intervention (social-emotional approach) has no clear, single set of outcomes (Yin,

2003). This study was designed to help bridge between the theory of constructivism and its practice, improve students' outcomes, and enrich the literature about the intersection between social-emotional learning and constructivist learning theory. It is, therefore, an instrumental study as, in addition to understanding the constructivist learning theory, it also sought to provide insights into an issue or help refine the implementation of the theory (Stake, 1995). The specific case, SEL, was of secondary interest; as it played a supportive role in facilitating our understanding of something else, i.e., CLT. Instrumental cases are often looked at in-depth because they help pursue an outside interest (the implementation of CLT) (Stake, 1995).

The central research question for this study was how do teachers, who participated in social-emotional learning programs, overcame challenges faced by constructivist learning strategies? How did they apply this elusive theory in practice? This question utilized teachers' beliefs and decision-making as theoretical frameworks to identify and correlate to their practice.

Both frameworks were selected to frame this study as vehicles to give context and interpret the data because teachers' decision-making affects their pedagogical choices (Shavelson & Stern,

1981). Teachers' beliefs further influence pedagogical decisions (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, &

DeMeester, 2013). Six urban teachers who have been trained by Origins for SEL in Providence, 72

Rhode-Island served as the target population. They were observed and interviewed, and the data

gathered was compiled as a qualitative case study to answer the research question in mind.

Research Paradigm

Thornhill, Saunders, & Lewis (2009) compare research design to an “onion” where the

outer layer corresponds to the research philosophy which can help identify the type of evidence

needed, how to collect it, and how to interpret it (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe, 2002)

(Figure 1). There are three main theoretical research paradigms that researchers tend to use.

These paradigms include positivism, post-positivism, interpretivism (Merriam, 1988). Each of

these theories carries different assumptions, goals, types of data to be collected, and outcomes.

The research philosophy, or the outer layer chosen for this study, is interpretivism. According to

interpretivism, our reality is constructed through social interactions with others (Thornhill et al.,

2009).

The main assumption of this philosophy is that reality is the product of social

construction rather than objective fact. The investigator cannot be separated from knowledge and

positionality and needs to be part of the study and interact with the subjects. The interpretive

approach examines and describes the world as well as searches for patterns and meanings, and

therefore the "data" would be the act of making meaning. The data that an interpretivist would

collect would be mainly qualitative, and the outcome of the research would be a co-constructed

view of the research problem in question. This co-construction is a constructivist approach

through which hidden meaning is brought up to the surface through deep reflection (Schwandt,

2000), and dialogue between the researcher and the participant (Ponterotto, 2005). Ultimately, 73 the main goal of this approach is to emphasize the "lived experience" from the one who lived it

(Schwandt, 2000).

Figure 3.1. The Research Process, or the, “Onion” (Thornhill et al., 2009) ​ ​

The next layer of the research design “onion” is the research approach which defines how we construct meaning from the study (Thornhill, Saunders, & Lewis, 2009) (Figure 3.1). As opposed to the deductive approach, this qualitative study will use inductive reasoning to make meaning and build theory. The inductive approach necessitates that the researcher gathers data and subsequently develops a theory (Yin, 2017). Crawford (2007) maintained that the inductive approach is conducive to set off more explanations from the participants. This approach would, therefore, contribute to the development of theory both from the researcher and the participants.

The deductive approach, on the other hand, would not be ideal to use in this study. It is driven by a hypothesis or a theory that is used to inform the research strategy that tests the theory formed

(Thornhill, Saunders, & Lewis, 2009). Therefore, a deductive approach is more suitable for a positivist study in which there is only one reality. Lastly, contrary to the deductive approach, the 74

inductive path leads to a cycle where one observes and reflects on experiences to form abstract

concepts (Gill & Johnson, 2002). This approach lends itself perfectly aligned with the

methodology of this study.

Research Methods

Creswell (2013) describes research methodology as a strategy. It is a plan of action that

determines the choices made, methods, as well as the outcome. The research strategy, the next

layer of the 'onion' utilized in this qualitative study, is the case study design (Figure 1). Both

Robson (2002) and Yin (2017) maintain that case study research design is the most preferred

method when the main research questions are "how" or "why," the researcher has little or no

control over behavioral events, and the focus of the study is a contemporary phenomenon. The

current study satisfied all three conditions as it investigated a present case in a real-world

context. This approach makes use of multiple sources of evidence and, therefore, is superior over

other methods or strategies when the "how" or "why" questions answer behavior (Creswell,

2013).

The essence of a case study is in its central tendency "to illuminate a decision or a set of

decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result" (Schramm,

1971). Lastly, Snape and Spencer (2003) claim that qualitative research is an

interpretive/naturalistic approach that is aimed to characterize the meaning people attribute to a

given phenomenon within their social settings. Understanding the decisions and meaning that

teachers attribute is the focus of this study. This study, therefore, was a cross-sectional

exploratory case study that investigated how DD trained teachers' beliefs affected their 75

decision-making during teaching and their application of constructivist learning theory in

practice.

This study utilized a single-case study design. Dyer, Wilkins, and Eisenhardt (1991)

maintain that single-case studies are appropriate when the researcher's goal is to formulate a

high-quality theory because this type of case study produces a more comprehensive theory. They

also state that single-case studies lead to a deeper understanding of the explored topic.

Additionally, Siggelkow (2007) says that single-case studies result in a more detailed description

of the existence of a phenomenon. Yin (2003) also argued that a single-case study is more

advantageous when the researcher wants to study a person or a group of people and question

older or existing theoretical relationships. Lastly, another benefit of single-case studies is that

they are not as expensive and time-consuming as multiple-case studies are (Yin, 2003).

Population and Recruitment

Following the IRB approval letter from Northeastern University (Appendix A), I actively

started to recruit participants for the study. To gain permission and access to the research site and

participants, I requested and obtained authorization from the district's superintendent (the head of

school) and school principals (see Appendix B). I explained to them the purpose of the study; its

logistics and gained benefits to the school. A select group of teachers from the Bourns School,

who fulfilled the criteria for participation in the study, were invited to take part in the study via a

solicitation email. This recruitment email provided necessary information about the study and

encouraged potential participants to ask questions about it (Appendix C). A $30 Amazon gift

card was offered as a token of gratitude for participation in the study. Since an insufficient

number of participants volunteered after one week of the email receipt, I sent a second wave of 76

personalized emails in order to recruit more participants, and I was able to draft a total of six

teachers who were qualified to participate. The participants of this study were made aware that

their participation is strictly voluntary, and that they could cease their participation at any time.

In order to ensure the objectivity of the participants and not to influence their behaviors

and responses, the full extent of the research topic was not fully disclosed to them until the end

of the study. They were initially told that the aim of the study was to see if and how

social-emotional training affects teachers’ decision-making in the classroom. After data

collection was completed, the full extent and specific focus of the study, to specifically explore

constructivists-related pedagogical decision-making, was disclosed to all participants via a

personal email (See written disclosure statement in Appendix D). Other provided information in

the informed consent (Appendix E) is the extent to which confidentiality was to be maintained,

and the potential ways in which the data might be used (Corti, Bay, Backhouse, 2000).

Sampling Strategies and Criteria

Denzin and Lincoln (2011) argued that under purposive sampling, personal judgment is

used to select cases that will best answer the research questions and objectives. Purposive

sampling technique was used to select research participants. The guidelines by (Gay et al., 2009,

as cited in Walker, G.J., 2014, pp.73-74) were adopted as a way to ensure that the sample

represented the given population equitably. For this study, suitable participants were identified

by using sampling criteria which include: having a valid Rhode-Island teacher certification, the

willingness to participate, length of teaching experience (at least three years), grade level taught

(middle and high school), DD training and implementation experience (at least two-three years),

and an even distribution across disciplines taught. There were a total of six participants in this 77

study, with an equal number of participants from each gender, and discipline area taught. There

were also equal numbers of Middle and High School teachers. Random pseudonyms were

assigned to participants to protect their confidentiality. Table 3.1 below is a visual summary of

the participants:

Table 3.1 A Summary of Participants’ Demographics ______Participant’s Race Age Gender Educational Yrs Yrs of DD Subject Taught Pseudonym Level Teaching Experience

______

Aaron White 47 M B.A 20 10 High School Math

Bella White 37 F B.A 14 12 High School English

Cole White 36 M Masters 13 8 High School History

David White 43 M B.A + 20 13 Middle School Math

Sarah White 30 F Masters 9 6 Middle School English

Fiona White 29 F B.A 8 4 Middle School Math ______Note: Overview of the Participants’ Pseudonym, Race, Age, Gender, Educational Level, Number of years teaching, Number of years of DD experience, and Subject taught. * All participants hold a valid Rhode-Island Teaching Certificate.

Protection of Human Subjects

The participants of this qualitative case study were not harmed due to unethical or

harmful treatment during or after the study. Protection of Human Subjects Regulation 45 CFR

46, requires any organizations that conduct human research and receive federal funding to

establish an IRB for the Human Subjects Review Board at Northeastern University. An IRB

application, therefore, was developed to obtain permission for this research project. The IRB

application included a brief description of the purpose of the research, the participants sought, 78

the research methodology, the researcher's qualifications to conduct the investigation, the risks,

and benefits involved in the research, as well as of how the researcher was to obtain the informed

consent (Seidman, 2006).

Due to the small size of the study site community, it was made clear to participants that

confidentiality was not assured within the school site. Nevertheless, a coding system was used to

protect the identity and confidentiality of the participants. Additionally, all written

documentation from the study will be kept in the researcher's possession for two years to be used

in conferences, presentations, articles, and books, and participants will be offered access to a

preliminary copy of any publication that may come out of this research. Lastly, since teachers'

observations were videotaped, a notice went home to students' families to inform them of the

study and to provide contact information for questions and concerns (Appendix K).

Reciprocity

Reciprocity of interviews refers to the mutual concessions and compromises of social

interactions that may be used to gain access. During interviews, disclosures become

conversations that yield rich data (Harrison, MacGibbon, & Morton, 2001). Patton (2002)

claims, "participants in research provide us with something of great value, their stories and their

perspectives on their world. We show that we value what they give us by offering something in

exchange" (p. 415). The give and take of interviews can also be therapeutic to patients "What

specifically is therapeutic about the interview process is the unburdening effect of the

respondents saying, safely, whatever they feel... The therapeutic dimension of a good interview

is part of what [I] return to [my] participants" (Glesne, p. 85, 1992). During interviews, empathy

and listening were communicated throughout. If not conducted carefully, the interview could 79 yield a distorted reality. As Josselson (2013) noted in his book, "We are aware that as researchers, we are the authors of our interpretations". Conducting the interview, therefore, in a manner that will offer participants a positive experience in exchange for sharing about their lived experiences.

Atkinson (1998), and Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2012) all emphasized the importance of the researcher to adapt during the interview process. Adaptation means that flexibility and listening skills are efficient when guiding an interview, and when hearing something of interest or an experience that the participant is engrossed in describing one should not rush into the next question on the agenda. Rubin and Rubin (2012) argue that an interview should not be rigid.

Instead, the designed questions are general conversational guides, and the interviewer should respond spontaneously to what she or he is hearing. Being a good listener also means being able to assimilate new information without bias (Yin, 2017). This approach allowed being open for the possibility of generating new theories that could emerge from the data as well as enable the participants to use the interviewing platform as a way to process and freely share their thoughts.

The information revealed through an 'adaptive' interview, in which responsiveness to the situation and flexibility of the interview questions asked, was applied, which guided my inductive approach to meaning-making.

Lastly, according to Rubin & Rubin (2012), research interviews have three possible types of questions: the main questions, follow-up questions, and probing questions. The follow-up and probing questions help keep the conversation going, guide in how to respond when a participant's responses are short or unclear, as well as keep the relationship between the researcher and 80

participant interactive rather than the researcher acting as a research tool. I, therefore, utilized

these three types of questions.

Data Collection

Data collection was through multiple measures and in three phases. Various means of

qualitative data were taken to increase the quality, reliability, and construct validity of the

evidence gathered (COSMOS Corporation, 1983). Further, the use of multiple sources of

evidence in case studies broadens the range of issues and the ability to develop a converging line

of inquiry (Yin, 2017). The triangulation of the data can help see the intersection of various data

points and can be more convincing than a single source of information (Basu, Dirsmith, &

Gupta, 1999; Cronin, 2014).

In phase one of the data collection, teachers were requested to submit their lesson plan 48

hours before teaching the proposed lesson, to be observed. The most important uses of

documents in case study research are to corroborate evidence, information, and to elicit further

inferences (Yin, 2017). Physical artifacts are used extensively in anthropological research as they

help develop a broader viewpoint than one that can be obtained only during a visit or limited

timed observation (Yin, 2017). The lesson plan was reviewed prior to conducting observation,

analyzed for SEL and CLT strategies, pedagogy, and to gain context for the observation.

In phase two of the data collection, period-long direct observations were conducted at the

teachers' school. Observational evidence can provide useful information about the topic being

studied, and it can offer unique opportunities to gain access to the real-world setting, as it allows

us to see the reality from the viewpoint of the insider, and produce an accurate description of the

phenomenon studied (Yin, 2017). Direct observations can also reveal information that cannot be 81 obtained through other data collection methods such as behaviors and processes that the participant chooses to report, is not aware of, does not recall (Furlong, 2010; Mays & Pope,

1995; Morse, 2003; Mulhall, 2003). Lastly, another advantage of the observational method is that it occurs in the natural context and allows contextual factors to be examined (Morgan,

Pullon, Macdonald, McKinlay, & Gray, 2017). I conducted the observations in this study as a non-participant observer, where the researcher is merely a passive observer and is not part of the group (Quinlan, 2008). I directly observed, transcribed, and noted how the participants behaved in their environment as it unraveled in real-time (Mulhall, 2003). The observations were videotaped via mounting a smartphone on the mini-robot Swivel, which rotated the phone to ​ ​ follow the teacher and videotape as the teacher moved about the classroom. This video was uploaded to my personal computer to enable me subsequent access to potential missed data due to my inability to capture multiple and simultaneous events (Collier, Phillips, & Iedema, 2015;

Cronin, 2014; Forsyth, Carroll, & Reitano, 2009).

The observational instrument that I used as part of the protocol for this study were structured templates (Appendix F) through which I attempted to capture specific strategies, teaching moves, language, CASEL’s SEL skills and competencies, structures that are associated with SEL's DD approach and are associated with CLT. Using a structured template (Walshe,

Ewing, & Griffiths, 2012) is one option of recording data during observation, as opposed to unstructured field notes. Although this structured method seems a bit contrary to allowing emergence, it was needed to guide the observation since specific practices were examined. This method, therefore, was selected to help me focus on the observation. Nevertheless, informal, unstructured notes were taken, as well. 82

The last and third phase of data collection consisted of the administration of an electronic survey via google forms to measure teachers’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment and the conduction of semi-structured interviews. The classroom environment, or the climate, is the social atmosphere of learning. Fraser (1994) views these learning environments as the social-psychological contexts or determinants of learning. While observations of classroom teaching and interviews with classroom teachers can provide valuable insights into the classroom learning environment, they do not tell the whole story (Fraser, 2001). The Constructivist

Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was, therefore, used to assess teachers’ perceptions of the classroom learning environment. This instrument was originally developed by Taylor, Fraser, &

Fisher, (1995) and it consisted of 28 items, seven each in four scales – Autonomy, Prior

Knowledge, Negotiation, and Student-Centredness. The CLES was later revised by (Taylor

Fraser & Fisher, 1997) to incorporate a critical theory perspective, resulting in the CLES 1(30), and subsequently by Johnson & McClure (2004) to create the CLES 2(20) which rephrased one ​ negatively worded item, shorten the number of items, and grouped items into blocks according to their scale.

Many empirical studies confirmed the validity of the CLES instrument as it accurately measured information about teachers' perceptions of the learning environment and teachers’ beliefs about learning (Aldridge, Fraser, Taylor & Chen, 2000; Dorman, 2001; Harwell, Gunter,

Montgomery, Shelton & West, 2001; Kim, Fisher & Fraser, 1999; Lucas & Roth, 1996; Roth &

Bowen, 1995; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Waggett, 2001). The CLES 2(20) consists of 20 questions clustered into five scales that were developed from a critical constructivist (Taylor,

1996) lens, which recognizes that the student’s cognitive constructive process occurs within the 83 constraints of the socio-cultural context. This lens draws our attention to the social environment of the teacher and the student. The five scales of the CLES are: personal relevance, critical voice, uncertainty, shared control, and student negotiation (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 The Constructive Learning Environment Survey (CLES) Scales ______CLES Scale Scale Description Sample Item (In my classroom …)

______

Personal relevance Relevance of the content to student Students learn about the world experiences outside of school inside and outside of school

Critical Voice Students ability to question the Students feel safe questioning what teacher, pedagogy, and content or how they are being taught

Shared control The opportunity for students to Students help me plan what they are explain and justify ideas going to learn

Uncertainty An opportunity to exercise that Students learn that explanations knowledge is evolving have changed over time

Student negotiation Extent to which students share Students explain their ideas to other control with the teacher to design students the learning, assessment, and social norms ______*Note: Scale descriptors and sample item for each dimension on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) Taylor et al., (1997)

Permission to utilize and revise the CLES 2(20) was granted by its authors (Appendix G).

Since the CLES 2(20) was originally designed to measure science-related constructivist environments, five of the questions were revised to eliminate the science context and generalize the questions to be relevant to classroom learning in general (See Appendix H for the CLES 2

(20)). An appropriately-modified template version of the Northeastern University-provided 84

"Unsigned Consent Form for Web-Based Online Surveys" was obtained (Appendix I) for the survey portion of this research.

The in-person semi-structured interviews were conducted within two days of the observation in order to avoid memory loss of pertinent details. The semi-structured interview is one of the most important sources of case study evidence (Cresswell, 2013). It allows the researcher to engage in a dialogue, and researchers must have excellent interviewing skills

(Larkin, Eatough & Osborn, 2011; Smith, 2011).

The semi-structured interviews lasted about sixty to ninety minutes long. Per Smith's

(2007, 2011) recommendations, I audio-recorded interviews and subsequently transcribed them verbatim. According to Rubin & Rubin (2012), effective interviews resemble a guided fluid conversation rather than a structured line of questioning. Consequently, as an interviewer, my task was to follow my line of the protocoled predetermined set of open-ended questions

(Appendix J) while conversing, asking questions, and probing in an unbiased manner (Creswell,

2013). When needed, based on their responses, interviewees were asked follow-up questions.

These questions allowed new themes and concepts to emerge during the interview (Creswell,

2013).

The semi-structured interviews were transcribed via the Temi software smartphone ​ ​ application. It is a speech-to-text audio transcription using advanced speech recognition software. Temi maintained a downloadable record of the audio and its transcription and enabled ​ ​ me later to review the time-stamped transcript in order to edit it for accuracy. My interviews invited the participant to open a dialogue through which I explored the depth of their beliefs, understanding, commitment, and interpretation of the constructivist learning theory as well as 85 social-emotional philosophy and practices. During the interview, I also probed about decision-making while teaching and points in which I noticed the teachers deviate from their lesson plan. The interview protocol and questions can be found in Appendix J. If needed clarifications or follow-up after the interview or during data analysis, the participants were contacted via email in order to schedule a quick phone appointment.

To increase the reliability of the case study during data collection, I maintained a chain of evidence in order to trace back how the evidence was derived from the research question to the ultimate conclusion. Maintaining an accurate database, referencing specific citations, and the case study protocol whenever possible will help construct the chain of evidence (Yin, 2017).

Reflexivity Journal and Field Notes

There are two possible primary sources of bias that can impact data collection, analysis, and interpretations of the results. The first possible bias stems from my familiarity with the research site. Although I no longer work there, I taught at the Bourns School from 2005-2017.

This history means that I am familiar with many teachers and students. The second possible source of subjectivity is my close relationship with Origins, as I have been a National facilitator for them since 2008. In this capacity, I have been training teachers and administrators across the

United States in the Developmental Designs SEL pedagogy.

For the purpose of reflexivity, field notes were collected during and after the lesson plan review, observations, and interviews. Some specific techniques that scholars suggested to use to eliminate bias while collecting data include the use of bracketing (Husserl, 1970), reflective awareness (van Manen, 1990), considering historical constraints (Heideggerian, as cited in

Racher & Robinson, 2003) and cultural context (Benner, 1994). Bracketing, in this case, allows 86 the researcher to self-critique, and it explains how his or her experiences influenced the research.

