CONSTRUCTIVISM IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Constructivism has a wide range of implications for language educators in terms of its significance for research and its relevance for pedagogical practice. With respect to the former, studies of the social nature of language learning and acquisition are increasingly grounded in constructivist epistemological positions. Writing about developments in bilingual education, for instance, Faltis (1997) noted that “a shift toward the constructivist, social nature of learning and language acquisition is also increasingly evident in new research efforts” (p. 194). Similarly, the veritable ex-plosion in discourse studies is ultimately, albeit often implicitly, linked to constructivist approaches to understanding, whether one is concerned with aca-demic discourse (see Achard, 1993; Bourdieu, Passeron, & de Saint Martin, 1994;

Fairclough, 1995; Reagan, in press-a), classroom discourse (see Bartolomé, 1998;

Craig, 1995; Measures, Quell, & Wells, 1997; van Lier, 1996; Woods, 1996), or sci-entific discourse (see Boulter, 1997; Gunnarsson, Linell, & Nordberg, 1997). In-deed, Gunnarsson (1999) went so far as to suggest that:

The complexity of the construction of knowledge has been focused on by scholars dealing with scientific discourse. Proceeding from ideas within the social constructivist tradition, they have developed a methodology for the purpose of un-derstanding how science is created through discourse … the social construction of scientific facts [has been described] as an antagonistic struggle among scientists, leading to a deliberate diminishing of the results of others and a leveling up—to a generalized level—of one’s own results. Scientific facts are regarded as mere works;

rhetoric determines what become scientific facts. (p. 111)

The implications of such a view of the nature and role of scientific discourse for the classroom are significant:

It is the growing recognition of the significance of the social construction of con-ceptual understanding in science that has coincided with the development of a suit-able methodology for investigating social situations involving talk. Science is now often seen within science education research as intimately constructed, through discourse, within communities of knowers. The following themes in research and discourse in science teaching and learning arise from the synthesis of

con-structivism and sociolinguistic methodology and can be seen in the major work in progress:

• The complexity of classroom discourse which has complex interactions with the ways teachers teach, the resources they use and with the particular phenomenon of science being studied;

• Communities in science and science classrooms having characteristic discourse patterns;

• Collaboration in classroom settings allowing the authentic practice of science and the development of appropriate discourse;

• Critiques of science, its methodology, its boundaries, its status, and its language as a cultural construct. (Boulter, 1997, p. 242)

Such research foci emphasize, not surprisingly, the social construction of lan-guage and discourse, but there is room as well for concern with the personal or indi-vidual construction of language. One powerful way in which we can conceptualize the personal construction of language has to do with the linguistic notion of idiolects: “The unique characteristics of the language of an individual speaker are re-ferred to as the speaker’s idiolect. English may then be said to consist of 400,000,000 idiolects, or the number equal to the number of speakers of English” (Fromkin &

Rodman, 1993, p. 276). In other words, a transfer or transmission-based view of lan-guage learning is simply incompatible with the final outcome of such learning, as each individual speaker (whether native or non-native) in fact constructs his or her own understanding of the target language, which will in turn be modified and can be evaluated by comparison with other speakers of the language. This is not, of course, to minimize in any way the key role played by interaction in the process of language learning; as Nelson (1996) cogently observed:

Competence in constructing and using culturally defined categories of entities (ob-jects, events, properties, etc.) has been shown to involve a number of different lin-guistic components, including superordinate labels and the vocabulary of inclusive hierarchies. These verbal components can account for aspects of conceptual devel-opment previously held to be perceptually based (e.g., grouping along lines of shape similarity) or logically based (e.g., set relations). The verbal contributions to the de-velopment of cultural categories are integrated with experientially derived catego-ries … The coordination and integration processes involved in the assembling of cultural taxonomies … exemplify the more general problem encountered during the preschool years of reconfiguring individual experientially based representations es-tablished independently of linguistic input to accommodate knowledge systems dis-played in language. This reconfiguration cannot be accomplished through individual constructive processes alone, but requires implicit and explicit collabora-tion with knowledge bearers … (p. 332)

