test Interactive, Constructive or Active Student Engagement? The Coexistence of Conflicting Ideas in Pre-Service Preschool Teachers' Choices for Educational Practice|Investigating the child’s world

Interactive, Constructive or Active Student Engagement? The Coexistence of Conflicting Ideas in Pre-Service Preschool Teachers' Choices for Educational Practice

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Oct 11, 2025
Keywords:
Cognitive Engagement Constructive teaching/learning Interaction Pre-School Education Teaching scenarios
Αnastasia-Natassa Kyriakopoulou
Τμήμα Εκπαίδευσης και Αγωγής στην Προσχολική Ηλικία, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών
Irini Skopeliti
Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Φιλοσοφίας της Επιστήμης, Εθνικό και Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών
Abstract

The Curriculum for Preschool Education foresees the development of skills, which are fostered through students’ active engagement in the learning process. According to Chi and Wylie's (2014) ICAP theory, active learning is associated with three distinct hierarchical modes of students’ cognitive engagement: active, constructive and interactive engagement. Compared to active engagement, constructive and interactive engagement (which encompasses constructive) significantly promote the development of cognitive skills and the formation of new knowledge. The present study investigated whether pre-service preschool teachers (PTs) choose teaching scenarios based on the principles of constructivism and constructivist interaction and whether they justify their choices by acknowledging the benefits of these modes of engagement. One hundred sixty-seven PTs were administered a task involving the selection and justification of a teaching scenario. Ninety-seven of the PTs were in their first year of studies, while 70 had already attended practical courses and had been taught the principles of constructivist learning. The results showed that the PTs chose the interactive and constructivist cognitive engagement scenarios. However, their justifications revealed that they did not recognize the benefits of implementing constructivist and interactive modes of cognitive engagement. PTs who had attended practical courses provided more sophisticated justifications, but the predominant justifications were based on active rather than constructive engagement. The results are discussed in light of findings from studies that support the coexistence of conflicting ideas in the PTs’ belief systems that lead them to verbally support the benefits of student-centered educational models, but to apply practically traditional teacher-centered forms of teaching.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Scientific articles & educational projects
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

· Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Chi, M. T. (2021). Translating a theory of active learning: An attempt to close the research‐practice gap in education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(3), 441-463.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1 (1): 73–105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T., & Boucher, N. S. (2023). Applying the ICAP framework to improve classroom learning. In their Own Words: What Scholars and Teachers Want you to Know about the Why and How to Apply to Science of Learning in your Academic Setting [Internet]. Washington DC, USA: Society for the Teaching of Psychology, 94-110.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chi, M. T. H, Adams, J., Bogusch, E.B., Bruchok C., Kang, S., Lancaster M., Levy, R., Li. N., McEldoon K. L., Stump, G.S., Wylie, R., Xu, D. & Yaghmourian D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42, 1777-1832. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12626
Damşa, C. (2014). Shared epistemic agency and agency of individuals, collaborative groups, and research communities. ICLS 2014 Proceedings, (440–447), Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Ferguson, L. E. (2020). Teacher Beliefs in Higher Education. [Conference Paper] Trondheim, Norway: Læringsfestivalen.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 134-176.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs, in the context of policy reform. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 114-121.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary educational psychology, 29(2), 164-185.
Kang, N. H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching. Teaching and teacher education, 24(2), 478-498.
Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of science teacher education, 19(4), 337-354.
Lawson, M. J., Van Deur, P., Scott, W., Stephenson, H., Kang, S., Wyra, M., ... & Graham, L. (2023). The levels of cognitive engagement of lesson tasks designed by teacher education students and their use of knowledge of self-regulated learning in explanations for task design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104043.
Mahmood, M. A., Tariq, M., & Javed, S. (2011). Strategies for active learning: An alternative to passive learning. Academic Research International, 1(3), 193.
Menekse, M., & Chi, M. T. (2019). The role of collaborative interactions versus individual construction on students’ learning of engineering concepts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(5), 702-725.
Menekse, M., Stump, G. S., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346-374.
Morris, J., & Chi, M. T. (2020). Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), 1-12.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.
Πεντέρη, Ε., Χλαπάνα, Ε., Μέλλιου, Κ., Φιλιππίδη, Α., & Μαρινάτου, Θ. (2021). Πρόγραμμα Σπουδών Προσχολικής Εκπαίδευσης- Νηπιαγωγείου. Στο πλαίσιο της Πράξης «Αναβάθμιση των Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών και Δημιουργία Εκπαιδευτικού Υλικού Πρωτοβάθμιας και Δευτεροβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης» " του ΙΕΠ με MIS 5035542
Renninger, K. A., & Bachrach, J. E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58-69.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of educational psychology, 100(4), 765.
Spruce, R., & Bol, L. (2015). Teacher beliefs, knowledge, and practice of self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 245-277.
Stump, G. S., Li, N., Kang, S., Yaghmourian, D. L., Xu, D., Adams, J., et al. (2017). Coding dosage of teachers' implementation of activities using ICAP. In E. Manalo, Y. Uesaka, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), Promoting spontaneous use of learning and reasoning strategies: Theory, research, and practice for effective transfer (1st ed. ed., pp. 211e225). Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315564029.
Torsney, B. M., & Symonds, J. E. (2019). The professional student program for educational resilience: Enhancing momentary engagement in classwork. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(6), 676-692.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(1), 1-59.
Vosniadou, S., Darmawan, I., Lawson, M. J., Van Deur, P., Jeffries, D., & Wyra, M. (2021). Beliefs about the self-regulation of learning predict cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic performance in pre-service teachers. Metacognition and Learning, 1-32.
Vosniadou, S., Lawson, M. J., Bodner, E., Stephenson, H., Jeffries, D., & Darmawan, I. G. N. (2023). Using an extended ICAP-based coding guide as a framework for the analysis of classroom observations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, 104133.
Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preservice teachers’ interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction. Journal of technology and teacher education, 15(3), 335-361.
Most read articles by the same author(s)