some of the various factors which affect knowledge-acquisition are diverse experiences, different learning styles, specific interests, working with others and critically reviewing actions. She stressed the importance of interaction, and explained that while learning depends partly on the way in which students participate in activities that foster interaction, the emphasis should be on the quality rather than the amount of interactions. On the issue of problem-solving, Henniger (2005) argued that this skill is essential for daily living and hence children need to develop appropriate strategies for first recognizing and then successfully solving problems that they may encounter. In order to accomplish this task, it is vital that creative and critical thinking be present. Snyder and Snyder (2008) proposed that students’ critical thinking can be developed if they are actively engaged in projects or other activities requiring collaboration, and if the thinking process is modelled and children are guided towards thinking critically. These researchers further underscored the point that in order for pupils to lead effective lives personally and in the future, it is crucial that they be able to solve problems, make valuable decisions and think critically since “students who are able to think critically are able to solve problems effectively” (Snyder and Snyder 2008, p.90). However in spite of all the benefits that have been identified about learner centred pedagogy and constructivism, it must be noted that not all theorists share the view that this is the only or best conceptualisation of learning and hence they have launched counter arguments. McCarty and Schwandt (2000) spoke favourably about the didactic approach and pointed out that there are “no grounds available for rejecting or disparaging certain versions of didactics” and that didactic teaching is not “always bad teaching” (p.79). They also maintained that no one learning approach should be condemned “whole cloth” since that would be “absolutist thinking about teaching . . .” (p. 80). Selly (1999, p. 5) concurred and explained that the “constructivist approach is not appropriate to all school learning” since knowledge such as the alphabet, spelling words, punctuation rules, arithmetic symbols, compass points and the national anthem “need to be transmitted directly”.
different developmental levels and capacities, different races and ethnicities, diverse religions and cultural beliefs and backgrounds . . . with diverse strengths and differences . . . with different learning styles and needs” and with “a history of experiences, of feelings, pains and triumphs . . . (Morrison 2012, p. 29). Support for this stance was offered by McCombs and Whisler (1997) who agreed that learner centred teaching should take into account the diverse and distinctive needs and learning styles of the pupils. They went on to suggest that this can be done by ensuring that at least some lessons are taught in a way to cater to more than one “learning style”. By so doing all the pupils would have their dominant learning style employed at some point, resulting in their motivation being enhanced and their learning maximized. Lessons should also allow pupils to have a voice, reflect that learning is a partnership between pupils and teachers and afford opportunities to promote positive relationships and collaboration between teachers and pupils and between pupils and peers (McCombs and Miller, 2007; Speaker, 2001; Beck, Czerniak and Lumpe, 2000). Another factor which may influence the way in which teachers teach is their belief about pupils’ love of activity. While young children may display varied characteristics, one thing which they have in common is their love of activity. They are highly curious about everything which they see and hear and enjoy experimenting with all kinds of materials in their environment (Hildebrand, 1997). They “use their whole bodies as instruments of learning, taking in data through all their senses” and “connect [their] thought with behaviour [by] “exploring, discovering, acquiring, and applying new knowledge and skills” (Kostelnik et al. 2011, p.41). It stands to reason then that teachers who hold the view that young children love and learn from activity will provide multiple opportunities for them to engage in play and hands on activities so that they may deepen their understanding of concepts (Sherwood and Reifel, 2010; Wood, 2009; Wasik, 2008). “Teaching is one of the most important professions” . . . since it is “an opportunity to shape minds and lives and to develop society through sharing and co-constructing of ideas” (Miller and Roofe 2013, p. 95). In order to achieve this, good quality teaching
Bearing in mind that good tools help to do a good job, the instruments which were used to generate data for this study were: an author-designed semi-structured interview schedule and two author-designed classroom observation checklists. I generated data through the use of one on one interviews with all the participants and direct observation of the learning environment and four lessons from each of four teachers. These two methods were selected because they “make no attempt to separate the researcher from the researched in order to maintain objectivity” (Greenbank 2003, p. 793). Both the interview schedule and the two checklists were piloted prior to use. A description and results of the pilot are provided later in this chapter. Interviews The semi-structured interviews (Stake, 2010; Yin, 2009) of approximately forty-five minutes to an hour in length were conducted with the eight teachers at a time that was convenient to both me and the participants. Questions relating to the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and perceptions about learner centred instruction as recommended in the ECE curriculum were included in the interviews. This basic method of generating data was used as it was aimed at attaining “rich and detailed answers to the research questions” (Yilmaz 2008, p.40). An interview schedule (Appendix G) with the research questions and the related guiding items based on each research question was used in the interviews. All interviews were audio-taped. This method of acquiring the actual quotations of the participants was employed since I share the belief that “no matter how carefully one words interview questions, it all comes to naught if the interviewer fails to capture the actual words of the person being interviewed” (Patton 1990, p. 347). In order to avoid influencing the views of the respondents, the interview questions were structured in a broad way. For example, in order to obtain the participants’ beliefs about learner centred instruction in the context of ECE, they were asked ‘What do you perceive your role to be in a learner centred instruction environment?’ With regards to generating information on contextual factors affecting the participants in the implementation of learner centred instruction in the ECE curriculum, they were asked: ‘Have you experienced any challenges in implementing learner centred
alone or whether they will relate to things that the students would be able to move and manipulate. (Polly) I found it helpful to categorize the data generated from both schools to Item 3 (b) under academic domain and social/emotional domain. Following are the views from School (A) which I related to the academic domain. It improves learning....it helps the slower ones (Rose) It would help them to be able to explore and investigate, find out things for themselves which would help them to remember even longer. (Jean) It affects learning because the child becomes an active participant (Sandy) This approach sort of delays them from their writing activities. According to our Attainment Targets Infants A and Infants B have to do more practical and written work than Nursery and Reception, so it entails more work in the upper Infants (Lamonte) The following views from School (A) which I related to the social/emotional domain encapsulated the view of the other two respondents. It would help them to become more socialized (Jean) The child is excited about learning and interested in coming to school because the child now becomes a part of the learning process (Sandy) I related the following responses from School (B) to the academic domain. The techniques would . . .help pull up the ones at the bottom (Genevieve) It can allow the children to understand concepts better (Lisa) Going to the Centres help them to put things into perspective. . . gives the slower child the opportunity to manipulate or do something with his senses (Cherry)
The child’s role is to increase their critical thinking skills . . . learn on their own, use the knowledge they have to come up with new ways and new things, new ways of going around the particular situation.(Polly) The responses from School (A) to Item 6 were that children construct knowledge: through play activities and observation (Sandy) by seeing, imitating and mimicking what they see others do. They also do so by practical activities, by trial and error and by experimenting. (Lamonte) through guided discussion, the Project Method. (Rose) The responses from School (B) were: They construct knowledge based on their senses (Lisa) It is a matter of using what they know (Polly) In some cases it comes with even going on tours, bringing in resource persons . . . their own experiences, experimenting or self-discovery. (Cherry) They have information that they have already been given or acquired by themselves overtime and they build on it. (Genevieve) The answers from respondents of School (A) to Item 7 (a) as reflected in the following responses focused on establishing Learning Centres, out-door exploration and related follow-up activities. I have implemented learner centred instruction with my class. All the “Corners” were set up for them, they had Dressing Up Corners where
pupils of Barbadian primary schools (The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, 2010). Furthermore, it is significant that although the respondents from both schools confirmed that they believed children should be active, independent learners, only one from each school specifically communicated that the pupils should be involved in outdoor activities, interact with real life objects and engage in real-life experiences. This is somewhat surprising since these are critical components of ECE classrooms and based on my personal experience as a teacher of ECE these activities are usually prevalent in the early years classrooms. The question therefore arises as to whether most of the interviewees provide these learning activities for the pupils and if not, why not. Another expressed view of the participants is that one of the roles of the pupils is to be ‘socially interactive’. This belief, expressed as: “they are supposed to work with each other and discuss what they have been doing with the teacher and with the students’ (Lamonte), was similar to that of Perkins (1999) who proffers that knowledge and understanding are very social and are co-constructed through conversations with others. It also reflects the view of Speaker (2001, p.613) that classrooms should “encourage interaction” . . . “sharing of ideas, questions and solutions.” The implication for this is that every opportunity should be afforded for pupils to interact with their peers. In responding to how pupils of the 4-6 age groups construct knowledge, the teachers held varying views which were congruent with the literature. One response ‘mainly through play’ (Jean) alludes to the views of Kumar (2011); Doolittle and Hicks (2003) and Terwel (1999) who maintain that knowledge is constructed individually and socially. While stressing the importance of interaction Terwel (1999) however offers the caveat that the emphasis should be on the quality rather than the amount of interactions. Another response ‘They construct knowledge by applying themselves to resources or activities . . . going on tours, bringing in resource persons . . .’ (Cherry) was consistent with Essa (2011, p. 327) who maintains that “children have to construct knowledge for themselves” by interacting with materials and persons which are of
