This article was downloaded by: [Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund]On: 22 October 2014, At: 05:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Shifting paradigms: Emerging issues for educationalpolicy and practiceJohn Fischetti a , Allan Dittmer a & Diane Wells Kyle aa School of Education , University of LouisvillePublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: John Fischetti , Allan Dittmer & Diane Wells Kyle (1996) Shifting paradigms: Emerging issues foreducational policy and practice, The Teacher Educator, 31:3, 189-201, DOI: 10.1080/08878739609555111

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739609555111

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

SHIFTING PARADIGMS: EMERGINGISSUES FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY

AND PRACTICE

John Fischetti, Allan Dittmer,and Diane Wells Kyle

School of Education, University of Louisville

Abstract

Within the current national context of educational reform, educatorsare generating a new paradigm about teaching and learning. Thisshift is occurring as a consequence of rethinking nearly all aspects ofschooling. The new paradigm is competing with, an older one. Timewill tell whether or not the new one will replace the old one, butclearly they cannot coexist because they are so fundamentallydifferent. The new paradigm is based on the latest research on cogni-tive developmental and constructivist theory, and the old paradigm isbased on reductionist principles and behavioral theory.

This article creates a framework for understanding the paradigmshift, describes how the shift applies to instructional practices,synthesizes several principles and indicators that can guide theobservation of teaching, and discusses issues yet to be resolved.

Shifting Paradigms: Emerging Issues forEducational Policy and Practice

The Context

Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting askyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining newand wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our startingpoint and its rich environment. But the point from which we started outstill exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tinypart of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on ouradventurous way up. (Einstein in Einstein and Infeld, 1961, p. 31)

Within die current national context of educational reform, edu-cators are generating a new paradigm about teaching and learning.This shift is occurring as a consequence of rethinking nearly allaspects of schooling. Reform and theory-building in Kentucky, forexample, received an unprecedented impetus with the 1989Kentucky Supreme Court ruling declaring the states schools

189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

unconstitutional. The language of the ruling, the subsequent legisla-tion known as the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) of 1990,and current implementation processes require a total revision of thegovernance, finance, and curriculum of K-12 education in the state.

In early 1992, we were part of a team of four faculty membersfrom the University of Louisville who received funding from theKentucky Department of Education to align the states teacherinternship program with the reform agenda (Kyle, Dittmer, Fischetti,and Portes, 1992). The department specifically requested that wereview the knowledge base of KERA and, from that perspective,propose changes in the process and content of the program.

In this article, we reflect on several issues that emerged duringthis project. We begin by creating a framework for understanding theparadigm shift that pervades current educational reform initiatives.Following this, we describe how that shift applies to instructionalpractices, and we synthesize several principles and indicators that canguide observations of teaching. "We conclude the article with anacknowledgment of issues yet to be resolved.

Shifiing Paradigms

Thomas Kuhn (1962), in The Structure of Scientific Revelations,regarded as one of the seminal works on the history of science, docu-mented the way new theories or paradigms replace old ones. Oneprimary characteristic of a new theory is its explanatory power. Whena new paradigm is able to explain phenomena better than an olderone, the new paradigm gradually takes over, and the older onebecomes subordinate and eventually recedes into the history books.

We believe that a new paradigm about teaching, learning, andthinking is competing with an older one. Time will tell whether ornot the new one will replace the old one, but clearly they cannotcoexist because they are so fundamentally different. Their explan-ations of the "realities" of teaching and learning vary significantly andlead to different conclusions. The new paradigm is based on the latestresearch on cognitive developmental and constructivist theory, andthe old paradigm is based on reductionist principles and behavioraltheory. Frank Smith (1990) defined the new paradigm thus:

Knowledge is a by-product of experience, and experience is what thinkingmakes possible. We are constantly thinking about what the world is like,and what it is likely to be like, and even about worlds that are mostunlikely. Our expectations about the world constantly change as a conse-

190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

quence of our experience, and in the process we collect—construct mightbe a better word—"knowledge" or "information." (pp. 12—13)

Although there are several different points at which one could saythe new paradigm began, John Dewey (1914, 1933) provided thefoundation upon which a great deal of this paradigm rests. More than70 years ago Dewey (1933) declared that education (real learning) is^that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds todie meaning of experience, and which increases the ability to directthe course of subsequent experience" (pp. 261-262).