Despite the awareness that biases cannot be blocked entirely, I bracketed my biases in a journal

(Dowling, 2007). This journal included reasoning for methodological decisions, logistics of the study, and personal reflections of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Kohl & McCutcheon

(2015) argued that reflexivity and reflection are the first defense in guarding against biases. Koch and Harrington (1998) used bracketing as a way to meet the needs of reflexivity, which refers to the way knowledge is constructed during the research process. It mainly refers to the effect of the researcher (Malterud, 2001). Reflexivity is recognized by many as an essential strategy in qualitative research (Ahmed-Dunya, Lewando, & Blackburn, 2011; Blaxter, Hughes, & Tight,

2006; D'Cruz, Gillingham, & Melendez, 2007; Gerstl-Pepin & Patrizion, 2009; Kohl &

McCutcheon, 2015).

I bracketed the following in my reflexive journal:

● In what ways did my work history at the Bourns School and Origins impact my data

collection and interpretation?

● In what ways did my - social, economic, educational, professional background –

impacted my data collection and interpretation?

● In what ways did my – race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, – impacted my

research?

● What were my "blind spots" and assumptions, what may have inhibited me from fully

understanding or engaging with my research population?

● In what ways was I complicit in this study? Where did I have the potential to harm? Were

there times where I leaned towards deficit thinking? 87

● Where was there space to learn something new?

Data Storage and Management

All data will be stored online on the google drive on my personal computer, which can be

accessed only by me and the principal investigator. Research notes and hard copies of emails

from participants were stored in a locked file cabinet in my home office. To protect the

confidentiality of the participants, I used random pseudonyms assigned to participants to label

transcripts and notes. All interview field notes, emails, digital audio, and video records will be

destroyed after two years. This two year period will give me sufficient time to present the data to

the research participants, school-site, at future conferences, and professional development

workshops.

Data Coding and Analysis Process

As in any study, data collection and sense-making can take place simultaneously. I

adopted the process suggested by Creswell (2014) to code and analyze the data gathered from

different sources. This qualitative data coding process consisted of six steps (Figure 3.2):

a) Data collection (Lesson plans/observations/survey/interviews)

b) Prepared data for analysis (transcriptions, videos, notes)

c) Read, critically, through the data

d) Coded the data (located/identified text segments)

e) Coded the text for description to be used in the research report

f) Coded the text for themes to be used in the research report

88

All data sources, hence, lesson plans, observation notes, video notes, and interview data were considered to identify categories and patterns of responses. Yin (2003) argued that the danger associated with the analysis phase is if we treat each data source independently, and report the findings separately. To avoid this, I converged and integrated the data to create a chain of evidence, build explanations, and gain a holistic understanding of the case.

Figure 3.2. Illustration of the Case Study Data Analysis Process (Creswell, 2014) ​

My summary and reflective journal notes were used both for the identification of patterns in the data as well as to help code the data with categorical labels. Further, I also utilized memoing to capture ideas or key concepts that occurred as I went over the data. Memoing is an essential component of data analysis as it can lead to valuable insights regarding the researcher's identity and may develop into a vital part of the research report (Crersswell, 2013). Once each lesson plan was collected, it was reviewed and annotated on the margins with questions, observations, and thoughts. 89

The same process was repeated to review and annotate the observation notes and videos collected, as well as the transcriptions of the semi-structured interviews. The transcriptions were read multiple times before coding to become familiar with the critical details in the transcripts.

During the data review, I created descriptors for various statements in the margins of the transcripts, and following this initial data review I grouped salient statements into “larger units of information called meaning units or themes" (Creswell, 2013, p. 193). Each unit or data theme was given a code and was recorded in a table that allowed me to display the data in a way that helped identify patterns. The codified data was stored on my personal computer on a database, utilizing the MAXQDA qualitative data software. Lastly, since multiple sources of evidence were ​ ​ incorporated into this study, data triangulation was used during the data analysis process as well

(Patton, 2002). During data triangulation, the comparison of the findings across the data sources was done, as well as the identification of key findings that were supported by more than one data source (see figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. Illustration of the data Triangulation Analysis Process (Adapted from Lindgren, ​ 2016).

90

Limitations

One of the pitfalls associated with case studies is that the research question may be too

broad or has too many objectives (Baxter & Jack, 2008). It is suggested, therefore, to bind or

limit the case study by specific parameters such as time and place (Creswell, 2013), time and

activity (Stake, 1995), or definitions and contexts (Miles & Huberman, 1994), among others.

Binding the case guaranteed that the scope of the study remained reasonable. Hence, this

particular study was limited to studying school teachers who have been trained by

Developmental Designs and have been implementing their pedagogy. This study took place in

the 2019-20 school year.

A second limitation of the study is that it was based on the context of one school location,

school student population, and all participants were from the same school. Some may argue that

due to the uniqueness of the data, the study could not be repeated. This study, however, was

exploratory and can spark ideas and direction for further research to provide empirical support

for the generated theory. Therefore, this limitation is not a significant obstacle. Another

limitation of this study was the potential subjective bias. As a previous faculty member of the

Bourns Middle School and a Facilitator for Origins, I have preconceived ideas and beliefs about

constructivism and social-emotional learning. Researching both the middle and high school

locations could help distance me from the familiar environment of the middle school, and put it

in perspective. Further, maintaining a reflexivity journal will be used to capture subjectivity and

biased thoughts which I will utilize during the data analysis process to minimize the impact of

my bias on my data. 91

Lastly, another source of limitation was that a computer software program was used to

organize the collected data. One of the disadvantages of using such a program is that it distances

the researcher from the data (Richards & Richards, 1994, 1998). Nevertheless, the researcher's

judgment and integrity affect the choices and use of tools in the analytical processes (St. John &

Johnson, 2000). Additionally, the use of such a program demonstrates greater rigor and

transparency (Wickham & Woods, 2005).

Trustworthiness

Numerous strategies were used in this study to enhance the credibility and

trustworthiness of this study. One way in which I strengthened the credibility and reliability of

the data was by providing great detail about the research question, propositions, sampling

strategies, data collection, management, and analysis so the readers could independently assess

the credibility of the study (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Being descriptive will also allow other

researchers to replicate the investigation as it will lead to a better understanding of the methods

used in this case study (Shenton, 2004). Lewis and Ritchie (2003) define 'reliability' as the extent

to which replication of research findings can be achieved. Complete replication of qualitative

studies, however, is challenging to achieve since the data reflect the present realities at the time it

is collected. Nevertheless, Creswell (2013) maintains that reliability increases through

reflexivity. All interview and observation data, therefore, were recorded and accompanied by

reflexive journaling to provide reliable evidence as to the basis for the subsequent unbiased

analyses.

Using multiple sources of data was another strategy I used to enhance data credibility, or

more specifically construct validity, as it allows researchers to synthesize and converge sources 92 during the analysis (Creswell, 2014; Knafl & Breitmayer, 1989; Patton, 1990, Yin, 2003). Each data source is a "puzzle" piece that contributes to a holistic understanding of the studied phenomenon. This convergence, or triangulation, strengthens the findings of the study (Baxter &

Jack, 2008; Denzin, 1997; Merriam, 1988; Yin, 2017). Construct validity can also be boosted by defining specific concepts in the research and identifying operationalized measures of these concepts and maintaining a chain of evidence (Yin, 2017). These measures were all taken in this study.

Further, to ensure the internal validity of the data, I shared drafts of the interview transcripts with each participant to confirm the accuracy of their responses (Harrison,

MacGibbon, & Morton, 2001). Lastly, one other way, I increased the internal validity of the study by using pattern matching and building explanations as tactics for data analysis (Yin,

2017). The range of strategies adopted here ensure the merits of this qualitative case study and address matters of credibility, confirmability, transferability, and dependability.

93

CHAPTER 4 - ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The primary purpose of this exploratory case study was to investigate a possible

intersection between two popular ideologies that derive much of the educational reforms,

namely, CLT and SEL. Specifically, I asked how do middle and high school teachers who

trained in the social-emotional learning approach apply constructivist-related pedagogical

strategies in practice? This research study includes data generated from lesson plan analysis,

class observations, face-to-face semi-structured interviews, and the administration of a quick

survey to measure teacher perceptions of a constructivist learning environment (CLES). The

theoretical frameworks to contextualize this research, include both teacher-beliefs and

decision-making theories. Participants' profiles, the results of the survey, and the significant

themes that emerged in this study will be discussed in this chapter. This chapter will conclude

with a synthesis of the major themes identified and notes of reciprocity.

PARTICIPANT PROFILES

To assure anonymity, all participants are referred to by a randomly selected pseudonym.

In some cases, participants' names were omitted to maintain their privacy.

Participant 1: Aaron ​ Aaron is a 47-year-old high school Mathematics teacher who came to education as a

second career after working as a project manager for IBM. Aaron has been teaching for the last

20 years at schools located in California and Rhode-Island. Aaron’s first teaching jobs were in

“rough” schools that had student attendance and achievements challenges. When reminiscing on

his favorite high school teacher, he describes her class as rigorous, provocative, and full of fun

and engaging classroom discussions. He describes his teaching style as organic, challenging, and 94 driven by student needs. Through talking to him about teaching, it was evident that Aaron enjoys being a teacher, and he sincerely cares about his students’ well being and their academic outcomes. He finds meeting the varying needs of diverse students to be the most challenging aspect of teaching as he wants to find the balance between pushing harder and slowing down without shortchanging anyone.

Participant 2: Bella

Originally from Illinois, 37-year-old Bella always knew she would become a teacher. She could not imagine not being a teacher. She has been teaching for 14 years and describes her teaching as heavily integrated with the arts, and as student-centered, where “the students are

th doing the heavy lifting and supporting each other.” Her 12 ​ grade English classroom has a casual ​ and comfortable vibe, yet expectations are high. Bella is passionate about intentionally preparing her students for the academic challenges and hardships they may face in college. She believes it is especially crucial for kids of color who are first-generation college-bound since they often interpret these challenges as signs that they do not belong. However, “the more familiarity and academic skills that they feel they have, the more likely they are to adjust and persevere.” This is why she also embeds traditional structures like lectures and quizzes in her pedagogy.

Participant 3: Cole

Cole’s quiet and firm disposition characterized his teaching. Simultaneously, his demeanor also communicated a sense of humor and care. Students felt at ease in his presence, yet they have not let off the hook easily if they did not engage in the rapid sequence of questions he fired at them at the beginning of his lesson. Cole’s father, who was a second-grade teacher, exposed him to education from early on. Cole started teaching at the age of 23 and has been 95 teaching for the past 13 years in New-York and Rhode-Island. He teaches high school History, and when asked about his teaching style, he replied that he tries to find what matters and then find ways to get students interested and or convince them by showing them why or should it matter. He also shared that a student-teacher he once mentored told him that his teaching style was like a giant KWL chart where he starts the lesson with an introduction, what do you Know?

Then the meat of the lesson is like the learning part, and what do you Want to learn, and then the end is a reflection of what did you Learn?

Participant 4: David

David became a teacher because he saw it as something important that would contribute to the betterment of the world. He did some teaching in college and felt successful at it. Learning also came relatively easily to him as he understood things quickly as a student growing up in a traditional school system. David, who is 43 years old, has been teaching for 20 years. He currently teaches middle school Mathematics and enjoys it. While watching David in his classroom, his care and respect for the students came through. His diligence to support his students' academic struggle was evident in his quick response to their cues, and when he crouched down to their desk level in order to communicate with them. David describes his teaching style as less teacher talk and more discovery-based learning. He aims for students to be independent and "get through things themselves, so they are doing the learning." One of the structures David puts in place to support this teaching style is building routines and being very organized so kids will know what to expect.

Participant 5: Sarah 96

Sarah teaches middle school Humanities, which is an integrated English and Social

Studies class. She went to public school in her town outside of Boston, Massachuset, and earned a college degree in Urban Studies. Sarah always had jobs that focused or related to kids such as camps, babysitting, working at a store, and a baby clothing store. Education was not her major, but after college, she enrolled in a teaching fellowship program opportunity in Boston. This experience sparked her interest in teaching, which led to a subsequent Master's degree in

Education. Sarah is a 30 years old teacher who describes her role in the classroom as a facilitator who is responsive to students' thoughts and learning via the adoption of a project-based and workshop model for teaching. She finds the continuous nature of Education as the most challenging aspect of teaching since there is no stopping point. "I can always look back at what

I've done today or last week or last year and think, how can I improve this? There's always a student that needs more support."

Participant 6: Fiona

Fiona was the youngest teacher who participated in the study. At 29, she already taught for eight years. Fiona attended a traditional school in Rhode-Island and vividly recalled the insights gained from the learning experience in which her teacher simulated the Blue-Brown eye social prejudice experiment. Despite being in the inferior group, she and her peers did not have feelings of retribution since they understood, via this experience, the injustice of racism. Through a comment that her friend’s sister made, Fiona realized that she was well suited to become a teacher. She always wanted to help others and was good at explaining concepts to others. Fiona currently teaches middle school Mathematics, and she expressed that when designing lessons, 97

she always factors-in connecting with students, “and then through those connections, trying to

show them pieces of the world.”

All participants communicated with an attitude of openness and thoughtfulness during the

entire study. The following sections of this chapter will review the analysis of the survey that

participants, the semi-structured interviews, class observations, and lesson plans. The results of

the survey and some of the classroom observations are reported here separately to construct

validity and reliability. The rest of the data was aggregated, per Yin (2003), to avoid treating

each source separately and out of context. Aggregating the data also helped to build a chain of

evidence and gain a holistic understanding of the case study.

CLES Survey Results

The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) is a perception survey that was

taken by all six participants. Its results were averaged and aggregated to the five scales and for

each participant (Table 4.1). The CLES responses were on a Likert scale of 1-5 in which the

lower the number choice, the more constructivist the response was. Specifically, questions

started with “In my classroom … “ and choices were: (1) Almost Always, (2) Often, (3) ​ ​ ​ Sometimes, (4) Seldom, and (5) Almost Never. A response of Almost Always (1) meant that the ​ ​ ​ constructive practice in question was perceived by the teacher to exist almost always in the

classroom. Therefore, when looking at averages, the lowest scores represent higher teacher

perceptions of a constructivist learning environment. Overall, all six participants scored high for

constructivist learning environments, as their group average was 2.1. No participant scored

higher than 2.6, which descriptively would be between the Often (2) and Sometimes (3) ​ ​ ​ ​ categories. Cole and David’s survey results indicated that they had the most constructivist beliefs 98 and learning environments as their averages were 1.8 and 1.7, respectively (Figure 4.1). When looking at the five scales, critical voice, personal relevance, and student negotiation scored the lowest, or as high on the CLES (Figure 4.2). These results also show that when looking at which of the scales carries more weight for each teacher, as evident by low scores, for Bella, and Sarah, it was ‘relevance’ for Aaron, and Fiona it was ‘critical voice’. For David, it was the scale of

‘negotiation’. Cole showed two scales as equally important to him. These were personal relevance and critical voice. The results of this survey were further triangulated and discussed in the context of the major themes that emerged by looking at the other sources of qualitative data collected, namely: lesson plans, class observations, and teacher interviews.

Table 4.1 CLES Results for the Six Participants in this Study and by Each Survey Scale ______

Personal Uncertainty Critical Shared Student Average Relevance Voice Control Negotiation

______

Bella 1.3 1.8 1.5 3.0 2.3 2.1

Aaron 2.3 3.8 1.3 3.0 1.8 2.4

Cole 1.0 1.8 1.0 2.3 2.3 1.8

Sarah 1.0 2.5 1.3 2.5 1.8 2.0

David 3.5 2.8 1.3 1.8 1.0 1.7

Fiona 2.3 3.5 1.5 2.5 2.8 2.6

Average 1.9 2.7 1.3 2.5 2.0 2.1 ______​

99

Figure 4.1. The Averages of the CLES Survey Results by Participants. Note: The lower the ​ average, the more constructivist teacher perceptions and beliefs are.

Figure 4.2. The Averages of the CLES Questions by Scale (showing that critical voice, ​ personal relevance, and student negotiation are the aspects that the six participating teachers most believe in and strive for in their classrooms.)

Per Cresswell’s (2014) recommendations, three out of the four sources of data, lesson plans, classroom observations, and interviews were reviewed critically and coded in MAXQDA for text description and themes. Initially, a total of 458 segments were coded into 48 descriptors 100

and later divided into five categories, which included pedagogy, DD practices, SEL skills,

Teacher Beliefs, and Decision-making. Some codes overlapped and could be classified into more

than one category, while a few other codes remained as stand-alone since they did not belong to

any category. Classifying the codes helped see the bigger picture and see any overlaps.

Furthermore, significant themes that emerged, as data overlaps and repetitions, were viewed

through the theoretical framework constructs of this study. Namely: CLT pedagogy,

social-emotional teacher beliefs, and SEL.

THEME 1: SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL TEACHER BELIEF OF STUDENT-TEACHER

RELATIONSHIPS

The first glaring theme is the teachers’ belief in the importance of student-teacher

relationships. This concept was repeated more than 30 times throughout the review and analysis

of the data. Consistently, participants stated their belief that the student-teacher relationship was

vital to their decision to go into teaching, their identities as teachers, as well as in their

conceptualization of the role it plays in teaching and learning. Student-teacher relationships are

operationalized, for this study, as intergenerational interpersonal bonds between teachers and

their students (Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004).

1.1: Favorite teacher

When asked who was their favorite teacher growing up, all participants were able to

recall a teacher from their past rather quickly. Talking about this particular positive figure

triggered a smile on their faces. Three of the teachers explicitly mentioned that their reason to

select this individual was the relationship that they formed with him or her. 101

Bella. "I have a lot of favorite teachers, which makes me feel very fortunate. The one that ​ I keep in contact with is Mr. Kappa. He was my art teacher at this school and I had a really great relationship with him. I spent a lot of time one-on-ones with him. We would sit in his office and talk for a long time. He was definitely a mentor to me in a lot of different ways. And his wife as well. She was a theater teacher, and she did not teach at the school, but I became almost a member of the family" (Doc Interview # 2, Pos. 4).

Cole. "My favorite teacher was a high school history teacher. His accessibility and ​ humanity, so to speak, stood out the way that it wasn't an otherness or a lofty. You know, he wasn't apart from us. It was the way that he would engage, and make the content more accessible. It was kind of like having conversations. His interpersonal ability … was more sociable and more in line with my personality I guess. And we had similar interests in sports and movies and things like that" (Doc Interview # 3, Pos. 4).

David. "It was my seventh and eighth-grade math teacher. He was known before I had ​ him as being really good. So I think I went in with a positive impression. I think he explained things very clearly, and he was very organized so you always knew what to expect. He clearly cared about all of his students" (Doc Interview # 4, Pos. 16).

1.2: Rewarding aspect of teaching

When asked what the most rewarding aspect of teaching was, the theme of interpersonal relationships with students surfaced as well. It also transcended through teachers' wishes to see their students succeed.

Bella. "The most rewarding aspect is relationships with students. That they are feeling ​ empowered. I like seeing kids who have graduated and follow up on their progress and them 102 feeling like they have the tools. I also think I just like those moments that click that come together and when a kid is excited about something and passionate about it, that is where I get the most bang. I also really like the moments of transformation and success. So a kid who has really struggled with something and has really done the work and has that moment. I think that, for me, it is really rewarding" (Doc Interview # 2, Pos. 4).

Cole. "The most rewarding? ... the relationships with the students. Especially with seniors ​ like my years seem to have an ebb and flow that are fairly predictable where in October the honeymoon is over. It is starting to fall, you know, a little bit darker outside and things are tougher. And then there is sort of this big push and uplift before the holidays and getting excited about the college application process and that kind of thing. And then there is like the spring slump of senioritis" (Doc Interview # 3, Pos. 4).

Sarah. "The most rewarding aspect of teaching for me is when students demonstrate their ​ growth and progress in response to a new challenge. I have had students who said they hate reading at the beginning of the year report proudly to families at conferences how many books they had completed in the trimester. There was a situation last year where a group of students came to me when they felt uncomfortable about something a classmate said. I listened as they ran an incredibly mature conversation with the student laying out their boundaries and expectations for his behavior. It does not always happen, but when I get a glimpse of how the work we do every day has been internalized, that is the most rewarding thing for me" (Doc interview # 5, Pos. 29).

Fiona. "The first thing I think about is the relationship. So if you do not have a good ​ relationship with those students, then they are not going to be able to learn as well if they are 103 focused on other things. They might be thinking, "Oh, she doesn't like me. This teacher hates me. ​ She is picking on me" (Doc Interview # 6, Pos. 15). ​ 1.3: SEL and academic connection

Lastly, when asked if they thought there was a connection between SEL and academic achievements, all participants agreed that the two variables are linked. They tend to see social-emotional learning and skills as prerequisites for forming positive relationships and a safe community. Aaron felt strongly that the high attendance rate indicated that students saw school as a place where they belonged. "There is a strong culture at the high school that teachers are there to help students since they are all on the same side. We achieved this by having advisories in which students and teachers could connect." Interestingly, however, when I further probed about the academic connection during teaching and learning time, Aaron asked: "What made you connect that (SEL) to the academic aspects of it?"