Although Nelson’s focus was on language acquisition in early childhood, the same general claim would apply, we believe, to foreign language learning with

re-spect to the complementary and interactive roles of the individual and the social construction of language. This is an important aspect of a constructivist approach to understanding foreign language learning, because it emphasizes not only the in-dividual construction of meaning, but also, the potential for the misconstruction of meaning and therefore the need for collaboration and interaction with the knowl-edge bearer—that is, generally speaking, the teacher. This brings us to the implica-tions of constructivist epistemology for foreign language pedagogy.

In the context of the foreign language classroom, the application of constructivist epistemology would necessarily undergird virtually all classroom practice. As Williams and Burden (1997) explained:

The literature on language teaching provides comprehensive accounts of different language teaching methodologies and is rich with ideas and techniques for teaching a language. However, what has become increasingly clear to us is the fundamental importance to teachers of an understanding of what is involved in the process of learning to inform and underpin our teaching of the language. Teachers’ own con-ceptions of what is meant by learning, and what affects learning will influence every-thing that they do in the classroom. At the same time, in order to make informed decisions in their day-to-day teaching, teachers need to be consciously aware of what their beliefs about learning and teaching are. (pp. 1–2)

This is true not only of foreign language teaching, but of all teaching. To be sure, foreign language pedagogy does indeed have many common features with other sorts of teaching—but it is also distinct in some key ways. Successful foreign language learning entails far more for the learner than merely learning content and skills. Gardner (1985) suggested that, “Languages are unlike any other subject taught in a classroom in that they involve the acquisition of skills and behaviour patterns which are characteristic of another community” (1985, p. 146), whereas Crookall and Oxford argued that, “Learning a second language is ultimately learn-ing to be another social person” (1988, p. 136). It is this need for the learner to re-construct one’s personal identity that is at the heart of foreign language learning, and it is in this process of reconstruction, rather than merely in terms of learning vocabulary and grammatical forms, that constructivist epistemology may be most useful. It is also a constructivist perspective that allows us to recognize, as Anward (1997) argued, that certain kinds of foreign language pedagogy are in fact inter-nally contradictory: “Put bluntly, we could say that in the context of language drills students are often taught language resources that cannot be used in that very con-text” (p. 129).

A point that needs to be stressed here is that constructivist epistemology, al-though certainly having clear implications for classroom practice, is concerned first and foremost with helping us to understand the learning process itself, rather than with dictating pedagogical practice. As Fosnot (1993) emphasized in the quote with which this chapter began, “Constructivism in not a theory about teach-ing” (1993, p. vii). Furthermore, as will be clear in the following discussion of

constructivist pedagogy in the foreign language context provided, much of the common pedagogical practice of foreign language teachers (especially those uti-lizing communicative approaches in foreign language teaching) is fully compati-ble with constructivist learning theory. In other words, the power of constructivist epistemology for foreign language education may well be more in its explanatory, legitimating, and justificatory power than in terms of any specific implications that it may have for classroom practice.

An example of a constructivist approach to foreign language teaching is pro-vided by a teacher in an introductory Spanish class whose lesson focuses on the use of the verb gustar to express personal likes and dislikes. The class begins with the teacher presenting the following short passage in Spanish, in which gustar is used in a number of different ways:

A mi me gusta bailar, pero a Ana no le gusta bailar. A mi hermana le gustan las flores, pero a mi padre no le gustan las flores. A mis hermanos les gustan la música americana. A mi me gustan todos los tipos de música. Juan y Diana les gusta hablar frances. A Kelly y a mi nos gusta hablar español. ¿Qué te gusta a ti?

