Students' perceptions of constructivist learning in a community college American History II survey course.

In constructivist teaching all learning is filtered through the learner's lens of reality. This qualitative study explored community college students' perceptions of constructivism applied in an American History II survey course. Participants were students enrolled in said course at a Colorado community college. The data for analysis came from student interviews. Students described experiences consistent with a constructivist classroom: they thought more critically and independently; they developed cognitively and affectively; and they enjoyed the learning process. One implication of this study was that applied constructivism may result in a more holistic approach to teaching and learning.

**********

Constructivist theorists believe students improve their critical thinking and problem solving skills when they construct new knowledge based upon background experiences and multiple resources. Students construct knowledge as individuals or as part of a social unit, but knowledge is not a separate entity unto itself, and knowledge cannot be independent of the knower. The philosophical, psychological, and epistemological underpinnings of constructivist learning theories are disparate, but the common thread throughout constructivism is learner-centered teaching. Students think critically when they combine background knowledge, independent research, and classroom presentations to build on their existing schema, thus expanding their foundations of knowledge. Constructivist theory lends itself well to classroom application; however, there are questions about transforming learning theory into practice.

There is abundant literature on constructivist learning theories, but according to Richardson (1997) it is contradictory and not prescriptive. The literature suggests that the process of transforming constructivist theories into practical classroom application is tenuous at best. Comments such as these in the literature convinced the authors that an attempt should be made to apply the constructivist elements to a community college American History II survey course, which one of the authors would teach during a fall semester. It was felt that the diversity of age, ethnicity, and nationality among this community college's students afforded the class many opportunities to learn valuable lessons from their peers and to share multiple perspectives.

Constructivist Learning Theories Defined

There are two main theories in applying constructivism to the community college classroom. The theories differ in focus of attention and in the role of formal academic knowledge in learning (Richardson, 1997). Regarding focus of attention, there are two models most commonly associated with psychologists Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. The Piagetian model focuses on the individual and his or her construction of meaning, which is called cognitive constructivism. Vygotsky's model focuses on language and social interactions and is called situated social constructivism. Constructivists do not agree on whether individuals construct ideas independently (Piaget) or if social interaction (Vygotsky) is needed to facilitate that process (Fosnot, 1996; Steffe & Gale, 1995). It may be a moot point. "We cannot understand an individual's cognitive structure without observing it interacting in a context, within a culture. But neither can we understand a culture as an isolated entity affecting the structure since all knowledge within the culture is only, to use Cobb's (1992) terminology "taken as shared" (Fosnot, 1996, p. 24). Although Piaget is known for his emphasis on individual cognitive development, he also believed language and social interactions were important to intellectual development. He wrote, "There is no longer any need to choose between the primacy of the social or that of the intellect; the collective intellect is the social equilibrium resulting from the interplay of the operations that enter into all cooperation" (Piaget, 1970, p. 114). Both social interaction and individual construction of knowledge are important aspects of cognitive development.

   Society doesn't think; only individuals think. Thus the relation between
   individual and society, like the relation between organism and environment,
   is a dialectical one. It is not only that society is the environment of the
   individuals and therefore perturbs and is perturbed by the individual ...
   only an individual can think, but only a society can have class structure.
   At the same time what makes the relation between society and the individual
   dialectical is that individuals acquire from the society produced by them
   individual properties that they did not possess in isolation. It is not
   just that wholes are more than the sum of their parts; it is that parts
   become qualitatively new by being part of the whole. (Lewontin, Rose, &
   Kamin, 1984, p. 287)

John Dewey (1916) believed constructivism was better accomplished through social interactions. He said, "When words do not enter as factors into a shared situation, whether overtly or imaginatively, they operate as pure physical stimuli, not as having meaning or intellectual value" (p. 16). Vygotsky (1978) stated that within social interactions, cultural meanings are shared and internalized. "Increased learning will occur if the specialist uses a learner-centered approach, where facilitators utilize the learner's experiences and knowledge in the learning process where they develop methods in which students interact with and reflect on the subject matter" (Beaudin, 1995, p. 3). A comparison between Piaget and Vygotsky reveals that there were differences, but also similarities in their beliefs. "Both are clearly constructivists: They both see knowledge as self-regulated construction. Both see social interactions as having an important role, if for different reasons. In many ways their work converges" (Wadsworth, 1996, p. 12).

