"“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” ...

Both the srructural linguist and the behavioral psychologist wefe intefested in

description, in answering uhat questions about human behavior: obiective mea- surement of behayior in conrolled circumstances. The generative linguist and cog-

nitive psychologist wefe, to be sure, interested in the uhat qttestion; trut they were far more interested in a more ultimate question, u:lt-1': what undedying factors- innate, psy'chological, social, or environmental circumstances-caused a particular

behavior in a human beiug? If you were to obrserve someone walk into 1'our house, pick up a chair aud fling

it through your winclow, and then walk out, different kinds of questions could be asked. One set of quesrions would relate to ubat happened: the physical descrip-

tion of the person, the time of day the size of the chair, the impact of the chair, and

so forth. Another set of questions would ask tt:h.1'the pefson did what he or she

clid: what were the person's motives and psychological state, what might have been

the cause of the behavior, and so on. The first set of questions is very rigorous and

exacting: it allows no flaw, no mistake in measurement; but does it give you ultimate

answers? The second set of qllestions is richeq but obviously riskier. By daring to

ask sotne difficult questions about the unobserved. \!'e may lose some ground but

gain more profound insight about human behavior.

Constructivism: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Constructivism is hardly a rlew school of thought. Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotslqi names often associated with constructivism, are not by any means new to the scene

of language studies. Yet, in a variety of post-structuralist theoretical positions, constrlrctivism emerged as a prevailing paradigm onl-v in the last part of the fwen'

tieth century, and is now almost an orthodoxy. A refreshing characteristic of con-

structivism is its integration of linguistic, psychological, and sociological paradigms,

in contrast to the professional chasms that often divided those disciplines in the pre-

vious century. Now, with its emphasis on social interaction and the discovery, or construction, of meaning, the three disciplines harr muCh lnore common gfound'

What is constructivism, and how does it differ from the other two viewpoints described above? First, it will be helpftll to think of two branches of constructivism: cognitive ancl social. In the cognitive version of constructivism, emphasis is placed

on the importance of learners constructing their own repfesentation of realiry ,.Learners must individually discover and transform complex information if they are

to make it their own, [suggesting] a more active role for students in their own learning than is tpical in many classrooms" (slavin, 2003, pp. 257-258). Sucl]l claims are rootecl in Piaget's (1954,1955,197o; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) seminal work in the midclle of the twentieth centllr)', but have taken that long to become

widety accepted views. For Piaget, "learning is a developmental process that involves change, self-generation, and construction, each building on prior learning

experiences " (Kaufman , 2OO4 , p ' JA4) .

Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of social interaction and cooperative learning in constructing both cognitive and emotional images of reality.

I

I

: .\

.I I

(

I ( C

c

ed in mea-

1-t^prEl 1 Language, Learning, and Teachit'tg 1 3

Spivey (1997 ,p. 24) noted that constmctivist research tends to foctts on "indMduals engaged in social practices, . . . on a collaborative group, [or'] on a global communityl' The champion of social constructivism isVygotsky (1978), who advocated the view that"children's thinking and meaning-making is socially constructed and emerges out of their social interactions with their envilonment" (Kaufman, 2AO4,p.3O4).

Cressnoou Coxrrnorous

Research Findings: Constructivism is a school of thought that emphasizes both the learner's role in constructing meaning out of available linguistic input and the importance of social interaction in creating a new linguistic system, Eady constructivists likeVygotsky and Piaget actively emphasized their viern's many decades ago. 'What took the language teaclting profession so long to apply such thfurking to classroorn practices?

Teaching Implications: Pedraps prevailing tiews of behavioral psychology curbed an outburst of interactive language teaching, Howeveq as eady as the 1970s, some methods advocated the cen- tral role of the learner's construction of language (the Silent Wby and Cornmunify language Learning) and the importance of rnean' ingful interaction (eady forms of the Notional-Functional Syllabus, which started in the United Kingdom). rilr-hat evidence of con- stfuctiyism do you see in curfent foreign language classrooms?

One of the most popular corlcepts advanced by Vygotsky was the notion of a zone of proximal development (ZPD) in every learner; the distance between learners'existing developmental state and their potential development. Put another way, the ZPD describes tasks that a learner has not )€t leafned but is capable of learning with appropriate stimuli. The ZPD is an important facet of social con- structivism because it describes tasks "that a child cannot yet do alone trut could do with the assistance of more competent peers or adults" (Slavin, ZOOJ,p.44isee also Karpov & Haywood,1998). A number of applications ofVygotsky's ZPD have been made to foreign language instruction (Lantolf, 2OO0; Nassaji & Cumming, 2OOO; Marchenkova,2OO5) in both adult and child second language learning contexts.

