Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced?

Calls for the reform of instruction in U.S. classrooms, particularly in sec ondary schools, are growing and often strident. Many reformers advocate a m ove away from traditional, teacher-centered (didactic) direct instruction w here students are passive receptors of knowledge, toward more student-cente red understanding-based (constructivist) teaching that focuses on explorati on and experimentation. In this study we investigate the issue of access to these two types of instruction in U.S. high school science classrooms. We use a nationally representative sample of 3,660 students and their science teachers drawn from the first two waves of the National Educational Longitu dinal Study (NELS:88). Although didactic instruction is more common among h igher-socioeconomic status and female students, constructivist instruction is practiced more often among students of lower ability. Constructivist tea ching is also more common in both higher-level science courses (i.e., chemi stry) and lower-level courses (i.e., basic biology and physical science). T he students of average social and academic status appear to be the forgotte n majority with respect to constructivist instruction. We offer explanation s far the findings and discuss implications for educational policy and soci al equity in high school science.