When asked the same question, Bella thought that SEL was necessary to create an influential culture and a healthy community. Being seen, heard, and supported helps kids feel safe to make mistakes that are a necessary part of the learning process. "You cannot be president in a classroom if you are amid major trauma. I think creating space in the morning advisory to sort of help with the transition from whatever happened before into the school day is really important". Similarly to Bella, David and Sarah also thought of social-emotional learning as connected to the community. For David, SEL is learning how to interact with other people in the community. "The more connected the kids feel to a community, the more they will be able to do their best work. When students feel safe in that academic space, they are going to be more willing to take risks and to talk to other classmates". Sarah further argued, "Social-emotional 104 learning is our community membership ideas of being supportive, thoughtful, respectful, safe and scholarly. If you, as a member of our school community are aware of how your actions affect other people, then you are making choices based on what is going to be best for you and also best for the community. Then the choices that you are making as a student are going to support a learning environment".

Cole also conceptualized the connection between SEL and academics as dependent on student-teacher relationships. He expressed that he tries to focus, in this teaching, on the student and classroom relationship first "If these are built-in, then the academics will naturally fall in line as students will be more invested and willing to ask for help." Teaching history, for Cole, should matter on a personal level. If students can not connect to it then they are just remembering things. He, therefore, focuses on the social-emotional. "I also focus on it because that is what I enjoy, and being a teacher is that relationship." Lastly, Fiona argued that if students are not able to process feelings or an interaction between them and her, they may misinterpret the situation, and could cause a scene in class. Having SEL skills impact them in a positive way "because if they have built up those positive relationships and they have all those coping mechanisms, you can see a student take a moment and take a breath. They start having themselves take a break".

Positive student-teacher relationships teachers’ beliefs were not just empty statements.

They were noted, observed, and confirmed in all teachers' classrooms. The bond between teachers and students was evident in the relaxed atmosphere, sense of safety, use of humor, the body language of teachers when they interacted with the students. It was further confirmed by the open displays of affection when visiting alumni students came into the classroom and hugged the teacher. When assisting students through independent work, all teachers lowered themselves 105 to the students' desk level and talked in low volume to respect students' privacy. All high school teachers laughed with their students at one point in the lesson. Aaron told his students that the

Swivel necklace, which enabled the video recording to track his movement throughout the observation, was a Christmas gift from his mother so she could Skype him at any time. Bella burst out laughing during check-in with small groups of students about the Toni Morrison book they read. Empathy and support were offered by Cole, who told his students to come to see him so they will "figure something out together" if they "did not feel" the given assignment. In Bella's class, I overheard a conversation she had with a student who did not hand in the work. With her warm demander, she told the student that she loved and cared about her, but was not thrilled with her procrastination and expected her to hand in the work.

Boundaries and high expectations were maintained in all classes as teachers presented students with tasks that were aligned to grade-level common core standards, and expected to be completed. All teachers actively circulated the classrooms during independent work and provided either direct support or subtle encouragement to students. These subtle encouragements have been coined by Sugara Mitra (2013) as the grandmother effect, as academic success and ​ ​ confidence are linked to positive reinforcement even if provided by an untrained adult bystander who witnesses the learning.

Conclusion

The centrality of student-teacher relationships came through participants' reports of their favorite teachers, rewarding aspects of teaching, and in their perceived connection between SEL and academics. All these observed teacher behaviors provided strong corroborating evidence to the belief and the presence of strong student-teacher relationships. Questions raised by this theme 106

include: Is the intergenerational bond between students and teachers a precursor for creating a

safe risk-taking intellectual environment in which one can teach constructively? Does one need

to be extensively trained in constructivist pedagogy in order to create such an intellectual

learning environment? Or is social-emotional training sufficient in taking relationships to the

next level and leverage such an intellectual environment in order to obtain rigor in inquiry and

pursuit of uncertainty?

THEME 2: THE ENIGMA OF CONSTRUCTIVISM IN LIGHT OF LACK OF TRAINING

IN IT

The second major theme is the discrepancy between teachers’ training and knowledge of

constructivism and their self-identification with it. Four of the teachers did not know what

constructivism was, yet once defined, all teachers identified themselves as constructivists.

Furthermore, none of the teachers received a professional development offering that trained them

in the constructivist philosophy or pedagogy. Given that “constructivism in practice is embedded

in ambiguities and tension” (Windschitl, 2002), the questions raised by this enigma are: is

teachers' self-assessed constructivist nature an accurate one? Moreover, if so, how did they come

to adopt constructivist practices?

2.1: Constructivist teacher knowledge and training

Due to the sensitivity of the responses, and to honor participants' confidentiality, the

findings are reported here without revealing teachers’ identity. When asked, "what do you know

about constructivism?" only one teacher out of the six interviewed felt confident to answer this

question. He quickly said, "I invented it." Yet, he did not recall formally learning about it in his 107 teaching preparatory program. He thought that he learned about it when he started to work as a teacher, "I started learning the names of things like constructivism and scaffolding and all those things. I was like, oh, I already did that. Yeah. It is really funny because I am a good old school on the board lecture, but I consider myself to be very much a constructivist. I particularly like setting up a situation that allows students to make connections to work between what they know and what the new thing is. I try to use anticipation and allow kids to think through things. I think that even though I derive a fair amount of it by being at the board, there is a ton of constructivism in the way that I teach".

This teacher also shared his frustration with those in the educational field that have shifted towards pure constructivism. "I am very annoyed with people who think that you should put a bunch of kids in a room with a blank piece of paper, and they will figure out mathematics or something like that. That is frustrating because our students' lives are important, and if we're experimenting with how to teach them instead of teaching them, that's doing them a disservice.

So I love constructivism, but I hate everyone else." He then proceeded to laugh. This teacher also claimed that rote memorization should not be eliminated "I'm pro-constructivism, but I think that if you go too far with anything, it will start to break down."

The second teacher that knew about CLT replied, "I have not taken a course or anything, but I think that the definition I would have for constructivism is that students acquire knowledge through the way students approach a question. It could also be a problem they approach, and they build the answer by accessing the knowledge that a teacher is hoping that students will access by working with that problem and trying out solutions. And so they're constructing their knowledge.

That is what I understand constructivism to mean ''. 108

When asked the same question, the other four teachers said that they did not know what constructivism was and then proceeded to ask if I was allowed to tell them what it was or if they were allowed to guess. They also shared that they did not learn about CLT in their teaching preparation program, and could not recall if they got any direct professional development on it over the years. Once I defined and described the basic premises of CLT, they all displayed facial expressions indicative of remembering or recalling a distant memory.

When questioned what they thought about constructivism, all participants expressed favorable opinions. One teacher said after I described what CLT was, "That's when I think the highest learning happens. And for me, that's very much rooted in constructivism. Another teacher responded, "I think that makes sense. I try and hope to do that with many of my lessons".

Alternatively, "I feel like that mirrors decently with what I was thinking about my style of teaching. So, yeah, I would say that's the kind of thing I try to do which is to create lessons that kids can get through themselves so that they are doing the learning and can discover as much as it can be. So, there is less direct teaching." Lastly, another teacher who heard about CLT but did not know a whole lot, said that it was how she taught "I have them figure it out."

2.2: Constructivist teaching styles

One of the questions participants were asked during the semi-structured interviews was to describe their teaching styles. Table 4.2 below displays the keywords that each participant chose to describe his or her teaching style with an ‘X.’ I further marked these keywords with an ‘O’ when I found evidence for these from the classroom observations and or the lesson plans.

Interestingly, almost all teachers described their constructivist style as student-centered, 109 discovery/project-based. Also, more constructivist pedagogy was recognized in the class observations than the teachers have self-identified.

Table 4.2 The Keywords Teachers Used to Describe their Teaching Style ______Aaron Bella Cole David Sarah Fiona

______

1. Clear Expectations O O O O X O O X

2. Critical Thinking O O O O X O X O

3. Discovery/Project-Based O X X O X O X X O

4. High Expectations O X O O O X O O X

5. Humorous O O O X

6. Prior Knowledge O O X

7. Organic X O O X

8. Personal Relevance O O X O O X X

9. Relationship-Based O O X O O O X

10. Student-Centered O X O X O O X O O X

11. Student Autonomy O O O O X O X O X

12. Student Reflection O O O X O O O ______*Note: Keywords teachers used to describe their teaching style are marked with an ‘x’. The ‘o’ represent that these descriptors were identified by the researcher during teacher observations and or lesson plan analysis.

When looking at the nine guiding principles that Hein's (1991) identified to be at the foundation of constructivist thinking: (1) Learning is an active process, (2) People learn to learn as they learn, (3) The crucial action of constructing meaning is mental, (4) Learning involves ​ ​ language, (5) Learning is a social activity, (6) Learning is contextual, (7) One needs knowledge to learn, (8) It takes time to learn, and (9) Motivation is a crucial component of learning, it 110 further validates that what teacher identified as constructivist is indeed so. Student-centered teaching practices require the consideration of principles 1, 2, 3, and 5, whereas designing discovery or project-based learning necessitates principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Also, the fifth constructivist principle, learning is a social activity, is well supported by the critical voice score of 1.3 on the CLES. Critical voice means that students can question their learning, and for this to take place constructively, the foundation of student-teacher relationships are essential to establish

(Mitra, 2003).

Lastly, when this data was triangulated with the CLES survey, all six participants scored high for constructivist learning environments, as their group average was 2.1. The importance of relationships can also be seen in Table 4.2 as teachers had the majority of the descriptors present.

Fiona, who scored the highest in the CLES (hence the least constructivist) (Figure 4.1), also had the least numbers of constructivist descriptors in Table 4.2. Fiona's findings help confirm that teachers' self-perceptions, self-reports, and classroom observations were all in alignment, which increases the reliability and validity of the data. Students in most classrooms worked collaboratively to find solutions and share their ideas.

Conclusion

Despite the lack of formal knowledge and training in constructivism, the teachers in this study identified themselves as teaching constructively. They also perceived their classrooms as constructivist environments, and have been independently observed to display constructivist pedagogical choices in their classrooms. If not through formal training, how did they obtain these pedagogical skills? Is it through the Developmental Design social-emotional training? The evidence that came to light by examining the data via this theme points out that formal training is 111

not necessary for teachers in order to teach constructively. It is more than likely, despite not

knowing the definition for constructivism or having any formal training in it, that the

Developmental Designs program mitigated for this lack of training. DD introduced the

philosophy and best practices that are inspired by constructivism and aligned with it. As some

teachers pointed out, Developmental Design is a “philosophy with a toolbox of best practices.”

Developmental Design is indeed a constructivist approach. My next question is, does DD

training lends itself to particular constructivist practices or type? Are there particular

constructivist practices or skills that DD training does not include, as evident in teachers

practice?

THEME 3: SUBCONSCIOUS DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN PEDAGOGICAL

DECISION-MAKING

The third theme in this study reveals a dissonance between teachers’ pedagogical

application and the conscious awareness of its origin. In addition to the puzzlement described in

the second theme regarding the disparity between formal CLT knowledge and practices, a similar

pattern emerged when it came to the application of DD practices.

3.1: Developmental Design training and teachers’ thoughts

When asked to describe their DD workshop training experience, participants used words such as

transformational, positive, great, best practices, immersive, informative, a good system, and

important. Furthermore, they also noted that the workshop modeled how to create a sense of

family and gave their community a universal language. Most interestingly, they also described

DD as a philosophy with a menu of tools "DD is not about TAB Out and all those explicit 112 structures. It is really about a whole philosophy. This philosophy informed the way that the school is run". Not even one participant described this workshop negatively or not valuable.

Aaron described the first years of DD, as implemented in high school as challenging and incorrect. Teachers misunderstood it and did not hold students accountable for making poor choices "students came to perceive us as permissive. That if you did something bad, you didn't really get a consequence and teachers had to remain calm and respectful. It was very stressful, and there were kids who took power in the classroom. It was not until a DD trainer came here and named students' behavior as defiance. The behaviors we had were not kids making mistakes.

Rather, it was kids intentionally acting up and the system we created enabled it. And so, I will forever be grateful to him for that because that helped us to sharpen our understanding of what the whole philosophy was about. It does not mean anything goes, which I think was the misunderstanding that was happening here at the beginning." (Doc Interview # 1, Pos. 4)

3.2: Social-Emotional structures: proactive and reactive pedagogical decision-making

During the interview and lesson plan review, I looked for signs for both proactive and purposeful DD structure weaving during pedagogical planning and reactive DD application of on the spot response to teaching that did not go as planned.

Proactive DD pedagogical decision-making: When teachers were asked if they ​ ​ purposefully incorporated DD structures when planning lessons, they had a hard time recalling if it was a DD structure that they incorporated or not. They tend to think of DD advisory structures as specific to behavior prevention, relationship, and community building, and did not see how they appeared in other areas. 113

Aaron: "The problem with me is like overtime; if I incorporate teaching practices, I do ​ not remember anymore that I incorporated them. Like my teaching has really evolved over 20 years, but I could not tell you anymore what the explicit strategies I am employing are because I just do it." (Doc Interview # 1, Pos. 4)

Cole: "I could not point to anything that is specifically DD, but that does not mean that it ​ is not. The advisory morning meeting (CPR) is DD ... So I do use that model of the loop, for example, plan, work, and reflect. So let's plan for a game or for an hour of work at their desks before releasing them (the students). That is the kind of stuff I would consider more of. It is

Developmental Designs, best practices, you know, kind of toolkit." (Doc Interview # 3, Pos. 4)

David: "DD was so long ago now that I do not remember. There may be things that I'm ​ doing that are DD, but I don't remember. At this point, the conscious thinking about whether this is a DD thing or not is not really there. Hopefully, some of those practices are there because they are sub-conscious or unconscious at this point." (Doc Interview # 4, Pos. 112)

Both Bella and Sarah applied some DD structures to academic time. Bella was not so sure about the origin of the practice and incorporated structures to support a positive and autonomous community, such as acknowledgments and modeling. Bella: "I use a lot of feedback structures. ​ ​ That is DD, right? And this is one thing I like. I do not know if it is like strictly DD, but I think we did it as part of our DD training. I do a lot of sort of temperature stuff. I think like sort of structures and games … I am also very deeply invested in acknowledgments in all parts of my teaching." Bella mentioned other DD structures that also support constructivist pedagogy. "I do the modeling process, and my room is very fluid, so my desks are in rows, but then we very often 114 will go in big circles or smaller groups. My kids are pretty good at doing that fairly quickly and making those transitions pretty quickly." (Doc Interview # 2, Pos. 4)

Sarah's use of DD structures to support academic pedagogy, on the other hand, included structures to support academic discourse and collaboration. "Everything that we practice in the morning circle, like allowing for other people to have a voice, listening to other's voices, sharing our thinking, and bringing up topics that are interesting to us. All of those things translate really well to the humanities classroom. I think especially because we have discussions, we share our thinking about texts. I think that the same skills are really transferable from advisory to the academic period. DD focuses on providing students with autonomy, competence, fun, and relationships. I really factor these needs when planning units. Help students feel a sense of competence, offer a choice for autonomy. At the beginning of my class, we start in the circle that kind of is reminiscent a little bit of the share portion from the CPR (Circle of Power and Respect) because it is helpful as a check-in for me about what my students are reading, and it's really helpful for students to hear what their peers are reading as well. It is sort of a sharing model and a collaborative learning opportunity." (Doc interview # 5, Pos. 60-66)

Lastly, Fiona acknowledged communication skills, discourse opportunities, scaffolding, transitions, and redirections as DD structures that support her academic planning. Both Fiona and

Sarah recalled many of the names for the DD structures and named some that they purposefully incorporated into their lesson and unit planning. Their ability to recall, connect, and name these structures better than the other teachers may be because they have been the most recent ones to have been trained by DD. Sarah about six years ago, and Fiona two years ago (Table 4.3). They also happened to be the youngest teachers, 30 and 29 years old, respectively.

115

Table 4.3 Developmental Design (DD) Training Year by Teacher and Program Type ______Aaron Bella Cole David Sarah Fiona

______

Year took DD1 2011 2009 2012 2009 2013 2018

Year took DD2 2013 -- -- 2012 -- --

Years of DD Implementation 10 12 8 13 6 4 ______*Note: Some teachers have started to informally implement DD when they started to work at the Bourns school, and received formal experience when available. Therefore, they have more DD experience than their actual formal year of training may indicate.

Reactive DD pedagogical decision-making: To gauge reactive decision-making teachers ​ ​ ​ were asked what factors they often consider when they react to teaching, that does not go as planned. This question was designed to explore if, how, and what DD practices had an impact on spontaneous pedagogical decisions? Again, just like in assessing proactive strategies, some teachers had difficulty labeling the practice and whether it was DD in origin or not. When looking at their responses, teachers said that they first tend to question their clarity and pedagogical choices. They then proceed to consider environmental factors that may have contributed to the unexpected outcomes. Teachers' internal questioning ranged from questions like: "Did students have enough background knowledge? Was I clear enough? Did I take anything for granted?" to "Did students feel safe enough to take intellectual risks? Were their needs met? What can I do to support their learning? Furthermore, all teachers tended to be responsive to the unexpected outcome and did not hesitate to use DD aligned reactive strategies that address student behavior. 116

Aaron: "So I am more explicit to the end of the year, and if it does not go well, then I will ​ put in more support and more structure. And if students are following my expectations and staying on task, then I usually let the structure go and I respond to the situation. My most famous teaching move when kids do not get it is that I announce to the class that I am going to leave the room, and they need to discuss and figure it out with their group. Before I leave, I'll repeat the question and make sure that everyone knows what the objective is. I just feel there are times when the energy has gone in such a direction that everybody's nervous to say the wrong thing, and me being there is not going to help it. Me leaving the room is just gonna let everybody let their guard down a little bit. (Doc Interview # 1, Pos. 4)

Cole: "I try to assess how active or passive the students are? Do they understand my ​ questions? Do they understand each other? Are they communicating with each other enough? I like checking the temperature of the room. If I think it's the lesson, then I'll just be very frank and tell them that this isn't going well. I will ask them what's going on, what can I do or what can I change? (Doc Interview # 3, Pos. 4)

Bella: "It's been a long time since I have done my DD training. My gut says that seeing ​ every kid as an individual allows me to react more genuinely and target both social, emotional, but also academic needs. I can see the bigger picture. I am more effective with giving a kid what they need. Sometimes it is clearly academic support and then sometimes it is an issue of confidence. They just feel like they cannot do it even though I know they can. But, I also think it is at the heart of DD to see that growth potential in every kid."

David: "So if I'm doing something new, the first thing that we are thinking about is, did I ​ set the kids up for success? Whether the day before prepared them well enough to do what they 117 needed to do today? If not, I would adjust for it. Then I will still think about other factors such as the time of day, time of year, are the students pushing to do their best, etc." (Doc Interview # 4,

Pos. 98)

Sarah: "The things that I consider are whether my directions have been given clearly, I ​ think about whether I am asking students to complete a task that's at their level or within their zone of proximal development. How is the energy in the room? What students brought into the classroom? I also think about whether I can do anything to reset or reframe what we are doing in class to meet their energy level. Can I bring their energy a little bit closer to what I was looking for? I definitely think about what I can do as a response. If there's something that's gone wrong in my class, that means that my class is a little bit off. So I would be thinking about what I am doing, how I am communicating it, where the students are, and what they might need to hear in order to come back to a productive place." (Doc interview # 5, Pos. 51-58)

Fiona: "Today, for example, I changed my plan on the spot. I realized that the students ​ didn't have enough background knowledge about mathematical symbols. So I added the explicit teaching of the math symbols, 'greater-than' and 'smaller-than,' to the lesson. Also, two of the classes I taught earlier didn't remember enough about the lesson where we showed decimal equivalents. So, I thought it was important to stop and point those out and have them develop some of the language and the vocabulary for it. So, if I see that something is not working for the students, I try and do another example or backup and address what is missing. When students are not on task, the structures that I consciously and purposefully use during content teaching would be Take a Break while making sure my communication is neutral and judgment-free. It is factual and private. I incorporate nonverbal cues and on-the-spot redirection strategies. When a plan is 118 not going well, I also think about the transition to the next activity. Those redirection strategies are helpful. I also react by scaffolding their learning and offer them a choice to give them autonomy, if needed. (Doc Interview # 6, Pos. 36-40).

Conclusion

When asked to describe their DD workshop training experience, participants used a range of strong positive descriptors such as transformational, great, best practices, immersive, informative, and important. Nevertheless, years later, these teachers forgot if the practices they applied were DD in origin or not yet they applied both proactive and reactive DD strategies.

