Constructivist teacher preparation programs are intentionally designed to be transformational, not just informational. Students are constantly given opportunities to make new connections in a setting focusing on personal empowerment and critical reflection. The program challenges both students and teachers to move toward self-directed life-long learning.

Constructivism, reduced to its most basic elements, is simply a learning or meaning-making theory. This theory proposes that people create their own meaning and understanding, combining what they already know and believe to be true with new experiences with which they are confronted (Richardson, 1997). The theory views knowledge as temporary, developmental, social, and cultural (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fennimore, 1995). Lambert et al. (1995) described constructivism as the primary basis of learning where "individuals bring past experiences and beliefs, as well as their cultural histories and world views, into the process of learning; all of these influence how we interact with and interpret our encounters with new ideas and events" (p. xii). Kamii, Manning, & Manning (1991) added that, "individuals do not acquire knowledge by internalizing it directly from the outside but by constructing it from the inside, in interaction with the environment" (p. 18).

If we accept that understanding is formed and reformed as new information is integrated with pre-existing experiences, we must also acknowledge that each student, by virtue of different experiences, will incorporate this new information in different ways. Therefore, knowledge can not be thought of as simply concepts to be taught, but rather how individuals join information to form concepts, based on previous experiences. It therefore becomes the task of all teachers to help students construct and reconstruct their personal cognitive map.

As our understanding of learning and teaching has grown, the development of constructivism has transitioned from a Piagetian individual development paradigm to the recognition of cognitive development within a social setting. In fact, forms of Vygotskian construction not only place learning in a social setting, they propose education for social transformation (Boyle-Baise & Washburn 1995). This socio-cultural constructivism can be best described as process of synthesis where one acknowledges that understanding is personally constructed but modified by the social context in which learning takes place (e.g., Bauersfeld, 1992;

von Glasersfeld, 1992). More recently, Shymansky et al. (1997) have further refined this social contextual learning in terms of interactive-constructive teaching. They describe this refinement as "a classroom in which teachers orchestrate experience and discourse opportunities and social context to produce cognitive conflict in students who progressively resolve these problems by integrating new knowledge into prior knowledge structures" (p. 572). In other words, the social setting and culture influence the individual cognitive process and thus the end meaning-making product. In addition, cognitive dissonance is considered a natural component of learning.

Henriques (1997) describes four faces of constructivism as: information processing, social constructivism, interactive constructivism and radical constructivism. The social constructivist believe that understanding is constructed in a group setting while radical constructivist assume that all ideas possess equal merit. In other words, social constructivism describes a learning scenario in which group dynamics lead to multiple interpretations that are resolved by social negotiations resulting in consensus and common understanding at the group level. On the other end of the spectrum falls radical constructivism in which learning takes place due to interpersonal deliberations and inner speech, leading to personally valid interpretations that are internally assessed for personal consistency. Sort of a "self fulfilling prophecy."

Assuming that all forms of constructivism involve information processing, interactive-constructivism then falls between the most extreme social constructivist and radical constructivist views. Dunkhase, Hand, Shymansky & Yore (1997) offer the following definition of interactive constructivism.

This definition acknowledges that understanding must involve both a sociocultural context and private integration. Shymansky et al. (1997) further states that meaningful learning requires a personal restructuring of one’s conceptual framework in a dynamic process. This process includes periods of conceptual equilibration, experience, disequilibration, assimilation, accommodation, and reequilibration. Which is to say that growth in understanding is not a linear phenomenon and if graphed would show a saw-tooth image as the learner moves through the various phases. Holliday (1988) found that learners process information by instantaneously switching back and forth between selective perceptions of presented information and comparing that information with their personal recollections. Yore & Russow (1989) summarized this process and at the same time developed a direct tie to interactive-constructivism when they wrote: "Thus, cognition is an interactive-constructive process and metacognition is a conscious consideration of this interactive process, which results in verifying, structuring, and restructuring information into meaningful understanding-knowledge networks called schema." (p. 11)

Most educators would agree that the basic tenets of constructivism describe the way we have "always known that people learn." Still some teachers resist constructivist pedagogy. This resistance is not confined to k-12 education. Many Arts and Science faculty, who have an enormous influence on our future teachers, also harbor distrust for constructivist pedagogy. Therefore the social setting and cultural climate established within a constructivist methods course often do not match what occurs in many existing college or K-12 classrooms. In addition constructivist perceptions of the learning process are generally not held by the general public or by many of our pre-service teachers. This anomaly is particularly discerning in secondary science preparation programs that attempt to employ interactive-constructive teaching only to find classroom placements driven by content knowledge acquisition paradigms and students arriving from arts and science classes with context-free content-driven experiences.

