How to tell a constructivist science teacher: An interview protocol to diagnose a constructivist teacher

Abstract

As a research paradigm, constructivism offers accounts of the epistemology of science,

inspires science education curriculum reform programs, underpins major research

programs in science education, and is also the foundation of many science-teacher

training programs where constructivist teaching methods are widely advocated.

Underlying all versions of constructivism are the philosophical constructs of

epistemological commitments and ontological beliefs. Specifically, educational

constructivism can be divided into individual, radical, and social constructivism

depending on the unique ontological, epistemological, and pedagogical commitments for

each version. In this article, we present an interview protocol with which researchers can

elicit the philosophical foundations (i.e., ontological beliefs and epistemological

commitments) that preservice teachers gave to support of their developing notions of

several versions of educational constructivism through in-depth interviews. By providing

researchers and educators with our interview protocol and methods, we intend to show

one way of revealing an individuals often implicitly held philosophical beliefs and

commitments. For each ontological and epistemological beliefs subcategory, a detailed

definition along with two to three exemplary quotes taken from the interview transcripts

from a previous research is also provided. The development of a system of categories

for identifying constructivist ideas (i.e., ontological, epistemological, and pedagogical

profiles), and its use in tracing of the development of preservice teachers beliefs changes

throughout their university coursework, has the potential to contribute to a better

understanding of how preservice teachers learn to teach. Accordingly, this interview

protocol will be a valuable theoretical and analytical framework in describing the

relationship between a teachers beliefs about nature of knowledge (or reality) and his or

her conceptions of science teaching and learning. This understanding can lead to a

restructuring of the science teacher education program's methods courses.