Both strategies are indicative of teachers’ reflective nature, asset-based perspective. They stipulated that the environment and students’ prior experiences contribute to unexpected outcomes, as opposed to blaming it on the students.

Lastly, the themes presented, thus far, lend support to the conclusion that the types of constructivism that teachers’ practices were most aligned with are social and critical constructivism. Teachers factored in their proactive decisions building a positive culture in which students could collaborate, feel heard, acknowledged, and supported. They use student-teacher relationships as a facilitating factor to create these conditions that can, in turn, establish conditions for negotiation and make space for students’ voices.

THEME 4: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF

STUDENTS’ SEL SKILLS AND ACTUAL SKILLS OBSERVED

The focus of the fourth findings that surfaced in this study is the difference between teachers’ perceptions of the social-emotional skills that their students are utilizing and the actual 119 skills observed in this study. Specifically, one of this study’s aims was to gauge students’ SEL skills and how they were applied during content learning? Further, were teachers aware of the

SEL skills that their students leveraged in order to access academics? In order to assess this SEL aspect of the study, a matrix of the CASEL competencies and skills was utilized during class observations (Appendix J). When the class, as a whole, displayed an SEL skill, it was recorded in the matrix. Furthermore, to corroborate the presence of the skill observed, it was cross-referenced with the Rhode-Island SEL indicators for what the skills might look like in each by grade level span (RIDE, 2020).

4.1 Teachers’ perceptions of DD structures and SEL skills students utilized

The pattern that emerged was no surprise. Just like in the previous two themes, some teachers hoped that their students utilized DD structures and SEL skills or guessed which ones they were. Other teachers named structures and skills related to behavioral management and interpersonal interactions.

Aaron: "If you wanted me to speculate, I could say that we do a greeting, a share, and an ​ activity every day, and so more kids are feeling comfortable getting their voice involved in a classroom environment. Maybe that spills over to the academic classes. I think the spirit of advisory at least, let us have kids come in the morning and feel like it is fun and like they belong." (Doc Interview # 1, Pos. 4)

Bella: "I think kids who have had more DD in middle school are better at pausing and ​ reflecting. And so by the time they get to high school, I can interrupt misbehavior and see them go through that process of checking and recalibrating themselves. I also think that they have strong discussion skills. This is true here and in college as we sometimes get reports of how our 120 high school students are often the most likely in their college classes to talk and participate. (Doc

Interview # 2, Pos. 4)

David: "I hope so. I hope that as we practice those skills about how you interact with ​ people, how you treat other people they are (the students) bringing that into their academics.

Especially when they are working with other students." (Doc Interview # 4, Pos. 86-88)

Sarah. "When I get a glimpse of how the work we do every day has been internalized, ​ that is the most rewarding thing for me" (Doc interview # 5, Pos. 29).

Fiona: "I've seen them (students) Take a Break by themselves. So there are some students ​ that will take a break by themselves. I have also seen students tell another classmate right after an interpersonal conflict 'I need to cool down, can we talk about this after?' Or 'I just needed some space.' So it's nice to see when students have conflict, they're saying something. But, I have also noticed that the bystanders are starting to speak up (Doc Interview # 6, Pos. 36)

4.2: Observed SEL skills

Contrary to the above scope of the SEL skills that teachers thought students accessed, a more extensive range of SEL skills, clustered by CASEL competencies (Collaborative for

Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, 2018), was observed. Figure 4.3 below shows the percentage of SEL skills displayed by students in each teacher’s classroom. Aaron’s class, with

84%, showed that students utilized the most SEL skills. This SEL percentage was followed by

Cole and David, whose students tied at 81%. The students with the lowest percentage of SEL skills observed were in Sarah’s class, with 24%.

Interestingly, Sarah focused in her interview about structures to support academic pedagogy, students’ ZPD, discourse, and collaborative learning. In contrast, other teachers tend 121 to focus more on the social aspect of SEL. Is it possible that Sarah’s students needed more scaffolding to bridge between the academic focus and the SEL to support it? When looking specifically at the CASEL competencies of Sarah’s students, they showed the following skills:

0% in self-awareness, 33% in self-management, 25% in social awareness, 25% in relationship skills, and 50% in responsible decision-making. These percentages were consistent with students’ observed flat sense of self-efficacy, solidarity, and goal-oriented behavior that was felt throughout the class observation. Many students wandered the class, worked in parallel next to their peers and did not have a sense of urgency in completing the task. Also, a high number of reactive teacher redirections were noted.

The students in Aaron’s class, in contrast to Sarah’s, showed evidence for 21 out of the

25 skills observed (84%) Figure 4.3). These students scored the highest on self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. These percentages are consistent with the level of independence, colleagueship, and problem-solving that characterized the atmosphere in the class observed.

Figure 4.3. The Percentage of SEL CASEL Students Skills Noted During Class Observations. ​ (Skills observed in a matrix in which they were clustered by the CASEL competencies (Appendix F)).

122

When looking at the summary of CASEL students’ SEL skills by the five competencies

(Figure 4.4), it is evident that relationship skills were the category in which students were most competent in. The importance of student-teacher relationships surfaced in all themes. In the first theme, teachers’ belief repeated itself in different contexts. In the second theme, it was reflected in the critical voice scale of the CLES. As previously stated, for students to effectively question their learning, teachers, and pedagogy, they need to feel safe within the confounds of positive student-teacher relationships (Manning & Saddlemire, 1996; Marshall, 2004). In the third theme, teachers thought of students when making both proactive and reactive decisions. Lastly, in the fourth theme, teachers focused primarily on the social-emotional skills that related to community and safety. This persistence across the themes and measurement tools strengthen the reliability and validity of the findings reported here.

Figure 4.4. Percentage SEL Student Skills Observed in each of the Five CASEL Competencies ​ 123

Conclusion

This last and fourth theme revealed a difference in teachers’ awareness and perceptions

of DD structures and SEL skills that their students utilize as well as having a specific focus. This

difference and focus are significant since it may indicate that students’ abilities are possibly

underutilized. Should the focus of developing students’ SEL skills be on behavioral management

and interpersonal interactions? What would happen to the academic rigor and outcomes if the

focus shifted to complementing cognitive skills? What would happen if teachers were more

aware of which specific SEL skills they taught and how to link them to cognitive tasks more

explicitly? Knowing how to suspend thought and tolerate ambiguities when grappling, can come

in handy for students when engaging in a compare and contrast task. Lastly, could the low scores

on self-awareness and self-management CASEL competencies (Figure 4.4) correlate to low

constructivist scales of uncertainty and shared control (Figure 4.2)? These questions, and the

previously raised ones in the other themes, will be further discussed in the next and final chapter

in which implications and direct applications will be highlighted.

Synthesis of Themes

The four salient themes that this study revealed include:

1. The centrality of social-emotional teacher belief of student-teacher relationship

2. The enigma of constructivist teaching in light of lack of training in it

3. Unconscious DD pedagogical decision-making

4. Difference between teachers perceptions of students' SEL and actual skills observed 124

An element of perplexity can characterize all themes as they further evoked a further

curiosity. The most surprising aspect in the first theme, teachers' SEL beliefs about the

importance of the student-teacher relationship, is that most teachers saw the connection between

SEL and academics as centered around relationships. This aspect led me to wonder about

purpose and impact. What is the intended purpose of teaching and learning SEL skills? Would it

have a different impact on students' outcomes if the intent was to leverage higher-level cognitive

skills? The second theme in this study, the enigma of constructivism, makes one wonder how did

the teachers in this study implement constructivist pedagogy if they have never heard or learned

about it?

Furthermore, the third theme, sub-conscious pedagogical decision-making, was not

foreseen either. The majority of the teachers claimed they recalled very little about DD, yet their

practices were aligned and incorporated both in their proactive and reactive pedagogical

decisions. Lastly, the fourth theme revealed a difference between teachers' perceptions of the

SEL skills that their students accessed and the actual skills that they displayed during the class

observation. These unexpected perplexities are, to some extent, a good outcome of the study as it

provided evidence for the minimized subjectivity in the analysis of the findings. Subjectivity will

be further elaborated on in the reflexivity section below.

Reflexivity

Crewell's (2013) assertion that reflexivity boosts reliability helped increase control and

awareness of subjectivity in this study. While biases could never be eliminated or blocked

(Dowling, 2007), bracketing the experiences in this study helped question my interpretations and

decisions. As evident by the unexpected themes, the impact of my bias was not robust. 125

Identifying unexpected themes also reflects that the study provided the space for new information and new learning to surface.

Nevertheless, possible "blind spots" or assumptions that may have inhibited me from fully understanding or engaging with my research population is my knowledge of the shift in the school's philosophy around SEL, and the changing leadership at the school. I am also aware that in the past few years the school had less and less trained DD teachers, and that the school is possibly shifting towards another type of SEL training. Being focused on the DD approach may have prevented me from seeing what else was present in the teachers' framework. Another assumption that I made when designing this study was that teachers were already familiar with constructivism, and they had some knowledge and experience with it. My problem of practice, research question, and choice of research site were all driven by this assumption. Once I became aware of my assumption, during the interviews, I provided an on the spot definition and a brief explanation of CLT. This definition was not operationalized ahead of time and may have guided or elicited certain responses. It is important to note that this assumption played a significant role in this study, as it also shaped my second theme.

In addition to my reflexive notes, as a way to minimize bias, I used an independent resource that provided explicit indicators for each student's social-emotional skill observed

(RIDE, 2020). This resource helped corroborate or objectify my observations of students' SEL skills. This authentication was essential for the reliability and validity of the observations since many of the high school students I observed were my students when they were in the 6th grade.

My reflexive notes also revealed reflections and concerns about the ways I was complicit in this study. One concern that I had was about not disclosing upfront the full topic of the study. 126

This concealment was purposeful to avoid influence on teachers' behaviors and opinions.

Nevertheless, once the study was completed, the full extent of the study was revealed. The

second concern about my potential to harm was when making observations in Sarah's class. Her

students' displayed a lower percentage of SEL skills during the timeframe of the observation.

Like any observation that is out of context, it is easy to interpret it via a deficit thinking

framework. It is critical, therefore, to note that it is only one cross-sectional observation that may

look differently given another day.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity noted in the process of conducting the interviews was mainly in the form of

realizations and clarity that some participants gained during the interview. Specifically, the

participants that did not know about CLT have learned something new. Frequently, not being

able to name or give a label to a phenomenon can be frustrating as it can limit one's ability to

communicate about it, research it, or to dig deeper and improve its practice. Having the word

'constructivism' added to their academic vocabulary may help the participating teachers do the

above. These teachers, therefore, can now give a label to describe their teaching philosophy and

practices more succinctly. Additionally, the results of this study may help bring the participating

teachers consciousness and clarity about the discrepancies found between their practices, their

ability to trace their source, and identify SEL behaviors displayed in the classroom. Doing so can

help these participants gain a deeper understanding of their beliefs, pedagogical decisions, and

how these inform their teaching. This further reinforces the value and power of self-reflection in

education. Teachers will never truly understand their role/influence in the classroom unless they

prescribe to Parker Palmer’s (2017) notion that we ‘teach who we are’. 127

Another point of reciprocity was the impact of my probing questions. Some participants made on the spot realizations as they shared information, and others were intrigued by the questions asked. For example, David realized that his perception of his favorite teacher might have been tainted by this teacher's good reputation. "And he was known before I had him as being really good. So I think I had a positive, .. Hmmm, it's an interesting thing to think about it like that. I went in with a positive impression. That is something interesting" (Doc Interview # 4,

Pos. 16). Aaron, on the other hand, was probed by the question about the relationship between

SEL and academics. Instinctively, he started to reply by saying that they are connected.

Nevertheless, he suddenly paused and asked: "What made you connect to the academic aspect of it?" Probing questions are often used in coaching, and they are intended to solicit more profound thoughts (Thompson-Grove & Frazer, n.d.). Helping teachers make connections and think more deeply are both strategies to improve practice. Professional growth occurs when we engage in focused conversations around evidence of teaching and learning as well as an understanding of our roles as teachers (Ley, 2011).

Finally, at the end of the interview, Fiona asked for feedback about her teaching. She had specific questions in mind and saw this an opportunity to improve upon her practice. While the feedback I provided was limited, due to the focus of the study, I was able to share the complete scope of the study and my observations of her students' SEL skills. She found these useful.

128

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Study - Revisited

The problem of practice that this study was designed to investigate is how two

educational theories that inspired significant educational reforms, SEL and CLT, manifest in

practice. Given that CLT is a fussy and complicated theory to apply in practice (Wilson, 2012),

this study aimed to examine CLT through the lens of the SEL context. Furthermore, if the

Bourns School implements SEL pedagogy and SEL pedagogy is linked with higher academic

achievements, why is it that student achievement is still lacking? This study sought to shed light

on the synergy between abstract theory and a concrete program that is in alignment with it.

Specifically, the research question that operationalized this study was how do middle and high

school teachers who are trained in social-emotional learning apply constructivist-related

pedagogical strategies in practice?

The frames of reference used to investigate and answer this question were teacher-beliefs

and decision-making theories. The four salient themes that surfaced in this study are: (1)

social-emotional teacher-beliefs of student-teacher relationships, (2) the enigma of

constructivism in light of lack of training, (3) sub-conscious pedagogical DD decision-making,

and (4) the difference between teachers' perceptions of students' SEL and actual skills observed.

The interpretations of the themes will be discussed, in this chapter, within the context of the

research question, problem of practice, and theoretical frameworks. This chapter will also

discuss the study's limitations and significant implications for practice, policy, and scholarship,

and the suggestion of a new theory, Social-Emotional Constructivism. It will then end with a ​ ​ final conclusion. 129

Interpretations of Research Findings

In relation to the research question

How do middle and high school teachers who trained in social-emotional learning apply

constructivist-related pedagogical strategies in practice? Based on the data compiled and ​ analyzed, it is clear that the teachers in the study used their relationships with students to

unwittingly and unconsciously leverage constructivist pedagogy. The first theme reflects the

centrality of student-teacher relationships in the way the teachers attributed relationships to their

favorite educators, relationships as the most rewarding aspect of teaching, and the connection

between SEL and academics. Teachers also saw relationships as an integral part of creating a

safe environment in which students could personally connect and take intellectual risks. These

intellectual risks can be seen in the personal relevance, critical voice, and student negotiation

scales of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey results (CLES).

While personal relevance is concerned with the connectedness of the students and the

content learned, teachers would need to make use of their knowledge and understanding of their

students in order to find an access point of connection (Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997). The

critical voice was reflected both by teachers’ attitudes expressed during the interview and

teachers’ wishes to empower their students as seen in the low CLES score (1.3 out of 4). Student

negotiation did present itself, for example, during Cole’s observation. Students respectfully

probed and provided critical commentary about their teacher’s line of questioning. They did so

with ease, reflecting the friendly exchange and challenge they posed to their teacher.

Example 1: Student: (Before class started) How does history change? Maybe we should look for a pattern? 130

Cole: History doesn't repeat itself, it just never changes.

Example 2: Cole: What is political Ideology? I don’t know what ideology means. ​ Student: Yes, you do. We did the four I-s in English Cole: I don’t teach English (Other students laughing) Student: OK. It is ideas people have about politics Cole: So these are political leanings. Can I use the word leaning? Student: Yes

Student negotiation extends beyond traditional social activity in which students help each other. It requires students to justify and explain their ideas, actively listen to the viability of their friends' ideas, and then critically reflect on their own. For this to take place in the classroom, an empathetic and safe environment needs to be established so students will share freely (Taylor,

Fraser, & Fisher, 1997).

Secondly, in further addressing the research question, it is evident that teachers' application of CLT was partial and not purposeful. Most teachers did not know what constructivism is nor have they ever been trained in it, and while there was much evidence reflecting the existence of CLT practices, not all CLT practices presented equally. The constructivist practices that had the weakest indicators on the CLES survey were uncertainty and shared control. Uncertainty speaks to Hein's (1991) first foundational constructivist principle; learning is an active process. This principle can also speak to the aspect of uncertainty in the cognitive process of knowledge acquisition as knowledge is evolving, and is subjective. It also speaks to the inquiry-based nature of constructivist tasks. The second weakest practice on the

CLES survey was shared control, which refers to allowing the students to explain and justify their ideas, as well as providing the opportunity to help the teacher design the learning content and educational experiences. While I saw evidence of students explaining and justifying their 131 ideas in the class observations, there was no evidence for students' involvement in pedagogical planning.

Lastly, the DD teachers in this study leveraged several aspects of social and critical constructivism. However, putting in place a DD structure that can support constructivism does not necessarily mean that the constructivist practice is optimized. The structure can help graze the surface, but not necessarily give it depth. Sarah’s assertion that advisory time is a sharing model that brings collaboration opportunities is true. However, collaboration in a true constructivist manner means that students are negotiating and constructing their own meaning with their peers.

In relation to the research problem of practice

Two main concerns were originally highlighted. The first is the unknown additive effect and synergy of two educational reforms, and the second is the low student achievement data. As various educational reforms continue to emerge in the face of nationally poor student achievement, teachers may be negatively impacted as they are challenged in keeping up with the growing demands (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). The research of this study demonstrates a clear synergy between SEL and CLT. Teachers who have never learned about constructivism utilized a constructively aligned pedagogy and generalized it in their practice. It seems, therefore, that DD, which is a constructivist-based program, bridged for the lack of formal learning of CLT. Teachers used a safe community, responsiveness to students' needs, and relationships in order to leverage student motivation. While doing so, they also unknowingly practiced constructivist pedagogy. 132

Furthermore, these results indicate that DD may mostly lend itself to social and critical constructivism in which relationships and a safe community are vital for successful social learning and placing student voices at the center. Social constructivism is built on Vygotsky's idea that learning is highly dependent on social interactions (1962). Cooperative learning experiences such as group projects, jigsaw puzzles, and peer tutoring are all aligned with social constructivism (Davidson, Major, & Michaelson, 2014). Since there were critical constructivist practices, such as uncertainty and shared control, that were weaker in the study, it is also evident that DD training by itself is not sufficient in order to implement a coherent constructivist framework that is purposeful and comprehensive.

Similar to the national performance data, the Bourns School can be characterized with the same student outcomes. It is concluded here that low student achievement at the Bourns School may be one of the outcomes of a lack of comprehensive understanding and implementation of a coherent CLT framework. As evident by the empirical findings referenced in chapter two, successful CLT implementation depends on a multitude of factors. These factors include specifically defined student-centeredness from a cognitive perspective, teachers in the role of architects who produce structured learning experiences, inquiry combined with hypothesis testing and debates, post-learning student reflections, contextual and relevant content, scaffolded teacher discourse, teachers' high self-efficacy, growth mindsets, and uncertainty of tasks. Given that recent reforms, such as the Common Core standards, are inspired by constructivism (Porter,

McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011), it is not only relevant but also necessary that teachers will have a comprehensive understanding of constructivism. 133

Another interpretation that may account for the low student achievement at the Bourns school is teachers' understanding of how SEL and CLT are connected. The teachers in this study saw SEL as a prerequisite for creating a safe community and positive relationships. This understanding, in turn, translates to optimal conditions for intellectual risk-taking. While this is true and very important, I believe that it also represents a missed opportunity to see the connection between the cognitive demand that academic tasks necessitate and the social-emotional skills that enable it.

The following Common Core Mathematics standard can illustrate this relationship.

Standard CCSS.MATH.PRACTICE.MP1, which states, "Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them", requires a student to interpret the problem, solve it, and show persistence in order to demonstrate proficiency. From an SEL perspective, a student would need to leverage the following CASEL SEL competencies and skills: self-awareness (accurate self-perception, recognize strength, self-confidence, and self-efficacy), self-management (impulse control, stress management, self-discipline, self-motivation, goal-setting, and organizational skills), and responsible decision-making (identify problem, analyze solutions, solve problem, evaluate, reflect, and have ethical responsibility). These constitute a total of 16 SEL skills that the student would need to access in order to meet proficiency of this one academic standard.

Another example of the complementary and necessary nature of the relationship between

SEL and academics can be seen in the following English Language Arts Common Core standard:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.6.1 "Engage effectively in a range of collaborative discussions

(one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners on grade 6 topics, texts, and issues, building on others' ideas and expressing their own clearly." This standard essentially 134 requires collaboration, discourse, and reasoning over text. The number of CASEL SEL skills that typical students would need to access in this case is 25. These include self-awareness (accurate self-perception, recognize strength, self-confidence, and self-efficacy), self-management

(impulse control, stress management, self-discipline, self-motivation, goal-setting, and organizational skills), social-awareness (perspective-taking, empathy, appreciate diversity, and respect for others), relationship skills (communication, social-engagement, relationship-building, and teamwork), and responsible decision-making (identify problems, analyze solutions, solve problems, evaluate, reflect, and have ethical responsibility).