The second theoretical difference among constructivists relates to formal or academic knowledge. Constructivists do not disregard the need for formal knowledge (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Mastery of content is the goal of learning and within each discipline the rote memorization of discrete facts is necessary; however, the conceptual foundation upon which the facts rest can be built using constructivism. Teachers establish a rapport with students that facilitates both learning processes. Constructivists suggest that teachers change their own perceptions of knowledge and how people learn. "Knowledge, then, could be treated not as a more or less accurate representation of external things, situations, and events, but rather as a mapping of actions and conceptual operations that had proven viable in the knowing subject's experience" (Von Glasersfeld, 1995, p. 4). The interpretations people make about the world around them, along with past experiences, build their foundations of knowledge. By combining formal knowledge with real world experience and new ideas or perspectives, the construction of new knowledge occurs.

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to explore community college students' perceptions of the learning experience in an American History II survey course using constructivist theories to guide the teaching. A case study by Cross and Steadman (1996) asked an important question: "But is it working?" Frequently educators postulate on teaching and learning theories but fail to ask students if classroom practices help or hinder their learning. Are students gaining an understanding of the learning process in which the interpretation of historical facts is as important as the facts themselves? Can students construct the "big picture" by examining the small pieces of the puzzle through inductive reasoning and their own lens of reality? Can they learn to evaluate primary resources critically to improve their understanding of history thus building the larger story from discrete facts? As long-time community college educators, we were interested in the students' perceptions and the meanings they assign to this learning environment.

Method

This was a phenomenological qualitative study. Phenomenology, as defined by Deutsch (1997), is "a descriptive method that seeks to grasp the essential character of the object's experience; theory of consciousness that holds that all consciousness is of something or other." (p. 502) A phenomenological study captures what Edmund Husserl (1931) called the "essential character" of the experience through the eyes of the students. Husserl's thoughts on conscious awareness fit with the theories of constructivism. Phenomenology is an appropriate research method to discover what Husserl would call the students' lived experiences. "Whatever was actually lived out--perceived, thought, imagined, remembered--is, in so far as it is a lived experience, free from doubt" (Macann, 1993, p. 17).

Research Question

How do community college history students experience a course in which constructivist learning theories guide the teaching methodology?

Procedures

The pedagogical methods of constructivism centered on the student. Students constructed knowledge based upon life experiences, textbook readings, independent research, primary sources, and information received in class. An American History II survey course lends itself well to this type of learning because of the contemporary primary sources and guest speakers willing to share their experiences with students. A primary source book entitled Enduring Voices by Lorence, Boyer, Clark, Kett, Salisbury, Sitkoff, and Woloch and a secondary source book entitled The American Promise Volume II by Rourk, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Lawson, and Hartmann were used. Both textbooks are arranged chronologically, so the course material was presented in a structured, organized, and familiar pattern. Students were required to read and discuss assignments from both books. Irrefutable historical facts were not open to interpretation, for example, Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. However, the cause and effect of people, actions, and events were subject to interpretation and discussion. Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor rather than another American possession? Why did the Japanese want America in the war? Did FDR know about the air strike before it occurred? Should the United States have been better prepared? Were the commanding officers at Pearl Harbor to blame? Students read primary sources from divergent perspectives and constructed meaning based upon readings, class discussions, and their own background knowledge.

Participants

The participants in this study were 24 students enrolled in an American History II sophomore level survey course at a Colorado community college. The American History II survey is not required to complete a degree at this college. Students were free to enroll in alternate sections of the course if they preferred a traditional delivery method. Students were a self-selected sample as it was their option to choose whether to take the constructivist course, another course, or enroll in another section.

The students in this study reflected the diversity usually seen in middle class suburban community colleges. There were both traditional and nontraditional aged students. The majority of the students were White, but there were also Hispanic, Asian, and Native American students in addition to five international students enrolled in the class. Regarding gender, approximately one half of the students were male and one half were female. Twenty of the 24 students agreed to provide data for this study via essays and personal interviews.

Some observations about the participants in the study may be helpful in interpreting their comments. Students #8, #9 and #16 said in their essays that they liked certain aspects of the class, but that constructivism was too much work. They liked traditional methods of teaching and learning because it was easier, or they were more accustomed to it. Students #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, and #20 said they learned more, enjoyed the class, and were successful in completing assignments autonomously. The five students who agreed to be interviewed liked most aspects of constructivism. The student comments that follow are coded parenthetically according to their assigned numbers or initials.

Implementing Constructivism in the Classroom

Most classes began with exercises to activate preexisting background knowledge, often brainstorming with the entire class about an event or an era. Sometimes open-ended questions for class discussions were effective starters.

Students were required to research four topics and present their findings to the class. Time frame for each presentation was to fit within the general chronology of the class, but the specific dates for their presentations were at the students' discretion. This allowed students the autonomy to research their choice of topics and choose when they would share the information.