Of the nature of the mind, Dewey (1933) stated:

The mind is not a piece of blotting paper that absorbs and retains automa-tically. It is rather a living organism that has to search for its food, thatselects and rejects according to its present conditions and needs, and thatretains only what it digests and transmutes into part of the energy of itsown being, (pp. 261-262)

Dewey s remarkable metaphor to describe the workings of themind actively constructing reality set the stage for our emerging viewof learning. Two developmental psychologists, Jean Piaget and LevVygotsky, devised their own ingenious experiments to validate theirtheories. Piaget was born in 1896 and died in 1980. During his life-time he studied biology, which led him to study experimentally thedevelopment of children's intelligence. He concluded that all knowl-edge is a construction resulting from the child's actions. For example,Piaget (1971) posited the notion that the child invents logical mathe-matical knowledge rather than finding it in the objects themselves. Itis constructed from the actions of the child on objects. The objectsserve merely as a medium through which construction occurs. Socialknowledge, then, is constructed by children from their actions onand interactions with odier people.

Lev Vygotsky, born in 1896, died in the prime of his life in1934. Like Piaget, Vygotsky s formal education was outside the fieldof psychology. Educated in law and philology, he began his career incognitive psychology following the Russian Revolution in 1917, atime when competing theories of cognition (stimulus-response,Gestalt, Freudian psychoanalytical, Rousseauian naturalism, andLockean empiricism) were struggling to establish their dominance.Vygotsky (1978) devised an experimental method that opened a newera of research on thinking, allowing psychologists to study complexmental processes as they developed. In the tradition of hiscountrymen, Marx and Engels, he believed the mechanism ofindividual developmental change was rooted in society and culture.

191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotsky s method of experimental study was revolutionarybecause he looked at events in their entirety, holistically, rather thanbreaking them down into atomistic elements—the practice that gavereductionist theory its name. Vygotsky was able to demonstrate thecomplex role sociocultural forces play in the development of thinkingand the critical role language plays as the medium for turning"external speech" into "internal speech" or thought. Unlike allpreceding approaches to studying the mind, Vygotsky looked at theprocesses of development in all of their complex wholeness.

Our concept of development implies rejection of the frequently held viewthat cognitive development results from the gradual accumulation of sepa-rate changes. We believe that child development is a complex dialecticalprocess characterized by periodicity, unevenness in the development ofdifferent functions, metamorphosis or qualitative transformation of oneform into another, intertwining of external and internal factors, and adap-tive processes which overcome impediments that the child encounters.(1978, p. 73)

Because of the complex and voluminous nature of their research,Piaget s and Vygotsky's works did not become accessible to scholarsand researchers worldwide until the 1950s and 60s, and much of itstill has not been translated from the French and Russian in whichthey were originally written.

Noam Chomsky added what has become perhaps the single mostsignificant theoretical component of the constructivist argument.Chomsky theorized the existence of innate structures diat not onlyallow but cause the young child to construct the language orlanguages to which that child is exposed. All children construct thephonological, semantic, and syntactic structure of the entire languageusing small amounts of language information to which they areexposed. Chomsky (1964) challenged the behaviorist approach tolearning with his review of the book entitled Verbal Behavior.Although the review is specifically a critique of Skinners book, it is inreality one major paradigm challenging another, and the behavioristparadigm has never been the same.

Whether or not they recognize it, those promulgating recentreform are tacitly assuming a new educational paradigm—one basedon a constructivist, developmental theory of learning havinghistorical roots in works that have shaped thinking throughout thiscentury. What is evolving is a merging of this century's best theory,research, policy, and practice.

192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

The Instructional Implications of the New Paradigm

Educators sharing the constructivist perspective have argued thatthe model of teaching suggested by the old paradigm is inappropriatefor the complex tasks of learning (Dittmer, Fischetti, and Kyle, 1993;Douglass, 1978; Goodman, 1978; Rombergand Carpenter, 1986;Soar and Soar, 1983). Changes in instructional emphases andprocesses are needed.

Ross, Bondy, and Kyle (1993) suggested what some of thesechanges entail. For example, instruction should emphasize the devel-opment of concepts, strategies, and thinking closely linked to die stu-dents' experiences. Thus, teachers' selection of experientiallyappropriate content is critical, and instruction should help studentsunderstand the purpose of a lesson in terms that are meaningful tothem.

Furthermore, in order to help students construct meaning,instruction must emphasize interaction and application. Ideally, stu-dents need opportunities to demonstrate, clarify, and test theirtJiinking and understanding in real-world contexts and for real audi-ences beyond the classroom. Strategies suggested for accomplishingthis goal include the use of small groups, discussions, andincreasingly more complex opportunities for applications of what islearned (Paris, Cross, and Lipson, 1984; Paris, Oka, and DeBritto,1983).