These SEL skills are often implicitly expected of students while they engage in cognitive tasks. Nevertheless, students are expected to utilize skills that they were not taught or may have taken the adults who wrote the Common Core standards years to learn, through time, trials and errors. Can this nation afford to take a chance and wait for generation Z’s students to absorb these skills by osmosis, if they are lucky enough? It seems that a more purposeful and integrative framework needs to be applied to teaching and learning so outcomes would be more equitable and successful for all.

In relation to the theoretical frameworks

What do the data and revealed themes mean in the context of the theoretical framework selected for this study? What do they reveal about the theoretical frameworks? Do they agree or disagree with the review of the literature? Or do they contribute anything new to their tenets?

One of the theoretical frameworks of this study is the decision-making theory. The specific decision-making theory selected for this study is intimately linked to teacher belief (Kim et al., 2013). Other decision-making theories assume that teachers' experience and prior 135 knowledge take precedence to one's pedagogical beliefs (Boschman, McKenny, & Voogy

(2014); Davis et al., (2011). The results obtained from this study support the first theory by Kim et al. (2013) as teachers' had no prior experience or knowledge of constructivism. Nevertheless, they have been able to implement practices aligned with it.

Teachers' pedagogical decisions were, unknowingly, constructivist-based because they aligned with their beliefs. Observations, interviews, and survey results all pointed out that teachers' decisions and practices were consistent with Hein's (1991) foundational principles of constructivism. A few examples that illustrate this alignment are:

1. Learning is active - Cole's questioned posed to the students about what could he have

changed in his lesson

2. Students learn as they learn - Bella's growth mindset as seen in her belief of the potential

in each child

3. Learning is a cognitive process- Cole's use of the loop in which students plan and reflect

4. Learning involves language- Fiona's pause to revisit definition in Fiona's math class

5. It is a social activity - Bella's use of the circle, and Sarah's incorporation of academic

discourse and collaboration opportunities

6. Learning is contextual- Seen in David's revisiting the previous day's activities

7. One needs knowledge to learn- Fiona's revisiting mathematical symbols

8. It takes time to learn- Seen in Sarah's consideration of zone of proximal development,

and Fiona's use of scaffolding)

9. Motivation and understanding relevance is crucial for learning- Seen in Sarah's

consideration of students' needs 136

The data in this study also supports Gűn's (2014) determination that expert teacher decisions are motivated by their "heads and hearts" equally. The teachers in this study felt accountable and responsive to students' needs, developed excellent relationships with students, and had an interactive and student-centered decision-making style. This responsiveness was seen in the study by Aaron's “famous” teacher move when something in his lesson does not go as planned. Gűn (2014) also argued that expert teachers had implicit knowledge, which might account for their inability to identify the reasons or motivation behind their decisions. This phenomenon was noted by Bishop and Whitfield (1972) as idiosyncratic decisions. This implicit knowledge and these idiosyncratic decisions were seen in the study when teachers could not identify or name the origin of their practice as DD.

Another theory that can explain teachers' inability to identify their practices is the Four ​ Stages of Competence Theory, whose origin is not known. This theory suggests that there are ​ four stages of learning: unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, unconscious competence, and conscious competence (Mink, Owen, & Mink, 1993). When learning something new, individuals 'don't know that they don't know' and are often unaware of their incompetence; therefore, they are at the unconscious incompetence stage. Conscious incompetence is the next stage in which individuals recognize the incompetence and are now aware of what they don't know. Subsequently, conscious competence, in which individuals gain new knowledge and skills and are now aware of them, is developed. Eventually, they use this knowledge and skills so frequently that they become second nature, and individuals acquire unconscious competence

(Adams, 2011; Curtiss & Warren, 1973; Hansen, 2012; Flower, 1999). 137

Individuals who develop unconscious competence of specific knowledge and skills are like experienced drivers who do not need to consciously think about how to operate a car or move about in traffic. They mastered a skill, are very good at it, yet they lack the cognitive awareness of the steps and context (Jarrard, 2019). This automatic pilot mode confirms decision-making theory’s assertion of the use of schemas and scripts as part of teaching (Borko, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Roberts & Shavelson, 2010; Shavelson, 1986; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). It is highly possible ​ that the DD teachers who could not recall the origin of their practice are unconsciously competent DD practitioners, as evident in their aligned and stable DD practices, despite this lack of awareness.

Furthermore, despite the unconscious application, teachers' proactive and reactive processes in their decision-making were evident in this study. The DD incorporated strategies that were integrated proactively during lesson planning differed from the reactive ones that were applied when reacting to teaching that did not go as planned. Proactive strategies included DD practices related to building a positive culture in which students could collaborate, feel heard, acknowledged, and supported. Reactive strategies, on the other hand, focused on empathetically supporting students in their productive struggle. Other reactive and spontaneous teacher responses included questioning themselves, the environmental factors, students' zone of proximal development, the need for scaffolding, and students' prior knowledge. Again, despite not always having an awareness of the practice or its origin, teachers applied DD aligned practices in both the proactive and the reactive scenarios and enhanced the conditions for constructivist pedagogy.

Teacher-beliefs is the second theoretical framework in this study. Ajzen and Madden

(1986) saw teachers' beliefs as a way of gaining insights into their practices. Ng, Nicholas, and 138

Williams (2010) further argued that beliefs could be used to understand decision-making. Both

claims were supported in this study, as evident by previous assertions made here of how the data

in this study illuminate teachers' practices and choices.

In addition to the SEL beliefs, primarily about student-teacher relationships, all of the

teachers in this study claimed that they felt very confident to implement the SEL expectations of

the school. This level of confidence reflects their sense of self-efficacy, which, in turn, impacts

their practice. Temiz and Topcu (2013) found that teachers' low self-efficacy regarding their

beliefs about their constructivist teaching predicted low implementation rates. Further, teachers'

beliefs about the nature of learning, constructive or behavioral, affect their pedagogical choices

(Shavelson & Stern,1981). Self-efficacy and teachers' beliefs, are, therefore, extremely important

to consider in light of the contention that CLT is challenging to implement (Windschitl, 2002).

Limitations

Four potential limitations are highlighted here. As with any study, there are limitations to

this exploratory case study. First, although a sample size of six is legitimate in qualitative studies

(Cresswell, 2008) and the scope of the research was bound in order to keep it focused (Creswell,

2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995), this study presents the views of six teachers in

one school setting. Therefore, analytical generalizations should be made with caution (Yin,

2013). Second, the relationship between the participants and myself could pose as a potential

limitation. Before this study, I worked at the Bourns school and interacted with most of the

participants who also knew of my extracurricular involvement as a Developmental Design

facilitator. This familiarity and knowledge may have discouraged participants from sharing

information that they deemed as disparaging the school or the Developmental Design program. 139

Third, given my history with the school and students, I tried to minimize my bias as much

as I could. I used the RIDE SEL indicators as a guideline to increase the objectivity, integrity,

and validity of the data. Yet, it would have been helpful to have another independent observer in

order to corroborate the SEL skills observed in students. Finally, the scope of the research was

initially intended to be narrowed to the high school only. However, due to the limited number of

DD teachers trained and recruited, it was expanded to the middle school. The developmental age

difference of the two student populations may be reflected in the variation of SEL skills

observed. Nevertheless, in hindsight, collecting data from two different age spans and buildings

helped strengthen the validity of the results, as there was consistency across the two populations

of students and teachers alike.

Implications and Recommendations

The significance of this study can be characterized by a new understanding of an elusive

theory, the constructivist learning theory, and how to mitigate the challenges associated with its

implementation. Woven with this understanding are recommendations that can make a

substantial difference in the field of education. The implications and recommendations are

detailed below and are grouped by practice, policy, and scholarship sub-categories.

Implications for practice

What are the implications of rethinking the purpose of teaching SEL in practice? What

would happen to the academic rigor and student achievement if SEL training were to be framed

and positioned to support students' productive cognitive struggle as opposed to mainly

cultivating positive culture and meaningful relationships? Viewing the relationship between SEL

and academics as focused mostly on relationships and safety may have a negative impact on 140 students' ability to actualize their full potential. On the other hand, viewing the relationship between SEL and academics as focused on the cognitive aspect of learning can open up the gateways to academic success. I believe that the integration of SEL and academic skills will mitigate the challenges in implementing the Common Core standards, as well as for implementing a robust theoretical framework that can lead to students' conceptual understanding, and learning that is more aligned with 21st-century demands.

The teachers in this study implemented SEL pedagogy to support the well-being of their students. They also had high expectations and felt gratified when their students succeeded academically. It is recommended, therefore, that they continue with this practice, and further align their academic standards with the CASEL social-emotional competencies and skills to support them. Once this alignment is mapped out for every teacher, and grade level, it is further recommended that scope and sequence efforts are collaboratively organized in order to set direction and specific goals that can guide implementation. This process and subsequent implementation will also help teachers become more accurate when identifying students' social-emotional skills that are utilized or not accessed during an academic engagement.

Student engagement is one of the tenets of the instructional core (Cohen & Raudenbush

& Ball, 2003; City et al., 2018; Hawkins, 1974) (Figure 2.2). Engagement, by conventional definitions, often means that students are compliant, attentive, and not disruptive (City et al.,

2018). Nevertheless, the constructivist perspective would beg to differ, and so will the instructional shifts of the common core standards. Compliance is a surface level engagement that neglects the cognitive lift that students are expected to make. Often, it is a challenge for both teachers and students to improve practice if the tools to do the work are not provided. SEL 141 integration is the key to the support teachers’ need to improve how they engage students.

Highlighting SEL and academic integration is also recommended for the Developmental Design program, as its participants tend to focus on the behavioral and relationship-based social-emotional aspects and neglect the cognitive ones.

A second implication of the study is the impact of unconscious decision-making, especially for experienced teachers. Unconscious competence, or tacit knowledge (Gűn, 2014), was seen in this study as teachers were not able to trace back or identify their Developmental

Design practices. Unconscious competence is characterized by the execution of mindless behaviors and choices, and the difficulty in explaining them. Unconscious competence can lead to unwanted or even destructive outcomes (Deamer, 1996). Arriving at a place, after driving, and having no recollection of the drive impacts one’s ability to share the route with others and could increase the chances of a collision.

Similarly, educators may have difficulties sharing their best practices with other professionals or improving their own. To illustrate the impact of unconscious competence,

Langer (1991) described an incident in which an airplane crashed right after takeoff. The air crash analysis of this fatality revealed that the pilots performed the preflight check as prescribed.

However, being used to flying in warmer places, the pilots checked the de-icing equipment as off, per usual. This was normal for their experience, except that this specific flight departed from

Washington, DC, where it was cold. Although, not at risk for physical crashes, teachers should put proactive mechanisms in place to help them question their assumptions and automaticity.

Recommendations for proactive mechanisms can be in the form of teachers' reflections and engaging in ongoing professional development. Reflections have been connected to the 142 highest form of learning (Schön, 1983, 1987) and, despite criticism, have more recently been empirically confirmed (Correa Molina, Collin, Chaubet, & Gervais, 2010). A structured reflection of practices within a professional learning community can help avoid the unconscious competence effect while improving practice, self-efficacy, and implementation of CLT. Also, in alignment with decision-making theory, teacher reflection should be focused on identifying the rule-based schemas or heuristics. This focus can give meaning to the interpretations of the ​ ​ automatic scripts and schemas that teachers use (Kleider, Pezdek, Goldinger, & Kirk, 2008; ​ Piaget, 1959; Bartlett, 1932). Ongoing professional development is also recommended as it can ​ mitigate the unconscious competence effect and deepens one’s knowledge and effectiveness.

Lastly, coaching can also have a significant impact on unconscious competence as it can function as a scaffolded and structured way to support teachers in reflections.

Implications for policy

Teacher effectiveness is now recognized as the most critical factor in student achievement (OECD, 2014) and is now at the top of the education policy agenda

(Darling-Hammond, 2017). Both Finland and Singapore, who lead worldwide with educational achievements, have implemented policy reforms that shifted from simply recruiting teachers to providing quality teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2017). The main impact of this dissertation for policy-makers is the understanding that teacher preparation and professional development is the key to developing effective teachers. Based on this study, teaching preparation programs would highly benefit from incorporating a specific offering or a complete course about constructivism.

Since the completion of the data collection and analysis of this study, I have been approaching teachers from various schools and districts across Rhode-Island and asking them what they know 143 about constructivism. The response is almost always a perplexed look and a shrug. Additionally, teachers' ability to promote SEL skills depends on the depth of their pedagogical knowledge

(Kramarski & Michalsky, 2009). SEL is another framework that they need to deepen their understanding of.

Although CLT gained momentum in the 80s, and is widely accepted today, it is not ​ practiced as one would expect it to be (D’Angelo, Touchman, & Clark, 2009). Moussiaux and

Norman (1997) reported that only 28% to 50% of teachers in Michigan schools claim to be constructivist. Furthermore, Abbott and Fouts (2003) revealed that only 16% of 669 classrooms in 34 schools in Washington used constructivist teaching methods. A more recent statistical study by Jones and Carter (2007) revealed that many teachers who believed that their teaching is constructivist-based do not use constructivist-aligned teaching in reality. While there is a high correlation between constructivist teaching and student achievement, these results are disappointing. Lederman’s (2008) assertion, that despite 100 years of science education, we have still not developed professional development for teachers to help them deliver inquiry lessons, remains true.

Teachers who are at the core of education have professional learning needs that are changing all the time (Livingston, 2017). Therefore, we need to design teaching preparation programs and professional development to support the changing needs that accompanied the instructional shifts of the common core. The results of this study showed that Developmental

Design mitigated for not knowing about CLT. Nevertheless, teachers' understanding was limited, and their implementation was not comprehensive. Explicit training of CLT is crucial, and CLT 144 aligned programs can support the implementation of CLT as they can provide concrete structures that make this elusive theory more practical.

Implications for scholarship

The scholar-practitioner gap is one of the reasons why this study is so critical in this day and age. More information is needed to understand the inconsistencies in the literature regarding the effectiveness of CLT and the multiplicity of two dominant educational reforms. This study has added to the body of literature on both topics. This study also points out how teachers' beliefs and decision-making intersect in practice.

Suggested future research to further support and explore the findings of this study should include:

● Repeat the study with a different constructivist pedagogical program to see if it is the

structure of the program, the SEL skills taught, or the combination of SEL and CLT that

is enhancing constructivist pedagogy.

● Assuming that a constructivist classroom would require an even greater level of SEL

skills than most, it would be interesting to explore a future study on how often do

teachers assume that students come with the requisite SEL skills to perform well in the

classroom? And how does explicitly teaching SEL skills build equity in classrooms?

● A mixed-method study, with a similar methodology, in which teachers who have been

trained in DD are compared to those who were not.

● Amplifying this study to a greater range of teachers and students in order to increase the

ability to make an analytical generalization. 145

● Including student-survey data of the CLES in order to corroborate their teachers'

perceptions.

● Investigate to what extent self-awareness and self-management CASEL competencies ​ correlate to constructivist uncertainty and shared control scales of the CLES.

Social-Emotional Constructivism

Another scholarly implication of this study is the rethinking of Hein's nine guiding principles of constructivism (1991). I propose to add a tenth principle, which states that learning is a cognitive process that is accessed through social-emotional competencies and skills. This proposition means that student engagement occurs on two subsequent planes: a cognitive one and a social-emotional one. Using one plane to access the other can support students in their productive struggle, or grappling, by giving them strategies to do so (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Model of the Suggested Social-Emotional Constructivism Theory ​

Two examples that help see how social-emotional skills can enable students to engage cognitively are in student choice and academic discourse. Many schools compel teachers to give 146 students academic choices as a strategy of differentiating for different learners (Usher, 2019).

While there is much focus on how to create and provide students choices that fit different learning needs, students are not always prepared to make sound academic choices, or how to discern the differences between the options given. Being able to make rational choices is a vital skill in the context of student-centered pedagogy. For students to be able to make sound choices, they would minimally, need to access the following CASEL competencies and skills (Figure

5.2):

● Self-awareness and identify own strengths to maximize the success of the choice made

● Self-management and set a goal for completing the task

● Responsible decision-making and identify the problem or task, analyze it, and solve it

Further, Common Core standards, social constructivism, and various contemporary reforms advocate for collaboration and discourse among peers as effective learning strategies (Rymes,

2015). However, many students need to learn how to maintain a balance between articulating their position and opening themselves to inquiry to do so. Without the social-emotional competencies and skills, students’ discourse and collaboration will continue to be a challenge for many. Listed below are some of the social-emotional competencies and skills needed to engage in peer collaboration and discourse:

● Self-awareness and self-confidence to articulate a position

● Self-management and impulse control to monitor the balance between speaking and

listening

● Social-awareness and perspective-taking to see another point of view 147

● Relationship skills and appropriate social engagement to collaborate with peers

peacefully

● Responsible decision-making and evaluating one’s behavior to adjust accordingly

Figure 5.2: According to the proposed social-emotional constructivist theory, the cognitive ​ engagement task of making an academic choice necessitates the employment of social-emotional skills.

As educators and agents of equity, we must ask ourselves how students' voices can play a critical role if they do not have the skills to assert them? How can students share control and negotiate aspects of teaching and learning if they are not given the tools to do so? Integrating the constructivist approach with social-emotional learning can enhance educational equity in the classroom (Jagers, Rivas-Drake, & Borowski, 2018). This could be the realignment of teaching practices that the critics of the Common-Core are calling for (Applebee, 2013). Promoting the social, emotional, and academic needs of students from historically marginalized and underserved groups can provide these students with the skills and opportunities to understand their positionality and negotiate different outcomes for themselves (Jagers, Rivas-Drake, & 148

Borowski, 2018). Students desperately need the explicit teaching of social-emotional skills

integrated with constructivist pedagogy so they could access the academic rigor that 21-st

century learning demands.

CONCLUSION

Despite the prominence of two strong ideologies that can lead to increased academic

achievements (Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Barak, Ben-Chaim, & Zoller, 2007; Durlak,

Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), there is alarming evidence that:

1. Children enter schools without the necessary social skills to succeed (Green et al., 2012;

Gilliam & Shahar, 2006)

2. There is national evidence for low student performance (Muniz, 2017; PISA, 2019)

3. Generation Z's immediate needs are not addressed (Hainline et al., 2010; Prensky, 2001;

Seemiller & Grace, 2016)

4. Multiplicity of educational reforms is not tested (Hess, 2010; Luttenberg et al., 2013)

The findings reported in this exploratory case study address all these concerns. There are

many calls for constructivist pedagogy (Freeman et al., 2014; Porter et al., 2011; NCTM, 2014).

However, no one specifies how teachers are supposed to overcome the challenges of a theory

they know little about or may have never heard of, and is saturated with implementation

challenges.

As Dyer, Wilkins, & Eisenhardt (1991) argued, the purpose of a single case study is to

formulate a theory. This case study establishes a new framework to shed empirical light on the

multiplicity of reforms, the gap between theory and practice, and poor student achievements. 149

This framework is relevant for practitioners, policy-makers, curriculum designers, and scholars alike as it can mitigate the challenges of CLT implementation, improve teacher training, and increase student academic outcomes. Hence, a new theoretical framework of Social-Emotional ​ Constructivism is proposed. Just like in Gűn's study of expert teachers, students and teachers ​ alike need to use their "heads and hearts equally" (Gűn, 2014).

150

REFERENCES

Abar, B., & Loken, E. (2010). Self-regulated learning and self-directed study in a pre-college

sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 25–29. ​ ​ Abbott, M. L., & Fouts, J. T. (2003). Constructivist teaching and student achievement: The results ​ of a school-level classroom observation study in washington. Lynwood, Mass: ​ Washington School Research Center.

Aber, J. L., Brown, J. L., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Developmental trajectories toward violence in

middle childhood: Course, demographic differences, and response to school-based

intervention. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 324. ​ ​ ​ ​ Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. (2006). (In) fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals

about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard ​ Educational Review, 76(1), 30-63. ​ Adams, L. (2011, May 21). Learning a new skill is easier said than done. Retrieved from:

https://www.gordontraining.com/free-workplace-articles/learning-a-new-skill-is-easie

r-said-than-done/

Ahmed-Dunya, A.A., Lewando, H. G., and Blackburn, C. (2011). Issues of gender, reflexivity, and

positionality in the field of disability: researching visual impairment in Arab society.

Qualitative Social Work 10(4): 467–484. ​ Ajzen, L., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitudes. intentions, and

perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, ​ ​ 453-474.

