Classroom teachers are finding the implementation of constructivist instruction far more difficult than the reform community acknowledges. This article presents a theoretical analysis of constructivism in practice by building a framework of dilemmas that explicates the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political planes of the constructivist teaching experience. In this context, “constructivism in practice” is a concept situated in the ambiguities, tensions, and compromises that arise among stakeholders in the educational enterprise as constructivism is used as a basis for teaching. In addition to providing a unique theoretical perspective for researchers, the framework is a heuristic for teachers, providing critical questions that allow them to interrogate their own beliefs, question institutional routines, and understand more deeply the forces that influence their classroom practice

This study attempts to identify characteristics of constructivism and their presence in face-to-face and open and distance learning (ODL) environments. In phase 1 of this study, a 6-week discussion through an electronic mailing list was carried out to explore the concept of constructivism, the process underlying constructivist learning and its facilitation. In the second phase, a questionnaire was developed and later analysed to ascertain the presence of constructivist principles in formal higher education instructional activities. The results of these studies were very similar and foregrounded the following seven components of constructivist teaching and learning: (1) arguments, discussions, debates, (2) conceptual conflicts and dilemmas, (3) sharing ideas with others, (4) materials and measures targeted toward solutions, (5) reflections and concept investigation, (6) meeting student needs, and (7) making meaning, real-life examples. Based on tutorials analysis (phase 1) and surveys (phase 2) in one university, the findings indicate that these components are not sufficiently present in any of the settings which were investigated, despite the positive intentions that instructional designers had in their planning phase.