Primary sources are the core of any historical study. Historical facts were important, but the process of critically evaluating documents to broaden the appreciation for multiple perspectives in any given situation was also important. For example, students read secondary source materials (textbook) about the social implications of the Great Depression. This provided them with general background knowledge of the era, and a class discussion followed. Then they read primary source documents or interviewed people who lived through the Great Depression. They found resources from people who lived on farms, in the cities, were wealthy, or homeless. Each interviewee or author had a valid and true representation of the experience of the Great Depression as it impacted him or her; however, each view was unique to that individual. It was up to the students to decide how each experience fit into the larger story (building the big picture).

Students also completed oral history assignments. Students located an individual who experienced World War II, requested an interview with the person, and completed some background research related to the interviewee's experience prior to the interview. The object of the assignment was to make history come to life by talking with someone whose experience was being studied in class. Students shared their research with the class when it fit into the course chronology. This assignment helped students learn through practical application of how history is written.

Students were required to keep a reflective journal with a minimum of ten entries to record their thoughts. Reflective journal assignments included a brief recitation of facts plus the students' interpretation of the events. Active reflection improves learning. "As meaning makers humans seek to organize and generalize across experiences in a representational form. Allowing reflection time through journal writing, representation in multi-symbolic form, and/or discussion of connections across experience or strategies may facilitate reflective abstraction." (Fosnot, 1996, p. 29)

All students were expected to share the work equally when answering questions collaboratively, whether or not they were the spokesperson for the group. Collaborative learning assignments "more prevalent in higher education settings, emphasize a shift in authority from teacher to students. In collaborative learning groups student roles and tasks are less structured by the teacher." (Cross & Steadman, 1996, p. 174)

In scaffolding student learning, Piaget's assimilation, equilibration, and accommodation are important. Students appeared to feel a sense of discomfort when they examined multiple perspectives that made them question ideas and opinions they had previously held. An example of multiple perspectives is how any story changes because of the perspective of the storyteller. Laborers, factory owners, federal courts, and government officials would tell different versions of labor relations during the late nineteenth century in the United States. Who was right? Who was wrong? It depended upon one's perspective. Students practiced critical thinking skills when they viewed these multiple perspectives. The study and discussion of documentary evidence surrounding labor relations encouraged students to explore the multiple realities and the complexities of history in the formation of new constructs. This transition from one schema to the next is an example of the construction of knowledge. Students helped each other along by lending their individual insights to the discussion at hand while working in peer groups, reviewing primary sources from disparate perspectives, and answering related questions.

Students used different types of resources for coursework. Examples of resources included primary sources (documents), secondary sources (textbook), guest speakers (verbal resources), independent research (research topics), lecture (passive learning), collaboration (group work), and class discussions.

The course assessments consisted of the day-to-day work of the class and two essay examinations. A portfolio was required on the last day of class that included a table of contents, an introduction, a conclusion, and all of the work that was completed for the class. The essay examinations were multifaceted and asked students to blend facts and interpretations into cogent narratives.

Researchers' Perspective

We presumed students would respond favorably to the constructivist methods used in this class. The teacher was experienced and had taught at the college level for more than 10 years. The majority of the students enjoyed active class participation. However, education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition and passive learners prefer lectures. The literature suggests that students sometimes feel overwhelmed in a constructivist classroom because the responsibility for learning is theirs. Not all students are accustomed to playing such active roles in the classroom. Some students question why they should formulate answers for themselves when teachers could give them the "right" answers and save them time and energy.

Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey, Von Glasersfeld, Fosnot, Brooks and Brooks, Steffe and Gale, and others suggest that the application of constructivist theory produces increased learning and independent thought. When teachers transmit correct answers to students, critical thinking and problem solving skills are not fully developed. Dewey (1938) said, "There is no defect in traditional education greater than its failure to secure the active cooperation of the pupil in construction of the purposes involved in their studying." (p. 67) Critical thinking skills can be applied in all aspects of life. Moustakas (1994) said of a college promoting critical thinking that "throughout the educational program the emphasis and focus is on individual knowledge, freedom to explore and make choices, and the validity of personal vision, discovery and self assessment" (p. 62) John Stuart Mills' (1986) On Liberty, elaborated the point that "nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is a privilege and proper condition of a human being to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstance and character ... The human faculties of perception, judgement, discriminate feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference are exercised only by being used" (p. 70-71).

Results

This qualitative study occurred in a natural classroom setting. While the authors did not have a preestablished hypothesis, they presumed the students would enjoy the methods consistent with constructivism that were used in the classroom. Still there was no guarantee how these community college students would perceive their experiences. Data were collected via written essays and interviews and then analyzed to create a narrative that described the phenomenon. Language rather than numbers was used in telling the story. The students' perceptions of a constructivist classroom experience were the focus of this study, and inductive reason built the narrative.

