Universities and Public Schools: Are We Disconnected?

Prospective teachers in Texas focus on learner-centered practices in their university courses. Then, as Ms. Morrison and Ms. Marshall discuss, when they arrive at their field placements, they may find that their mentor teachers are not using those practices in their classrooms. AS EDUCATORS of early childhood teachers in heavily field-based programs, we often hear and talk about a disconcerting discrepancy between what is taught in university classrooms and what students experience in their field-based settings. There is a need to determine how university programs can and should be informed by the practices of classroom teachers, as well as how classroom practices might be enhanced by university research. While the disconnection between theory and practice is neither new nor unique to any one program, there appears to be no easy solution to this challenge. In an effort to address the disconnect between university instruction and classroom models, we decided to compare some students' field-based experiences with the classroom environments that research suggests are most effective for promoting learning and to consider ways to bridge the gap between theory and Comparing Best Practices with Actual Practices The first step in comparing practices with actual practices is defining best practice. While traditional methodologies would have us believe that teacher-centered classrooms are most effective for promoting student learning, most current teacher preparation programs stress a learner-centered, or constructivist, approach, which views the learner as an active participant in the learning process.1 Constructivist classrooms provide an environment in which learners, with strong teacher guidance, are made responsible for constructing their own understanding through materials and activities based on their own experiences, interests, and development.2 In Texas, the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) has adopted a philosophy of learner-centered instruction for all public schools, and the state-mandated teacher examination is based on demonstrating the ability to implement that approach.3 This makes it even more critical that the practices students see modeled and are encouraged to use in their field placements are consistent with the constructivist theories they are taught in their university programs. In the following discussion, we focus on six components of instruction and present corresponding excerpts from the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES), a document that spells out the SBEC performance standards for new teachers. We then pair these excerpts with passages from students' weekly journals that illustrate the extent to which their practicum experiences diverge from the standards. Best practice: active learning. The basis of the constructivist approach is that children learn through active engagement with materials. TExES Competency 008: The teacher provides appropriate instruction that actively engages students in the learning process. The beginning teacher employs various instructional techniques (e.g., discussion, inquiry) and varies teacher and student roles in the instructional process, and provides instruction that promotes intellectual involvement and active student engagement and learning. A common practice for encouraging active learning in early childhood settings is to station learning centers throughout the room that invite children to engage in active exploration of materials and to work in a variety of content areas. These centers should allow children to practice and master developmentally appropriate goals and objectives. In addition, teachers in a constructivist environment plan whole- and small-group lessons around specific student needs. Such activities involve and support learners as they actively discover new concepts and skills. Actual practice: inactive learning. Preservice teachers often encounter a very different approach to teaching and learning in their field experiences from the one just described. …