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L.S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A 151

seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 171-190. ​ ​ Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J., Tenenbaum, H.R., (2010). Does discovery based instruction - enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18. ​ ​ Alsup, J. K., & Sprigler, M. J. (2003). A comparison of traditional and reform mathematics

curricula in an eighth-grade classroom. Education, 123(4). ​ ​ Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2006). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Applebee, A. N. (2013). Common Core State Standards: The promise and the peril in a national

palimpsest. English Journal, 25-33. ​ ​

Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ​ ​ Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, ​ ​ and Winston.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. ​ ​ Bandura, A., Саргага, G. V., Barbaranelli, С., Gerbino, M., and Pastorelli, C., (2003). Role of

affective self- regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning.

Child Development, 74, 769-782. ​ Barak, M. Ben-Chaim D. &, Zoller, U. (2007). Purposely teaching for the promotion of ​ ​ higher-order thinking skills: A case of critical thinking. Research in Science ​ ​ Education, 37(4), 353-369. ​ ​ ​

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, ​ ​ England: Cambridge University Press. 152

Basu, O. N., Dirsmith, M. W., & Gupta, P. P. (1999). The coupling of the symbolic and the

technical in an institutionalized context: The negotiated order of the GAO's audit

reporting process. American Sociological Review, 506-526. ​ ​ Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and

implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. ​ ​ Bay, M., Staver, J., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. (1992). Science instruction for the

mildlyhandicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of ​ Research in ScienceTeaching, 29, 555 – 570. ​ Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (2013). Theory into practice: How

do we link. In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds). Constructivism and the ​ technology of instruction: A conversation (pp.17-34). Mahwah, NY: Routledge. ​

Benner, P. (1994). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health,

illness, and caring practices. Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ​ ethics in health and illness, 99-127. ​ Bentley, M. L. (1998). Constructivism as a referent for reforming science education. In

Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., and Garrison, J. (Eds.), Constructivism and Education, ​ ​ New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233-249.

Berman, S. (1997). Children's social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. ​ ​ Albany, NY: State University of New York press.

Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection is broadly defined contexts. Mathematics

Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39-68. ​ 153

Bishop, A. J., & Whitfield, R. C. (1972). Situations in teaching. Maidenhead Berkshire, UK: ​ ​ McGraw Hill.

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2014). Closing the achievement gap through modification of

neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized

controlled trial of an innovative approach to the education of children in kindergarten.

PloS one, 9(11), e112393. ​ Blanchard, M.R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J.W., Sampson, V.D., Annetta, L.A., Granger,

E.M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison

of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction.

Science Education 94, 577-616. ​ Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2006). How to Research. Milton Keynes: Open University ​ ​ Press.

Bohrnstedt, G. (2013). Three Decades of Education Reform: Are We Still "A Nation at Risk?".

American Institute for Research. Retrieved from

http://www.air.org/resource/three-decades-education-reform-are-we-still-nation-risk

#Bohrnsted. ​

Borg, S. (2008). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: ​ ​ Continuum.

Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (2010). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan J.

Bishop to today. In Clarkson, P., & Presmeg, N. (Eds.). Critical issues in ​ mathematics education (pp. 37-67). New York, NY: Springer US. ​ 154

Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’

curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, ​ 62(4), 393-416. ​

Boudourides, M. (2003). Constructivism, Education, Science, and Technology. Canadian Journal ​ Of Learning And Technology / La Revue Canadienne De L’Apprentissage Et De La

Technologie, 29(3). [Retrieved from: ​ http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/83/77]. ​ Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. In Lemert, C. (Ed.) (1999). Social theory: The ​ multicultural and classic readings (pp. 52-58). Boulder, CO: Westview. ​

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London, UK: Sage Publications. ​ ​

Bourdieu, P. (1999). The social conditions of the international circulation of ideas. In

Shusterman, R. (Ed.), Bourdieu: A critical reader (pp. 220-228). Oxford, UK: ​ ​ Blackwell.

Bozkurt, G. (2017). Social Constructivism: Does it succeed in reconciling individual cognition

with social teaching and learning practices in mathematics?. Journal of Education ​ and Practice, 8(3), 210-218. ​ Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A

quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499–518. ​ ​ Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.

Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of ​ human development (pp. 993-1028). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. ​ 155

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. The MIT ​ ​ Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A.S., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. ​

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A

bibliographical essay. College English, 773-790. ​ ​ Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage Books. ​ ​ Buchanan, R., Gueldner, B. A., Tran, O. K., & Merrell, K. W. (2009). Social and emotional

learning in classrooms: A survey of teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices.

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25(2), 187-203. ​ Bushouse, B. K., Jacobson, W. S., Lambright, K. T., Llorens, J. J., Morse, R. S., & Poocharoen,

O. O. (2011). Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration

practitioners and scholars. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, ​ ​ 21(1), 99-112. ​

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Reynolds, M. (1999). Learning to make good decisions: A

self-regulation perspective. Child Development, 70, 1121–1140. ​ ​ Call, J. J. (2012). Student Teachers' Interactive Decisions with Respect to Student Mathematics

Thinking. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4294&context=etd

Campbell, R. J., & Robinson, W. (2007). Personalised learning: Ambiguities in theory and

practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, (2), 135. ​ ​ 156

Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about the nature

of science: Are they happening?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), ​ ​ 497-526.

Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University (2011). The Best

Evidence Encyclopedia. Retrieved from www.bestevidence.org/index.cfm. ​ ​ ​

Chan, K. W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and

conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, ​ ​ 817-831.

Chi, M.T.H., (2009). Active constructive interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating - - learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. ​ ​ City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., and Teitel, L. (2018). Instructional Rounds in ​ Education: A Network Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, ​ MA: Harvard Education Press.

Clarkson, P. & Presmeg, N. (Eds.) (2010). Critical issues in mathematics education: Major ​ contributions of Alan Bishop. New York, NY: Springer U.S. ​

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142. ​

Colburn, A. (2006). What teacher educators need to know about inquiry-based instruction. In an

annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, ​ OH. Retrieved from: www.csulb.edu/~ acolburn/AETS. Htm. ​ Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2003). Safe and sound: 157

An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning

programs. Chicago, IL: CASEL/University of Illinois-Chicago (www. casel.org).

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2013). CASEL guide: ​ Effective social and emotional learning programs—preschool and elementary school

edition. Retrieved from:

https://casel.org/preschool-and-elementary-edition-casel-guide/

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (October, 2018).

Integrating with Academics. SEL Trends, 3, 1-6. ​ ​ College Board. K-12 Educator Brief: The College and Career Readiness Benchmarks for the SAT

Suite of Assessments. Retrieved from:

https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/pdf/educator-benchmark-brief.pdf

Collier, A., Phillips, J. L., & Iedema, R. (2015). The meaning of home at the end of life: A

video-reflexive ethnography study. Palliative Medicine, 29, 695–702. ​ ​ doi:10.1177/0269216315575677.

Correa Molina, E., Collin, S., Chaubet, P., & Gervais, C. (2010). Concept de réflexion: un regard

critique. Éducation et francophonie, XXXVIII, 135–155. ​ ​ Corti, L., Day, A., & Backhouse, G. (2000). Confidentiality and informed consent: Issues for

consideration in the preservations and provisions of access to qualitative data archives.

Qualitative Social Research, 1(3), Art. 7. ​ COSMOS Corporation. (1983). Case studies and organizational innovation: Strengthening the ​ connection. Bethesda, MD. ​ 158

Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice.

Journal of research in science teaching, 44(4), 613-642.

Crawford, L. & Wood, C. (2014). Teaching for equity. Minneapolis, MN: The Origins Program. ​ ​ Creswell J.W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ​ approaches. (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ​ Creswell, J. (2014). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and ​ qualitative research (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson. ​

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five ​ approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc. ​

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The

behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of ​ education, 77(1), 60-81. ​

Cronin, C. (2014). Using case study research as a rigorous form of inquiry. Nurse Researcher, ​ 21(5), 19–27. doi:10.7748/ nr.21.5.19.e1240 ​

Curtiss, P. R., & Warren, P. W. (1973). The dynamics of life skills coaching. Life skills series. ​ Prince Alberta, Saskatchewan: Training Research and Development Station, Dept. of

Manpower and Immigration.

D'Angelo, C. M., Touchman, S., & Clark, D. B. (2009). Constructivism: Overview. Psychology of ​ Classroom Learning: An Encyclopedia, 262-267. ​ 159

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from

international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3) 291-309 ​ ​

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies That Support Professional

Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92. ​ ​ ​ ​

Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Want to Close the Achievement Gap? Close the Teaching Gap.

American Educator, 38(4), 14-18. ​ Davidson, N., Major, C. H., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2014). Small-group learning in higher

education—cooperative, collaborative, problem-based, and team-based learning: an

introduction by the guest editors. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, ​ 25(3&4), 1-6. ​ Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design

capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), ​ ​ 797-810.

Deamer, I. (1996). Implications of unconscious learning for organisationally based training. - Research in Post Compulsory Education, 1(1), 65-75. - ​

Deci, E. L., (with Flaste, R.) (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation.

London: Penguin books.

Denzin, N. K. (1997). Triangulation in educational research. Educational research, methodology ​ and measurement: An international handbook, 318-322. ​ 160

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. ​ Thousand Oaks: CA. Sage Publication. ​ ​

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment

physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864. ​ ​ Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. ​ ​ Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. ​ ​ Dignath-van Ewijk, C., & van der Werf, G. (2012). What teachers think about self-regulated

learning: Investigating teacher beliefs and teacher behavior of enhancing students’

self-regulation. Education Research International, 2012, 1-10. ​ ​

Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts about Web Quests. Retrieved from:

http://tli.jefferson.k12.ky.us/ELFH675projects/sprell2/WebQuest_Instr_Tool.pdf

Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current findings

from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(2), 193-221. ​ Doolittle, P.E. & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: the career and technical education

perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. 16(1). [Retrieved from: ​ ​ http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v16n1/doolittle.html]. ​ Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological

approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies,44(1), 131-142. ​ ​ ​ ​

Dreikurs, R. M. D., Grunwald, B. B., & Pepper, F. C. (1998). Maintaining Sanity in the ​ Classroom: Classroom management techniques. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. ​ 161

Driver, R. (1983). Pupil as scientist. UK: McGraw-Hill Education. ​ ​ Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and

passion for long-term goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(6), ​ ​ ​ ​ 1087-1101.

Durlak, J.A. Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R.D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The

impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of

school-based interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432. ​ ​

Dusenbury, L., Zadrazil, J., Mart, A., Weissberg, R. (2011). State learning standards to advance

social and emotional learning: The state scan of social and emotional learning

standards, preschool through high school. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic,

Social, and Emotional Learning. Retrieved from:

http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Brief-on-theState-Scan-4-18-2011.pdf

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95(2), 256. ​ Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. ​ ​ Dyer, W. G., Jr, Wilkins, A. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs,

to generate better theory: A rejoinder to Eisenhardt; better J. Gustafsson stories and

better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. The Academy of ​ Management Review, 16(3), 613. ​ 162

D’Cruz H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, it's meaning and relevance for

social work: a critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work 37, ​ ​ 73–90.

Dignath, C., Buettner, G. & Langfeldt, H.P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self

regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self regulation

training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3, 101-129. ​ ​

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction, 2nd ​ ​ edition. London, UK: SAGE publications.

Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., Harris, W.A ., Lowry,

R., McManus, T., Chyen, D., Lim, C., Brener, N.D. , Wechsler, H ., and the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2008). Youth risk behavior ​ surveillance—United States, 2007. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 57(SS04),

1–131. [Retrieved November 29, 2010, from

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5704a1.htm?s_cid=ss5704a1_e]. ​ Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380. ​ ​

Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated

learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6 –25. ​ ​ Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social-emotional learning. In Elias, M.

J., Arnold, H. (Eds.), The educator’s guide to emotional intelligence and academic ​ achievement (pp. 4–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ​ Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K., Greenberg, M., Haynes, N., & Shriver, T. P. 163

(1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ​ Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation,

sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public

schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303-319. ​ ​ Elias, M. J., & Arnold, H. (2006). The educator's guide to emotional intelligence and academic ​ achievement: Social-emotional learning in the classroom. Corwin Press. ​ Elias, M. J., & Leverett, L. (2011). Consultation to Urban Schools for Improvements in

Academics and Behavior: No Alibis. No Excuses. No Exceptions. Journal of ​ Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21(1), 28-45. ​ ​ ​ Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and

achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54. ​ ​ Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Social-emotional learning program to

reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with

disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 36(5), 299-311. ​ ​ Fall, K. A., Holden, J. M., & Marquis, A. (2011). Theoretical models of counseling and

psychotherapy. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D.

W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The ​ role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature

review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School ​ Research. 164

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., &

Marks, J. S. (2019). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to

many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences

(ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(6), 774-786. ​ ​ Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the "messy" construct of teachers’ beliefs:

What are they? Which has been examined? What can they tell us? APA educational ​ psychology handbook, 2, 471-499. ​

Flower, J. (1999). In the mush. Physician Executive, 25(1) 64–66. ​ ​

Forsyth, R., Carroll, K., & Reitano, P. (2009). Introduction. International Journal of Multiple ​ Research Approaches, 3, 214–217. doi:10.1080/18340806.2009.11004911 ​

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press. ​ ​ Retrieved from:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-pIbAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7

&dq=constructivist+learning+theory&ots=twQaVWmxzA&sig=0WHLNUXDJ6Y4

gKnOvDvpbQd4y0M#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fraire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. Bergman Rams, Trans.). New York: ​ ​ Continuum.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth,

M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering,

and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), ​ ​ ​ ​ 8410-8415. 165

Fullan, M. (2008). What's worth fighting for in headship? McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ​ ​ Fullan, M. (2012). Change forces: Probing the depth of educational reform. Levittown, PA: The ​ ​ Falmer Press: Taylor & Francis Inc.

Furlong, M. (2010). Clear at a distance, jumbled up close: Observation, immersion, and reflection

in the process that is creative research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Research methods ​ in health: foundations for evidence-based practice (pp. 153–169). South Melbourne, ​ Australia: Victoria Oxford University Press.

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and

quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis.

Review of educational research, 82(3), 300-329. ​ ​ ​ Furtak, E. M., Shavelson, R. J., Shemwell, J. T., & Figueroa, M. (2012). To teach or not to teach

through inquiry: Is that the question? In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The ​ journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education

sciences (pp. 227–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ​ Georges, A., & Pallas, A. M. (2010). A new look at a persistent problem: inequality, mathematics

achievement, and teaching. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 274–290. ​ ​

Gerstl-Pepin, C. & Patrizion, K. (2009). Learning from Dumbledore Pensive: metaphor as an aid

in teaching reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 9, 299–308. ​ ​

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers, 3rd edition. Lindon, UK: Sage ​ ​ Publication.

Gilliam, W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and childcare expulsion and suspension: Rates 166

and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19(3), 228-245. ​ ​ Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their

perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), ​ ​ 1333-1348.

Gilroy, P. (1993). Reflections on Schon: an epistemological critique and a practical alternative.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(4), 125-142. ​ ​ ​

Glasser, W. (1996). Schools without failure. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. ​ ​ Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White ​ ​ Plains, NY: Longman

Goleman, D. (2012). Social intelligence: the new science of human relationships. Journal Of ​ Psychological Issues In Organizational Culture, 3(2), 75-78. ​ Gonzalez Lopez, M. J., Gomez, P., & Maria Restrepo, A. (2015). Error uses in teaching

mathematics. Revista de Educacion, (370), 71-95. ​ ​

Green, B. L., Malsch, A. M., Kothari, B. H., Busse, J., & Brennan, E. (2012). An intervention to

increase early childhood staff capacity for promoting children’s social-emotional

development in preschool settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(2), ​ ​ 123-132.

Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and

metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments.

Educational Psychologist, 45, 203–209. ​ Griffith, P. (2011). Catching up with the common core. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 95. ​ ​ 167

Gűn, B. (2014). Making sense of experienced teachers’ interactive decisions: Implications for

expertise in teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 75-90.

Gupta, A. (2008). Constructivism and peer collaboration in elementary mathematics education:

The connection to epistemology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & ​ Technology Education, 4(4). ​ Habermas, J. (1978). Legitimation Crisis. TMcCarthy (trans.). Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon

Press.

Hainline, L., Gaines, M., Feather, C. L., Padilla, E., & Terry, E. (2010). Changing students,

faculty, and institutions in the twenty-first century. Peer Review, 12(3), 7. ​ ​ Hallowell, E., & Ratey, J. (2011). Driven to distraction: Recognizing and coping with attention ​ deficit disorder. New York, NY: Anchor Books. ​ Hansen, A. (2012). Reflective learning and teaching in primary schools. London, UK: Learning ​ ​ Matters. pp. 32–48.

Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative

research: The rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative inquiry, 7(3), 323-345.Husserl, E. ​ ​ (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An ​ introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern ​ University Press.

Hawkins, D. (1974). I, thou, and it. The Informed Vision: Essays on Learning and Human Nature, ​ ​ New York: Agathon Books. (pp. 48-62).

Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. [Retrieved from

http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi-archive/resources/research/constructivistlearning.ht 168

ml] Institute for Inquiry. ​ ​ Hennessey, M., Higley, K., & Chesnut, S. (2012). Persuasive pedagogy: A new paradigm for

mathematics education. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 187-204. ​ ​ doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9190-7

Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate

higher-order thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(4), ​ ​ 401-422.

Hess, F. M. (2010). The same thing over and over. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. ​ ​

Hierbert, E. H., Grisham, D. (2012). What literacy teachers need to know about supporting

teachers in understanding text complexity within the common core state standards?

Journal of Reading Education, 37(3), 5-12. ​

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for

teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), ​ ​ 371-406.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in

problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

(2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 ​ ​ Honomichl, R. D., & Chen, Z. (2012). The role of guidance in children's discovery learning.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(6), 615-622. ​ 169

Hora, M. T. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive

perspective. A Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207-235. ​ ​

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for

school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8). ​ ​ Institutions in the state of Texas. (Unpublished Dissertation), Northeastern University, ​ Boston Massachusetts, 1-268.

Iver, D. J. M. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents: Advisory groups, interdisciplinary

teaching teams, and school transition programs. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(6), ​ ​ 458-464.

Jagers, R. J., Rivas-Drake, D., & Borowski, T. (2018). Equity and social and emotional learning:

A cultural analysis. Measuring SEL: Using Data to Inspire Practice. Retrieved from: ​ ​ https://measuringsel.casel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Frameworks-Equity.pdf

Jarrard, B. (2019, May 8). Four stages of learning: Are they enough to make innovation happen? ​ Retrieved from:

https://mindwerx.com/four-stages-learning-enough-make-innovation-happen/

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for ​ ​ Supervision and Curriculum Development.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A

Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206. ​ ​ Johnson, B. & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of the shortened revised version of the

constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environments ​ Research, 7, 65-80. ​ 170

Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From

Programs to Strategies. Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child ​ Development, 26(4), 3-22. ​ Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Lawrence Aber, J. (2011). Two year impacts of a universal - school based social emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in - - translational developmental research. Child Development, 82(2), 533-554. ​ ​ Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. Handbook of Research ​ on Science Education,1067-1104. ​ Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry: A relational approach. New York, ​ ​ NY: The Guilford Press.

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns

and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social ​ Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-155. ​

Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2015). Aspects of teaching and learning science: What students'

diaries reveal about inquiry and traditional modes. International Journal of Science ​ Education, 37(13), 2113-2146. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.106793 ​ Kegan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), ​ ​ 65-90.

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and

technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. ​ ​ 171

Kim, J., Kim, S. Y., & Maslak, M. A. (2005). Toward an integrative "Educare" system: An

investigation of teachers' understanding and uses of developmentally appropriate

practices for young children in Korea. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, ​ 20(1), 49-56. ​

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35. ​ ​

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark , R. (2006). Why Minimal guidance during instruction does not

work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,

problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, ​ 41(2), 75-86. ​ Kleider, H. M. Pezdek, K. Goldinger, S. D. and Kirk, A. (2008). Schema-driven source

misattribution errors: Remembering the expected from a witnessed event. Applied ​ Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1-20. ​ ​ ​

Klein, G., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (2010). Rapid decision making on the fire

ground: The original study plus a postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and ​ Decision Making, 4(3), 186-209. ​

Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. The Journal of the Human Factors and ​ Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 456-460. ​

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273. ​ ​ 172

Knafl, K., & Breitmayer, B. J. (1989). Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual

clarity and purpose. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A ​ contemporary dialogue (pp. 193-203). Rockville, MD: Aspen. ​

Knight, J.K. & Wood, W.B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, ​ ​ 298-310.

Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: the case for reflexivity. Journal of ​ advanced nursing, 28(4), 882-890. ​ ​ ​

Kohl, E., & McCutcheon, P. (2015). Kitchen table reflexivity: Negotiating positionality through

everyday talk. Gender, Place and Culture, 22(6), 747-763. Retrieved from ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.958063. ​

Kramarski, B. & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers’ professional growth in

self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), ​ ​ 161-175.