(1997) who attest that pupils’ learning is improved when they are partners in their learning and therefore they should be included “in the setting of learning goals” (ibid, p.26). When compared with literature by McCombs and Whisler (1997), the foregoing responses of the teachers seemed to suggest that they provide the recommended learner centred experiences for their pupils. The use of Learning Centres should facilitate the pupils’ choice of activities, their learning preferences, needs and “responsibility for their own learning” (ibid, p.10). Their involvement in would suggest that they are given “acknowledgment, and respect” by their teachers (ibid, p. 83). Emerging from the respondents was also the importance of using developmentally appropriate activities and interacting with the pupils. Quotations worthy of note were: ‘I am not using chalk and talk. . . I use concrete materials. . . I allow time for guided discovery’ (Genevieve) ‘I allow the children to go into certain Learning Centres and I go to each Centre. . . and discuss what they are doing’ (Lamonte). These espoused practices of the participants acquire support from Speaker (2001) who identifies some developmentally appropriate practices which enhance the children’s ability to learn. They include “providing children with concrete learning experiences, creating environments which enable children to learn through active exploration and interaction, and designing appropriate activities for different ability levels” (p. 611). When the participants indicated that they use concrete materials, facilitate guided discovery and establish Learning Centres, they revealed that they believe in using appropriate learner centred practices. Additionally, visiting the Learning Centres to examine and discuss the activities of the pupils facilitates teacher-pupil interaction as well as the monitoring of the pupils’ progress and their holistic development. A response from one of the teachers with respect to how she implemented learner centred instruction was: ‘I try to use the computer sometimes with them’. (Polly). This stance is a resemblance of the thoughts of Hermans, Tondeur, Braak and Valcke (2008, p.1500) who cite Hannafin and Land (1997) as expressing the view that
‘I think it is the years in Nursery’ (Genevieve).was another reported factor. This view is substantiated by Mansour (2009) who asserts that sources of teachers’ beliefs include both their formal and informal experiences. One participant singled out ‘the person that I was placed with at the time. . . ’(Polly). She indicated that she had benefitted from the other teacher and I termed this teacher induction or mentoring. This stance gains full support from Sosik, Lee and Bouquillon (2005, p. 94) who cite Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett (2003) as maintaining that benefits have been derived in “informal mentoring relationships which develop naturally between individuals.” Furthermore Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman and Liu (2001) posit that during mentoring the protégé receives assistance with what instructional approaches are to be promoted and which are to be suppressed. ‘I was introduced to it by a Principal of mine’ (Sandy). This participant articulated that her influencing factor was guidance from a Principal. This observation receives support from Sergiovanni (2006, p. 269) who admonishes that “principals must be directly involved in the teaching and learning life of the school” and need to provide opportunities for teachers to enhance their teaching skills. Cordeiro and Cunningham (2013, p. 10) further explain that principals need to possess “a deep understanding of curriculum, instruction, assessment and adaptations to unique contexts” so that they can support, motivate, coach and mentor staff. By so doing the administrators would be fulfilling another of their critical roles, that of instructional leader. It must be noted that whereas the respondents identified classroom and factors which influenced their decision to implement LCI, they did not include some of the other crucial factors which were highlighted in the literature. These included shifts in international pedagogical strategies and the need to promote critical thinking. In respect of the need to promote critical thinking, Snyder and Snyder (2008, p. 90) stress that “merely having knowledge or information is not enough” and in order for pupils to lead effective lives they “must be able to solve problems to make effective decisions” . . . and “think critically”. Summary The data generated from the third research question ‘What are the Barbadian teachers’ reported pedagogical beliefs about learner centred instruction in the
The matter of the dearth of materials was an issue for six of the eight participants and summed up as follows ‘the main challenge is obtaining materials.’ (Jean) Literature is replete with the view that the use of materials in ECE is vital to the development of young pupils and hence the availability of these resources would indeed be critical. In addressing the importance of the availability of materials in constructivist classrooms, Watson (2001) asserts that “direct physical interaction with materials is often effective in enhancing pupils’ thinking, especially as many do not spontaneously use verbalisation”. (p.141). She further affirms that when young children handle “physical materials” it “extends their sensory experience, is relaxing and satisfying, and may facilitate mental reasoning” (p.141). Henniger (2005, p. 290) concurs and opines that “understanding during the early childhood years is through hands-on manipulation of materials”. It must however be emphasized that “more materials does not have the same impact in all situations, either across cultures or at home and in school” (Prochner, Cleghorn and Green 2008, p.196) and therefore the emphasis should not be only on the availability and amount of materials but rather on their effective use. It is noteworthy that the respondents stressed the availability of materials but did not emphasize that they should be effectively utilized. A solution which was employed by three of the interviewees to counteract the problem of the paucity of materials/resources was to make their own charts. This stance echoed the view of Henniger (2005) who although making specific reference to the saving of money by teachers, posited that several teachers created their own materials and this was advantageous in that the teacher-made materials were designed with specific children in mind. In agreement with this were Essa (2011) and Durmusoglu (2008). One of the respondents indicated that her solution was to ‘buy materials where necessary’ (Jean). While this is not condemned by Essa (2011) she opines that “some of the best early childhood materials are not purchased commercially but are ones that an energetic teacher or parent constructs” (p. 213). It is therefore interesting that while three of the participants specified that they requested donations of materials from parents in order to increase the limited supply in their classrooms, none of them stated that they utilized the recommendation of