Over the years educational reformers have used various approaches to gain attention to these issues. Postman and Weingartner (1969) stated over 30 years ago:

We have ample evidence that such "in your face" approaches to change only lead to even greater entrenchment. Brooks and Brooks (1993) suggest that resistance to constructivism is do to one of three factors; teachers are committed to their present instructional approach, convinced that students will not learn, or they are uncomfortable giving up control.

Richardson (1997) goes so far as to say that investigating beliefs and providing presentations of alternative conceptions of teaching may not be appropriate for mathematics and science teacher preparation programs. However, no educational research supports this notion. Certainly the National Science Education Standards inclusion of societal issues as a major reform component, would suggest that socio-cultural constructivism (teaching in context) be employed in both our teacher preparation programs and science classrooms (National Research Council, 1996).

While by definition constructivism is a descriptive theory of learning and not a formula for teaching, research on effective classroom practice provides insights into numerous design principles necessary when developing a constructivist teacher preparation program (Barman, 1997; Bonnstetter, 1994; Bonnstetter & Yager, 1991; Hammrich, 1998; National Research Council, 1996; Richardson, 1997). These include:

• establishing an inclusive democratic environment of trust and mutual respect;

• utilizing student’s background knowledge and experiences;
• building a curriculum directed at content-pedagogical knowledge in a context of doing "real work;"
• developing a climate of shared control, thus a community of learners;
• producing an understanding that all knowledge is partial and positional;
• negotiating an assessment protocol that rewards intrinsic motivation and is both performance-based and authentic;
• creating an educational program that is not simply informational, but transformational by exposing and reflecting on beliefs; and
• shaping in a climate where questioning and reflecting on experiences becomes a professional way of life.

This pedagogical list must form the foundation of a constructivist program and be present through daily modeling. Only after design components have been identified can program development begin.

The first realization in designing a constructivist program is that it takes time for students to actually address their beliefs and construct new insights. For many teacher preparation programs, the first move should be to increase the class time and spacing of program components. Far too often teacher preparation methods courses take place for a few weeks, or one semester, at which time students move immediately into student teaching. In addition, practica are often missing, thus leaving students with an information base without context. Please be mindful that this chapter assumes quality prior experiences in science content, and professional education including foundations of education, adolescent development, multiculture education, and instructional technology. A sample program is described in Figure 1.

___________

Check here for Figure 1

___________

Based on personal experience and conversations with constructivist teacher preparation faculty (at both the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS) and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)), it has become obvious that the methods, practica and student teaching components of a program must span a minimum of 15 to 24 months to facilitate necessary paradigm shifts.

The program being used as a model for this chapter offers the following logistical components spanning an 18 month period.

• A three semester hour methods/curriculum course which meets three times each week for a total of six hours with the goal of building a rationale and philosophy of teaching. (Note the double time allotment. This course is considered a laboratory course and therefore is handled as any other science class.)
• A one hour informal/non-formal/research practicum requiring at least

• A three semester curriculum/methods course which meets twice a week for six hours with the focus shifting to developing the "how."
• A semester long one hour practicum requiring two or more periods in a

• Student Teaching all day - all semester.
• Two hour Student Teaching Seminar every other week, late afternoon.
• A culminating celebration of learning program (Bonnstetter, 1994).

The methods instructor must model the process of effective questioning and reflection. Only when the teacher exposes their personal search for hidden biases and models these internal struggles can students begin their own personal questioning of deeply held teaching beliefs. One approach at early modeling involves the creation and constant revision of one’s own personal philosophy statement, which is shared with students, in this case as part of the course syllabus.

For many students, the philosophy statement written above and provided to students at the beginning of a methods program, must be revisited in light of actual course work. Only then will its meaning come alive.