Instruction must involve the appropriate use of coaching andsupport from the teacher. A teacher coaches by providing suggestions,support, and assessment to help students achieve distinguishedperformance. However, to do this appropriately means giving theminimum assistance needed, to help rather than impede the develop-ment of students' abilities to self-monitor dieir understanding(Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989; Nelson-LeGall, 1985).

Guiding Principles and Possible Indicators of Constructivist Teaching

As we considered the theory and research underlying KERA, ourgoal was to honor the notion that all children can succeed at highlevels if learning experiences are organized in such ways as to makemat possible. To support teachers in their attempts to teach this way,we developed eleven guiding principles, tangible statements of a devel-opmental, constructivist student-centered classroom in action. Wetiien derived possible indicators for each guiding principle; specificapproaches, strategies, or techniques that might reflect each principle(Kyle, Dittmer, Fischetri, and Portes, 1992). (see Table 1)

193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

The guiding principles overlap, reflecting the complex work andculture in a classroom. They ask teachers to plan and executeclassroom activities at a very high level of student engagement andexpectations. They are designed as helpful goals toward which everyactivity with students should aim. And they are developed with anunderstanding that implementing them is part of the developmentalprocess of learning to teach and will improve the teacher's ability todesign instruction that promotes student success.

Table 1

Guiding Principles and Possible Indicators

1. The purpose of instruction is to actively involve each child in theconstruction of knowledge.

Possible Indicators• Teacher demonstrating a sophisticated knowledge of content• Using writing, visual art, or performing art that stresses student

reflection• Providing assistance to students through reciprocal teaching,

scaffolding, peer teaching, modeling, and demonstrating• Using multiple modes of performance such as videotape,

painting, role plays, simulations, or presentations• Connecting learning with children's lives• Encouraging student participation in planning, implementing,

and assessing learning• Encouraging student generated questions• Providing audiences beyond the teacher and the classroom for

student work

2. The classroom for teaching and learning creates a sense of studentbelonging and psychological safety.

Possible Indicators

• Designing ways for students to understand human common-alities and differences while honoring diversity

• Encouraging risk taking, divergent thinking, and tolerance ofnew ideas

• Creating a classroom community that emphasizes cooperation• Establishing classroom rules that stress student choice, responsi-

bility, roles, and power• Helping children value the unique individuality of each child in

the classroom

194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

• Teaching conflict resolution and communication skills• Understanding equity; modeling respect and empadiy for class

members• Building self-esteem and a healthy sense of humor

3. The teacher is able to recognize decision points within lessons anddieir potential impact on student learning.

Possible Indicators

• Capitalizing on the "teachable moment"• Providing a rationale for teaching decisions to students• Making on-the-spot decisions grounded in instructional goals,

knowledge of students, and total student context• Showing awareness of the "big picture," represented by lessons• Encouraging and responding to student questions

4. The focus of instruction is on lessons that are inherentlymeaningful to children.

Possible Indicators

• Developing lessons that enable children to use what they learnnow

• Taking time to get to know the students• Creating audiences beyond the classroom for the work of the

class• Using manipulatives and multi-sensory approaches• Relating classroom learning to the real world• Using varied modes of exploration and performance

5. The teaching/learning process emphasizes teacher-student andstudent-student interaction and collaboration.

Possible Indicators

• Using cooperative learning• Establishing groups—tutoring, sharing, revising, responding,

and assessing• Implementing various aspects of cognitive apprenticeship such as

modeling, demonstrations, and peer teaching• Using simulations and games for understanding and team

building

6. The teacher demonstrates the ability to coordinate human andmaterial resources to enhance student learning.

195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Possible Indicators• Providing varied opportunities for parent involvement in

classroom activities• Engaging students in oral histories and intergenerational projects• Involving community consultants to assist students with in-class

and out-of-dass links between experience and education• Using a variety of materials and employing them skillfully

7. The teacher demonstrates and uses knowledge of the students'culture, prior understandings, misconceptions, beliefs, values, etc.,in planning instruction.

Possible Indicators

• Demonstrating and using knowledge of student culture to helpstudents construct knowledge

• Making positive contacts with the home (e.g., home visits,phone calls, memos)

• Using non-prejudicial language and behavior; honoring unique-ness of children

• Requesting parental perspectives on children's performance• Making instructional choices diat connect die values and beliefs

of children to school knowledge• Initiating instruction with assessment of student understandings

8. The teacher not only demonstrates technical competence in plan-ning, implementing, and organizing instruction and classroommanagement but also organizes and manages the classroom inways that foster student self-discipline.

