Early Childhood Teacher Narratives on Constructivism

ABSTRACT

This study presents early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices about constructivist education. The teachers’ beliefs and practices included three components of constructivism: their professional identity, classroom practices, and negotiations with children’s communities. Despite differences in individual teachers’ descriptions of their identities, all the teachers shared the conviction that construction of knowledge requires a safe classroom environment, considering classroom as a community, pursuing children’s interests, and flexible teacher guidance calibrated according to the children’s needs. The teachers also converged on the belief that construction of knowledge as community practice requires establishing shared understandings with the children’s own communities and school administration.

The present study was motivated by a central question that dominates the field of early childhood education (ECE), namely, how can we support children’s construction of knowledge in a classroom community that affords equitable opportunities for all children? This question was raised over half a century ago (e.g., Spodek, 1970) and is most recently articulated again by Ryan and Graue (2020) who stated that without considering teachers’ beliefs, we will not be able to answer this question. However, with a few notable exceptions (Branscombe et al., 2014; Edwards, 2007; Kroll et al., 2018), much of the theory about children’s construction of knowledge is conducted by academic researchers from an etic, researchers’ perspective, without addressing teachers’ beliefs about it (e.g., Cobb, 2013; Phillips, 1995; Steffe & Gale, 1995). To emphasize the absence of teachers’ voices in the construction and application of theory in the classroom, Ryan and Goffin (2008) described early childhood teachers as “missing in action.”

Consistent with this view, Kritt and Budwig (2022) addressed the lack of communication between constructivist theorists and practitioners in examining why the constructivist principles are not adequately applied in the U.S. k-12 public education. According to the authors, in the effort to address the complex process of knowledge construction, many different scholars proposed constructivist theories with a focus on (meta)theoretical principles rather than the application of theory in practice.¹ Kritt and Budwig stated that practitioners face difficulties in understanding these complex and abstract (meta)theoretical principles that are detached from their day-to-day work, and as a result, teachers have a hard time in applying them in their classrooms and communities. Therefore, the classroom examples provided by the researchers did not reach all early childhood teachers across all settings (e.g., DeVries & Zan, 1994; Fosnot, 2013). To remedy this situation, the authors proposed that “ … rather than needing more discussion of constructivist principles” (p. 13), we need to change the academic discourse in favor of common-sense discourse so that the constructivist ideals are available to practicing teachers. We believe that common-sense discourse requires engagement in dialogue with teachers and learning from them their beliefs and practices about constructivist education. The present study aimed to initiate this dialogue. As an emic examination, it describes how teachers who were prepared in a program established by the authors and grounded in social-constructivism conceptualize young children’s construction of knowledge in the classroom. In this introduction, we describe the evolution of the program in view of the literature on constructivism leading up to the questions of the study on teachers’ beliefs and practices about constructivist education.

When it was first established, the program drew only from Piaget’s constructivist epistemological stance, the same stance that also heavily influenced the guidelines of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (cf., Bredekemp, 1987). Following the claim that construction of knowledge resides in the interaction between the subject and the object (Piaget, 1976), children’s active engagement in the learning activities was seen as essential for the construction of knowledge. The disequilibrium between the child’s existing cognitive structures and the demands of the new experiences was seen as the fuel of development. In this struggle, teachers’ job is to support children in addressing and, in the most ideal world, resolving disequilibrium leading to the transformation and re-organization of the child’s cognitive structures that enable their autonomous functioning with greater competence. When provided in a co-operative, as opposed to heteronomous, manner in playful activities with open-ended questioning, e.g., “what do you think will happen if you mix blue and yellow?” teacher’s guidance encourages exploration that leads to learning (cf., Kamii & DeVries, 1980, 1993).

However, this Piagetian stance with a focus on the development of individual children’s learning and cognitive development benefitting only from a certain kind of teacher-child interaction accepted as universally valid has received criticism. These criticisms came from sociocultural (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978, 1998), critical (e.g., Bloch, 1991; Bloch et al., 2014), and Black and Chicana feminist approaches (e.g., Nxumalo & Cedillo, 2017; Pérez & Saavedra, 2017). We state below the criticisms and the expansion of the Piagetian stance of the program in three specific ways.

First, children’s learning and development occur in a system of cultural meanings, values, and practices (e.g., Cole, 1997; Göncü, 1999; Lee, 2007; Nasir et al., 2020; Rogoff, 2003; Vadebonceour, 1997, 2017). Despite the universals in the kind of knowledge constructed by children, there are also great cultural differences. As Gonzalez et al. (2006) stated each community has its own funds of knowledge that may be different from those of others. In one recent example, Pérez and Saavedra (2017) illustrated cultural differences in funds of knowledge by discussing the quotidian experiences of children in the U.S/Mexico borderlands that are different from their white counterparts, and they offered concepts by which we can address those children’s unique and local ways of constructing knowledge. This is especially important in view of research showing that teachers of children of color lack knowledge about the role of culture in children’s education and culturally responsive teaching (Kintner Duffy et al., 2022) Based on this evidence, in our social-constructivist approach, we proposed considering the knowledge worth constructing from children’s communities’ perspectives and making provisions in program design to integrate it rather than imposing practices developed in our own academic worlds (cf., Nxumalo & Cedillo, 2017; Souto-Manning et al., 2019; Vadebonceour, 1997).

