Uncovering Constructivism
The text I read was "Constructivism and English Language Arts: Creating Inclusive and Relevant Curricula" by Sydney Redigan. Redigan's analysis of constructivism in my content area begins with a brief outline of why constructivism is traditionally thought of as a math or science-based philosophy. The analysis goes on to explain that educators can employ certain aspects of constructivism, like active learning, instead of trying to strictly adhere to every aspect of the philosophy. Finally, Redigan highlights how elements of constructivism can be applied to specific ELA standards relating to reading, writing, grammar, and literature.
One aspect of the analysis I appreciated was the emphasis on students decoding texts and constructing the text's meaning to themselves as individuals. I try to emphasize this in my honors and AP level classes but those students are so used to their LA teachers being gatekeepers of information that it takes them a very long time to lean in to the discomfort of not immediately knowing an answer. In fact, some of my strongest readers shy away from analyzing literature because it's not concrete, so it'd be interesting to apply more constructivist theories to my classroom and see if there's an impact on those types of students.
On page 8, Redigan shares an anecdote about a classroom experience that occurred shortly after the events of 9/11. The students were confused, scared, and unsure about their world, so the teacher used those feelings as a learning opportunity to collect poetry that expounded on those feelings. The teacher let students choose whichever poems spoke to them and they used those as a springboard to have larger more real-world discussions. At the end of the anecdote, the author revealed that the students in that class had professed how much they hated poetry, but since doing a poetry activity that felt natural, they began to change their mind on the genre.
Concerning teaching grammar, Redigan proposes teachers evaluate students' writing for mistakes, and then use those mistakes to guide lessons on grammar. I have tried this on-and-off, and I've never had strong results, but I think I would be more successful if I was consistent in my grammar lessons.
One aspect of the analysis I appreciated was the emphasis on students decoding texts and constructing the text's meaning to themselves as individuals. I try to emphasize this in my honors and AP level classes but those students are so used to their LA teachers being gatekeepers of information that it takes them a very long time to lean in to the discomfort of not immediately knowing an answer. In fact, some of my strongest readers shy away from analyzing literature because it's not concrete, so it'd be interesting to apply more constructivist theories to my classroom and see if there's an impact on those types of students.
On page 8, Redigan shares an anecdote about a classroom experience that occurred shortly after the events of 9/11. The students were confused, scared, and unsure about their world, so the teacher used those feelings as a learning opportunity to collect poetry that expounded on those feelings. The teacher let students choose whichever poems spoke to them and they used those as a springboard to have larger more real-world discussions. At the end of the anecdote, the author revealed that the students in that class had professed how much they hated poetry, but since doing a poetry activity that felt natural, they began to change their mind on the genre.
Concerning teaching grammar, Redigan proposes teachers evaluate students' writing for mistakes, and then use those mistakes to guide lessons on grammar. I have tried this on-and-off, and I've never had strong results, but I think I would be more successful if I was consistent in my grammar lessons.
Those are some really good ideas for the english classroom! Any way that gets students talking deeper and bigger picture about a topic is important and I think moving towards a constructivist classroom could be very beneficial. If you were to implement more of this, would you rather have the entire class breaking down one reading, or would you rather be like the second example and have smaller groups or individuals find their own works to break down and then bring into a larger conversation? I think both could be successful.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about not being a gatekeeper of knowledge for your students. I am sure with time they really appreciate the fact that they get to think on their own! Exactly what constructivism is about! Is there a way that you try and get your students to not shy away from this approach as you mentioned? Have you been using this approach all year or more recently after learning about contructivism?
ReplyDeleteI liked how you addressed the section about not liking poetry and digging into real life situations. That may or may not help like poetry but it does create emotions and ties it to history. I think your author made a good point about why using 9/11 would be a good tool to create interest, which would create work and progress and the feedback.
ReplyDelete