use of knowledge” (p.8). Other researchers who concur that learning should be actively constructed and meaningful include Yilmaz (2008) and Beswick (2007). One respondent explained that as part of learning there should be ‘the introduction of technology’ (Lisa). Support for this comes from Fletcher (2006) who asserts that the formative years are important for the learning of technology and Morrison (2012) who agrees that children’s learning can be improved in all domains through the use of technology and therefore advocates its integration in the early childhood learning environment. Chen (2008, p. 73) specifically cites that there would be improvement in “problem solving, critical thinking and collaborative learning” and Durmusoglu, (2008) recommends that early childhood settings should be improved by equipping them with technological tools. Along with computers, he recommends that a range of peripherals be used to allow for the continuing development of technology. Websites that contain high quality activities and which can stimulate the multiple intelligences of young children and can be navigated independently by them is another option (Rettig 2005). In all learning activities the ‘teacher should be assessing the children as she goes along from each group or each Centre’ (Lamonte). This expressed opinion was consistent with the view of Varol and Farran (2006) who remark that through assessment teachers are able to gain information about their pupils’ skills and attainments, provide necessary feedback and help improve teaching. A very interesting submission by one of the participants was ‘everyone has to have the vision in their head . . . and know we can’t get it done if everybody is not on board’ (Genevieve). This remark speaks to the importance of collegiality, collaboration and a shared vision among teachers and administrators and receives strong support from literature. Sahin (2011) asserts that “teacher collaboration is evaluated as the most positive [element] in school culture” (p. 1923) and therefore “administrators should provide opportunities for teacher collaboration, sharing of leadership and professional development in order to create a positive and collaborative school culture” (ibid, p. 1924). Waldron and Mcleskey (2010) and Coke (2005) also support a culture of collaboration, pointing out that it is very beneficial to
This view is strongly supported by Morrison and Cooper (2008/2009) who declare that principals should “establish the internal coherence necessary to sustain educational reform” (p. 115) and Ng (2009) who affirms that staff development sessions should be implemented or strengthened based on the specific needs of the teachers as it is crucial to successful curriculum innovation. Also necessary is the enhancement of “communication and collaboration among teachers, middle managers and school heads so that they have a better understanding of each other’s roles”. . . (Ng 2009, p. 201) and know how they can best cater to pupils’ needs. The data generated from the question ‘What training did you receive in learner centred instruction prior to its implementation’? revealed that five of the participants admitted they had received general teacher training while three indicated that they had not received any training. Of the five participants, three explained that they had received teacher training from the Teachers’ Training College when they pursued the Diploma in Education Primary but this training was not specific to learner centred instruction. One respondent confirmed that she had pursued a Teachers’ Advanced Professional Certificate in Early Childhood Education also from the Teachers’ College. The other respondent stated that she had attended ‘different short courses ’. . . (Rose). One of the three participants who remarked that she had not received any training stated that her knowledge had been acquired ‘just by observation and practise over the years . . .’ (Jean) while the other two each lamented ‘I did not receive any training in learner centred instruction’ (Lisa and Lamonte). The importance of training teachers for reform is strongly emphasized by Ng (2009) who explicitly states that “prior to initiating reforms, teachers should be provided with sufficient professional development training in various areas” (p. 201). et al. (2012) and Kumar (2011) further add that teachers would be more likely to teach using a constructivist approach if they were exposed to this approach during their teacher training. The entire sample was invited to make general comments in respect to their beliefs about learner centred instruction. The following quotations reflect the thoughts of the five participants who offered remarks:
