My instructional goal is to bring about educational improvement and reform by challenging and changing my students’ assumptions about such fundamental questions as “What’s worth knowing?” and “How do students learn?” To accomplish this goal in my English Methods and graduate courses, I employ a constructivist approach to teaching and learning--a philosophy of instruction which  engages students in constructing their own knowledge instead of passively absorbing the knowledge of others.  With such an approach, students’ own talk is used as a vehicle for learning, and the teacher functions as a designer and director of instruction instead of an information-giver.  To illustrate what this approach looks and sounds like in the classroom, I’d like to describe a series of activities that I use in my Practicum course.  This particular class requires the students to engage in a minimum of 30 hours of observation in an actual high school classroom, so, halfway through the course, I give the students this assignment:

   “For next week’s class, bring in evidence (from the classrooms you’re observing) that learning happened.”

    Usually at this point students will raise several questions, seeking clarification and elaboration:  “Do you mean....?”  “Are we supposed to....?”  “Does it have to be....?”  “Can you give us an example?”  I decline to answer these questions, simply directing them to complete the assignment in any way they feel is appropriate, thus forcing them to create (construct) their own content and process answers. 

    At the next class session, then, we spend the entire three hours discussing and analyzing each student’s item of evidence claiming to show that “learning happened.”  One student will begin the discussion by saying, “Well, here’s what I saw (or heard or found) in the classroom I observed....” and other students are encouraged to ask questions and examine the evidence to determine if it does indeed show that learning happened.  At appropriate times, additional students will volunteer their own evidence, and so the discussion and analysis proceed.  By the end of class, every student has presented their evidence and responded to the contributions of their classmates.

   The assignment for the following week’s class is to “Write out your own theory of learning.”  And for the week after that, students are directed to turn their theory of learning into a fairy tale or fable.

   This series of activities exemplifies a constructivist approach to instruction.  My goal is to help Methods students develop their own definition of learning.  Since they will soon be engaging in their teaching internship and will be trying to make learning happen for their own students, they need to construct a personal definition of learning that they can live with and teach with, and I do what I can to help them in this meaning-making effort.  The first activity in the above sequence (“Bring in evidence that learning happened”) is designed to engage students in constructing their own meaning for the concept of “learning.”  They have to decide for themselves what constitutes learning--what it looks like when it happens, and what evidence they might use to determine that learning did in fact occur.  At the subsequent class session involving sharing and discussion and analysis of the various bits of evidence, the students engage in “negotiation of meanings.”  One student presents his or her evidence, and classmates are encouraged to ask such probing questions as “How do you know that this evidence is valid?”  Through such negotiation of meanings, students’ individual conceptions of the “learning” concept are changed and modified and improved. 

   The final activity involving the students’ turning of their theory of learning into a fairy tale or fable encourages students to refine their meaning-making effort by translating their conception from one symbolic system to another.  They have an opportunity to view their conception of learning from a new angle and express their insights in a new way. 

   A distinguishing feature of the above series of activities is that the students’ own talk is used as a vehicle for learning.  Through the sharing and negotiation of meanings, students have an opportunity to learn from their classmates and revise their initial constructions. 

   Not only do I use a constructivist approach to instruction in my Methods classes, but I also recommend that students adopt and adapt it when they begin their own teaching in the public schools.  Thus, I am modeling for them the approach I advocate, and my students have an early opportunity to see and hear and experience the approach for themselves.  This method of teaching and learning  is characterized by the presence and operation of several features:
 

• the focus is on the constructing, negotiating and communicating of meanings;

• students’ talk is used as a vehicle for learning;

• the teacher functions as a designer and director of instruction;

• students engage in authentic communication, writing for real audiences and real purposes.

   My English Methods and graduate classes incorporate and exemplify the above principles and are conducted in such a way that (1) the students talk more than I do, and (2) I do not ask questions to which I already have an answer.

   Since coming to USF in August, 1991, I have completed an English Methods text that outlines this approach and describes several classroom activities that incorporate the principles involved.  The book, Activities for an Interactive Classroom (published by the National Council of Teachers of English, 1994) is in many ways a written version of my English Methods courses.

Students "need to construct a personal definition of learning that they can live with and teach with, and I do what I can to help them in this meaning-making effort."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

"I am modeling [for my students] the approach I advocate."