As a corollary, depending on the cultural activities, adult guidance takes place in a wide variety of ways. Therefore, exclusive reliance on open-ended questioning as the primary medium of instruction as initially recommended by NAEYC overlooks other forms of instruction, e.g., direct and explicit guidance of children, that are common in many non-Western, low-income, and immigrant communities (e.g., Rogoff, 2003; Sanders & Farago, 2018). In our observations, unless it is prescribed in a rigid manner, middle class European-American teachers also use a combination of methods that are most responsive to children’s educational needs. For example, while play is valued because of the flexibility and agency it affords to young children even when it occurs without adult participation (e.g., Nilsson et al., 2018), teacher-led instruction is also favored due to the structure it provides for the learning activity. Thus, our social-constructivist program maintains that characterizing certain communities in a dichotomous fashion as preferring play while others preferring direct guidance as the primary medium of instruction overlooks important variations both across and within cultures, and may result in inappropriate and unjust practices (Fleer & Veresov, 2018; Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003).

According to the sociocultural, critical, and feminist approaches then, the stance of the constructivist theories adopted as universal reflect only the white and middle-income scholars’ cultural practices and values who developed them. When educational programs impose such constructivist practices on children who are not white or middle income without regard to how children’s own communities organize learning practices and representations of knowledge, children in those communities are put at a disadvantage (Gadsen & Levine, 2020). The powerful illustrations of this point led NAEYC to acknowledge the significance of cultural appropriateness of activities in its most recent edition of developmentally appropriate practice (cf., Friedman et al., 2022).

Second, knowledge is co-created and co-constructed by all the participants in cultural activities. Teaching and learning occur simultaneously for all the parties involved in an activity. For example, when a teacher teaches children how to play a board game, children learn from the teacher (and their peers) how to play the game and appropriate knowledge about different aspects of the game., e.g., its rules, taking turns, and counting. At the same time though, the teacher learns from that experience about how children respond to playing a game and learn its different aspects. As such, construction of knowledge is a transformative process through which all members of a teaching-learning activity gradually socialize into and change the cultural institutions such as school (Pufall & Mistry, 2019; Stetsenko, 2008). Therefore, a fuller examination requires transformations of all the participants in an activity rather than focusing only on children’s change.

A third extension of the program took place in view of children’s social and emotional development (e.g., Humphries et al., 2018; Zinsser et al., 2015). Research states that preschools should recognize children’s need for emotional safety in a wide spectrum of capacities ranging from their attachment relationships to recognizing and expressing their emotions (e.g., Denham et al., 2015; Howes, 2010). This is essential for insuring children’s development of self-regulation and organization of their relationships and to support their learning. When children feel safe, they engage in and maintain their learning without fear or frustration (Wright, 2022).

We drew from all three of the approaches in developing a framework for how to establish safety in the classroom. Following Piaget (1965) we emphasized co-operative ways of interacting with children in order for them to engage in classroom activities without fear. However, following Vygotsky (1978) and other work in the sociocultural tradition (e.g., Göncü et al., 2009), we emphasized that the meaning and ways of co-operating with children should be done in concert with children’s communities. Finally, consistent with critical and feminist approaches we worked toward establishing safety by providing equitable practices so that each child feels protected and respected (e.g., Pons-Clifford & Humphries, 2018).

As such, the program emphasized that construction of knowledge occurs in relational, historical, and cultural as well as developmental contexts. We conceptualized constructivism as a process of appropriating cultural knowledge through diverse activities and communicative means, and we espoused to negotiating with children and their communities in dialogue to determine a school practice that would be fair to all children. Furthermore, consistent with both theories we maintained that children’s interest and engagement can be best insured through conflict (e.g., Piaget, 1965) or crises (Vygotsky, 1978) that require children’s adaptation to the society (Gajdamaschko, personal communication) .² It is this stance that we believe needs to be explicated in the words of the teachers in order for parents, policy-makers, and scholars to understand the nature and benefits of a constructivist approach to early education. To address this, we turned to our own graduates asking them to define constructivism for themselves, state the features of constructivist stance based on their experiences, and discuss how they negotiate their practice with children’s families and the school administration.

Method

Participants

The participants were 21 female teachers, 5 African-American, 3 Asian, 2 Latina, and 11 white, all of whom were graduates of a Master’s program. Their teaching experiences varied from 1 to 30 years. During data collection, 18 teachers were working in schools directly with children, 12 in public schools, 4 in university-based preschools, and 2 in private schools. Ten of the 12 teachers in public schools were in underserved, racially segregated schools, the other 2 were in affluent school districts serving mostly white children in self-contained special education classrooms. Twelve teachers were working with preschool age children.