A methods instructor must be fully aware of the potential lack of experience with a constructivist philosophy and its corresponding teaching strategies by pre-service students. Many of our students, especially secondary science teachers, are driven by past content focused paradigms and are not prepared to have someone request that they expose, or even examine, their personal beliefs. They come into methods expecting a formula for teaching, not unlike most of their incorrect image of science course experiences. To head off problems before they arise, a climate of trust and openness must be established. In addition, you cannot assume that students even see, let alone understand, the approaches being employed. Quality class time must be spent discussing what is being done and why. Without this approach, an instructor is doomed to class conflict, extremely poor course evaluations, and ultimate paradigm shift failure.

Another key to a successful transition to a constructivist classroom involves helping students rethink the source and role of authority within a class structure. Students who have been successful in their traditional science courses may find this transition to a constructivist classroom extremely difficult. Over the years they have figured out over the years how to play the game, but now all the rules have changed. These discrepancies between traditional beliefs concerning teaching and learning and constructivist principles cause tremendous disequilibrium. As students transition from these traditional views, they mentally start questioning course and instructor credibility. "Who is in charge of this class?" "How are we being graded?" "How will I know if I am better than others?" "Why should I have to share and be responsible for listening to other class members?" "This course seems content free." "So where’s the ‘beef?’"

Problems of authority and control can be magnified by a teacher who thinks she is constructivist by providing hands-on activities, engaging students, asking higher-order questions, but in truth have a hidden agenda. These teachers employ the "Top Dog" approach where students are expected to "discover" only what the teacher had in mind as the right answer. Only when a methods class strives to reduce inequality and establish an environment where everyone has a place and voice can constructivism flourish. This is not to say that the program or the teacher does not have expectations, but that these outcomes are clearly stated and the role to be played by both instructor and students are laid out up front in an environment of open communication. Imagine the problems this teacher can create when you add cultural and linguistic variables to your classroom.

Vadeboncoeur (1997) clearly states that "the current social climate in this country mirrors a conservative ideology which maintains the status quo in schools and in teacher education programs marked by inequality for some students and privilege for others." Teacher preparation programs, therefore, must establish an open forum for these issues. However, what is far too often missing from this course component is the recognition that acts of knowing are acts of interpretation (LeCompte, 1993). O’Loughlin (1993) best describes this process as emancipatory constructivism, where critical and culturally relevant analysis exposes a person’s position in terms of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics that historically have been used to discriminate against people.

This transformation from a traditional top down authoritarian approach to a more emancipatory constructivist climate is absolutely essential as we face growing diversity within our K-12 schools. Emerging minorities must find a classroom culture, established by our graduates, which is devoid of past power and privilege undertows. In other words, our graduates must be qualified to enter today’s schools, but prepared as change agents for tomorrow’s realities. The primary components to facilitate this shift must be present in our preparation programs. Creating an environment of open dialog is crucial to this goal and to the development of class community.

The first days of any class are crucial. As Wong & Wong (1991) so aptly state, "What you do on the first days of school will determine your success or failure for the rest of the school year" (p. 3). This is especially true of the methods class where not only are you responsible for developing a knowledge base but insuring that appropriate pedagogy is modeled at every turn. In order to set the tone for socio-cultural constructivism the roles of each class member, including the instructor, must be delineated. These issues of power and privilege, if not dealt with, can disenfranchise some students and corrode the sense of family, unity, and trust within this newly formed grouping. A sense of commonality of purpose for the group as well as each individual must be developed from day one.

Students arriving to their first class find a circle of tables and chairs with no discernable room front. They are greeted at the door and invited to take a seat anywhere around the circle. Unlike most college classes, which start with a brief course overview and other logistical concerns, this class starts with the most important part of the class, the students. This requires the instructor to take a seat around the circle like any other class member. The instructor can be heard saying,

The next step depends on group size and time frame available. But readers are reminded that unless time is taken to set the stage for social discourse, little else concerning constructivism will work. If the group is from five to

This first activity may be built upon by next using a process called Peter and Paul. Peter and Paul require students to pair off and interview each other. After three or four minutes for each interview, students are asked to take on the role of their interviewee and introduce the other person as themselves. This role reversal leads to much more interest than the traditional, "tell everyone something about yourself" and allows students to gain experience handling multiple variables simultaneously. After a role reversal introduction, the group may ask additional questions of the real person to insure accuracy and further develop classroom connections.

