PD 8: Am I Even a Constructivist?

This post is part of my blog project “Pedagogy Discourses (PDs),” which is a course requirement at the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU).

In my Principles of Teaching course, we were tasked to accomplish the Teaching Perspectives Inventory and assess our own results. This inventory provided us a series of questions, each of which points to beliefs, intentions, and actions that are particular to a teaching perspective. In addition, the inventory is believed to be useful in constructing our own philosophy of teaching. These perspectives are as follows:

(a) Transmission: Educators who hold this perspective prioritize content or subject matter mastery as the goal of the teaching-learning process. Those who hold this view apply different strategies grounded on cognitive information processing such as setting clear objectives, providing reviews, and finding the appropriate pacing for lectures.

(b) Apprenticeship: In this perspective, educators emphasize teaching through authentic tasks within their learners’ zone of development, so they become independent learners. Based on this perspective, their role is a highly skilled professional that works similar to Vygotsky’s More Knowledgeable Other.

(c) Developmental: When educators take this perspective, they serve as builders that bridge learners towards more sophisticated and critical thinking by using questioning strategies and tasks that relate new to old knowledge. In many ways, this perspective could reflect Piaget’s cognitive constructivism.

(d) Nurturing: Educators espousing this view of teaching promotes learning as a result of learners’ becoming motivated and exerting much effort to analyze problems within a highly supportive environment. This perspective’s emphasis on promoting a climate that “comes from the heart” and accepts failure as part of learning reminds us of social learning theories (specifically, when importance was given to the role of the learning environment on learners and vice versa).

(e) Social Reform: Educators who adopt this lens view highlight the political nature of the teaching-learning process. The website explains that the learning process is one where learners “take critical stances to give power to take social action to improve their own lives and the lives of others.” This view is promoted by the likes of Paulo Freire (2005)¹, who argued that education has to center on the needs of the masses and building a better society by addressing inequality.

Based on the inventory. my dominant perspectives were Social Reform and Developmental, whereas Apprenticeship was my recessive perspective. To be sure, I believe that each of these perspectives are important in their own right. I know that at some points in my teaching stints, I had adapted each of these views. However, my beliefs, pedagogical intentions, and practices indicate that I generally prioritize some perspectives over others.

How Constructivist, then?

I would like to think that I observe constructivist principles - that is, I seek to create student-centered yet teacher-guided language classrooms. This is where one of my dominant perspectives - Developmental - comes in: I see my role as a facilitator that strives to develop learners’ proficiency and critical language awareness, which enables them to understand the role of language in building social relations. When I ask questions during interactive class discussions, I often encourage my students to relate new information to their previous experiences. Furthermore, the questions I give them during discussions are in increasing complexity in order to develop gradually their higher-order thinking skills.

Although my Apprenticeship perspective was recessive, it does not mean that I never observed it. In fact, I have faith in my students’ ability to learn from each other through project-based learning, think-pair-share, and similar activities that require close collaboration so that they can learn from each other. I also understand that as a facilitator, my main role is to guide them in difficult tasks for them to gain the capacity to become independent learners.

However, I cannot claim to be totally adherent to constructivism. In fact, I do not think I should be one, because other approaches have their merits in the teaching-learning process. In addition, it is difficult in the current educational system to fully adhere to constructivism. I can cite three reasons why it is difficult: Firstly, my previous departmental supervisors have different expectations on “good practices” that they look for in the classroom. For example, when I facilitated a literature class on The Last Time I Saw Mother, my observer found my strategy of mixing groups to discuss the main characters interesting but reminded me to “prioritize mastery of content” - the reading selections - “as indicated in the syllabus.” On a related note, the syllabi approved by my past departments advocated a curriculum with predefined content and product. Becoming a full constructivist in the current system is difficult unless institutions allow the curriculum to be seen as dynamic.

Secondly, I have encountered occasions where my subject matter requires frontal instruction (e.g., when introducing communication models in an oral communication class). However, I make sure to temper my teacher-centered approaches by giving ample time for students to lead in building and negotiating knowledge together.

Thirdly, I found that relying on constructivist approaches can be time-consuming. Since there is an institutional expectation on me to follow the syllabus within a semester, I had no choice but to constantly find a blend of teacher-centered and learner-centered approaches.

Sharpening My Constructivist Senses

Given these (systemic) constraints, it seems becoming a full-fledged constructivist is not feasible. However, I believe my constructivism can be better sharpened through following strategies:

(1) I will understand better the current needs and wants of my learners - for example, through diagnostic assessments - to determine the most suitable or appropriate starting point for the class.

(2) Despite being the more knowledgeable other, I will work towards ensuring a clear, collaborative relationship with the learners. In this case, I will reposition myself as a co-learner and journey with them through the course. This also means that I must explain how the course would proceed in this fashion with the learners during the first meeting, so that their expectations about the class become informed.

(3) It is my plan to participate in professional development activities on student-centered learning. These activities are a great opportunity for me to not only reflect on my practices, but to also consider how other teachers’ exemplary student-centered approaches can be used in my context.

(4) I must keep in mind that each classroom is different. Hence, it is important to not only differentiate my instruction, but also engage in a close examination of my teaching and learning practices to determine the impact of constructivist approaches in my language classrooms.

Conclusion

Constructivism has encouraged a paradigm shift from teacher-centered to student-centered classrooms. However, given the different constraints on most teachers, perhaps it is best to see teacher-centeredness and student-centeredness as two points in a continuum. Where exactly our pedagogy should be located in that continuum, however, is situational - that is, it depends on the nature of our students, materials, facilities, and even learning atmospheres. Since these factors differ for each context, Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman (2012)² was correct in pointing out that there are no “best methods” for (language) teaching.

Thus, I believe it is more productive to call on teachers to be sensitive to their own teaching and learning contexts instead of advocating for strongly constructivist methods. One way to develop such a sensitivity is to encourage and engage in classroom action research and become informed of what methods are appropriate for our students. In fact, it is possible to integrate different learning-teaching methods and approaches - become an eclectic teacher - in order to suit the needs of our learners. Furthermore, we must engage in incessant reflection on what works best and what does not work in the classroom.