Procedure

The authors collected all the study data as members of the research team. Based on the availability of the contact information, program alumni were contacted and asked to participate in the study. The responding alumni were asked to schedule an interview with a member of the research team. Other teachers who were in communication with the initial group were also contacted. The scheduling considerations of both the participants and the research team were the most important criteria in determining who interviewed who at a place chosen by the participants. Teachers’ participation was enthusiastic and all of them completed the interviews. Following consent and assurances of confidentiality, all the interviews were audio recorded.

The interview process

A qualitative interview protocol that enabled use of a combination of approaches ranging from a semi-structured interview to active interviewing was used to collect the data (cf., Holstein & Gubrium, 1997; Patton, 2002; Rogoff et al., 1993). The interviews began with the collection of demographic information (e.g., “Where did you get your bachelor’s degree?”). Afterwards, they took the tone of a conversation about teachers’ understanding of constructivism, whether or not they thought of themselves as constructivist teachers, factors that may have influenced their adoption of a constructivist perspective, and how participants thought that their constructivism was reflected in their classroom activities and scheduling. The participants were also asked to describe whether or how a constructivist stance was applicable in their communities when considering children’s grade level, cultural and racial background, gender, and (dis)ability status. Finally, participants were asked about the challenges they encountered with regard to school expectations from school administrators and families. The interview concluded with questions about post-graduation professional development activities.

Data interpretation

The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a graduate student who was a part of the research team but not part of the degree program. The final products were narratives reflecting the past and ongoing experiences of teachers as they were constructed during the interviews (cf., Bamberg, 2012; Freeman, 2015).

The interviews were interpreted by the authors and a third faculty member, who is an expert in early childhood education but not affiliated with the program or the participants. The data interpretation followed two major steps. First, we read the narratives and listed teachers’ responses to our questions (c.f., Braun & Clarke, 2006). Second, we grouped the responses into themes under conceptual categories described below. For example, in response to our questions about social, emotional, and moral development, we listed teachers’ reports of activities such as helping children with conflict resolution, perspective taking, and constructing classroom rules. Then, from examination of the lists, we derived the themes. In this example, the theme emerged as establishing a sense of community with shared meanings. The data interpretation lasted over a year and was accomplished through weekly meetings. When there were disagreements or questions in interpreting the transcriptions, sections of the audio-taped interviews were re-played to make sure that the participants’ words and tones were identified and coded accurately.

Results and discussions

The teachers described the features of constructivism based on their own experiences and in the language of their practice. In our interpretation, teachers’ descriptions revealed a broader conceptualization of constructivism than was previously presented in the literature. We identified three aspects of constructivism from the teachers’ narratives as constructivism as teacher identity, as classroom practices, and as community negotiations that are discussed below. Consistent with the goal of the study, we present these aspects by relying on quotations from the transcripts and limiting our interpretations only to the framing of ideas offered in the interviews.

Constructivism as teacher identity

Our analyses revealed three types of identity narratives; constructivism as a-world-view, constructivism-as-professional-identity and, constructivism as-a-method that focused on individual features of constructivist teaching. In the first type, constructivism as-a-world-view, the 7 most experienced teachers conceptualized it as a feature of their personal and professional identity and a method of teaching in statements such as “... it’s something that is so ingrained that it makes me examine myself as a learner, too. And know that just as they can grow as learners, I can, too. So I’m always looking for ways to further my education, and based on what I knew before and reexamine, reevaluate. So I think that’s something I got out of the program. It’s just not limited to the students.” Another teacher emphasized learning through play as a life-span activity by saying “Learning through play is the best way and that’s for any age. Actually that’s all the way up to adulthood because we learn through experiencing … you buy something new, an electronic something, .you have to play with it to get it to work.”

The second type of teacher narratives, constructivism-as-professional-identity, adopted constructivism as a guide for practice. A total of 11 descriptions fell under this category by teachers who had fewer years of experience than the first group. The examples included statements such as “Constructivism means that children are perfectly capable, that they do construct knowledge. Children do not just soak up everything, they interact with the world … children interacting with the world and then building and learning based on their interactions…” The teacher maintains “All children have different experiences and if children are interacting with the world and building relationships that has to happen across gender, across culture and actually it’s my job to provide those experiences … Also, guiding them to effect change in the world. That’s a challenge, but I feel it’s my calling, it’s my duty as a teacher to do that, because ultimately that’s the human experience. I mean we’re all interacting, so you know when you think about the early childhood level it’s so important that they receive that experience then.”

Finally, 3 teachers, the recent graduates, and those with the least experience, narrated constructivism only as a method and focused on individual features of constructivist teaching. They described their practice in brief statements such as “go with what the children are interested in.” When asked why it is important to follow children’s interests, she said “Because it’s more meaningful to them if you follow their lead.”