Students were assured that their participation in the study was voluntary and that their comments would not have an adverse effect on them or their grade for the course. To ensure the integrity of the study, student essays were collected by a colleague on the last day of class. The authors did not see the essays or interview students until after grades were posted, so students could complete the essays honestly and without fear of reprisal.

The data were coded within the specific cases or elements and emerging themes were identified and illustrated through the use of student voices. The following themes, many of them consistent with the elements of constructivist theory, emerged while analyzing the data. The introductions include comments and analyses by the authors. The process used in this analysis was inductive, but the presentation of the information seemed clearer if the themes were introduced first and then supported with student voices.

Constructing Knowledge

Some students were confident in their background knowledge and their ability to construct historical interpretations based upon their background and new information. Constructing knowledge is much like constructing anything else; it is a building process. The processes used by students depended upon the individuals. Most of them list the common ingredients (primary resources, independent research, discussion, sharing knowledge, and reflection) in constructing history, but each had his or her interpretation of the process.

   I think it is the same as when you are obtaining any new knowledge; the
   more facts you already know the easier it is to simply add on. (#18)

   Since I was already interested in history, it was easy to assemble my own
   background knowledge. I already had a great understanding of U. S. history
   due to watching documentaries, reading several books, and having the
   knowledge to know where to look for primary resources in order to write
   reflection papers and being able to answer test questions. (#7)

Big Picture

An important tenet in constructivist theory is evaluating evidence to construct a global interpretation of an event or era. To accomplish that goal, students were encouraged to build the "big picture" or global viewpoint from background knowledge, primary sources, student presentations, class discussions, and readings. Students had the opportunity to examine the evidence representing multiple perspectives to see how details supported the larger picture. Building the big picture from multiple resources fits well with constructivist learning theories and with understanding the complexities of history.

   I believe that to gather all of the knowledge from the various guest
   speakers, presentations, discussions, and my own past experiences allowed
   me to see the whole picture from many different viewpoints. I feel that as
   a student, learning from one resource is not efficient enough to keep a
   student interested and to actually learn efficiently about the topic.
   Learning from different outlets definitely enabled me to learn much more
   about history. (#15)

   Putting all the information together in a report made me see how the parts
   formed the whole. I enjoyed the type of work expected from us in this
   class. It was good to construct my knowledge from something other than just
   one book. You have to work to dig out the best work you can do. I based
   most of my learning from this class on digging out the necessary
   information from the reading and lectures and putting it together in my own
   head to make sense of some very complicated events. (#1)

Autonomy

Completing research and sharing information with peers was another component of this course. Constructivists believe that students are more engaged in the learning process and intrinsically motivated if they have some control over what they learn. Therefore, the students were instructed to choose four topics of interest to research that would span the decades under study. Students seemed to support constructivist theory as they said learning autonomously was fun. The following student comments are consistent with constructivism.

   I thought this part was great in the course. It is easy to learn about
   things that I'm interested in. To do my own research about topics has
   helped me to understand and learn better. I really liked the freedom that
   we had. I like working on my own because then I can shape my own thoughts
   and research more about what I am interested in. (#2)

   Having the freedom to pick my topics usually meant that I chose subjects
   that interested me, so getting them completed by the deadline was not a
   problem. It also allowed me to research the pieces of history that intrigue
   me, family life in Europe in WWII rather than military strategies. The
   military strategies were filled in by other students who found that part of
   the war the most interesting. (#20) I loved being able to choose the topics
   I was interested in to research and share with the class. Being able to
   look at a particular part of history to talk about made it more fun to
   learn. Being able to pick a time frame to research helped me with the load
   of homework in other classes. Having more time to do the research on my own
   and in balance with other classes made the reports more in-depth. I was
   more inclined to do a better job on the reports because I picked them and
   because I would work on them at my own pace. (#10)

Primary Resources Stimulate Interest

When learning history, the raw data are the bases from which all conclusions are drawn. Primary resources, guest speakers, oral history assignments, and field experiences provided students with additional data to construct their own interpretations of history. The use of primary resources encourages students to think critically, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate ideas. Primary sources, documents written by individuals who were observers or participants in events, give history real-life meaning. The primary accounts represented many points of view. When examining the world through the lens of multiple perspectives, students learned to think critically and to evaluate sources carefully to construct theories of their own. Students learned to think about the author's motivation in writing the document, who the audience was, and what the author hoped to accomplish by writing it. Students said they learned more as a result of using primary resources which is consistent with constructivist theories.

