Thread: Constructivism & Language Learning

I'm a first-year composition instructor and I'm looking at
various philosophies of learning --for my own understanding
and for a paper that I'm going to write.

Can anyone tell me what's "right" and/or what's "wrong"
with Constructivism?

The "Whole Language" approach to learning seems to be
Constructivist in nature, and I'd like to know if there is
some truth behind their presuppositions.

Below is an article (from Wikipedia) on what W.L. is.

Thanks,
Matthew

"Whole language is an educational philosophy that is complex to describe, particularly because it is informed by multiple research fields including but not limited to education, linguistics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Several strands run through most descriptions of whole language:

focus on making meaning in reading and expressing meaning in writing;
constructivist approaches to knowledge creation, emphasizing students' interpretations of text and free expression of ideas in writing (often through daily journal entries).
emphasis on high-quality and culturally-diverse literature;
integrating literacy into other areas of the curriculum, especially math, science, and social studies;
frequent reading, (a) with students in small "guided reading" groups, (b) to students with "read alouds," and (c) by students independently;
"reading and writing for real purposes;

focus on motivational aspects of literacy, emphasizing the love of books and engaging reading materials;
meaning-centered whole to part to whole instruction where phonics are taught contextually in "embedded" phonics (different from decontextualized phonics); and
emphasis on using and understanding the meaning making role of phonics, grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation in diverse social contexts."

Note: Most of my knowledge of this stuff is self-taught, and somewhat limited, but I'll give a shot.

True Constructivism stems from Jacques Rousseau, particularly his book Emile. Rousseau envisioned an "unschooling" system in which the student (if you can even call him that) basically teaches himself through life experience in which the teacher (parent?) helps Emile to develop his own ability to make inferences. The truly radical thing about Rousseau is that he doesn't just suggest an experiential approach to learning, but thinks that each person must "construct" the content and end-point of his own learning. Rousseau is radically individualistic and doesn't believe in a shared curriculum.

In contrast, modern constructivism seems to me to be simply a preference for inductive, creative, and experiential learning as opposed to books. It is "learning by doing." I can see how Whole Language naturally leans this way, but I don't know quite enough about it to comment further.

Charlie,

"Thanks" for your response. I haven't read Emile, but it sounds like it describes my working environment very well. I have a conviction that that particular form of schooling/pedagogy is not good, but I can't articulate "why" it is or is not. It seems to be contrary to the way that the major colleges, which were started as Bible-based universities, did their business.

Why is Rousseau wrong? Do we not learn by "doing?" Or is there something more fundamental to his system that makes it a thing to be rejected by a Christian educator?

Thanks again,
Matthew

When I was in college we were taught that the "Whole Language" approach was the be all and end all. It was implied that it was a sin to help a child sound out a word. Twenty years later everyone is teaching phonics again. The conventional wisdom these days seems to be more eclectic. There are positives in the Constructivist as well as the Cognitivist Models. Obviously, the Interactionist and Social Interactionist models have value. Who can argue that language can not be learned through conversation and cooperation? And obviously the Cognitivist and Metacognitivist models have value as well. Students need to learn phonics and they need to learn how to teach themselves.

Find the best that each philosophy has to offer and use it in the classroom but not to the exclusion of everything else.

Ken,
Thanks for your response.
I'm starting to write a paper for my Second Language Acquisition class.
I'm thinking of comparing and contrasting "Whole Language" with phonics.
It sounds like language acquisition methods should not be relegated to an
either/or dichotomy --I think I'd agree.

Children and ESL learners need to be taught both how to pronounce words
and what words mean in their context.

Thanks again,
Matthew

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

Ken,
Thanks for your response.
I'm starting to write a paper for my Second Language Acquisition class.
I'm thinking of comparing and contrasting "Whole Language" with phonics.
It sounds like language acquisition methods should not be relegated to an
either/or dichotomy --I think I'd agree.

Children and ESL learners need to be taught both how to pronounce words
and what words mean in their context.

Thanks again,
Matthew

Man with the awesome user name,

I don't think the issue with Rousseau is so much the "learning by doing" but "going wherever your doing takes you." In true Rousseauian (I made that up) constructivism, not only the path but also the destination is left open. There isn't a set corpus that you should learn. You (mostly) learn whatever you happen to learn by exploring. Now, Rousseau did believe in teaching trades, but it's sort of a separate thing for him. Your vocation is separate from your real education.

So, modern education is really a collision between Platonic and Constructivist ideals, and they're fighting things out. I'm not entirely clear on the relationship to whole language learning.