In summary, teachers’ responses revealed a developmental pattern with the most experienced teachers providing the most multifaceted form of identity. Our findings support the literature that teachers’ authoring of identity is layered and transformational (Alsup, 2019; Esteban-Guitart, 2021; Noonan, 2018; Sloan, 2006). The teachers’ conceptualizations of children’s construction of knowledge are related to their own experiences. That said, almost all of them discussed features of constructivism as classroom practices and community negotiations described below.

Classroom practice

Teachers’ discussions of classroom practice was described as classroom as a safe space, classroom as a community, pursuing children’s interests, and teacher guidance.

Classroom as a safe space

For this community of teachers, teaching and learning occurred only within relationships that ensure safety and provide trust for children’s engagement in classroom activities without fear or anxiety. For example, one teacher intervened on behalf of the children when cafeteria staff were playing loud music that she believed was scary to the children. She told them “you put the kids first, it’s not about fun, it’s not about party,” for the adults. She maintained “I take it seriously, like my job is to make sure that the children are protected.” Relating this focus to children’s learning more directly, another teacher added “Social and emotional aspect of your development is just as important as your academic development, and that if that’s not in order, if that’s not being addressed, then academics can’t be addressed.”

Teachers offered three specific ways of providing a safe space for children in the classroom: First, they talked about expressing their own emotions to the children and how doing this provides modeling for children. It helps children recognize the significance of expressing emotions as a way of establishing relationships with others. One teacher exemplified this by saying “If I’m reading a book, and I’m on the rocking chair, I have three kids that want to lean on my leg or they want to hold my hand. Some think in second grade they need to start being kids and not be, um. I have a lot of kids that call me mom by mistake … that just kind of says the kind of person, the kind of teacher I am. Guess, I’m touchy-feely… I’m very just out there with my own emotions. And if I’m upset, they know I’m upset, whether it’s happy, sad, mad, whatever. And so I think that that makes it easier for them to come to me when they want to talk about something, or just in general, the classroom feel, I feel more open, or more emotionally I don’t know how to describe it … .loving.”

Second, teachers acknowledged children’s agency by providing time and space for their interests and validated their feelings as a way of ensuring safety. One teacher stated “Knowing what happens when kids aren’t ever given that kind of room, um for kind of creating your own meaning and having their own ideas validated makes for a bunch of really angry, violent kids who don’t care. I wanted to create that space in my own classroom. I guess that let kids know about what they thought was important and that how they treated other kids was important … ” Another teacher added “I think that they need to feel comfortable in school. If putting on a fireman’s costume and wearing it all day makes you feel comfortable at school, you can grow in different areas and explore things that you might not have. Just really making them feel comfortable in the school environment.”

Third, they provided a predictable and consistent classroom life on which children can rely. One teacher said “Okay, one thing is their schedule. It stays the same all year for kids’ emotional support. We don’t think kids need to go to twelve pull-outs. It’s a problem in a lot of junior kindergartens in elementary schools. Then kids have to relate to twelve different adults. I think that’s too difficult. So, the way our school is set up … the relationships are very important to us, that we have two co-teachers in the room. You have the support person – a supportive peer who shares the responsibility with you. You can speak to each other about all the issues.”

As a collage, these findings point to an important development needed to be explicitly considered in constructivist theory. Provision of safety for children is necessary to enable their exploration and participation in classroom activities. Therefore, we need to develop frameworks to address how learning and development occur within a safe space.

Classroom as a community

To see the classroom as a community was a strong theme that emphasized children’s development of a sense of responsibility and accountability toward one another with shared understandings. As such, the classroom community with peers became a safe space where individual rights and the community’s well-being were protected. Teachers accomplished this goal in four kinds of activities: First, they encouraged children’s participation in the development of rules as a way of sharing codes of behavior that guided children’s interactions. One teacher illustrated this by saying “I like to engage them in conversations in hopes that they would make connections. Like sometimes I will act like I don’t know. And when we’re playing like, what were we doing, well we were playing something, and I said ’Gee, I don’t understand that.’ And they’ll say, ’Well it’s really simple … you have to do this and this.’ And I’ll say ‘well how come I can’t the way’ … and they’ll say, ‘Cause you’re not following the rules. The rules are this.’ Then they’ll say, ’you taught us the rules, how come you don’t know the rules now?’ ‘How come I just can’t play the way I want to play?’ And they’ll say, ’No, we have to share, we have to take turns.’”

Second, teachers used group time in addressing the common good, the need to exist as an ensemble whose well-being depends on the members’ support and caring for one another. One teacher said “So we gather together and kind of like say good morning to everyone. So it continues with the community feel that I try to set up at the beginning of the year with making rules together and talking about our hopes and dreams and what we want to do, how we want to be as a community. And I feel like if the kids have a vested interest in what we’re doing, then they’re going to be much more engaged and much more wanting to be a part of it, if they’re invited to be a part of it, instead of being told these are the rules, these are the consequences. If you break them, this is what I’m gonna do to you. Even, like, this little girl who just came this year is using the strategy that we have been talking about all year for solving problems. Like, I rarely have to even help kids solve their problems. I mean I have not even had a single fight all year, which is really great.”