The teacher then employs pictures, realia, and dramatic techniques to facilitate stu-dents understanding of the meaning of the passage, even though the stustu-dents have not yet learned the specifics of the use of gustar. Next, the teacher elicits both indi-vidual and class involvement using the basic forms of Me gusta + singular subject (as in me gusta el vino). After several instances in which the correct forms of this type have been produced, the teacher introduces a plural subject (me gustan las flores), and asks a student, ¿Te gustan las flores? Utilizing various elicitation tech-niques, the teacher then moves around the classroom, alternating the use of the first and second person forms and the singular and plural forms and introducing negative forms (No me gustan las flores). Students are encouraged to converse in dyads, in a round-robin fashion, asking questions and giving answers. The teacher provides corrective input only as needed, generally using stress to indicate a student error and encourage student self-correction. During this activity, the teacher would also introduce the Me gusta + infinitive form (Me gusta bailar), and would then encour-age students to use constructions of this type to indicate activities that they enjoy. At this point, the teacher might also introduce the third person form (Le gusta el choco-late) and have students discuss the likes and dislikes of other students in the class, based on the information obtained earlier in the class. By the end of the class, the students will have begun to master the use of the verb gustar; additional practice and further development of the use of gustar will be needed, of course, but students should already be in a position to offer a reasonably accurate description of how gustar is used—and should be able to do so without ever having explicitly encoun-tered a formal explanation of the grammatical rules involved. Similar approaches can be used to teach virtually any linguistic structure, semantic relationship, or lexi-cal item in the target language, as well as helping students to develop their own per-sonal competence in (and hence construction of) the target language broadly

conceived. In fact, a fairly compelling case could be offered for the claim that the greater the difference between a particular structure or vocabulary item in the learner’s mother tongue and the target language, the more appropriate and effective a constructivist approach to language learning may prove to be. This point is similar to, and certainly compatible with, that made recently by Widdowson (1998):

We now know much more than our predecessors about what makes language real for its users, and we know what learners have to do if they are to aspire to be foreign lan-guage users themselves. My main point is that this heightened understanding about language, communication, community, and social identity has also to be applied to the contexts of the classroom and the realities and identities of language learners. To do this is really only to recognize, as our predecessors have done, that what we are teaching is not language as experienced by its users but a foreign language which, as a subject, has to be designed for learners. (p. 332)

Thus, in a similar vein, telling students about the difference between the verbs ser and estar in Spanish might well be less useful than simply having them employ the verbs and gradually come to know, in part as a result of teacher correction, when each is ap-propriate (although in fact, it is important to note, constructivist pedagogy would not actually rule out explicit grammatical instruction if it was useful in helping students to construct their own understandings of the features of the target language).

And what of the case of a student who has misconstructed³some aspect or fea-ture of a second foreign language? In an interesting discussion of the role of tech-nology in foreign language education, Phillips (1998) reported on a powerful example of the role of technology in facilitating what is, in essence, a reconstruc-tion of student understanding based on native speaker feedback:

What technology, when used well, has wrought is the following e-mail exchange be-tween a seventh grader in Sleepy Hollow, New York and a peer in Padre las Casas, Chile … When a U.S. youngster, named Chema, sent a message of introduction to a Chilean keypal, some of the adjectives used in the message ended in o and some ended in a in spite of the student’s record of more accurate responses on the worksheets, audio tapes, and computerized drills that came with the classroom text package. Chema received a response that said, Me alegré mucho de recibir tu mensaje, pero aclárame amigo o amiga. ¿Cuál es tu sexo? ’I’m really glad to receive your message, but make it clear whether you are a [male] friend or [female] friend.