Vygotsky's concept of rhe ZPD contrasted rather sharply with Piaget's theory of learning in that the former sa'w a units: of learning and development while the latter saw stages of development setting a precondition, or readiness, for learning (Dunn & Lantolf, 1998). Piaget stressed the importance of individual cognitive development as a relatively solitary act, Biological timetables and stages of devel- opment were basic; social interaction was claimed only to triggef development at

I cog- \{refe ors- icular

lfling rld be scrip- ir, and rr she been

m and .imate ing to rd but

iotsky, scene itions, fwen- f con- ligms,

'e pre-

lr'" or 'und. roints ivism: rlaced eality. 3_Y are 'own Such

minal come ; that .rning

r and eality.

tlte right lnoillellt in titne' ou the other hancl,vygotskl. maintainecl tlrat social inter- ::::TJ::t;T;:?""""r

in cognitive cteu'etoprnlir, "'i.r

,.;..,ecr the noriolr or p* closely alliecl to a v1'gotskian social consrructivist perspective is that ofMikhail Bakhti' (1986,199o),the Rtmsian literarv theorist wtro has now capturedthe attention of slzl lesearchers ancl practitioners (Hall,Vitanova, & l,Iarchenkova,2oo5)' Bakhtin cotltencJed that language is "irnmersecl in * social ancl cultural con-text' allcl its ceutral ffunction is to sef\.e as a nedium of comrnunication.,, In tlrisspirit' the ead'1' years of the new millen'ium hi*'e see' increasing emphasis onsociocrtltural dimensions of sL{, or u.hat watson-Gegeo (2004) clescribes as a lan-gllage socialization paracligm for SLA; a new slnthesis that,,i'r,ol'es a reconsiclera-tion of tnincl' langtnge, ancl epistemologli ancl a recognition that cognition originatesifl social interzctiou ancl is sh;rpect tr1, c'iritr-'al a'cr sociopolitical processes,,evatson-Gegeo, 2004, p.331).

Researchers stttclf ing first ancl seconcl l;rrguage acquisition irave clemorlstratedconstrllctivist persPectives through smclies of .on-.".mtional clisco,rse, sociocul-ttral factors in learning, and ilrtemctionist theories. In manv wa],s, const*lctivist per_spectives alr a llatural successor to cognitit,ety baseJ,rr,.f*r'of universal gramlnar,information processi'g, lnemor),, artirlial intetige'ce, ancr interranguage slrstem_ i]]!tf,i:T3'e:

These tertns will be clefinecl a'cl exltain..t i,r r.,br"qu"irr.iopr.r, or AIr three of trrc historical positions clescribed i' tliis sectiorl_stfuctural/behav_ioral' generative/cog.iti*,:lttcl co'structi'ist-mrist be seen as impoftanf in cr.eatingbalanced clescriptions of seconcl Ianguage acquisition. consicler fbr a rnornent theanalogl' of a verl' high mountain, r.ien,el from a cristance. F-*r' orr" crirecdon trrentottntain rni4' have a sharp peak, easilr- iclentifiecl glaciers,

"rr.t .tirtirrati'e rock for-mations. From another crirection. ho*,ever, the same mo.ntni' might now appear tohave fwo peaks (the seconcl formerly iriciclen frorn vieE) ancl cliftbrent conligtuationsof its slopes' From still another cifuection, r'et rrrther characteristics emerge, 6ereto-fore rtnobsen'ecl' The stud)'of sIA is

'er-r'mnch like the viewing of o'r mountain:*'T$JT:f'lj:j::::"i:i.::::t: po;nts in o,crer ro ascerrain rrre wrrore picrtre.

ri,.es a bove rh. ,^o;'J'fi;; ilff i:' ff i:il':::ffi ffi: i::# ;::,*:.:*:;:,:;with the respecrive posirions.The p"ri.-, that arc ilrllstrated,= fpr.or of what Knrrn(1970) describecl as the strttctttre of scientilic revolutions. A srrccessftrl paracligrn isfollowed b;'a periocl of'anomaf, lcroubt, urrcertainq,, cprestioning of prerailing theoq),then crisis (the fall of the exisring po'o.tlgng n ith all the profe-ssional insecurif), rhatcomes there*'ith;ancr then fi'ail1'a 'ex,

piradigrn, a nover theoryr, is put together, Thiscycle is eviclent in both ps1'chology ancl irnguistics, although the lirnits and bouncls arenot alwa)'s easil1'perceived-perhaps less Jasily perceivec-r in psychorogl,, i, wlrich a1three paradigns ctul€ntl)'operate ,urn.o'h", sirnultaneousll'. The cl,clicat nature oftheories uncrersco'es ilr: {".-,

rhar no singt; dreory o,. porr,.tigrn i, ,iglrt or wrong. Iris impossible to refi-lte with filralir'' ,rrr. plrrp".tive rvith u.roirr.r. son'e ruth can befound in vir.tualll, etery criticat approach to the stucf, of r.ealiq,.

Jlrne Fraryi,

-: "..,;

I-I\IETEE:

A sttrr-t n-ititor-i Beside : one fbr and pr teachir: I hope and issi

So

so of lir your arl we kno is; not r.

Ke turies " r tbw if a eign" Ia