Third, teachers used children’s conflicts as a means of shared problem solving so that children learn to take one another’s perspectives and identify with one another’s needs, leading to development of empathy. One teacher said “A little bit of conflict is good for kids so they can see how to work through problems as opposed to adults jumping in solving their problems for them. Then they’re not going to know how to do that for themselves … And it wasn’t until I got that in here and actually being thrown into it that it made sense to me. When children are going through conflict situations and we have the two children come together and talk to each other – kind of just being a facilitator, and just kind of giving them words – ‘Did you like it when he did that? How did that make you feel?’ Then children also start to see another child’s point of view. They start being able to decenter and be sympathetic toward each other and that’s the way we build community in our classroom as opposed to it just being this authority coming in and saying, ‘well I’m bigger than you and I know what’s going on and this is how it should be done.’

Fourth, when the classroom is seen as a community, it allows children to support one another’s learning and development. One teacher said “Also I like them to teach each other. That’s when I sit back. When one little boy was having trouble with his letters another said ‘look man, that’s a that’s lowercase a and that’s uppercase A’. “Another teacher talked about guinea pigs that came to visit, and how children stood around like a family talking about the guinea pigs and feeding them, providing an opportunity to work in small groups that emerged spontaneously.

Conceptualization of the classroom as a community enabled the teachers to present the classroom as the arena in which children begin their first experiences as citizens. Learning to live with rules coded in language that have the same meaning for everybody in the classroom emerges as another fundamental part of the curriculum for young children. In addition, the “lessons” of communal living delivered through group time, discussion of rules, and conflict resolution contribute to the construction of a safe space where engagement in subject matter learning takes place.

Pursuing children’s interests and engagement

No matter the grade level, all the teachers reported that teaching and learning should be centered around children’s interests and choices (e.g., “We’re from the constructivist philosophy and we want children to kind of jump in and see how things work so they come up with their own conclusions.” Teaching through children’s interests was so important that the teachers were willing to give up their agendas in order to follow them (e.g., “Although I write my lessons and this and that, I don’t usually follow them. And I hate to say that, but I go with the flow, with the kids, you know.” This was the case because “ … we just think it’s really important that children get some choice time, that they can make some independent choices during the day. After kindergarten, it’s gone. The first grades don’t have those types of things, so this is kind of their last stop in that area in being able to explore those types of areas before they move onto the purely academic classroom.”

When teachers followed their own agendas, they negotiated them with children in a variety of ways. For example, they used the free choice time to incorporate their plans into the ongoing activities of children. One teacher stated “I try to give them at least an hour a day of their choice time so they can explore different things in the room. And it gives me an opportunity to go around and have conversations with them about what they’re doing, what they’re learning, what their interests are, so I know how to kinda set up the environment.”

In addition, the teachers gave children choices of activities that incorporated the subject matter that is of significance to the teacher. This way, what is important for the teachers become relevant to children. One teacher stated “There’s a lot of free choice involved, but at the same time, I’m teaching phonics.” These findings indicate that regardless of who initiates the classroom activities, they should be of interest to children in order for children to engage in them.

Teachers further articulated their emphasis on children’s interests by explicitly stating that a focus on interest requires making sure that children are actually participating in the execution of the activities such as pretend play, games with rules, experimentation with and exploration of ideas and materials, observation of others and inquiry-based learning. For example, one teacher stated that “Children learn through experimentation and play,” while another teacher illustrated this by describing how two boys who were “…good friends were playing with the unit blocks. And they had three blocks and they had them stacked like that, and so one way it looked like the letter ‘H’ and the other way it looked like the letter ‘I,’ and I remember them talking about that and I just (inaudible) they’ll never forget that, they’ll always know what an ‘I’ and an ‘H’ looks like.” Still, another teacher stated how engagement occurs in what is typically considered as academics when children have the choice. She said “ … there’s always a group of kids that the first thing they go to during free choice time is not housekeeping or blocks, it’s the paper and the writing. So it’s totally free to them and they write, and draw, and cut and do all of these things because they want to, it’s interesting to them and they put it up on the wall themselves and they take it home and they put it in their cubby and they’re proud of … .”

Engagement describes a focus on the process of learning as well as the outcome. One teacher said “Our theme was rainbows for that week. And, I gave the kids the choice, you know, after circle time, you can choose what you want, and you can make your own rainbow. And they did … They enjoyed it. It was that free choice that the kids did. The next day, they were giving them to their parents saying, ’Look, this is my rainbow’ … They had used all the materials, and they were proud of what they had. I think that does it for me – just knowing that their faces were, like, all brightened up.”

To sum up, construction of knowledge assumes children’s willing participation in the teaching-learning activity. Once children feel free to choose for themselves what they want to do, teachers can integrate their own agendas, and as part of this process, they enable children to see the relevance of teachers’ proposals to their own choices. Similar to how teachers’ provision of safety and community building create foundational parts of the early childhood classroom curriculum, children’s own interests and engagement also define the classroom curriculum.