Next, students form a tight circle on the floor or in chairs. (A group of 20 will form a diameter of around 3 meters.) They are asked to think of a science experience they have had that, as a result, they possess a unique knowledge base that may be of future value to others within the room. After the first person has shared their experience, a ball of rope is rolled across the circle, thus forming a web. The traditional version of this activity calls for yarn to be used and ended with the instructor pointing out the interconnectivity developed by the web. By using 1/4-inch twine or rope, students can brainstorm activity metaphors and develop their own outcomes from the experience. Many times students point out how a group can "pick up the slack" and be supportive of other group members when necessary. A group of 20 can easily lift another class member by simply leaning back and removing the slack. These initial activities are reinforced over time by a continued dialog format, requiring the use of individual names and shared experiences.

This program is based on authentic learning and meaningful professional practice. This means that the methods assignments and experiences must constantly be connected to the real world of work involving science teachers. Whenever possible, students need clinical experiences and related assignments that involve schools, students and informal learning agencies.

As a result of this philosophy, students arrive to their first methods class and are confronted with a 20-plus page syllabus, not unlike the mammoth task first year teachers face as they start a new school year. This approach allows students to view the teaching task holistically and learn to tackle required task one at a time. The first page of the syllabus lays the groundwork for the tasks ahead. "This course is intentionally designed to be transformational, not just informational. You will be constantly given opportunities for personal empowerment and critical reflection, ultimately intended to move you toward self-directed life-long learning" (Bonnstetter, 1999, p. 1).

Students are faced with the realization that teaching is as much a way of life as it is a profession and that the process of constructing understanding must start with experiences. Please be mindful that the following represent examples of student experiences "in addition to" regular course requirements and practicum. All of the following are built on the philosophy that those who do the doing, do the learning.

• Science Fair Judging — Students judge over a dozen area fairs from building level to state competition and from kindergarten to high school.
• Saturday Science Program — Working with the Physics department to teach 4-6th grade students various physics concepts through activities.
• Saturday at the Mall — This project brings science to the public by running interesting and educational science related activities at the local mall.
• All Day Elementary Teaching — The class designs and teaches 50 minute hands-on lessons for 4^th and 5^th grade students, repeating the lesson 8 times to different groups of children in the same day.
• Science Olympiad — Students served as regional and state judges for several events and run both the middle school and high school awards presentations.
• Family Night at the Museum — The museum hosts a family night in which different groups prepare science activities which the whole family can enjoy.
• Regional Science Convention — The best way to understand this activity is to provide a quote from a student portfolio.

• Electronic Portfolios — Each student creates their own web page which over an 18 month period develops into an on-line electronic portfolio.
• Project Wild and Aquatic — Students are certified and as a result received three fantastic activity books with lots of ideas for science.
• First Aid & CPR Certification — Students adds a new dimension to their resumes.
• State Science Teachers Convention — Students attend the two-day convention and over half present as well.
• Earth Wellness Festival — Students prepare an environmental related lesson and teach hundreds middle level students as part of this city-wide event.

The act of doing these activities and building an experience base is of little value unless time is taken for critical reflection at each step. For example students working in groups review semester accomplishments at the end of both Methods I and II. The sample lists from these activities are provided in Figure 2. Note how the focus moved from describing big picture philosophical shifts during the first semester to a very different list for the second semester. Building the framework during the first course allows students to understand the "why" for the more typical methods II components.

___________

Check here for Figure 2

The process of looking back, reflecting, is not only important to model at key points in a program, but must be developed as a daily professional habit. The use of some form of personal journaling and open discussions with other professionals sets the stage for future teachers to revisit their teaching and refine teaching skills.

The time for reflection, both in the form of journaling and in a seminar setting, represents the glue that holds a teacher preparation program together. Millie Almy, over 30 years ago, found that having students engage in manipulative or verbal operations without allowing time for mental engagement tends to erect knowledge superstructures which crumble under the slightest cognitive stress (Almy, 1966). The seminar also allows time for students to make connections to the bigger picture of teaching and education. Brooks and Brooks (1993) found that "students are most engaged when problems and ideas are presented holistically rather than in separate, isolated parts" (p. 46). "Students initiate this process to make sense of the information; they construct the process and the understandings rather than having it done for them" (Brooks & Brooks 1993, p. 47).