   It is amazing how much more I learned from real experience rather than to
   read it out of a textbook. I became more interested in stories told through
   people's encounters of history rather than to read about events that
   occurred. I felt more interested in the events that occurred because of the
   real life experience that were told or read. (#5)

   Multiple sources led to multiple points of view. Events were more real.
   Events were not just stories read in a book, but real people experiencing
   history. I became more interested in stories told through people's
   encounters of history rather than to read about events that occurred. (#12)

   The primary sourcebook did what it was designed to do. It made me look at
   the issue or event from different angles, you know the Civil War from the
   white perspective, the black's angle, the rich, the poor, the north and
   south. I think it broadened my perspective to look at it from angles that
   would not have occurred to me with my own personal biases and background.
   And I like that book because it was individuals talking about their
   experiences and how it hit them in the gut opposed to just the broad brush
   of history. (#15)

   The role of primary sources is critical to either understand the background
   and details or context, in which the story of the people is given. Clearly,
   I would reflect and even try to put myself into their stories and the times
   in which they lived. (#3)

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking equated to higher order thinking skills. Ten reflection papers were completed throughout the semester. Reflection papers required students to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate information to make sense of multiple resources. Students gathered information from peer presentations, class discussions, the instructor, the text, primary sources, and other sources. They reflected upon all of the sources to synthesize the information into a concise and cogent narrative. The student reflections went beyond a recitation of facts because students were expected to tell what they thought of the event and why. Ideas that emerged were consistent with constructivist theory.

   The reflective journals were good because it was different from any history
   I have had in the past. In the past my experience has been okay what year
   was Abraham Lincoln assassinated? My point is nobody ever said, "How do you
   feel about that?" That is the difference to me. Everyone lays out the dates
   and chronology. But what separated you from the rest is that you asked us
   how it affected us as an American or a male or whatever. So I liked that. I
   think that is where you dig deeper instead of just pulling dates out of
   people. How do you feel? That is a great question. (Interview K.R.)

   Writing reflective papers helped me learn to analyze, synthesize, and
   evaluate historical facts by teaching me to take what I know and think
   about the way it happened. Most classes you just have to memorize facts and
   restate them on tests. With the reflective papers I thought about what
   stuck out in my mind about an era. I also had to learn to pick out the key
   factors that led up to an event. I took a question about a time and
   analyzed it by looking at all of the sources I had about it and coming to
   my own conclusions. I tried not to use the book very much on them. I looked
   at my notes to see what we talked about in class. I used my notes as the
   outline and my own personal thought to fill in the outline. If I was not
   sure about something I used the book. I used the primary sources in the
   reflective papers to talk about how people reacted to living a time period.
   (#10)

Oral Histories

The oral history was a variation on the primary source theme. The assignment was a practical application of learning to do history. Students located someone who experienced World War II, asked what he or she did during the war, and requested an interview. Students prepared for the interviews by completing general background research. Students were to be respectful, listen carefully, record the interview, evaluate the information, see how it fit into the larger picture of World War II, turn in an outline, and report to the class. Student voices were consistent with constructivism because they enjoyed active learning.

   I really enjoyed it just for the fact that my family is always sitting
   around talking about stuff. And then to go back to talk to them about an
   era where they might have forgotten. They would laugh and say, `Oh, that's
   right!' and start talking. I thought that was fun. I could do that for a
   living talking to people about that kind of stuff. It was great. (Interview
   M.N.)

   It was neat for me to sit there and talk to him about him listening to the
   radio and hearing that Pearl Harbor had been bombed. It really brought it
   alive and that is probably what you were trying to do with that. Bring some
   history alive. That was certainly good for me. (Interview K.R.)

   It helped me to analyze and I learned a lot about my family. I had a lot of
   fun with it even though I had to talk to my grandma to get the information.
   She actually flew down and like brought all of the journals down with her.
   My grandma had pictures of everything in there. Really detailed very good
   drawings of the POW camp and some of the SS men and he had all of these SS
   badges like in the journal. (Interview K. H.)

   The WWII oral history was awesome. It encouraged me to take the knowledge
   that is quickly passing and really learn about the circumstances. (#9)

Collaboration

Students completed research and shared what they learned with their peers. Much of the coursework was student driven rather than teacher driven. Constructivists believe cooperative or collaborative learning is a necessary component to teaching and learning. Sharing research and oral histories throughout the semester was a type of collaborative learning students said they enjoyed. However, when students worked in formally assigned groups with specific tasks to complete within those groups, the perceived enjoyment decreased. Consistent with constructivism is generation of curiosity and enhanced learning through collaboration.

   I enjoyed being able to find topics which I desired to know more about and
   present them in a way to educate others from the information that I had
   gathered. Also being able to present them at my discretion took the stress
   from knowing the exact time and date I would have to speak in front of the
   class. I learned a lot this way and the experience was fun. (#19)

   If you can convey information to another person, either orally or in
   written form, then you truly understand the information. Putting all the
   information together in a report made me see how the parts formed the
   whole. (#1)

   I think when a person is put into a group situation they try harder to
   analyze the information and understand the topic better. I know that there
   were a few topics that perhaps I might not have spent enough time learning
   about and because I was put in a group situation and that my group members
   expected me to know the material I put in a little extra effort. Now, I can
   look back at those discussions and know that I learned something because of
   them. (#15)

Relaxed Pace

A component of constructivism is honoring students and their contributions to the discussion. Consistent with constructivism is a more relaxed pace for discussion.

