My Theoretical and Pedagogical Stance (Activity 4)

As this activity required us to take a stance and align ourselves with only one of the theoretical positions described in our readings, I have chosen constructivism. Having taught English as a Foreign Language (EFL) for over 16 years, I have taught hundreds of students of all levels of English proficiency from many different cultural backgrounds. Unsurprisingly, how I teach or facilitate a course, lesson, or activity depends on many factors. However, it is most often the instructional strategies of constructivism which offer the best means to achieve the desired outcomes. There are several reasons for this.

First, I have observed that learners vary greatly in how they learn and how they interpret the learned material. Constructivists argue that learners “build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions. Thus, the internal representation of knowledge is constantly open to change” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p.55). As required by my college, I routinely provide differentiation in my lessons (which includes offering choices to students, assigning different work to different groups, and accepting and encouraging a range of results from writing prompts and open-ended questions). I have found that students succeed best when differentiated according to their unique experiences and knowledge.

Second, throughout most of my career, I have taught college students with a relatively advanced level of English proficiency. These students can converse proficiently in English, but may struggle to write an academic essay or understand complex job requirements in English. Ertmer and Newby (2013) argue that “constructive learning environments are most effective for the stage of advanced knowledge acquisition, where initial misconceptions and biases acquired during the introductory stage can be discovered, negotiated, and if necessary, modified and/or removed” (p. 57). This is often the focus of my language courses and, as such, constructivism is often the optimal theoretical basis for my teaching. When I teach English for Specific Purpose (ESL) or English for Academic Purpose (EAP), part of my teaching includes discovering and correcting students’ misconceptions regarding word definitions and usage, pronunciation, grammar, and sentence structure. For example, native Spanish students often incorrectly use the definite article “the” to refer to body parts (“Does the arm hurt?”) rather than the correct possessive adjective (“Does your arm hurt?”). The former is grammatically correct in their native language and they are using the definite article “the” in its correct form, but the definite article is not used in this context in English.

A third reason why my teaching often stems from constructivism is that courses in advanced language acquisition commonly focus on problem-based learning (a constructivist learning method). Rather than rote memorization of words and grammar rules, the focus is on actively encouraging the learner to think and understand how English is used in different contexts (for example, conversing with a customer versus your friend). Active, learner-centered tasks based on authentic, relevant issues or problems are common. For example, I had health professionals in an EAP course make instructional videos in English on proper hand washing.

Of course, not all course material and learners are best suited to constructivism’s instructional strategies. When introducing a new topic with new vocabulary, especially to learners with low English proficiency, it is likely more appropriate to use a behaviourist method. And when explaining the reasoning of a new grammar rule (and, often, its many exceptions), cognitive theory may be the appropriate choice. As stated in Ertmer and Newby (2013), “what might be most effective for novice learners encountering a complex body of knowledge for the first time, would not be effective, efficient or stimulating for a learner who is more familiar with the content” (p. 60). Despite the significant changes in technology, learners, learning contexts, tools, and teaching methods over recent decades, behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism remain relevant (p. 69). Instructional design must take advantage of “the advances in theory and the affordances of technology” (p. 69), however, how the human brain acquires knowledge is not so different that we should ignore past wisdom.

Reference

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143