The concept of journaling is not new to education, but adherence to interactive-constructive teaching requires a degree of fine-tuning. For example, the secondary science education program at The University of Nebraska-Lincoln had required students to journal regularly and to submit these products directly to the instructor for review and reaction. Even when e-mail became available, the same paradigm and top-down requirement was maintained, as students sent journals electronically. At the time it seemed as if this switch to technology was a major pedagogical improvement. But a closer examination of constructivism demonstrated a major flaw in this approach. Not only was the instructor maintaining a power position, but the process also failed to provide for extended dialog or to maximize the journals’ ability to aid in community building.

By using the traditional student to teacher journal approach, interaction and intellectual growth is restricted to the two people involved, resulting in very limited social interaction. The true power of electronic communication is that a number of people can interact and react to a single entry. It was the students who asked for help setting up a group mail alias, a single address that allows mail to be sent to groups of individual accounts, to facilitate greater exchange of experiences and reactions to those experiences. In this case, one alias sends a journal entry to all members of the learning community, including the instructor. As a result, the forced and contrived journaling was replaced with a process that no longer requires or views journaling in the traditional sense. On any given day the instructor can expect to receive original journal entries and several reaction entries from students who see the value in dialoging about their experiences with others and the instructor. This system still allows for personal or private electronic interactions between individual students and the instructor. Ground rules are the same as any written journal entry. No personal correspondence can be distributed without the student’s permission.

Early and frequent practicum experiences are crucial to a constructivist teacher preparation program. More and more, programs are recognizing the tremendous and essential value of these experiences as they see the results of constructed understanding in context. This contextual understanding can only develop when pre-service teachers re-enter this familiar world, no longer as a student but as a prospective teacher. The process of revisiting challenges many of their pre-conceived ideas and adds real-world experience to aid in constructing new understandings of teaching and learning.

Some of the key characteristics of effective practicum experiences include:

• early informal and non-formal science;
• establishment of "learning teams;"
• providing students with a role in their placement;

• two or more semester long evolving classroom practicum experiences, (Starting with structured observation and progressing to a point where students are cultured into student teaching);
• an expectation of two or more class periods per day for the co-teaching phase, which should occur the semester prior to student teaching;
• progressively greater active participation in classroom activities;
• work with individuals and small groups;
• daily reflective journaling;
• experiences in varied practicum settings, including informal and non-formal science, different grade levels and contrasting school cultures;
• peer partnerships, especially during the early experiences; and
• regular debriefing sessions held with other practicum students as an intricate part of the methods program.

Several of these practicum components need explanation and clarification. For example, the early informal and non-formal experiences help students realize that science is communicated in many settings beyond the classroom and that the entire community presents a host of resources just waiting to be harnessed. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln program requires that each student document a minimum of 100 hours of informal and non-formal involvement during the first methods course. Examples over the years have included work with garden clubs, rock and mineral groups, out of school science enrichment programs, children’s museums, tutoring in science, working with Girl or Boy Scouts, or program assistance with local parks, zoos, or health agencies. Such experiences leave a lasting impression of just how important science can be when presented in a context of application. For these students, the textbook is no longer the sole teaching tool at their disposal.

Another crucial requirement is for students, the university, and the cooperating teachers to all play a role in the placement of students for practicums and student teaching. Based on an interactive-constructivist philosophy and the belief that learning is far more relational than informational requires that placements be made with special care. Rather than assign a student to a practicum setting at the beginning of a semester and having that student start their experience a few weeks into the semester, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

• first works with the district to obtain a list of willing supervisors a full semester before the practicum.
• Students then submit a form outlining their interests based grade level, subject, geographic location and any other special needs.
• Armed with these documents, placements are narrowed to two or three potential cooperating teachers.
• At this point students are to contact these teachers, arrange for a school visit and on-site two-way interview.
• Only after both the student and the cooperating teacher are satisfied with the arrangement, will the tentative placement be made.

This approach not only results in better initial communication, but allows students the time to prepare mentally and physically for the practicum or student teaching experience. Many times, as a result of this arrangement, students attend annual start-up teacher workshops, help setup the classroom for the new year, and even participate in the first day of teaching.

The concepts of learning teams and co-teaching are also extremely important components, which need elaboration. Far too often our students are placed in practicum without establishing expected outcomes or providing guidance to the cooperating teacher. In addition, the role of university supervisor is often unclear. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has attempted to deal with these issues by first creating learning teams and following this with co-teaching experiences.