Teachers’ guidance of children’s learning

As part of assisting children’s construction of knowledge, teachers made explicit references to guiding children’s learning in specific ways. Believing that children learn through their mistakes and experimentation, teachers stated that their guidance should depend on children’s kind and level of engagement in activities that are structured with children. Preschool teachers talked about play and games as examples for such activities. One teacher stated “I loved the aspect of play and Piaget and learning about how kids learn through play. I always had heard and always knew a play-based program was more appropriate than rote memorization.” Another teacher talked about games with rules, “We’re big on card games. Ways for children to think through number and literacy for this two- to five-year-old group, in particular, in a way that goes to what their interests are and that makes sense to them. And a card game is a way to do that instead of a worksheet. So it’s allowing children to construct knowledge in a way that makes sense.”

Structuring children’s activities in collaboration with them was done in the early elementary school years, as well. In talking about journal writing as part of the literacy curriculum, one teacher expressed her collaborations by saying “ … journal writing is kind of, it’s an independent activity for them, to sit down and jot down their ideas. Every now and then, I give them a prompt. And every month, there’s a mandatory school-wide prompt that we have to do and grade and turn in. But I don’t sit with them and say, ‘What’s this? What’s that? What’s that? What are you writing about?’ I let them put down what they want on the paper, and then I come around and ask them about what they’ve written in their journal.”

Once the activities were structured, teachers’ participation in them depended on children’s needs. Therefore, teachers’ guidance took many different forms instead of relying on predetermined rules administered with no flexibility as practiced in behaviorist programs. They emphasized observation as a means of learning about children’s capacities and preferences. One teacher said “.making more observations and seeing that everything children do or say is meaningful. You need to listen in order to understand why certain things might be happening or how to address certain situations with kids.” Another teacher added “And after, what is this … . eight years, I am to the point where I can just look at children and I can see them thinking. And I know when to give them time and when I need to pull back. As an early teacher I would jump in. and feel that I had to tell. Now I step back more and I watch more. I do a lot more observing. And so I allow children to construct.” Finally, a third teacher expressed how observations allowed her to see peer teaching “ … I listen to their conversations when they’re sitting, and you know, the scaffolding is happening because I hear it.”

Other times, teacher guidance took place through questions as one teacher said “Some of my kindergartners have never been to school before, so this is their first experience … They’re still constructing knowledge about how things go together, and the block area, and balance, those types of things. I feel it’s important for them to learn, for their own choosing, how those things work. And it gives me a chance to sit down and talk to them and ask questions about, “So why did you put this there?” or “What would happen if you did this?”

The range of teacher guidance varied from observation of children to guiding them with their questions, and finally, to directing them by explicit verbal directions in many different contexts of classroom life. When deemed appropriate, teachers provided explicit guidance that took many forms. The prime example for it came from a teacher who felt that withdrawal of such guidance may distress children instead of enabling them to continue their exploration on their own. Referring to her practicum experience in a preschool based solely on discovery learning, the teacher stated “I was making a picture next to a child, and they thought I was making a model for the child (who wanted to draw a house) and they gave a reprimand for that … I struggle with that because sometimes children never experienced how to draw a house and maybe seeing somebody doing once they will be more willing to try it, instead of, I have children break down in tears:’I don’t know how to draw a house.’”

To summarize, for this community of teachers, constructivism-as-classroom-practice must take place in a safe space where children’s emotional needs are addressed, interests are pursued, and relationships are regulated based on rules established in collaboration. Additionally, teachers’ guidance should be calibrated carefully according to children’s needs rather than only following a preconceived model of instruction. As the last example illustrates, expanding Piaget and consistent with socio-cultural and critical views, there are times when a constructivist teacher provides assistance through direct instruction, for not doing so may mean abandoning the learner instead of inviting the learner to discover the solution on her own. As such, guiding construction of knowledge requires flexibility in assistance that may appear contradictory in form to constructivism, but consistent with it in meaning. That is, when appropriate, provision of direct guidance may serve the same function as an open-ended question for it empowers the learner to engage in future explorations.

Community negotiations

The last aspect from the teachers’ narratives directly addressed how children’s communities should be involved in the determination of the curriculum and mode of instruction. Teachers’ narratives revealed that their educational approach should be applicable and appropriate in the specific neighborhoods in which they were working.

Teachers reported that their work required them to consider two different areas. The first was access to an equitable curriculum where the delivery of that curriculum was defined as a provision of classroom experiences that were responsive to children’s specific community needs. Here, teachers took the initiative and strived for equity on their own. If this meant making changes in their approaches, teachers did not hesitate to do so. For example, one teacher said that she used direct instruction in working with the English Language Learners (ELL). She justified it by saying “well, for instance, children who had limited [English] language experiences … I did have to provide direct instruction – not in the sense of the, you know direct instruction program, but I had to be explicit – provide very, very explicit instructions, which um I don’t think it’s missing from constructivism, it’s just that I don’t think addressed.”