   I liked having a lot of time to think about, answer, and discuss a
   question. It gave me a much greater understanding of history. I had to
   analyze an event and got the opinion of others in the class. They helped
   give an option as to why something happened that I might not have thought
   of. I like knowing that I understood a subject completely before we moved
   on. (#10)

   The slower pace and opportunity for discussion let us cover a subject more
   deeply. The fact that we were not rushed through our discussion and oral
   reports made it feel like we had a stake in the class, like our views were
   accepted and worthwhile. I learned more from this class because I will be
   able to relate to the discussion and reports forever. It seemed like a more
   personal experience than memorizing and moving at a faster pace. (#20)

   My opinion is knowledge should flow as it does. If no questions are coming
   from the class then keep charging on, but when something grabs somebody
   that is when if I was the teacher I would stop and really dig deep. Because
   you have hit a nerve, something people are interested in. When I am
   interested in something I learn it better. So when those moments arise it
   would be nice if there was a slack in the schedule to probe a little deeper
   when you find you have hit a nerve and somebody is interested. I believe in
   quality not quantity. I would go with that. (Interview K.R.)

Changing Perceptions

Many students have preconceived notions about history. Constructivist teachers encourage students to question preexisting thoughts and to examine other perspectives. When new ideas were introduced, especially via primary resources, students reconsidered their ideas. There was a period of discomfort before students accommodated the change to their schema. Knowledge is constructed when minds are opened to evidence that supports different conclusions.

   I definitely think the primary resources changed my views on a lot of
   things. That is what I enjoyed the most was the primary resources. I would
   love to take courses that only use primary sources. Whether it be negative
   or positive about the experience. That is what I liked about the (primary
   source) book. Some of the resources were very positive and some were very
   negative. So you could see a wider range of emotions and you could see how
   they possibly reacted in the ways they did and how it set up future things
   to come. (Interview M.N.)

   One of the best examples of something changing my original ideas was the
   day we went to see the Russian journalists. Their personal experiences and
   the discussion that ensued helped me develop a different idea of Russia and
   its people. (#17)

   It made me look at different ways of thinking to gain a better knowledge of
   my old ideas and to form new ideas based upon other people's perspectives.
   I can try to see things in different shades of gray instead of black or
   white. (#14)

Support for Learning

Students had background knowledge from school, reading, life, or their parents. The knowledge was often one-dimensional. As students began to understand the historical process and utilize it, questions were reflected in their eyes or discomfort in their body language and then, eureka! Different perspectives gave them new insights. They trusted themselves to modify their old ideas or build new knowledge independently based upon multiple resources.

Scaffolding was provided to help students learn to modify their old ideas. Narratives tied different presentations together or supplied facts that had been omitted. Written outlines or chronologies presented information in concrete and linear ways which helped students construct the bigger pictures. Study guides were presented to help students prepare for their essay exams as well as to support and direct the oral history assignment. Scaffolding is about building a new schema, which is consistent with constructivism. Also consistent with constructivism is tying information together. With many reports on disparate topics, it was easy for students to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Details are good but are better after the global picture has been established.

   If you (teacher) began to feel like it wasn't clicking, you would add
   information if you didn't feel like it had come together. If there was a
   part missing or you felt like we hadn't put enough time into a certain
   portion you would give us an outline or you would add information which
   really helped to tie it together as well. It was presented in a way it
   would be hard not to get. You would lecture on things and we would take it
   from there. It was easy to learn in this format. I retained a lot of
   information. (Interview G.C.)

   You laid out the events and tied them together, but it was up to me to
   digest them and make sense of them on my own. In your class, although I
   don't think you ever used the term critical thinking, that is exactly what
   you were demanding of us. (#15)

Evaluation

The underlying factor in selecting assignments was authentic assessment. Assessments were chosen to formulate a grade, but also to help students learn. Students had autonomy in choosing topics and due dates for all of the assignments with the exception of the exams and the portfolio. Students said the assessments aided in developing critical thinking skills, improved retention of knowledge, and increased interest in the discipline, all of which are consistent with constructivism.