Are you male or female?’ Maybe, like so many language learners in the past, Chema will never travel to a country where Spanish is spoken, but today’s student will com-municate real messages with users of the target language. That single instance caused learning to occur for Chema, her teacher reported that she never again made an agreement error when talking about herself. (p. 27)

In all of the instances that have been discussed here, although explicit and direc-tive teaching is certainly possible, and often both appropriate and valuable, the al-ternative of teacher modeling and individual student construction of the linguistic

target has much to commend it as well. In addition, it is important to note that constructivist learning theory would require that we attend seriously to the context in which language learning takes place—recognizing, for instance, that the meth-ods and activities that facilitate language learning in one context might differ sig-nificantly from those in another. Williams and Burden (1997) provided a summary of what they consider to be the ten basic propositions involved in applying constructivist learning theory to foreign language education, and these 10 proposi-tions include:

1. There is a difference between learning and education.

2. Learners learn what is meaningful to them.

3. Learners learn in ways that are meaningful to them.

4. Learners learn better if they feel in control of what they are learning.

5. Learning is closely linked to how people feel about themselves.

6. Learning takes place in a social context through interaction with other people.

7. What teachers do in the classroom will reflect their own beliefs and attitudes.

8. There is a significant role of the teacher as mediator in the language classroom.

9. Learning tasks represent an interface between teachers and learners.

10. Learning is influenced by the situation in which it occurs (pp. 204–208).

Constructivist epistemology has, then, clear implications for classroom prac-tice, the curricula, student evaluation, and indeed virtually all aspects of the teach-ing–learning process (see Henning, 1995; Zietsman, 1996), including teacher professional development (see Keiny, 1994). Although not explicitly discussed here, constructivist epistemology also has the potential to impact in significant ways the preparation of foreign language educators (see Condon, Clyde, Kyle, &

Hovda, 1993; Rainer & Guyton, 1994; Richardson, 1997a), and the challenge of preparing such educators to engage in reflective and analytic classroom practice (see Parker, 1997; Reagan et al., 2000; Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Zeichner &

Liston, 1996). The ultimate purpose of taking constructivist epistemology seri-ously in foreign language education is helping teachers to learn to empower stu-dents to acquire language more effectively. As von Glasersfeld (1989) argued:

Good teachers … have practiced much of what is suggested here, without the benefit of an explicit theory of knowing. Their approach was intuitive and successful, and this exposition will not present anything to change their ways. But by supplying a theoretical foundation that seems compatible with what has worked in the past, constructivism may provide the thousands of less intuitive educators an accessible way to improve their methods of instruction. (p. 138)

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. In this chapter, the authors argue for the importance of metaphors as im-portant windows into the attitudes, beliefs, and views of the teacher. What metaphors would you use to describe your role as a foreign language edu-cator? What do these metaphors indicate about your underlying beliefs and attitudes? How might these metaphors be reflected in your own class-room practice?

2. What, in your view, is the difference between knowing German and know-ing about German? What are our goals in the foreign language classroom with respect to these two kinds of knowing? How are these goals reflected in our methodology and assessment?

3. In this chapter, Crookall and Oxford are quoted as suggesting that,

“Learning a second language is ultimately learning to be another social person.” Based on your own experiences as a second language learner, do you agree or disagree with this position? What are the implications for Crookall and Oxford’s view for foreign language teaching and learning?

4. What do you see as the fundamental distinction between the student’s con-struction of knowledge in the foreign language classroom and the stu-dent’s misconstruction of knowledge? What are the implications of this distinction for foreign language teaching and learning?

5. What does it mean to you to learn a second language? What are the impli-cations of your view for teaching in a foreign language classroom setting?

FOCUS ON THE CLASSROOM

1. When and why are student errors or mistakes beneficial in the context of the foreign language classroom? What are the implications of your an-swers for teaching methods in foreign language education?

2. What can you as the foreign language teacher do to encourage oral lan-guage practice as students engage in the construction of their own knowl-edge of the target language? What barriers discourage oral language practice and how can you minimize these?

3. What can you as the foreign language teacher do to encourage written lan-guage practice as students engage in the construction of their own knowl-edge of the target language? What barriers discourage written language practice, and how can you minimize these?

4. Can grammatical knowledge be learned as a constructivist activity, and if

4. Can grammatical knowledge be learned as a constructivist activity, and if