I think we need to make some clarifications here.  We are not really talking
about teaching methods.  We are talking about philosophies of learning,  And
though our philosophies generally drive our classroom practice, sometimes we
need to speak those philosophies in order to know what we believe about
teaching and learning.

I am a constructivist.  Social constructivism is hardly new, but its impact
on classroom learning is just beginning, I think.  We could look at John
Dewey and say that he was one of the precursors to constructivism.  Dewey,
of course, believed that students learned best by doing.  And certainly
experientialism is part of a constructivist approach.  But I think
constructivism goes beyond merely experiential learning theory.  To me,
constructivism is based on a foundation of respect for students and
individuals and as "knowers."  Traditional approaches to education tend to
view students as deficient, as empty vessels or blank slates.  A
constructivist believes that students enter our classrooms with a great deal
of knowledge, both of facts and concepts.  It may be that knowledg is
not"accurate" but we cannot say that knowledge does not exist in students.
Students also enter our classrooms with preconceived notions regarding how
the world in general works.  In the case of language arts classes, they
specifically bring a knowledge of how language works.  They may not be able
to articulate that knowledge, but the knowledge exists nonetheless.  A
constructivist would see his or her task as one of connection and perhaps
rearrangement.  In other words, my job is to help students see what they
already know about language, to connect it to new knowledge, and, if
necessary, rearrange prior knowledge if it is faulty.  Actually, I can't do
that rearranging.  The student has to.  I can only monitor how quickly that
rearranging is happening.

In order for that new knowledge to take hold, I and the students must
provide or construct and environment that is rich in language, rich in
conversations about language, rich in examples of varied uses of language.
I also have to provide many different avenues within that environment
because I know that no two students learn in quite the same way.  One of
those avenues involves direct instruction.  But I have to be careful here
because most students do not learn through direct classroom instruction.
They learn when the situation arises where they have to know something in
order to accomplish a meaningful task.  We could say a final exam is a
meaningful task, but we have all been students and we have all learned
enough to do well on an exam, then promptly forgotten what we needed to know.

It may be that the majority of the people on this list learned through
direct instruction.  In fact, the academy seems to privilege students who
learn that way.  Students who learn in a different way don't get very far.
They struggle.  They assume they aren't the academic type.  And they enter
other spaces in adult life.  They pursue other avenues.   This is true of
all content areas, by the way.  I always wonder how many brilliant students
we have side tracked because we privileged only one kind of knowledge and
only one avenue to knowledge.

Anyway, constructivists believe they are not the only experts in the
classroom.  Their approach in the classroom is more that of facilitator
rather than authority.  Giving up that authority status in the classroom is
sometimes very difficult for certain types of teachers who either believe
they are in the classroom because they are authorities, or because they need
the affirmation that the authority role gives them.  That type of individual
will probably never see the wisdom of the constructivist philosophy about
teaching and learning.  But a constructivist teacher believes that knowledge
is not a series of facts, but an always changing landscape that grows and
intersects in ever increases patterns of complexity.  For me, this means
that a more post-structuralist view of literature and language is
appropriate.  The author is not the only authority in the transaction with
text.  The reader brings meaning to the text.  The student brings meaning to
the classroom, to the lesson.  Authority is shared.  It shifts depending on
the situation.

I bring to the classroom (or I try to bring to the classroom--I often fail
dismally), a belief that students deserve as much respect as I do, that they
are bearers of knowledges that I do not have. and that the classroom is a
space in which we can share our knowledges.  I approach the classroom with
the belief that knowledge happens whole to part, not part to whole.  That we
look at the big concepts first, and then investigate how the varied parts
fit into the whole.

Now, to get more specific about the topic of this list.  I teach middle
school english.  I set up an environment so that my students and I can have
as many conversations as possible about language and how it works.  But
eventually, for some students who are interested in knowing more about the
details of language, it is highly appropriate for them to look at the parts.
So, I am not at all opposed to linguistics classes, for example.  Most of
you teach at the post secondary level.  For many many students that is a
highly appropriate time to begin or continue investigating the structure of
the language, and to go into great and  miniscule detail.  My objection
would only be if this approach were forced on all students, and if this were
considered the avenue through which students became better users of
language.   Bur for those students who want to know, either because of their
career choice or because of a genuine interest in linguistics, their lessons
are probably going to be best learned in an authentic context of some sort.
Here's where constructivist philosophy about learning begins to drive
instructional practive.  As a constructivist teaching a post secondary
linguistics class for teachers I might situation the course within the
following questions.

What rhetorical choices does James Joyce use?  How does his written language
differ from that of, say, Stephen King?  How does that show through in the
grammatical structures each chooses to use?  What is the difference in
clause structure?  How does discursive form impact decisions regarding
modifier placement?  What decisions did Shakespear have to make when he was
working in iambic pentameter as opposed to prose?  What are the differences
between a rap and a Langston Hughes blues poem?  What decisions do rap
artists make regarding grammar and usage?  What are the similarities and
differences between those pieces of writing and a Hughes blues poem?  How
are our conversations in the classroom different from our conversations with
a group of friends?  In what way do vocatives work in sychronous on-line
conversatons as opposed to casual face to face discourse?

These are all grammar questions that consider context.  Why couldn't a
university level grammar course use as its context one recorded conversation
that students make.  Why couldn't they spend part of the course analyzing
that piece of discourse grammatically, looking for patterns?  And why
couldn't another part of the course compare two pieces of literature from
two different periods, not for literary elements but for grammatical ones.
In the process of comparing those conversations or those pieces of
literature, students would learn a tremendous amount about grammar.  The
context becomes the vehicle through which the learning happens.

Nancy

Nancy G. Patterson, PhD
Portland Middle School, English Dept. Chair
Portland, MI  48875

"To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can
learn."

--bell hooks

 [log in to unmask]
http://www.msu.edu/user/patter90/opening.htm
http://www.npatterson.net/mid.html

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/