   The reflective journals and research papers helped in the success of this
   class. It helped with many more primary sources and helped with assessing
   what we had learned. I felt more comfortable at the beginning of class
   knowing what I had to do to pass the class, but as I look at what was
   accomplished, I felt that it was not only for assessing but to learn and
   grow. (#5)

   I personally liked the way the class was orchestrated because I think it
   allowed people to see that history is not so boring. The journals,
   projects, oral histories and essay exams helped us demonstrate the
   knowledge we had truly gained from this class. Again it allowed me to open
   and share my thoughts which is how this learning experience changed me.
   (#7).

Multiple Realities

A tenet of constructivism is the inclusion of many perspectives. Voices of different social and economic classes, the government, minorities, and women were included. Multiple resources gave students the opportunity to see multiple realities and to vicariously walk in someone else's shoes. Students said their minds were opened to other perspectives, another idea compatible with constructivist theory.

   In this class I got into the habit of looking at minorities' view of
   history. Most teachers mention that minorities were mad that the white man
   kicked them off their land but that was it. Just because we are taught from
   birth that the Pilgrims had Thanksgiving with the American Indians does not
   mean that it is the only point of view. This class did a very good job of
   showing the underdog's situation throughout history. To understand history
   you have to look at multiple perspectives, this class taught me to do that
   on a more regular basis. (#10)

   By having everyone choosing his own topic for the oral histories or
   discussions that came up in class, it allowed us to see the many
   perspectives we have about a situation. By experiencing it in this manner,
   I think it allowed us to see that the United States is not always the good
   guy or the bad guy when it comes to events in history. (#7)

   We had different students share information they had gathered giving
   multiple perspectives especially with the oral reports on WWII. It teaches
   that multiple perspectives gave me a better and broader understanding of
   our history. (#17)

Cognitive Growth

According to the student voices, cognitive growth occurred, and the constructivist methods were effective. Students reported greater interest in the topic as a result of this type of learning experience.

   This was probably the best learning experience I had this year. To be able
   to gain information based upon my own experience has made me want to know
   more about history. (#14)

   I would have to say that this class was a lot different from my other
   classes because it encouraged me to get more involved. I was able to, so to
   speak, get my hands dirty in the various topics that we had learned. In my
   other classes the teachers mainly gave lectures that had little enthusiasm
   and never really encouraged too much class participation. I think that's
   why many students would get entrapped in daydreaming and end up missing
   valuable information. This class definitely added more excitement and I
   really feel that everyone in the class got a lot out of the learning
   experience. (#1)

Variables

For the majority of the students, the experience was consistent with constructivist theory. There were some exceptions or variables within the experience. The following comments fall under the exceptions to the rule category. Difficulties for some students stemmed from the need for more structure, the quantity and quality of the work expected, inadequate time, and dislike of group learning.

   For me this was difficult. The open-ended questions were not really
   discussed, for me I did not find the class to be a slower paced class
   because of the large amount of information it was hard to keep up. The
   essay tests were a little more difficult, but I learned a lot. (#16)

   That was a lot of work. I don't enjoy working on it. I would rather have
   simpler work. Sometimes I would rather be told what to do, or be assisted
   instead of doing it by myself. (#8)

   I despise group learning. I always feel like someone gets off the hook ...
   group projects only encourage goofing around (#9).

   The reflective journals, portfolios, research projects, oral history and
   essay exams helped, but I found them to be rather hard because I am used to
   other means of studying and learning. I really enjoyed listening to the
   lectures and comments from other students about the topics discussed. This
   experience was different and difficult for me compared to other classes.
   (#16)

Discussion

The highlights of the results include the positive way in which most students experienced constructivism. Although students agreed they had to work harder in this class, when given adequate support and tools, they were able to construct new knowledge themselves. They stated that learning was more interesting or more enjoyable because they had autonomy in choosing topics they found most interesting and could choose general due dates for their work. Students reported greater understanding from using primary resources and examining multiple perspectives. The majority of students found reflective journals helpful in reviewing what they had learned and critically assessing why the event or a perspective was important. What do you think about this and why do you think so were ongoing questions posed to students during this class.

Greater cognitive development was an expected outcome of the study, but the affective development students reported was unexpected. Students stated that sharing knowledge in the class encouraged them to work harder. They mentioned that the use of multiple perspectives and primary resources helped them learn to see that multiple realities exist. They began to trust their own intellect rather than depending on the ideas of others for all of their knowledge.

Confirming Findings

Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested methods for testing conclusions in a qualitative study. The ten steps that were used include checking data for representativeness, being aware of researcher effects, examining outliers, using triangulating, weighing the evidence, evaluating surprises in the data, looking for rival explanations, replicating the study, and ultimately getting feedback from the participants. These methods for testing conclusions increased the validity of our analysis.

Strengths and Limitations

An important strength of this study is that it describes the students' classroom experience. Too often, students are the last people educators ask about the effectiveness of teaching methodologies. Students were asked to answer the question, what do you think about this learning experience? Their answers provided the data for this study.