Possible Indicators

• Involving students in developing/revising classroom rules androutines

• Using descriptive rather than judgmental language in response tostudents who respond "incorrectly" or are "off-task"

• Addressing students' repeated inappropriate behavior through acollaborative problem-solving approach

• Communicating dear expectations for student performance inclass activities

• Providing clear instructions and explanations that acknowledge avariety of engagement styles in children

• Using pacing that is appropriate for instructional activities

9. The teacher demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of content aswell as the ability to create conceptual links across subject areas.

196

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Possible Indicators

• Employing interdisciplinary units• Using team teaching and professional teamwork• Linking concepts across the disciplines and teaching

thematically• Connecting activities across grades, disciplines, and school

themes• Organizing information with minimum confusion• Giving clear directions• Developing a logical sequence for instruction

10. The teacher provides an informed rationale for instructionaldecisions.

Possible indicators

• Studying research and best practice and citing professionalliterature

• Attending professional meetings• Identifying areas for personal and professional growth• Exploring prior experiences of students (interest inventories,

journals, logs, diaries)• Recognizing outmoded practices and beliefs• Using research and theory as the basis for challenging

assumptions• Drawing upon (and constantly testing) prior knowledge derived

through practical experience

11. The teacher continually analyzes evidence of student learning as abasis for instruction.

Possible Indicators

• Constructing portfolios• Assessing writing samples• Collecting multiple kinds of evidence of student learning• Paying attention to student responses (particularly questions,

not just answers) and helping children probe more deeply• Citing evidence of student learning in instructional decisions

Kyle, Dittmer, Fischetti, and Portes, 1992

Note: We acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Doreen Ross of theUniversity of Florida, consultant on our project, in developing theGuiding Principles and Possible Indicators.

197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Specific Application of a Guiding Principle

The preceding guiding principles and possible indicators areattempts to make concrete the complex assumptions of a construc-tivist paradigm. Some of the possible indicators are teacher actions,and some are student outcomes. For example: What does theclassroom of a teacher who is attempting to engage students activelyin the construction of knowledge look like? What does a classroomthat tries to establish for students a sense of belonging and psycholog-ical safety look like? What do you see when a lesson attempts to rec-ognize "teachable moments"?

Although no one "politically correct" developmental approachexists, specific characteristics of constructivist teaching can be derivedfrom educational theory and informed practice. Many of the princi-ples are influenced by the Foxfire approach (Wigginton, 1986) prac-ticed by teachers around the country and expressed in the eleven corepractices, in the Learners Manifesto in Insult to Intelligence (Smith,1986), and in John Dewey's vision, summarized perhaps most acces-sibly in Experience and Education (1938).

To help illustrate how a guiding principle might be used in aclassroom, we offer an example based on number four, "The focus ofinstruction is on lessons that are inherently meaningful to children."

The possible indicators suggest that a visitor to a fourth-gradeclassroom should see students engaged in learning stations, laboratoryactivities, group processes, writing processes, and so on, that haveallowed student choice both in the content and the process oflearning that content. Specific learning outcomes for students wouldbe evident. For example, the teacher or a student may have writtenon the board (or in some other mode): We are developing a recyclingcenter for our school, and we chose to write letters to companiesasking for their support of our project. Today, we will be practicingpersuasive writing (English); linking our knowledge of theenvironment (science); reporting data we gathered in our survey ofthe school (math); and recommending changes in habits, attitudes,and understandings in linking the school and community (socialstudies).

The observer should be able to see student engagement by theprojects they have chosen, by the roles they have defined, by the spe-cific timelines they have developed, by the feedback they areconstandy seeking, and by the way they are linking across groupstoward completion of the project. There would be movement, the

198

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

employment of many forms of media, a focus on students' work, andstudent designed criteria for the assessment of their work.

This example illustrates the application of some of the theory,research, and practice of the new paradigm. Many complex issues areinvolved in any outsiders visit to a classroom. The contextual issuesmake it difficult to draw positive or negative conclusions based onone lesson or on a relationship that does not extend over time withthe teacher and the students. However, it does not take long for avisitor to sense whether or not students feel empowered to developand construct personal meaning out of what is taking place.

Obstacles to the New Paradigm

In the quotation that begins this article, Einstein (1961) remindsus that our starting point remains a "tiny" part of our new and widerview. However, Einstein points out that attaining die new and widerview requires mastering obstacles along the way. We have identifiedfive obstacles that must be mastered as we shift to a new paradigm ofteaching and learning.

The first obstacle is the resistance to change manifested by thosewho want to retain familiar and comfortable practices. Just as Kuhn(1962) recognized the tendency of one paradigm to persist even as anew paradigm is developing, many current practices may persist evenas other reforms are implemented, in part because of resistance bythose heavily invested in what has gone before.