Kwame-Ross, T., Crawford, L., & Klug, E. (2011). Developmental Designs: A description of the

approach and implementation in schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(3), ​ ​ ​ ​ 145-163.

Kwame-Ross, T. (2011). Why the developmental designs? [Video file] Retrieved from

https://www.originsonline.org/developmental-designs/research

Kwon, Y. I. (2004). Early childhood education in Korea: Discrepancy between national

kindergarten curriculum and practices. Educational Review, 56(3), 297-312. ​ ​ 173

Langer, E.L. (1991). Mindfulness. Harvill: London ​ ​

Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about 'misconceptions': Preservice secondary science teachers'

views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96(5), 927-959. ​ ​ doi:10.1002/sce.21022

Larkin, M., Eatough, V., & Osborn, M. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and

embodied, active, situated cognition. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 318-337. ​ ​

Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Faculty work as learning: Insights from theories of cognition. New ​ Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2005(102), 13-21. ​

Lawson, L. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. NY, New York:

Routledge: The Architectural Press.

Lebak, K. (2015). Unpacking the complex relationship between beliefs, practice, and change

related to inquiry-based instruction of one science teacher. Journal of Science ​ Teacher Education, 26(8), 695-713. ​ Lee, Y. S., Baik, J., & Charlesworth, R. (2006). Differential effects of kindergarten teacher's

beliefs about the developmentally appropriate practice on their use of scaffolding

following in-service training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 935-945. ​ ​

Lerman, S. (1989). Constructivism, mathematics and mathematics education. Educational Studies ​ in Mathematics, 20(2), 211-223. ​ Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalizing from qualitative research. Qualitative research ​ practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2, 347-362. ​ 174

Ley, M.L. (2011). Coaching and communications skills [Webinar]. Available at ​ ​ http://bit.ly/qxQiPR

Liew, J., McTigue, E. M., Barrois, L., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Adaptive and effortful control and

academic self-efficacy beliefs on achievement: A longitudinal study of 1st

through 3rd graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 515-526. ​ ​ Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. ​ ​

Lindgren, D. (2016, June 29). Triangulation - A Best Practice Method. Retrieved from: ​ ​ http://www.rapid-asia.com/rapid-asia-on-the-go/triangulation-a-best-practice-metho

d/

Livingston, K. (2017). The complexity of learning and teaching: challenges for teacher education.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (2), 141-143. ​

Luttenberg, J., Imants, J., & Van Veen, K. (2013). Reform as an ongoing positioning process: the

positioning of a teacher in the context of reform. Teachers and Teaching, 19(3), ​ ​ ​ ​ 293-310.

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, ​ 358(9280), 483-488. ​ ​ ​

Manning, M. L., & Saddlemire, R. (1996). Developing a sense of community in secondary

schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, ​ 80(584), 41-48. ​

Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. ​ ​ 175

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marshall, M. L. (2004). Examining school climate: Defining factors and educational influences. ​ ​ Retrieved (February, 2020) from Georgia State University Center for School Safety,

School Climate and Classroom Management. http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/ehost/results?sid=40593f70-0e97-4c

66-bca7c2c03fb3fc9f%40sessionmgr111&vid=7&hid=112&bquery=learning+difficu

lties&bdata=JmRiPW5sZWJrJnR5cGU9MCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d

Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery learning? - American Psychology, 59, 14–19. ​ Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995). Observational methods in health care settings. British Medical ​ Journal, 311(6998), 182–184. doi:10.2307/29728110 ​

McCarthy, T. (1985). The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas (3rd printing). Cambridge, MA: ​ ​ Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

McTigue, E., & Liew, J. (2011). Principles and practices for building academic self-efficacy in

middle grades language arts classrooms. The Clearing House, 84(3), 114-118. ​ ​

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: ​ ​ Jossey-Bass.

Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works?. Advanced Physiology ​ Education, 30, 159-167. ​ 176

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook ​ (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mink, O.G., Owen, K.Q. & Mink, B.P. (1993). Developing High Performing People: the art of ​ coaching. Reading: Addison Wesley. ​

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry based science instruction—what is it - and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of ​ Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. ​ Mitchell, L. C., & Hegde, A. V. (2007). Beliefs and practices of in-service preschool teachers in

inclusive settings: Implications for personnel preparation. Journal of Early ​ Childhood Teacher Education, 28(4), 353-366. ​

Mitra, S. (February, 2013). Sugra Mitra: Build a school in the cloud (video file). Retrieved from: ​ ​ https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud/transcript?lan

guage=en

Mitra, D. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student-teacher relationships. McGill ​ Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill, 38(2), 289-304. ​

Morgan, S. J., Pullon, S. R., Macdonald, L. M., McKinlay, E. M., & Gray, B. V. (2017). Case

study observational research: A framework for conducting case study research where

observation data are the focus. Qualitative health research, 27(7), 1060-1068. ​ ​ 177

Morse, J. M. (2003). Perspectives of the observer and the observed. Qualitative Health Research, ​ 13, 155–157. doi:10.1177/1049732302239595 ​

Moussiaux, S. J., & Norman, J. T. (1997). Constructivist teaching practices: Perceptions of

teachers and students. In NOTE 939p.; For the 1996 proceedings, see ED 398 060.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021) (p. 661).

Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of ​ Advanced Nursing, 41, 306–313. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02514.x ​

Muniz, H. (2017, May 19). SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips. What's a Good SAT Score ​ for 2017? PrepScholar. Retrieved from: ​ https://blog.prepscholar.com/good-sat-scores-2017#targetText=As%20you%20likely

%20know%2C%20the,close%20to%20the%2050th%20percentile.

Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: From philosophy to practice. Retrieved from: ​ ​ http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/cle4.html

Myers, C. A., Wang, C., Black, J. M., Bugescu, N., & Hoeft, F. (2016). The matter of motivation:

Striatal resting-state connectivity is dissociable between grit and growth mindset.

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1521-1527. ​ National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring ​ Mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM. ​

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. 178

Neil, D. T., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2006). Habits—A repeat performance. Current ​ Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 198-202. ​ Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service

teachers' evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher ​ Education, 26(2), 278-289. ​

Nganga, C.W. (2011). Emerging as a scholar-practitioner: A reflective essay review. Mentoring ​ and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(2), 239-251. ​ ​ ​

Niaz, M. (2008). Whither constructivism? - A chemistry teachers’ perspective. Teaching & ​ Teacher Education, 24(2), 400-416. ​ ​ ​

OCED (2014). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Antecedent and concurrent

psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains.

High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195-210. ​ Omotayo, S. A., & Adeleke, J. O. (2017). THE 5E instructional model: A constructivist approach

for enhancing students’ learning outcomes in mathematics. Journal of the ​ International Society for Teacher Education, 21(2), 15. ​ Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledge insecurity

influence practice. Teachers and Teaching, 20(4), 427-439. ​ ​ Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.

Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. ​ 179

Pajares, F. 2003. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation and achievement in writing: A review of the

literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-58. ​ ​

Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology enhanced problem based ​-​ ​-​ learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of ​ Educational Technology, 39(4), 631-643. ​

Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San ​ ​ Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: ​ ​ Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, ​ ​ CA: Sage.

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 56, 6-11. ​ ​

Phillippo, K. (2010). Teachers providing social and emotional support: A study of advisor role

enactment in small high schools. Teachers College Record, 112(80), 2258-2293. ​ ​

Piaget, J., In D. C. Phillips (2014) (ED.). Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. (2) ​ ​ 623-628. Los Angeles: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1926, 1959). The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge ​ ​ Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: Basic Books. ​ ​ Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd Ed.). New York NY: Routledge. ​ ​ 180

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s Theory (G. Gellerier & J. Langer, Trans.). In: P.H. Mussen (Ed.),

Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology (3rd Edition, Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

Piaget, J. (1993). Jan Amos Comenius. Prospects, 23(1-2), 173-196. ​ ​

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.

R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San ​ ​ Diego, CA: Academic.

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment (2015). [Retrieved from:

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-United-States.pdf] ​ PISA Programme for International Student Assessment (2018). [Retrieved from:

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%2

0FINAL%20PDF.pdf] ​ Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 126. ​ ​

Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2010). Meet Generation Z. СТА Magazine, 14(5). Retrieved from: ​ ​ http://www.cta.org/Professional-Development/Publications/Educator-Feb-10/Meet-

Generation-Z.aspx

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S.

intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40, 103-116. DOI: ​ ​ 10.3102/0013189X11405038.

Prawatt, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of 181

learning. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 37-48. ​ ​ Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1-2. Retrieved from:

http://www.hfmboces.org/HFMDistrictServices/TechYES/PrenskyDigitalNatives.pdf

Poláková, P., & Klímová, B. (2019). Mobile Technology and Generation Z in the English

Language Classroom—A Preliminary Study. Education Sciences, 9(3), 203. ​ ​ Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering ​ Education, 93, 223-231. ​ Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social ​ learning. New York, NY: Routledge. ​

Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas. London, UK: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock. ​ ​

Qualter, P., Gardner, K., & Whiteley, H. E. (2007). Emotional Intelligence: Review of the

literature and Implications for practice. Pastoral Care in Education, 25(1), 11-20. ​ ​ Quinlan, E. (2008). Conspicuous invisibility: Shadowing as a data collection strategy. Qualitative ​ Inquiry, 14, 1480–1499. doi:10.1177/1077800408318318 ​ Racher, F. E., & Robinson, S. (2003). Are phenomenology and postpositivism strange

bedfellows?. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 464-481. ​ ​ ​ ​ Ramsden, S., Richardson, F.M., Josse, G., Thomas, M., Ellis, C., Shakeshart, C., Seguier, M., &

Price, C. (2011). Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain.

Nature, 479, 113–116. ​ Raver, C. C., Garner, P., & Smith-Donald, R. (2007). The roles of emotion regulation and

emotion knowledge for children's academic readiness: Are the links causal? In B.

Pianta, K. Snow & M. Cox (Eds.), Kindergarten Transition and Early School Success ​ 182

(pp. 121- 148). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Reiser, B.J., (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and

problematizing student work. Journal of Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304. ​ ​ research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), ​ ​ ​ ​ 126-136.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). The

interaction effects of program training, dosage, and implementation quality on

targeted student outcomes for the RULER approach to social and emotional learning.

School Psychology Review, 41(1), 82. ​ Rhode-Island Department of Education (RIDE). (2016). Assessment Results. Retrieved from: ​ ​ http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/Assessment/AssessmentResults.aspx. ​

Rhode-Island Department of Education (RIDE). (2020). Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). ​ Retrieved from:

https://www.ride.ri.gov/StudentsFamilies/HealthSafety/SocialEmotionalLearning.as

px

Richards, T. J., & Richards, L. (1994, 1998). Using computers in qualitative research. N.K.

Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (445-462). ​ ​ Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Riddile, M. (2012). What’s new about the common core standards? Principal Leadership, 12(7), ​ ​ ​ ​ 39-42. 183

Robson, C. (2002). Real-world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioners ​ researchers. Madden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers. ​ Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, ​ ​ England: Oxford University Press.

Rothman, D. A. (2016). Tsunami of learners called Generation Z. Retrieved from:

http://www.mdle.net/JoumaFA_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf

Rubin H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. New York, NY: ​ ​ Sage Publication.

Ruby, A., & Doolittle, E. (2010). Efficacy of schoolwide programs to promote social and

character development and reduce problem behavior in elementary school children:

Report from the social and character development research program. Social and ​ Character Development Research Consortium.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. ​ ​ Rymes, B. (2015). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. New York, NY: ​ ​ Routledge.

Saunders, W. L. & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison of concrete and formal science

instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth-grade students.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 39-51. ​ Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (2004). Community in school as key to student growth:

Findings from the Child Development Project. In Zins, J., Weissberg, R, Wang, M.,

& Halberg, H. (Eds.). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: ​ 184

What does the research say? (pp. 189-205). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. ​ ​ ​ Schneider, L.S., & Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in ​ Science Teaching, 17, 503-517. ​ Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its ​ educational applications. New York, NY: Routledge. ​

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498. ​

Schommer, M. (1998). The role of adults’ beliefs about knowledge in school, work, and everyday

life. In Smith, M. C & Pourchot, T. (Eds.). Adult learning and development: ​ Perspectives from educational psychology (pp.127-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ​

Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday

controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5-20. ​ ​

Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief

system. In Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R., (Eds.). Personal epistemology: The ​ psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp.105-118). Mahwah, NJ: ​ Erlbaum.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. ​ ​

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and ​ learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. ​ 185

Schramm, W. (1971). Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper for ​ ​ the Academy of Educational Development. Washington, D. C.

Schroder, H. S., Fisher, M. E., Lin, Y., Lo, S. L., Danovitch, J. H., & Moser, J. S. (2017). Neural

evidence for enhanced attention to mistakes among school-aged children with a

growth mindset. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 24, 42-50. ​ ​ Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of

national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in

the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436– 1460. ​ ​ doi:10.1002/tea.20212

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Sixth edition. Boston, MA: ​ ​ Pearson.

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism,

hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: ​ Sage.Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for

researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: NY. Columbia

University Teachers College Press.

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass ​ ​

Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments,

decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498. ​ ​ 186

Shavelson, R. J. (1973). What is the basic teaching skill?. Journal of teacher education, 24(2), ​ ​ ​ ​ 144-151.

Shavelson, R. J. (1986). Interactive decision-making: Some thoughts on teacher cognition. In L.

M. V. Angulo (Ed.), Pensamientos de los profesores y toma de decisiones. Sevilla, ​ ​ Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones.

Shechtman, Z., & Abu Yaman, M. (2012). SEL as a component of a literature class to improve

relationships, behavior, motivation, and content knowledge. American Educational ​ Research Journal, 49(3), 546-567. ​ Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22, 63-75. ​

Shulman, L. S., & Elstein, A. S. (1975). Studies of problem solving, judgment, and

decision-making: Implications for educational research. Review of research in ​ education, 3, 3-42. ​ ​ ​

Shymansky, J., Kyle, W., & Alport, J. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student

performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404. ​ ​ Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of

inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance. Journal of ​ Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127–144. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270205 ​ Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), ​ ​ 20-24. 187

Simon, M. A.. (1995). Reconstructing Mathematics Pedagogy from a Constructivist Perspective.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145. ​ ​ ​ http://doi.org/10.2307/749205. ​ Singh, D. K., & Stoloff, D. L. (2008). Assessment of teacher dispositions. College Student ​ Journal, 42(4), 1169. ​ ​ ​

Sizer, T. (1999). No two are quite alike. Personalized Learning, 57(1), 6-11. ​ ​ Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of

school based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they enhance - students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment?. Psychology in ​ the Schools, 49(9), 892-909. ​ Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork

work?. Anales de psicología/annals of psychology, 30(3), 785-791. ​ ​ Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2012). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory,

method, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27. ​ ​ ​ Smith, J. A. (Ed.). (2007). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. ​ ​ London, UK: Sage Publications.

Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation

Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize

university STEM classroom practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), ​ ​ 618-627. 188

Smith III, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 387-402. ​ ​ ​

Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science ​ students and researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications. ​

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ​ ​

Starkey, L. (2017). Three dimensions of student-centered education: a framework for policy and

practice. Critical Studies in Education, 1-16. ​ ​ Staver, J. R. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and

science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520. ​ ​ ​ ​ Stefaniak, J. E., & Tracey, M. W. (2014). An examination of the decision-making process used by

designers in multiple disciplines. TechTrends, 58(5), 80-89. ​ ​

Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education, (p. 159). Hillsdale, NJ: ​ ​ Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tangney, S. (2014). Student-centered learning: A humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher ​ Education, 19(3), 266–275. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.860099 ​ Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1993). Monitoring the development of constructivist

learning environment. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National

Teachers Association, Kansas City, MO.

Taylor, P. C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational ​ studies in Mathematics, 31(1-2), 151-173. ​ Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning 189

environments. International journal of educational research, 27(4), 293-302. ​ ​ Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth

development through school based social and emotional learning interventions: A - meta analysis of follow up effects. Child development, 88(4), 1156-1171. - - ​ ​ Temiz, T., & Topcu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers’ teacher efficacy beliefs and

constructivist-based teaching practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education ​ - EJPE (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 28(4), 1435-1452. ​ doi:10.1007/s10212-013-0174-5.

The Origins Program (2006). Developmental Designs 1. Middle School Resource Book.

Minneapolis, MN.

The Origins Program (2018). Teaching for educational equity. Elementary Resource book.

Minneapolis, MN.

Thomas, D. E., Bierman, K. L., Powers, C. J., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.

(2011). The influence of classroom aggression and classroom climate on

aggressive–disruptive behavior. Child development, 82(3), 751-757. ​ ​ Thomas, J. W., Strage, A. & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-directed learning: Issues

and guidelines. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 313-326. ​ ​ Thompson-Grove, G., & Frazer, E. (n.d.). Pocket Guide to Probing Questions. Retrieved from:

http://schoolreforminitiative.org/doc/probing_questions_guide.pdf

Thornhill, A., Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2009). Research methods for business students. ​ London, UK: Pearson Education. 190

Tienken, C. H. (2010). Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa, Delta Pi Records, 47, ​ ​ 14-17.

Tillema, H., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (2005). Facing dilemmas: Teacher-educators’ ways of

constructing a pedagogy of teacher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), ​ ​ 203-217.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. ​

Tsui, A. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers. ​ ​ Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Urzúa, A., & Vásquez, C. (2008). Reflection and professional identity in teachers’ future-oriented

discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1935-1946. ​ ​ ​ ​

Usher, K. (2019, April). Differentiating by Offering Choices: Elementary students have a better

chance of showing what they’ve learned when they have a choice about how to show

it. Edutopia. Retrieved from: ​ ​ https://www.edutopia.org/article/differentiating-offering-choices

Vanderlinde, R. and van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice:

Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries, and researchers. British ​ Educational Research Journal, 36, 299–316. ​

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. Albany, NY: State University of New ​ ​ York Press. 191

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). Constructivism reconstructed: A reply to Suchting. Science & ​ Education, 1(4), 379-384. ​ ​ ​ Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. ​ ​ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work ​ ​ published in 1934).

Walan, S. & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2015). Student responses to a context- and - inquiry-based

three-step teaching model. Teaching Science, 61(2), 33-39. ​ ​ Walker, G. J. (2014). A qualitative study of how cultural capital affects low-income ​ undergraduate students' decisions to participate in highly ranked research

Walshe, C., Ewing, G., & Griffiths, J. (2012). Using observation as a data collection method to

help understand patient and professional roles and actions in palliative care settings.

Palliative Medicine, 26, 1048–1054. doi:10.1177/0269216311432897. ​

Wang, H. (2014). Learner autonomy based on constructivism learning theory. International ​ Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation, 8(5), 1543-1545. ​ ​ ​

Waterhouse, L. (2006). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and

emotional intelligence theories. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247-255. ​ ​ Weinstein, T., Boulanger, F. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Science curriculum effects in high

school: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, ​ ​ 511–522. doi:10.1002/tea.3660190610

Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Social and 192

emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R.

P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: ​ Research and practice (pp. 3-19). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. ​ Wickham, M., & Woods, M. (2005). Reflecting on the strategic use of CAQDAS to manage and

report on the qualitative research process. The qualitative report, 10(4), 687-702. ​ ​

Wigfield, A., Ecdes, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W. and Davis Kean, P. (2006). Development

of achievement motivation. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, ​ and Personality Development, Vol. 3, 6th ed., ed Damon, W., Lerner, R. M., and ​ Eisenberg, N., 933-1002. New York: Wiley.

Wilcox-Herzog, A. (2002). Is there a link between teachers' beliefs and behaviors? Early ​ Education and Development, 13(1), 81-106. ​

Wilson, B. G. (2012). Constructivism in practical and historical context. Trends and Issues in ​ Instructional Design and Technology, 3, 45-52. ​ ​ ​

Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340 (6130), ​ ​ 310-313.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An

analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing

teachers. Review of educational research, 72(2), 131-175. ​ ​ Winne, P. H. (2010). Improving measurements of self-regulated learning. Educational ​ Psychologist, 45, 267–276. ​ 193

Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Development of elementary school students' cognitive structures

and information processing strategies under long term constructivist oriented science - - instruction. Science Education, 89(5), 822-846. ​ ​ Yin, R. K. (1994, 2003, 2017). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, ​ ​ Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic

attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American ​ Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676. ​

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learning: An overview. Theory Into ​ Practice, 41, 64-70. ​

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,

methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research ​ Journal, 45, 166 –183. ​ Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base

linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational & ​ Psychological Consultation, 17(2), 191-210. ​

Zins, J. E. & Elias, M. J. ( 2006). Social and emotional learning. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke

(Eds.). Children’s needs III: Development and prevention (pp. 1-13). Bethesda, MD: ​ ​ National Association of School Psychologists.