awareness of their thinking and also to provide immediate feedback so as to reinforce understandings or clarify misconceptions (Kemp and Scaife 2012). All four teachers provided the pupils with “wait time” after posing questions. This was characteristic of a learner-centred environment, where “thoughtfulness is prized and expected to take time and effort” (Watson 2001, p. 145). Additionally “wait time” affords pupils opportunities for in-depth thinking about issues and concepts and decreases the likelihood that pupils will be mere spectators (Brooks and Brooks 2001). It also conveys to the pupils that teachers believe they have important information to share, they want to hear it, but understand that it may take varied amounts of time for particular children to share their views. Such awareness can encourage pupils to develop more ideas and become more confident and eager to share. The participating teachers also sought pupils’ understandings about concepts first, before they shared their own ideas. This technique is beneficial in that it would encourage the pupils to explore ideas, think through concepts, reduce the urge for them to merely accept what the teachers say without doing any thinking, as well as help the teachers to discover the pupils’ true understandings. The teachers also encouraged the pupils to elaborate on their responses. This strategy allowed the pupils to revisit their initial responses, recognize any errors (Brooks and Brooks, 2001) and make necessary adjustments. It also afforded them opportunities to engage in deep thinking and “classroom talk” which can “extend pupils’ levels of understandings” (Watson 2001, p. 144). In terms of assessment, all four teachers used a form which is highly compatible with LCI, namely diagnostic assessment. This was evidenced by the assessment activities being “interwoven in the lessons” (Brooks and Brooks 2001, p.17) rather than being “separate and distinct” (Brooks and Brooks 2001, p. x) from daily classroom activities, by pupils having to apply their own knowledge and skills (Kemp and Scaife, 2012) rather than merely recall facts and the activities not being based “exclusively on competitive norms” (Oldfather et al. 1999, p. 74). This type of assessment allows the teachers to discover prior learning, decide what else pupils need to learn and identify appropriate strategies for upcoming lessons (Kemp and
Scaife, 2012). Provision is also made for pupils to receive constructive feedback and for the discovering of pupils’ learning needs which is critical for helping teachers to improve their teaching (Varol and Farran, 2006). Conclusion The classroom environment as well as teaching are components of LCI and hence attention must be paid to both in order to make a determination as to whether LCI is being implemented. My observations indicated that all of the participants, in varying degrees, used a combination of both traditional and constructivist methods of teaching. Jean (School A) and Cherry and Lisa (School B) used more constructivist approaches while Lamonte (School A) used more traditional methods. It also appears that the teachers who hold strong beliefs about LCI used more elements of it in their lessons while teachers whose beliefs are not as strong used fewer features. Based on the lessons I observed, there were instances when the teachers showed consistency between what they reported during the initial interviews and what they actually practised in their classrooms. At other times however there were variations between their espoused views and their actual teaching. This was evident in that there were many opportunities in which a learner centred approach could have been employed, but it was not. Wen (2011) summed it up as that there seems to be discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs, what they actually do in their classrooms and what they report they do. It may be likely that they may “not be aware of discrepancies in self-reports between what they believe and what they do” since “self-reported beliefs and observed behaviours tend to be less congruent” (Wen 2011, p.948- 949). A post-observation interview was conducted with the participating teachers after their classroom observations. (Appendix K) An analysis of the interviews will now be provided. The complete transcriptions of the interviews are also provided. (Appendix L)
ANALYSIS OF POST-OBSERVATION INTERVIEWS The post-observation interviews provided pertinent information on how the teachers felt they had performed during their teaching and how this synchronized with their expressed views during the initial interview. Although expressed differently, they all shared the view that they believed their teaching was consistent with their stated views about the importance of using LCI and how it should be implemented. This was in spite of the fact that all of them to some degree used strategies associated with traditional teaching. It seems to me that in their responses generally, they offered justifications for their actions. For example, Lamonte in responding to how her teaching had synchronized with her initial view that children should experience “a hands-on approach to learning which includes ‘trial and error’ stated that “some of the lessons were follow-up lessons and therefore the ‘trial and error’ aspects were not seen”. She went on to explain that the pupils engaged in ‘trial and error’ during the Language Arts lesson when they “were asked to identify pictures that began with a letter or to identify words that the teacher called which began with the specific letter of the week”, and also in the Mathematics lesson when they had to “fold given shapes in half”, and “cut given items in half on their own.” Lamonte’s reply suggests to me that she was unclear as to the meaning of the term ‘trial and error’. From her response it seems that she interpreted this term as giving an answer or attempting a task and correcting either if incorrect. However this term refers to a problem by experimenting with a number of different methods and arriving at the correct answer by learning from the errors. Similarly, Jean in responding to her earlier point that children should be allowed to “observe, discover, create and investigate” stated that in two lessons “the pupils were afforded the opportunity to discover the contents of an unwrapped package and a gift bag”. This answer suggests a misunderstanding of the terms as used in the context of LCI. When children ‘discover’ they “make connections and build concepts through interactions with people and objects” (Kostelnik et al. 2011, p. 88) and use their experiences to arrive at conclusions. This was not the case in Jean’s lesson.