A second obstacle is the challenge of initiating and supporting theparadigm shift within all related constituencies at the same time. Inaddition to instructional changes, concurrent educational reformefforts must also take place in preservice and graduate teacher educa-tion, in professional development opportunities in school districts, inprofessional organizations and publications, and in state-level policy-making arenas. This interrelated and connected approach differs dra-matically from the piecemeal reform efforts of the past.

A third obstacle is the tendency to get absorbed in an emerging par-adigm so diat we lose sight of the fact that new theories and emergingresearch will challenge it and eventually change it in ways that wecannot fully understand today. The constructivist paradigm is basedon the notion that learning is a life-long, never-ending process forteachers and students alike. When teaching and learning are thoughtof this way, then the educators of today may not become the resistersof tomorrow.

199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

A fourth obstacle to change is the widespread failure of educatorsto recognize the ever-widening gulf between the experiences of childrenoutside of school and what happens to them inside of school. The newparadigm is based on connecting subjects in an interdisciplinary wayto the lives of children through real-life, hands-on experiences. Thisactive learning approach is significantly different from pastapproaches and requires a major role change for the teacher, fromdeliverer of information to coach and guide. As long as teaching andlearning remain disconnected from student experiences, interests, andquestions, successful reform of any kind is unlikely.

Finally, as Sarason (1990) discussed, unless schools become placeswhere teachers can grow and develop, teachers will not be able to createoptimal learning conditions for students to grow and develop. Just asclassrooms must be organized to allow students to make meaning oftlieir experiences, schools must be organized for teachers to makemeaning of their experiences. Teaching will improve when we see theprofession from a constructivist perspective. Until now, teachers havenot been encouraged or given time to reflect on teaching practice,nor have they been the central players in shaping that practice, anirony that many educators deeply understand. True empowerment ofteachers will happen only when the long-standing power relation-ships in schools and classrooms change, and teachers are free to selectpractices to improve teaching and enhance the growth anddevelopment of young people.

The educational landscape is littered with the remains of effortsto change schools—efforts that have dealt unsuccessfully withaligning theory, research, and practice. This most recent nationalinterest in reform has lasted longer than most, and in Kentucky theinitiative is well underway to realign all elements of the structures ofteaching and learning. As this new paradigm evolves, one of thegreatest obstacles is summarized by Sarason (1990), "To be able toconsider alternatives, one must first be dissatisfied with tilings as theyare" (p. 110).

References

Chomsky, N. (1964). A review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal behavior. In J. A.Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.). The structure of language (pp. 547-578). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing and learning: Issues for a cognitive science of instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

200

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4

Dewey, J. (1914). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.Dittmer, A., Fischetti, J., & Kyle. D. W. (1993). Constructivist teaching and

student empowerment: Educational equity through school reform. Equity andExcellence in Education, 26(1), 40-45.

Douglass, M. P. (1978). On reading: The great American debate. In E. W.Eisner (Ed.), Reading, the arts and the creation of meaning (pp. 89-109). Reston,VA: National Art Association.

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1961). The evolution of physics. New York: Simonand Schuster.

Goodman, K. S. (1978). What is basic about reading? In E. W. Eisner (Ed.),Reading, the arts and the creation of meaning (pp. 55-90). Reston, VA: National ArtAssociation.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Kyle, D., Dittmer, A., Fischetti, J., & Portes, P. (1992). Aligning the Kentuckyinternship program with the Kentucky education reform act. Frankfort, KY: KentuckyDepartment of Education.

Nelson-LeGall, S. (1985). Help seeking behavior in learning. In E. W.Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 12, pp. 55-90). Washington,DC: American Educational Research Association.

Paris, S., Cross, D., & Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: Aprogram to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.

Paris, S., Oka, E , & DeBritto, M. (1983). Beyond decoding: Synthesis ofresearch on reading comprehension. Educational Leadership, 40, 78-83.

Piaget, J. (1971). The language and thought of the child. New York: WorldPublishing.

Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Research on teaching andlearning mathematics: Two disciplines of scientific inquiry. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 850-873). New York: Macmillan.

Ross, D., Bondy, E., & Kyle, D. W. (1993). Reflective teaching for studentempowerment: Elementary curriculum and methods. New York: Macmillan.

Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,Inc.

Smith, F. (1986). Insult to intelligence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Smith, F. (1990). To think. New York: Teachers College Press.Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. (1983). Context effects in the teaching learning

process. In D. C. Smith (Ed.), Essential knowledge for beginning educators (pp.65-75). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

Vygotsky, L S. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wigginton, E. (1986). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience.Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itaet

sbib

lioth

ek D

ortm

und]

at 0

5:57

22

Oct

ober

201

4