Zuckerman, G. (2004). Development of reflection through learning activity. European Journal of

Psychology of Education, 19(1), 9-18. ​ 194

195

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL FROM NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

196

APPENDIX B: PERMISSION TO ACCESS RESEARCH SITE

197

APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT EMAIL

Dear Teachers,

I would like to invite you to take part in a unique opportunity to improve teaching and ​ learning at your school!

Principal Genevieve Schultz is sending you this email on my behalf. I am a doctoral student at ​ ​ Northeastern University in Boston and am currently conducting a qualitative doctoral research project, and am in need of six teachers to participate. The purpose of this research is to gain insight into social-emotional learning and how it affects decisions regarding teaching. As you may know, I taught at the Cuffee Middle School for 13 years and my student research interest ​ ​ stemmed directly from my work with students at Paul Cuffee. I strongly believe that it will help ​ ​ inform teachings as well as students’ outcomes at Cuffee. As a token of gratitude, a $30 Amazon ​ ​ ​ gift card will be given to participants at the end of the study. To qualify for this study you are ​ required to: ● Be a middle/high school teacher ​ ● Have at least three years of work experience as a teacher ​ ● You have been trained by Origins for Developmental Designs (DD) ​ ● You have been implementing DD pedagogy for at least 2-3 years ​

Study’s Logistics: The study will take place in your classroom and will take about two to three hours for me to complete. It will require you to: 1. Submit one lesson plan, be observed for one class period 2. Fill-in a very short survey 3. Participate in a 60-90 minutes long interview about social-emotional learning, your educational beliefs, and pedagogical practices and decisions. This portion can be done outside of your classroom at a location you choose.

Please note that there is a risk that all staff, faculty, and students at Paul Cuffee will know ​ ​ that you are participating in my study—there is no way to keep your participation from others in the school as my study is done in your classroom and during school hours. Your decision to participate in this research project is completely voluntary. Your part in this ​ study will be handled in a confidential manner. Only I and the Principal Investigator, along with all others in the Paul Cuffee community, will know that you participated in this study. Any ​ ​ reports or publications based on this research will only use pseudonyms, and will not identify you or any other participant as being part of this project. 198

If you have any additional questions about this study, please feel free to contact Me via email: [email protected] or phone: 401-339-6441. Emails to any of my other email addresses ​ must be deleted with no response per Northeastern University IRB. If you do not contact me at must student email address ([email protected]) to volunteer or ​ ​

for more information, you will not be contacted again regarding this research.

Thank you!

Edna Michelle Attias, Doctoral Candidate, Northeastern University

IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration

199

APPENDIX D: POST DATA COLLECTION BRIEFING DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Dear Participant,

I would like to thank you again for your participation in my doctoral research study. I am happy to share with you that I have formally completed the data collection phase of my study, and analysis of the data for trends and major themes. As you know, my research topic is to explore if social-emotional teacher training impacts pedagogical decision-making. At this point, I would like to further disclose that I am specifically interested in looking at constructivist-related decision-making. The literature reveals that there is much evidence to support how constructivism is an elusive theory, and is a challenge to put to practice. Empirical support for its effectiveness varies and is highly dependent on context. I am, therefore, interested to see if Developmental Designs structures and skills help mitigate these challenges.

At the time of the data collection, I could not fully disclose this specific lens since I did not want it to influence your behavior, natural thought processes, and decisions. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any further questions.

If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish.

Sincerely yours,

Edna Michelle Attias

IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration

200

APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies

Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Kristal Moore Clemens (Principal Investigator), ​ Edna Michelle Attias (Student Researcher)

Title of Project: The Intersection between Teachers Beliefs and Pedagogical ​ Decision-Making

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study We are inviting you to take part in a ​ research study. This form will tell you about the study, but the student researcher will explain it to you first. You may ask this person any questions that you have. When you are ready to make a decision, you may tell the researcher if you want to participate or not. You do not have to participate if you do not want to. If you decide to participate, the researcher will ask you to sign this statement and will give you a copy to keep.

Key Information: Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? You are being recruited because ​ you fit the criteria for special characteristics required for this study. These include: ● Being a Middle/High school teacher ● Having at least three years of work experience as a teacher ● Having been trained by Origins for Developmental Designs (DD) ● Have been implementing DD pedagogy for at least 2-3 years

Why is this research study being done? The purpose of this research study is to gain insight ​ into the social-emotional learning approach and explore if teachers’ pedagogical decision-making in the classroom is affected by it. I am hoping that the results of this study will help enrich the literature and improve learning and teaching.

What will I be asked to do? If you decide to take part in this study, we will ask you to: ​ 1. Submit a lesson plan 48 hours before teaching the proposed lesson to be observed. ​ 2. You will be observed for one class period 3. Complete a short online google form survey (20 questions) (should take 7 -10 min) 4. Interviewed right after school and on the same day of the observation (60 - 90 min) IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration 201

*If needed clarifications or follow-up after the interview or during data analysis, I will contact you via email in order to schedule a quick phone appointment.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take? The observation will all ​ take place in your classroom setting. You can choose an alternate location for the survey and the interview if you wish. The observation will be one class period, the survey will take about 10 minutes, and the interview should last 60-90 minutes.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? It is likely that all faculty, staff, students, and ​ parents at Paul Cuffee will know that you are participating in my study as I will be in your ​ ​ classroom. The decision to participate in this research project is completely voluntary, and you can refuse to answer any question(s) that may bring you discomfort. You may also withdraw from the study at any time.

Will I benefit from being in this research? There will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in the study. However, the information learned from this study may help expand the literature about this topic as well as help improve teaching and learning experiences.

Who will see the information about me? Within the Paul Cuffee community it is likely that ​ ​ ​ everyone could know that you are participating in my study. In all publications, your identity as a participant in this study will not be known to anyone but myself and the Principal Investigator. Your part in this study will be handled in a confidential manner. Only I will know that you participated in this study. Any reports or publications based on this research will only use pseudonyms, and will not identify you or any other participant as being part of this project. Your individual responses will not be shared with your administration either.

All data generated from this study will be stored online on the google drive on my personal computer, which can be accessed only by me and the Principal Investigator, as she is ultimately responsible for everything I do in this study. Research notes and hard copies of emails from participants will be stored in a locked file cabinet in my home office. To protect your confidentiality, I will use pseudonyms to label transcripts and notes. All interview field notes, emails, digital audio, and video records will be destroyed after two years.

IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration 202

Please note that the lesson observation will be videotaped and that the interview will be audio- recorded and subsequently transcribed in order to capture as much detail with accuracy. All video, audio, and transcription material will be made available to you for review, correction, and feedback, and will be labeled with a pseudonym and stored safely in order to preserve your privacy and confidentiality.

In rare instances, authorized people may request to see research information about you and other people in this study. This is done only to be sure that the research is done properly. We would only permit people who are authorized by organizations such as the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board [or if applicable the sponsor or funding agency e.g. NIH, NSF, FDA, OHRP] to see this information.

Future Use of Data: Your de-identified information could be used for future research without ​ additional informed consent.

If I do not want to take part in the study, what choices do I have? Participation is completely ​ voluntary. You can opt-out if you do not wish to participate.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research? No research-related injury is ​ expected to result from this study. No special arrangements will be made for compensation or for payment for treatment solely because of my participation in this research.

Can I stop my participation in this study? Your participation in this research is completely ​ voluntary. You do not have to participate if you do not want to, and you can refuse to answer any questions you do not feel comfortable to answer. Even if you begin the study, you may quit at any time. If you do not participate or if you decide to quit, you will not lose any rights, benefits, or services that you would otherwise have [as a student, employee, etc].

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions about this ​ study, please feel free to contact Edna Attias ([email protected] ; (401) 339-6441), the ​ ​ ​ ​ person mainly responsible for the research. You can also contact Dr. Kristal Clemons ([email protected]), the Principal Investigator. ​ ​

IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 203

No Expiration

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant? If you have any questions about your ​ rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish.

Will I be paid for my participation? You will be given a $30 gift certificate to Amazon.com as ​ soon as you complete the study.

Will it cost me anything to participate? There is no cost associated with this study for ​ participants.

Is there anything else I need to know? You must be at least 18 years old to participate. This ​ research is paid for by my personal funds. ------This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (#CPS19-10-19).

I agree to take part in this research.

______Signature of person agreeing to take part Date

______

Printed name of person above

______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent

Edna Michelle Attias Printed name of person above

IRB# CPS19-10-19 204

Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration I agree to be contacted for follow-up questions

______Signature

______Contact Information (email or phone)

IRB# CPS19-10-19 Approved: 12/20/19 No Expiration

205

APPENDIX F: OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS

Date: Participant Code:

SEL Practice/Structured Teachers’ Action Reflexive Notes Observed/Connection

SEL Structures Observed

______Reflective Loop (Plan, Work, Reflect) ______Proactive Teaching (Ex. Group/partner work expectations) ______Ways of Managing Conversations ______Acknowledgments ______Power of Play ______Circle Teaching ______Modeling and Explicit Teaching ______Empowering Language ______Collaborative Problem Solving 206

CASEL Competencies and Skills Observed in Students

Date: Participant Code:

207

APPENDIX G: PERMISSION TO USE AND REVISE THE CLES

Subject: Request to use and revise the CLES 2 (20) for Doctoral Research Study

Johnson, Bruce - (brucej) Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:27 PM

Hello Edna,

Thank you for contacting us. You are welcome to use the Revised CLES(20) in your study, modifying it as you need. The instrument is not copyrighted.

We will be interested in learning about your findings.

Bruce

Bruce Johnson Dean & Professor, College of Education Paul L. Lindsey & Kathy J. Alexander Chair University of Arizona

nd P.O. Box 210069; 1430 E. 2 ​ Street Tucson, AZ 85721-0069 ​ Phone – 520.621.1081 [email protected] www.coe.arizona.edu

208

APPENDIX H: SURVEY INSTRUMENT CLES 2 (20)

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT SURVEY CLES 2(20) What Happens in My Classroom – Teacher Form

Response choices for all items are: A Almost Always B Often C Sometimes D Seldom E Almost Never

Learning About the World (Personal Relevance)

In this class . . . 1. Students learn about the world inside and outside of school. 2. New learning relates to experiences or questions about the world inside and outside of school. 3. Students learn how school learning is a part of their inside- and outside-of-school lives. 4. Students learn interesting things about the world inside and outside of school.

Learning at School (Uncertainty)

In this class . . . 5. Students learn that we cannot always provide answers to problems. 6. Students learn that explanations have changed over time. 7. Students learn that various disciplines are influenced by people’s cultural values and opinions. 8. Students learn that various disciplines provide ways to raise questions and seek answers.

Learning to Speak Out (Critical Voice)

In this class . . . 9. Students feel safe questioning what or how they are being taught. 10. I feel students learn better when they are allowed to question what or how they are being taught. 11. It’s acceptable for students to ask for clarification about activities that are confusing. 12. It’s acceptable for students to express concern about anything that gets in the way of their learning.

209

Learning to Learn (Shared Control)

In this class . . . 13. Students help me plan what they are going to learn. 14. Students help me to decide how well they are learning. 15. Students help me to decide which activities work best for them. 16. Students let me know if they need more/less time to complete an activity.

Learning to Communicate (Student Negotiation)

In this class . . . 17. Students talk with other students about how to solve problems. 18. Students explain their ideas to other students. 19. Students ask other students to explain their ideas. 20. Students are asked by others to explain their ideas.

Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.

Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7(1), 65-80. ​ ​ ​ ​

210

APPENDIX I: ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM

Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Kristal Moore Clemens (Principal Investigator), Edna Michelle Attias (Student Researcher)

Title of Project: The Intersection between Beliefs of Social-Emotional Learning Approach and ​ Constructivist Pedagogical Decision-Making: A Case Study.

Request to Participate in Research

We would like to invite you to participate in a web-based online survey. The survey is part of a doctoral student research study whose purpose is to gain insight into the social-emotional learning approach and explore if teachers’ pedagogical decision-making in the classroom is affected by it. We are hoping that the results of this study will help enrich the literature and improve learning and teaching.

Key Information

This survey should take about 7-10 minutes to complete.

We are asking you to participate in this study because you fit the criteria for special characteristics required for this study. These include:

● Being a middle/high school teacher ● Having at least three years of work experience as a teacher ● Having been trained by Origins for Developmental Designs (DD) ● Have been implementing DD pedagogy for at least 2-3 years ● You must be at least 18 years old to take this survey.

The decision to participate in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to ​ participate and you can refuse to answer any question. Even if you begin the web-based online survey, you can stop at any time.

There is a risk that your participation in this research study will be known to all students, parents, faculty, and staff at Paul Cuffee. You may do the survey at any time in any ​ ​ location—you are not required to complete the survey in your classroom when the student researcher is present.

There are no direct benefits to you from participating in this study. However, the ​ information learned from this study may help expand the literature about this topic as well as help improve teaching and learning experiences.

211

You will be given a $30 gift certificate to Amazon.com as soon as you complete the study as a token of appreciation for your participation.

It is likely that all members of the Paul Cuffee community will know that you are a part of this ​ ​ study, but if you do this survey in private, they will not know that you are completing the survey. Your answers to the survey are anonymous to the researchers, but the researchers (PI and student researcher) will know who did or did not participate in all aspects of the study. However, because of the nature of web based surveys, it is possible that respondents could be identified by ​ ​ the IP address or other electronic record associated with the response. Any reports or publications based on this research will use only group data and will not identify you or any individual as being affiliated with this project.

Future Use of Data Your de-identified information could be used for future research without additional informed ​ consent.

If you have any questions regarding electronic privacy, please feel free to contact Mark ​ Nardone, NU’s Director of Information Security via phone at 617-373-7901, or via email at [email protected]. ​

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Edna Attias ​ ([email protected] ; (401) 339-6441), the person mainly responsible for the research. You ​ ​ ​ ​ can also contact Dr. Kristal Clemons ([email protected]), the Principal Investigator. ​ ​ ​

If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact ​ ​ ​ Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish. ​

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (#CPS19-10-19).

By signing below you are indicating that you consent to participate in this study.

______Printed Name Signature Date

Thank you for your time,

Edna Michelle Attias ​ 212

APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONS

Interview Protocol Institution: Northeastern University: 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115

Interviewee: (Title and Pseudonym Name): Interviewer: Edna Michelle Attias Date: Location of Interview:

Introductory Session Objectives: To form a relationship of trust, and put the interviewee at ​ ease.

Part 1: Introductory Protocol: (5 min)

You have been selected to participate in this study and speak with me today because you have been identified as someone who we have a great deal to learn from the experience of being a teacher.

Our research project focuses on the intersectionality of social-emotional learning and constructivist teaching pedagogy. Through this study, we hope to gain deeper insights into if/how teachers’ social-emotional beliefs inform and guide teaching.

Your responses are very important, and as such, I want to make sure to capture everything you say by recording our conversation today via (audio-tape).

Do I have your permission to record this interview? I will also be taking written notes during the interview. Only you and I will be privy to the audio files and notes.

I will use the smart application Temi to transcribe the interview. The audio file will be labeled by a pseudonym in order to maintain confidentiality. I can assure you that all responses will be kept confidential and only pseudonyms will be used when quoting from the transcripts. You and I will be the only ones privy to the tapes, which will be destroyed (two weeks) after they have been transcribed and checked for accuracy.

I would like to begin recording this session now; is that alright with you? OK, the audio recording has begun. 213

To meet our human subjects requirements at the university, participants have to read and verbally agree to the consent form for this study, entitled “The Intersection between Beliefs of Social-Emotional Learning Approach and Constructivist Pedagogical Decision-Making: A Case Study,” states that you must have at least 3 years work experience as a teacher, trained by Origins on developmental designs, have been implementing Developmental Designs in your classroom.

You are being asked to participate in one interview focused around your personal background, career history, beliefs, and pedagogical decisions.

Essentially, this consent form states that:

(1) all information will be held confidentially, (2) your participation is completely voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm (emotional, psychological, or physical) during the interviews.

Any reports or any future publications based on this research will only include pseudonyms and will not identify you or any other participant as being part of this project.

Do you have any additional questions about the interview process or how your data will be used?

Do you give your verbal consent to participate in this research project? Wonderful, thank you.

This interview will run for about 60 minutes. After reviewing your video and interview notes, I may have to contact you again for follow-up questions/clarifications. Today, I have several questions I would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning. Do you have any questions at this time?

Part 2: Interviewee Background (10 min)

As I have mentioned, the purpose of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of the intersection between social-emotional learning and constructivist teaching pedagogy.

The approach to this exploratory case study will explore in some depth the 214 participant’s personal background, career history, use of social-emotional strategies, and pedagogical decision-making.

Are you ready to begin? Great!

Please share with me the following information:

Educational Background (10 min)

1. When you were a child … Did you enjoy learning? Were you a good student? 2. Who was your favorite teacher? Why? 3. Did you attend a traditional (face-to-face) or non-traditional (online) college of education? 4. What is your educational level? 5. How do you identify your race and ethnicity? 6. How old are you?

Career Path and Experience (10 min)

1. How long have you been teaching? 2. What influenced your decision to go into the education field? 3. How would you describe your teaching style? 4. What do you consider the most rewarding aspect(s) about being a teacher? 5. What do you consider the most challenging aspect(s) about being a teacher? 6. When were you trained by DD? What training did you take? What are your thoughts about this training?

Social-Emotional Beliefs and Practices (15 min)

1. What are your school’s expectations in applying SEL practices? 2. How confident are you to implement these expectations (on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most confident). 3. Do you think there is a connection between SEL and academic achievement? If so, can you explain how you see these connected? 215

4. Are there SEL skills that students learned through DD and are used /applied by students during content learning without your directives? If so, please name these, explain, and give examples.

Social-Emotional Structures and Pedagogical Decision Making (15 min)

1. What factors do you consider when you react to teaching that doesn't go as planned? 2. Are there any DD structures that you consciously and purposefully use during your content teaching? If so, please name these and explain. 3. Have DD structures helped pedagogical planning when you planned an inquiry, social learning activity, or an open-ended task? If so, how so? Give examples. 4. How do DD gained-practices impact your teaching and on the spot spontaneous pedagogical decisions?

Constructivism (15 min)

1. What do you know about constructivism? 2. Where have you learned about this theory? Have you received any specific training on it over your years of teaching? 3. What are your experiences and thoughts about this theory/approach to teaching?

Part 3: Wrap Up (5 min)

This concludes the questions for today’s interview. Before we wrap up, do you have any questions? Thank you so much for your participation. I may contact you if I have any follow-up or clarification questions. Would you prefer I contact you via email or telephone?

Over the next month, I will email you files of the video, audio, and word-for-word transcript. If you choose, you can review the information and also provide me with any feedback, alterations, or corrections. Please confirm the email address you would like me to email the transcripts to. Do you have any further questions for me?

Thank you so much for your participation in this study!

216

APPENDIX K: LETTER TO STUDENTS’ FAMILIES January, 2020 Dear Families,

My name is Edna Attias. Some of you may remember me as the 6th grade science teacher, as I taught at the Paul Cuffee Middle School for 13 years. I am currently conducting a study for the ​ ​ purpose of my doctoral dissertation in which I am investigating teachers’ instructional decision-making. As part of my data collection, I am to observe and record classroom teachers. You are getting this letter because one of your child’s teachers was chosen for my study. While I am focusing on the teachers, your child may appear in the video of the lesson I am recording. Please know that this video will be completely confidential and viewed only by me and, if needed, by my supervising Professor at Northeastern University, Dr. Kristal Clemons. Once I analyze the teacher’s decisions and behaviors I will erase the video. Should you have any questions about my doctoral study or have any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]. ​

Sincerely yours,

Edna Attias Doctoral Candidate, Northeastern University ------Enero, 2020 Queridas familias,

Mi nombre es Edna Attias. Algunos de ustedes me podrán recordar cómo la maestra de ciencias de 6to grado, ya que enseñe en la escuela intermedia Paul Cuffee por 13 años. En estos ​ ​ momentos estoy haciendo un estudio con el propósito de mi tesis para mi doctorado en el cual estoy investigando la toma de decisiones de los maestros en el ámbito educativo. Como parte de mi recopilación de datos, debo observar y registrar a los maestros de clase. Recibirá esta carta porque uno de los maestros de su hijo fue elegido para mi estudio. Mientras me estoy enfocando en los maestros, su hijo puede aparecer en el video de la lección que estoy grabando. Tenga en cuenta que este video será completamente confidencial y solo lo veré yo y, si es necesario, mi profesora supervisora de la Northeastern University, la Dr. Kristal Clemons. Una vez que analice las decisiones y los comportamientos del profesor, borraré el video. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre mi estudio de doctorado o tiene alguna inquietud, no dude en ponerse en contacto conmigo al correo electrónico [email protected]. ​ ​

Sinceramente tuya,

Edna Attias Candidata a doctorado, Northeastern University