Teachers also talked about making adjustments according to children’s socio-economic background. They expressed this in statements such as “Some children have never seen a hamster, whatever. They have no idea even where to start. So I have to find a book, and find a picture. Here’s what a hamster looks like. Most pictures start with a shape. What kind of shape is its body? You know, build it up from there. I just try to build their confidence and their willingness to try it for themselves. Not that you’re sitting there holding their hand and drawing it for them, but just giving them the kind of skills to build off of, I guess, giving them a little bit to work with.”

In addition, teachers made changes in their practice in response to community demands to establish equitable educational experiences. This adjustment was more prominent after kindergarten and in public schools. For example, the need for teachers’ direct guidance was expressed in relation to organizing interpersonal relationships. One teacher said “establishing harmony” among students in the classroom requires telling children what to do or not to do. She said “I identify with them. That was me. That was me a long time ago. And I know what their parents, what their home life was like, and I know what their parents’ expectations are, and I know how I grew up. And some of them just don’t respond to let’s talk about it and reason it out.” According to this teacher, providing a direct statement (rather than an open ended question) to children in a community of Latinx children served the same function as an open-ended question when the issue at stake was self-regulation and interpersonal conflicts. She believed that this kind of adjustment was necessary in order to have equity.

The second area of concern was making sure that the parents understood teachers’ approach to ECE. Just as they incorporated direct instruction when they thought it was needed, teachers also informed parents about their own priorities when they felt it was necessary. All the teachers, regardless of the community where they taught, reported that they had to justify the benefits of play and open-ended questioning. To do this, they engaged in a variety of communication strategies with the parents. These involved explaining the benefits of their practice in face-to-face conversations, keeping daily journals of the classroom activities for parents to read, holding open-houses, informing parents through newsletters, giving “homework” involving playful activities, and demonstrating their classroom practice. One teacher explained why and how she uses play as a teaching medium instead of didactic instruction in working with immigrant families as follows “…we ask at the beginning…what do you want your child to learn? Almost every one of them says English, then the ABCs, and the 123s.it’s very much academic. So, I did do that meeting where I led through the different areas of the classroom, and told them what they’re getting from it – how they are getting the math, how they’re getting the science, how they’re getting the critical thinking. A lot of them were kind of amazed, I think, at how it does work because they think they’re just playing all day.”

An important caveat is in order here: In the context of discussing children’s learning needs shared by other community members, the teachers also talked about variations within community groups, guarding against unsubstantiated generalities. For example, one teacher said “Just really getting a sense of what their specific needs are, looking at the individual child, ah, and not a group of children. I also think meeting kids where they’re at and giving them appropriate tasks from where they can work to get them to expound on their strengths is definitely a part of my teaching. I’m constantly modifying or putting things at kids’ level, even assignments that are for the whole class.”

As for their work in the school, teachers’ negotiations varied from questioning to resisting school policies. One area of resistance was the testing requirements. They saw the testing requirements as an imposition on their practice stating that they tried not to teach for a test. For example, when asked whether or not testing requirements present a challenge, one preschool teacher said “they are pressuring us to be more academic” and she maintained “You know what? I’m gonna close my door, and I’m gonna continue to do what I feel is best practice. And when I have to do assessments, I’ll do the best I can, and just give them what they want, and they’ll leave me alone.”

Another area of negotiation with the schools was certain curriculum requirements imposed on the teachers. In principle, in addition to conceptualizing activities that support children’s socio-emotional needs, developing classroom community and citizenry, and those that are chosen by children as central parts of their curriculum, teachers incorporated those subjects such as literacy, science and math that were required by the schools into their practice. In fact, there was a sense of urgency to emphasize literacy activities at all grade levels.

However, teachers had problems with proposed means of accomplishing such goals. They found some of the requirements either uninteresting or irrelevant to children’s experiences. For example, one preschool teacher stated “These are the books we purchased, this is the curriculum we’re using. Ya know, there are people coming in to observe to make sure you’re following this curriculum. And sometimes, the curriculum doesn’t make very good connections or builds on anything or helps the children to really learn something in depth. You feel like you’re cheating them. And sometimes ya know the topic, the book even bores me, I’m like I don’t want to read this book to them.”

Finally, teachers were not always willing to negotiate their wishes with their schools. When they felt that practicing what they think is the right thing to do would create an explicit conflict between them and the administration, they did not proceed. This appeared to be the case when the problem at stake was control of children. The specific examples were about children’s following of rules. For example, one teacher reported that “O.K I’ll bring up the whole lining straight in the hallway. That’s a very hard thing for young children to do, and it’s kinda inappropriate to ask them to do that. But, that’s something we have to do. Because if the principal comes by and sees that our kids are disorderly, she gets upset.”