A longitudinal study could trace the progress of pupils in a sample of schools where there is the provision of adequate funds, physical resources, well trained teachers, effective leadership, an overall positive school culture and the implementation of LCI. An investigation could be done to ascertain how other contextual factors apart from those highlighted impact the implementation of reform and education in general. It is to be hoped that a commitment to enquiry into the practices and outcomes of LCI, through lines of research such as those outlined above, would sustain a culture of education for learning in Barbados. REFERENCES Adams, P. (2006) Exploring social constructivism: theories and practicalities. Education, 34(3), 243-257. Aldrich, J.E. and Thomas, K.R. (2005) Evaluating constructivist beliefs of teacher candidates. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25, 339-347. Alesandrini, K. and Larson, L. (2002) Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118-121. Aldemir, J. and Sezer, O. (2009) Early childhood education pre-service teachers’ images of teacher and beliefs about teaching. Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 105-122. Altinyelken, H. K. (2011) Student-centred pedagogy in Turkey: conceptualisations, interpretations and practices. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 137-160. Alvestad, M. and Duncan, J. (2006) “The value is enormous-It’s priceless I think!” New Zealand preschool teachers’ understandings of the early childhood curriculum in New Zealand- A comparative perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 31-45.
Ebbeck, M. and Chan, Y.Y.Y. (2011) Instituting change in early childhood education: Recent developments in Singapore. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 457-463. Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Leonard, R., and Lowyck, J. (2007) Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105-117. Emfinger, K. (2009) Numerical conceptions reflected during multiage child-initiated pretend play. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(4), 326-334. Erkmen, B. (2012) Ways to uncover teachers’ beliefs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 141-146. Ertmer, P.A. (2005) Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39. Essa, E. (2011). Introduction to early childhood education. 6th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Sengage Learning. Fancera, S.F. and Bliss, J.R. (2011) Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10, 349-370. Fang, Z. (1996) A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65. Faulk, J and Evanshen, P. (2013) Linking the primary classroom environment to learning. Young Children, 68(4), 40-45. Feyzioglu, E. Y. (2012) Science teachers’ beliefs as barriers to implementation of constructivist-based education reform. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 302-317. Fletcher, D. (2006) Technology integration: Do they or don’t they? A self-report survey from PreK through 5th grade professional educators. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 14(3), 213-219.
Katz, L.G. (2007) What to look for when visiting early childhood classes. Gifted Child Today, 30(3), 34-37. Kearney, W. S. and Smith, P.A. (2010) Principal influence and school change orientation in elementary schools: The importance of campus leadership. Journal of Practical Leadership, 5, 1-25. Kemp, S. And Scaife, J. (2012) Misunderstood and neglected? Diagnostic and formative assessment practices of lecturers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(2), 181-192. Kim, H., Park, E., and Lee, J. (2001) “All done! Take it home.” Then into a trashcan? Displaying and using children’s art projects. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 41- 50. Ko, E.K. (2012) What is your objective? Preservice teachers’ views and practice of instructional planning. The International Journal of Learning, 18(7), 89-100. Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, A.K., and Whiren, A. P. (2011) Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc. Kumar, A. (2011) Towards realist constructivism: Implications for teaching and training. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(3), 523-535. Lee, J. S. (2006) Preschool teachers’ shared beliefs about appropriate pedagogy for 4- year-olds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 433-441. Levin, T. and Wadmany, R. (Winter 2006/2007) Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157- 181. Li, H., Wang, C. and Wong, J.M.S. (2011) Early childhood curriculum reform in China. Perspectives from examining teachers’ beliefs and practices in Chinese literacy teaching. Chinese Education and Society, 44(6), 5-23.