A limitation of this study was that some of the students enrolled in the course were learners with whom one of the authors had previously worked. This may have had an impact on the students' perceptions of constructivism and the success of the class in general. Many former students were the core learners and student leaders of the class.

There were three general types of learners in this study: high achievers, average achievers, and low achievers. The high achievers were class leaders in discussions and group learning. They were the students in the class who utilized freedom in learning to its fullest. It was high achievers that constructivism fit the best. These students appreciated multiple realities and found the ideas intellectually stimulating. They had the necessary self-discipline to complete assignments in a timely manner without being reminded that they had assignments due soon.

There were students who were academically average. They were neither high achievers nor low achievers. For those students, the intellectual freedom and opportunity to discover increased their learning and their perceived enjoyment of learning. Average students liked most of the aspects of constructivism with the exception of formalized collaborative learning.

A few students did the bare minimum to get by. These students, whether because of inability or unwillingness, were not as successful in the class. In any classroom there is a strong correlation between effort expended and learning accomplished. Constructivist methods did not fail for low-achieving students in comparison to more traditional methods, but it appears from the authors' past experiences that traditional methods allow nonachievers to skim by more successfully than constructivist methods. Constructivist classrooms demand a high degree of student involvement and critical thinking. Class discussions occurred every day and active students were very aware of their peers who participated infrequently. The work was self-guided, but required a great deal of time to reflect on learning and to write about what was learned. What average to high achievers perceived as opportunities for guided growth and learning in a relatively autonomous environment, low-achieving students perceived as freedom from learning because no one made them produce work on a given schedule or told them what they must learn. A college physics teacher who used constructivism in his classroom made the following observation about similar students.

   Of course there are still those students of college age who just want the
   answers and who are quite sorry that I have decided to do things
   differently. But the challenge of understanding these students well enough
   to get inside and facilitate disequilibration in them is also exciting. I
   am convinced that, whether they realize it or not, many of the students
   have looked deeper into their own ideas and into the phenomena than their
   peers who have not had a similar course experience. When you have invented
   an idea for yourself, it is much more a part of you than when you memorize
   a description of it from someone else (Dykstra, 1996, p. 202).

It is possible that our interpretations of the students' perceptions could be viewed differently by other researchers. The study took place in a community college where classes are small, and there were many interactions between the students and the teacher. However, what worked well with this class and within this discipline may or may not work well for others in different or similar situations.

As Von Glasersfeld (1996) said, many teachers have intuitively utilized elements of constructivism in their classes. The literature states that constructivism has been applied in virtually all disciplines and has been used with students of varying ages from elementary school through college. The elements of constructivism are implemented in different ways depending upon the academic discipline and the age of the learners. Good teachers can take the valuable lessons from this or any other study and apply the appropriate lessons to their circumstances.

References

Beaudin, B. (1995). Experiential learning: Theoretical underpinnings. (Report No. ETT-95-02). Colorado: High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety, Education, and Training Team.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive constructivist perspectives. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism theory perspectives and practice. (pp.34-52). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Cross, P., & Steadman, M. (1996). Classroom research implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Deutsch, E. (1997). Introduction to worm philosophies. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dykstra, D. (1996). Teaching introductory physics to college students. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism theory perspectives and practice. (pp. 182-204). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers enquiring learners: Constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Fosnot, C. (1996). Construcvisim: A psychological theory of learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.) Constructivism in theory, perspectives, and practice. (pp. 182 - 204) New York: Teacher's College Press.

Husserl, E. (1931). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. (D. Carr Trans.) Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Lewontin, R., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon.

Lorence, J., Boyer, P., Clark, C., Kett, J., Salisbury, N., Sitkoff, H., & Woloch, N. (2000). Enduring voices. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Macann, C. (1993). Four phenomenological philosophers. New York: Routledge.

Maypole, J. (2001). Students' perceptions of constructivist learning in a community college American History II survey course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mill, J. (1986) On liberty. Amherst: Prometheus.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking Press.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education building a world of new understandings. (pp. 3-19). Washington D.C.: Falmer Press.

Rourke, J., Johnson, M., Cohen, P., Stage, S., Lawson, A., & Hartman, S. (1998). The American promise. Boston: Bedford.

Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1995). Sensory experience, abstraction, and teaching. In L. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.) Constructivism in education. (pp. 369-382). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism theory perspectives and practice. (pp. 92-102). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Wadsworth, B. (1996). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Timothy Gray Davies is the program chair for community college leadership and an associate professor of education at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. [e-mail]

Joanne Maypole is a professor of history at Front Range Community College in Westminster, Colorado. Joanne. [e-mail]