In summary, conceptualizing constructing knowledge as a socio-cultural activity emerged both in narratives about the significance of establishing a sense of community in the classroom, and also in narratives about the relationships between the classroom and the neighborhood communities. Without forgetting the significance of working through children’s interests and keeping in mind the intra-group variations, these teachers integrated common features of children’s cultural communities into their practice to afford equitable classroom experiences for children’s construction of knowledge.

Conclusions

Teachers’ reports reflected the theoretical stance of the degree program that constitutes the core of the theories of Piaget (1965) and Vygotsky (1978) along with expansions of them in critical ways. First, teachers’ descriptions of constructivism broadened it beyond only classroom practices to include teacher identity and negotiations with children’s communities. Second, and equally importantly, the teachers substantiated the features of constructivism as they take place in their classrooms. These insights from the teachers contribute to the conceptualization of constructivism to be considered in theory construction.

Teachers’ validation is also consistent with the description of these theories in previous literature (Kritt & Budwig, 2022; Stetsenko, 2008) and can be summarized in four principled ways. First, the teachers stated that young children’s education is a relational and dialogic process. Regardless of how the teachers narrated their identities, they converged on the thesis that each area of constructivist practice is a potential area of negotiation with children and their communities with the purpose of establishing shared meanings about what children learn and how they learn it. When disagreements occur, they need to be acknowledged and rationales are needed for the preferred practice. One teacher illustrated this by making explicit reference to Delpit (1988) that when policies and practices are made transparent by teachers, differences are addressed more easily and everybody involved feels included.

Second, teaching and learning is a wholistic process in which children’s (and teachers’) cognitive, emotional, and motivational capacities are simultaneously engaged. As the quotations in the safety section most aptly demonstrated, children’s learning requires consideration of their emotional and motivational involvement. Further, for our teachers, children’s agency is supported by considering their interests and learning needs in relation to their social and cultural contexts (cf., Kritt & Budwig, 2022).

Third, according to the teachers, consistent with work in the Vygotskyan tradition and cultural psychology (e.g., Cole, 1997; Göncü & Gauvain, 2012; Rogoff, 2003) young children’s education is context-dependent. Negotiating the curriculum, appropriate ways of delivering it, and constructing a sense of community in the classroom depend on children’s (and teachers’) broader contexts. For example, asking only open-ended questions, particularly when children demand an answer to their questions may lead to children’s loss of interest and a missed teachable moment. Furthermore, a balance between children’s free choice and teacher-directed activities may indeed be what is required. In one illustration of this, Ms. K. presented play-based and structured activities as a hybrid in her classroom. There were two kinds of learning centers in Ms. K’s classroom. One set was called children’s centers, and the other set was called Ms. K’s centers. Children used different centers at different times during their day depending on their needs and wishes.

Fourth, educational practice is a dynamic process. Assumed in all the reports of this community of teachers is the belief that learning and development are always transformational for everybody involved. Engagement in a meaningful dialogue and being willing to make changes according to children’s and communities’ priorities require accepting the fact that change is ever-present. Consistent with the guiding theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, each child is expected to change by participating in any kind of curricular activity and appropriating knowledge and skills from them in the classroom. Also, consistent with the critical theories (e.g., Bloch, 1991; Souto-Manning et al., 2019; Vadebonceour, 1997, 2017), teachers’ beliefs and practices change according to children’s and their communities’ values and priorities.

In conclusion, we propose to use these insights both to support teacher autonomy and inform teacher professional development. Regarding teacher autonomy, application of constructivist ideals described by the teachers call for the development of local theories of teaching, learning, and development in negotiation with the communities in which our work takes place. Based on our findings, we are proposing to consider simultaneously teachers’ experiential backgrounds, the structural features of children’s communities and institutions, and classroom activities in relation to one another as parts of the same whole in the attempt to understand how children thrive.

Also, engagement in dialogue with teachers about their beliefs and practices yields important new insights for professional development of early childhood educators. Specifically, the perspective, knowledge and experience of teachers who work in under-resourced communities should be considered in the design of teacher preparation programs. Consistent with the findings of this study, the second author (Zinsser et al., 2019) designed an alternative certification program that emphasizes teachers’ strengths and knowledge about their communities, and values their voice as a key component of the program. The program is intentionally designed to build on the capacities of teachers currently working with young children and create support structures for their success in graduate coursework and state teacher licensure requirements. Since its inception, the program has proven to reach its goals (Zinsser et al., 2023). As such, we maintain that when listened to, teachers from these programs offer insights not only about their practice with children but also for academic scholars by providing answers to many questions that appear enigmatic in the absence of their feedback.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all the teachers for their enthusiastic participation in the study. We are indebted to Jennifer A. Vadeboncoeur and Kathleen Sheridan for their feedback on earlier versions of this article. We also acknowledge Suzanne Gaskins, Michael Thomas, and Katherine Zinsser for their helpful comments. Special thanks are extended to Barbara Abel for her help during the interpretation of the data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago-College of Education.

Notes

1. Also see Vadebonceour (1997).

2. By conflict or crises we mean introduction of novel experiences that require children to transform their existing knowledge, not psychological or physical stress.