Pan, Y and Liu,Y. (2008) A comparison of curricular practices in Chinese kindergartens: The influence of curriculum reform. International Journal of Early Childhood, 40(2), 33-48. Paris, C. and Combs, B. (2000) Teachers’ perspectives on what it means to be learner-centered. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2 nd edition. London, U.K. Sage Publications Inc. Patrick, M. E. (2008) An investigation into the concept of teacher training with regard to aspects of education. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus. Perkins, D. (1999) The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57 (3), 6-11. Pervin, L.A and John, O.P. (2000) Personality:Theory and Research. 8th edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Polly, D. and Hannafin, M. J. (2011) Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. The Journal of Educational Research,104, 120-130. Powell, K.C and Kalina, C. J. (2009) Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), p. 241-250. Prochner, L., Cleghorn, Ailie., and Green, N. (2008) Space considerations: Materials in the learning environment in three majority world preschool settings. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16(3), 189-201. Quay, J. (2003) Experience and participation: Relating theories of learning. The Journal of Experiential Education, 26(2), 105-116.
Williams, J., Evans, C., and King, L. (2012) The impact of universal design for learning instruction on lesson planning. The International Journal of Learning, 18(4), 213-222. Windschitl, M. (1999) The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 751-755. Wood, E. (2009) Developing a pedagogy of play. In A. Anning, J. Cullen and M. Fleer (eds) Early childhood education society and culture. 2nd edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. p. 27-38. Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (1996) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. London, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., and Wall, K. (2007) A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for building schools for the future. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (1), 47-70. Yilmaz, H. and Sahin, S. (2011) Pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 73-88. Yilmaz, K. (2009) Democracy through learner-centred education: A Turkish perspective. International Review of Education, 55, 21-37. Yilmaz. K. (2008) Social studies teachers’ views of learner-centered instruction European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53. Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: Design and methods. 4th edition. U.S.A., SAGE Publications, Inc. Yin, R.K. (2012) Applications of case study research 3rd edition. U.S.A., SAGE Publications, Inc.
In the next phase of the lesson the teacher informed the pupils that there are words in the poem that sound alike and she elicited from them that these words are called ‘rhyming words’. The teacher then read the first three lines of the poem and asked the pupils to identify the rhyming words. One child identified a pair of words and the teacher invited her to select those two words from a set of word cards on the table, spell them and match them to the same words in the poem. This activity was repeated with different children until all rhyming words were identified, spelt and matched. During the final section of the lesson the teacher informed the pupils that she had something special for them and proceeded to dress two pupils in headbands representing the sun and a seed. She then asked the pupils ‘What do you think the others will be?’ to which they responded ‘raindrops’. All other pupils in the class were dressed in headbands representing raindrops. The teacher read the narrative parts of the poem while the pupils read the relevant lines for their respective characters and dramatized the corresponding actions. This assessment activity was purposeful and promoted creative and critical thinking. It was interwoven with the teaching and based on each pupil’s progression as it required individual application of knowledge and skills as opposed to recalling facts. It also excluded competition from among the pupils. The instructional strategies and methods used during the lesson catered somewhat to the needs of the pupils in that while emphasis was not placed on the feelings and perspectives of the children, neither on their psychological needs, the activities were based on their intellectual and physical needs and their interests. The activities were playing a game and reciting and dramatizing poetry. These activities helped to foster pupils’ creativity as well as promoted social interaction between pupils and pupils and teacher and pupils. In addition all of the materials co-ordinated with the lesson and provided opportunities for all pupils to be involved in the lesson and to purposefully use and interact with physical materials. Lesson 2 The Mathematics lesson on “Pictographs” was approximately eighty minutes long and was integrated with Reading. The aims as inferred from my observation were to introduce the pupils to the concept of pictographs and involve them in constructing a