The learning team concept has been employed in a number of settings for many years including: high school faculty learning groups (Leithwood, Steinbach, Ryan & Jantzi, March 1997), collage student collaboratives (Andrews, 1992), and business learning organizations (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). The concept simply involves adding the cooperating practicum and student teaching faculty to the pre-service educational team. Each year this group comes together to create a common program vision and thus greater experience consistency. No longer are students taught one thing at the university and told by cooperating teachers to forget everything you were taught. This dialog between college-based methods and real-world application experiences results in bi-directional program modifications. The methods portion becomes more responsive to the constantly evolving classroom environment and student clientele, while area teachers gain new insights into current educational reform efforts.

The concept of learning teams is followed by the concept of practicum co-teaching (Roth et al., 1993). Far too often visits to practicum sites are more social and informal than planned and beneficial. Generally attempts are made by the university supervisor to verify the student’s teaching role prior to a visitation, but last minute changes can alter lesson plans. So the university supervisor would simply make sure everyone was happy and that the cooperating teacher felt that progress was being made. By using the concept of co-teaching everyone plays an active role in classroom instruction every time they are in the room. The roles of the cooperating teacher and the practicum or student teacher will vary from day to day, but they engage in more team-teaching than usually found. The most striking change is in the role of the visiting supervisor. In addition to taking time to verify progress and note teaching performance, the supervisor is expected to join the teaching team and become personally involved in the classroom teaching and learning rather than finding a place in the back and sitting passively. This "insider" view provides new insights and greater understandings of the classroom dynamics and thus allows the supervisor the also "construct" new meanings.

The same philosophy and primary features should be part of the student teaching experience as the preceding practicums. The only major change is the replacement of a methods or curriculum course, with a weekly or biweekly seminar. This seminar serves as the vehicle for students to share, and in the process reflect and reconstruct new insights from their student teaching experiences.

The recent development of the National Science Standards (NRC, 1996) and corresponding state frame-works, have renewed emphasis on inquiry learning as well as the need for teachers and the public to better understand the nature of science. Bonnstetter (1998) explains that teachers are simply unprepared to make this leap to full-blown inquiry and our K-12 students across the nation are even less prepared for this transition. We must start this process by building a better understanding of the nature of science and developing incremental steps toward inquiry learning within our science teacher education preparation programs. A number of programs have added nature of science courses, but an informal survey of AETS membership revealed that few require pre-service teachers to engage in scientific research as a requirement for teacher certification. A number however did provide such experiences as a part of their science major. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, starting in 1997, added a research component directly to the program. This addition requires that students over the course of their college career and before certification: (a) identify a problem or scientific question of interest or connect to an existing science faculty project; (b) collect, analyze, and interpret data in response to this question; (c) prepare a written paper, including background references; and lastly, (d) present findings in a professional forum. The results of this activity are also to be included in their portfolio with reflections concerning classroom implications and implementation.

It is through experiences such as this that future teachers may begin the process of viewing science as more than a body of knowledge to be delivered to students. They may even find ways of engaging their own students in research endeavors as well as making the connection to action research within their own teaching. This same assessment process must be employed as the driving force behind an evolving teacher preparation program.

Shulman’s (1990) model of teaching as active scholarship was chosen for this program assessment plan. The process requires that stackholders (methods students, cooperating teachers, university science and education departments and the state department of education) define a common vision, delineate program goals, explore interactions, clearly state the outcomes, and establish an evaluation process that provides both formative and summative program data. Examination of each of these steps will help explain how one might design an effective program assessment package.

The original vision statement, see Figure 3, was drafted by the entire secondary education faculty and has been annually reviewed by each program advisory board. These boards are composed of stakeholders as previously defined. Armed with this vision statement, a methods program sequence was developed using the seven constructivist design principles described earlier in this chapter. With the vision and process in place, it was time to establish program goals.

Check here for Figure 3

• A working knowledge of basic scientific concepts, as defined by the National Standards.
• Ability to problem identify and problem solve issues in science as they relate to political, personal, social, and moral dilemmas.
• Ability to see science in the context of everyday life and continue to grow in their understanding as life long learners.

