Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1930. / Vita. Published also as Teachers college, Columbia university, Contributions to education, no. 445. Bibliography: p. 153-158.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1930. / Vita. Published also as Teachers college, Columbia university, Contributions to education, no. 445. Bibliography: p. 153-158.

The principle focus of this study has been a reflection on my planning methodology since 1988. Teachers planning from 19882002 was predominantly individual and was aided by the gradual introduction of State and Commonwealth produced documents. These documents assisted in topic choices and assessment outcomes.Important influences transformed my planning. The first occurred in 1996 and the second in 2002. In 1996 I was involved in the production of a resource kit for teachers titled, Its Working Career and Work Education, Kindergarten to Year 8. During the compilation of this resource kit my planning incorporated the 1995, Teaching and Learning in Science Planning Guide, which resembled constructivism by building knowledge and understanding. In 2002 the curriculum in Tasmanian State Schools was transformed with the introduction of the Essential Learnings Framework 1 and 2. This curriculum innovation had implications on teachers planning methodology with a strong emphasis on collaborative planning.Studies and critiques of environmental units were undertaken in 2000, 2003 and 2004 to ascertain the effectiveness of my planning methodology. The underlying principles of constructivism provided a lens to improve perceived deficiencies in my classroom practice. The inclusion of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) assisted in making constructivism visible. A strong purpose therefore evolved from the study; a more effective planning methodology.