coordinated with the lesson and provided opportunities for the pupils to purposefully use interactive and physical materials. A poem entitled “The Dustman” was displayed on the chalkboard by the teacher and a brief discussion about the title followed linking it to the sanitation worker. The poem was read twice by the teacher and the pupils repeated after her. This included banging on the desks at the words “Biff Bang! Crash!” The teacher read the poem once more while the pupils dramatized it to conclude the lesson. No cognitive terminology such as ‘create’, ‘predict’ and ‘classify’ was used by the teacher during the lesson but the instructional strategies and methods catered to the needs of the pupils to some extent in that they reflected the pupils’ interests, addressed their physical, emotional and intellectual needs and allowed them to work at their own pace. Opportunities were also afforded for pupil involvement throughout the lesson. The pupils’ understanding of concepts was assessed during the lesson by questioning and role-playing and this allowed for the assessing of each pupil based on individual levels of attainment. Lesson 4 This was a forty-minute General Science lesson integrated with Language Arts and Singing. The title was ‘Sorting Garbage’ and the aim as outlined by the teacher was to aid pupils in learning how to correctly sort garbage. The teacher used a hand puppet with a garbage bin attached to her called Ms. Jones to engage in a conversation about a litter bug that was not treating her nicely and of a message which she wanted to give to the pupils about the importance of sorting garbage. The pupils’ interest was captured when they saw the puppet and they listened attentively and quietly to the conversation. At the end of the conversation the teacher told the pupils if they think they know who Miss Jones represents to raise their hands. One child replied ‘Ms Jones is a sanitation worker’ and the teacher immediately asked for a show of hands of those children who agreed. All pupils raised their hands. Elaboration of the pupils’ initial response was sought by the teacher asking ‘How do you know? The pupils replied ‘She has a garbage bin’. Through discussion the teacher reviewed why Ms. Jones had come to
question and after the pupils gave their responses, the teacher shared her understandings of the concepts and also clarified any misconceptions. A discussion then ensued during which teacher and pupils shared their experiences and ideas as to how usable items can be made from discarded objects and therefore ‘Out of garbage we can have goodness’. The teacher also provided additional reasons for sorting garbage which included reduction of garbage in the island and using old items to repair damaged items. At this point the teacher displayed a song written on a sheet of paper entitled “Sort your Garbage”. The teacher read the words to the song and the children repeated. The teacher then sang the song twice and invited the children to join in with her. The instructional strategies and methods employed by the teacher reflected the pupils’ interests, addressed their intellectual and physical needs and provided them with opportunities to be involved in sorting items, discussing concepts and singing a song. CHERRY’S LESSONS Lesson 1 The Language Arts lesson on Alphabet Knowledge was taught to a class of 4-5 year olds for a period of 60 minutes. The aim as stated by the teacher was to assist pupils in recognizing letter ‘H’ and stating its associated sound. The pupils sat in groups facing the teacher while she stood at the front of the class near to the chalkboard. The teacher commenced the lesson by using questions to review the letter which was taught during the past week. She then informed the pupils that a new letter will be done and proceeded to write the letter ‘H’ on the chalkboard. She asked the factual questions ‘What letter is this? What sound does it make?’ and allowed wait time after posing each question. The teacher confirmed and reiterated the pupils’ response that the letter was ‘h’ and it says ‘huh’. This was one example when the teacher enquired about the pupils’ understandings of concepts prior to sharing her own understanding. After this she asked the pupils to raise their pointer finger and prepare to sky write letter ’H’. She gave oral directions for the formation of the letter
The instructional strategies and methods used by the teacher which included poetry, dramatization and real life activities catered to the needs of the pupils as they reflected their interests, focused on their intellectual needs and addressed various learning levels. However no cognitive terminology such as ‘classify’, ‘predict’ or ‘create’ was used during the lesson. LISA’S LESSONS Lesson 1 This sixty minute Language Arts lesson which was integrated with Music focused on Homophones. The aim as inferred from my observation was to assist pupils in defining the term homophone and identifying pairs of homophones. The lesson commenced with the teacher standing in front of the class near to the chalkboard and the pupils sitting at their tables facing her. The lesson was introduced with the teacher displaying a bag of flour and asking the pupils ‘What is this? What do you make with it?’ Answers submitted by the pupils were flour and it is used to make bread, cake, pancakes, pizza and rotis. The teacher sought elaboration of the pupils’ initial responses by further questioning them as to who makes these items, and how and where they are made. She then displayed a flower and engaged the pupils in a discussion about what it is and what is done with it. Sharing of experiences occurred at this time as the teacher and pupils exchanged ideas and personal experiences about the various uses of flowers. Next the teacher showed the pupils the bag of flour and the flower and posed the questions ‘What are these? What do you notice about their names?’ The pupils replied as a whole group ‘they sound the same’. They were then invited to spell ‘flour’ and a label with the word was stuck on the bag. A similar process followed with the flower. The teacher then asked the class ‘Do they have the same letters?’ to which the children replied ‘only the ‘flo’ and the ‘r’ are the same but the rest of the letters are different.