After exploring program interactions as a function of formative assessement, Shulman (1990) next requires that we clearly state expected outcomes. Our present program outcomes are based on the ten INTASC principles as listed in the left hand column of Figure 4. Students are introduced to these assessment outcomes early in their program and expected to collect evidence for each throughout their endorsement. Figure 5 provides a partial list of types of evidence students have previously gathered as evidence. All of this evidence is assembled into a final professional portfolio and presented at the completion of their student teaching. Figure 4 also includes a sample overview coversheet students have used to help guide the auditor in their review of the student portfolio.

Check here for Figure 4

Check here for Figure 5

We just wanted to thank you for all your help in preparing our son to be a great teacher. Today was the first time in over 10 years of paying college tuition for our three children, that we have seen a real result or outcome. We can not believe how much growth our son was able to show, how many skills he now possesses and how clearly he stated his future goals. (Bonnstetter, 1994, p. 227-236).

Each year since 1992 similar comments are made during our annual celebration of learning. This event, held the night before spring graduation for an audience that is many times composed of class mates, family members, significant others, (spouse and/or friends), and the student's cooperating teacher, continues to evolve as we learn more about how students learn and are able to demonstrate that learning. The most recent celebration was hosted by the in-coming class and featured groups of graduating students presenting science activities and lessons that they felt were representative of their skills and vision of themselves as future teachers. Such opportunities allow students to refocus and reflect on their own development and in the process construct deeper understandings of their own skills and philosophies.

It should also be pointed out that just as cooperative learning as a teaching strategy is not to be used to the exclusion of all other approaches, so constructivism as a learning theory must acknowledge its limitation and be used appropriately. This is especially true in science and mathematics where information plays an important role in our teaching. We may not want our methods students to "discover" a knowledge base for teaching any more than we want K-12 students to discover every science concept. A blending of approaches, determined by matching the desired outcome with the appropriate approach may have been best described by Schwab (1973) as "polyfocal conspectus."

Due to this polyfocal conspectus, on-going formative assessment and refocusing course directions must take place almost on a daily bases. In addition to personal perceptions that all teachers gather, instructors must systematically gather and assess evidence from each student including:

• video taped progress,
• pre/post attitudinal data,
• thematic shifts in journal entries,
• philosophical shifts in teaching perceptions,
• evidence of student learning, and
• weekly concerns gathered as blind reviews.

Even though the over arching concepts of constructivism must be present throughout a program, the emphasis or visibility will vary depending on the point in concept development. For example, consider how the emphasis on constructivism shifts as one moves through the learning cycle. The original learning cycle provided very little opportunity for constructivism teaching. The lessons moved basically from exploration of a new concept, to information and ended with application (Lawson, 1995; Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989; Renner & Marek, 1988, 1990). Barman (1997) added an important component by applying constructivism philosophy to the learning cycle and recommending that teachers acknowledge that students possess some base line preconceptions on virtually every topic and that exposing these will help direct remaining concept development.

This addition of allowing a forum for preconceptions to be exposed in a safe environment is crucial. But Barman (1997) may not have carried his application far enough. For not only can and should constructivism concepts be applied up front, science education programs must help teachers develop powers of reflection, especially as these concepts are applied to a social context. For this reason "implications" as a constructivist-based strategy has been added to the end of the original learning cycle within the described teacher preparation program. This final lesson phase allows students to revisit concepts with regard to their social ramifications. By developing this expanded learning cycle within the context of teacher preparation, students are better prepared to see and include this reflective phase in their own teaching.

Brooks and Brooks (1993) clearly state that "in order for learning to take place in schools, teachers must become constructivist, that is, in the classroom, they must provide a learning environment where students search for meaning, appreciate uncertainty, and inquire responsibly." (p. V)

Our methods classes must encourage student-to-student interaction, initiating lessons that foster cooperative learning, and provide opportunities for students to be exposed to interdisciplinary curriculum, both within the various branches of science and between different curriculum areas. Maybe the biggest shift is for students to understand that they are ultimately responsible for their own learning and that this constructivist climate has been established to facilitate their growth. Therefore a constructivist teacher preparation program, must work at the interface of curriculum and student to bring them together in a way that is meaningful to the learner. The role of the teacher through-out constructivism is facilitative.

A review of comments provided by former students may best describe the potential outcomes of a constructivist driven teacher preparation program.