I feel that in my early high school ELA classes, grades 8 and 9 in particular, my teachers often employed the behaviourist approach in managing us. If we joked around while the teacher was speaking or if we were late for class, we could expect a form of positive punishment, that is, our teacher would add an unpleasant response to decrease the likelihood that we repeated the behaviour. In this case, our teacher would force the unlucky student to “sit on the air,” back flat against the wall, for over a minute, while the rest of the class snickered and watched the victim struggle (it’s punishing on your legs). The other option was to sing a song for the class.  As you can probably imagine, nobody ever chose this option.

Below is a short video that demonstrates this principle of behaviourism.

However, my grade 12 English teacher was unique, and his teaching style has stuck with me to this day. I believe that, whether consciously or not, he taught through the lens of constructivism. He was originally from Texas and had served in the US military in Vietnam. He often began his classes by telling us tragic and dramatic stories from his past, some from his time in the army. These stories would elicit strong emotional responses from the students (some students cried). But there was always a purpose in telling them, as they would flow into group discussions about significant events that had taken place in our own lives. We were then expected to write about these events and try to construct our own meaning from them; what happened, how did it affect us at the time, how does it affect us now, did it change who we are in some way? Drawing on our own life experiences resulted in far more memorable classes.

One more thing to note about this teacher’s style was that he never engaged in any direct instruction of formal grammar rules (something I did often as an ESL teacher). It’s possible that he chose to omit formal grammar instruction because he was aware of Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar, or because he knew that research has consistently shown that grammar practice does not necessarily result in any improvement in student writing.

As I look toward my future as an ELA teacher, I will aim to use the social constructivist approach in my teaching. This learning theory, introduced by Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, states that learning does not take place solely within an individual, but most prominently in groups, such as between students and their peers, teachers, and parents. Learning is seen as a social activity, dependent upon the discussions and interactions you have with others, as well as the culture you live within. Without even realizing it, this was most often the approach I used while working as an ESL teacher for the last few years. The main focus of all my classes was increasing fluency through one-to-one, group, and class discussions.

I firmly believe the social constructivist approach can be used in today’s classrooms, as it connects to BC’s new ELA Grade 9-12 curriculum. For example, one of the ‘Big Ideas’ in this curriculum is that “people understand text differently depending on their worldviews and perspectives.” There is no better way to demonstrate this concept than by allowing students to share their personal interpretations of a text through group discussion. You will soon realize that few students understand the text in exactly the same way, as they are each viewing it through the lens of their own background and beliefs. Additionally, this social approach will expose each student to a variety of opinions about the text, therefore expanding their original perception of it.

To give a more specific example, I could use this approach if we were analyzing Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian in an English First Peoples (EFP) Literary Studies class. In groups, we could explore how King challenges the Western, eurocentric narrative about colonization that has been taught to Canadians (and Americans) for so long. We could then discuss his recounting of history through the eyes of North America’s Indigenous peoples. This text would beautifully demonstrate one of the Big Ideas from EFP Literary Studies: “Texts are socially, culturally, geographically, and historically constructed.”  This text also leads to conversations about another Big Idea, the concept that “First Peoples texts and stories provide insight into key aspects of Canada’s past, present, and future.” Not only would a book like this lend itself to discussions about Canada’s past and present treatment of Indigenous peoples, but it also highlights the urgent need for more literature from First Peoples authors.

The social constructivist approach will be ideal in a classroom where students are expected to “respectfully exchange ideas and viewpoints from diverse perspectives to build shared understandings and extend thinking,” which is one of the curricular competencies for this particular English class. Ultimately, I feel this type of instruction can be beneficial in virtually any situation where learning is required.