Consider The Constructivist And Explicit Instruction Views

Consider The Constructivist And Explicit Instruction Views Of Teaching

Consider the constructivist and explicit instruction views of teaching reading. Write an essay of 1,000-1,250 words in which you analyze the constructivist and explicit instructional approaches, discuss the style by which you learned to read, and defend the approach that you prefer as learner and as a teacher. Use the GCU Library to research a minimum of five peer-reviewed articles that can be used in support of your essay. Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Teaching reading effectively has been a topic of extensive debate and research within educational psychology. Two primary approaches dominate this discourse: constructivist and explicit instruction methods. Each approach offers unique perspectives on how students best acquire reading skills. As an aspiring educator, understanding these contrasting methodologies enables the development of a comprehensive teaching philosophy that caters to diverse learning needs and maximizes literacy development. This paper aims to analyze the core principles of constructivist and explicit instruction approaches, reflect on personal experiences in learning to read, and defend a preferred instructional method grounded in research and pedagogical efficacy.

Constructivist Approach to Teaching Reading

The constructivist approach to teaching reading is rooted in the philosophy that learners construct knowledge actively through meaningful engagement with texts and their environment. Jean Piaget and Jerome Bruner are influential figures in this paradigm, emphasizing that children develop literacy skills by connecting new information to existing cognitive structures. In the constructivist framework, reading is viewed as a process of discovery, where learners interpret context, make predictions, and derive meaning through interaction with texts.

This approach encourages students to explore and manipulate texts, fostering critical thinking and comprehension skills. Teachers act as facilitators who guide learners in collaborative activities, discussions, and problem-solving tasks. Constructivist strategies often involve inquiry-based learning, scaffolding, and student-centered tasks that promote intrinsic motivation and meaningful learning experiences.

Research by Goodman (1980) supports the idea that reading comprehension improves when students are engaged in authentic literacy experiences where they actively construct meaning rather than passively receive instruction. Moreover, this approach nurtures a love for reading and develops higher-order thinking skills vital for lifelong literacy development.

Explicit Instruction Approach to Teaching Reading

In contrast, the explicit instruction approach emphasizes systematic, direct teaching of reading skills. Grounded in behavioral and cognitive theories, explicit instruction involves clearly modeled strategies, step-by-step guidance, and immediate feedback. This method seeks to teach specific skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension explicitly, often through structured lessons and drills.

Proponents like Donna Sounders and Hugh W. Catts argue that explicit instruction is particularly effective for struggling readers or those with learning disabilities, as it reduces ambiguities in instruction and provides clear expectations. Techniques such as guided reading, direct phonics instruction, and vocabulary drills are common within this approach. The teacher's role is authoritative, delivering precise instructions designed to build foundational literacy skills critical for decoding and early reading proficiency.

Numerous studies, including those by Adams (1990), demonstrate that systematic phonics instruction significantly improves early literacy skills, especially in students at risk for reading difficulties. Explicit instruction ensures consistency in teaching, promotes skills mastery, and accelerates reading development when implemented with fidelity.

Personal Learning Experience and Reflection

Reflecting on my own experience of learning to read, I realize that my development was largely shaped by explicit instructional strategies, particularly phonics-based teaching. In elementary school, my teachers provided structured lessons that emphasized decoding skills, vocabulary drills, and comprehension questions. This systematic approach helped me build confidence and fluency, establishing a solid foundation for continued literacy growth.

Despite the effectiveness of explicit instruction in my early learning, I also encountered opportunities where constructivist elements were incorporated, such as book discussions and project-based activities. These experiences allowed me to develop critical thinking and enjoyment of reading by connecting texts to personal experiences. However, my primary learning was driven by clear, direct instructions that prioritized skill mastery.

Preferred Approach as a Learner and as a Teacher

As a learner, I favor an instructional approach that combines the strengths of both methods. Explicit instruction provides the essential foundation for decoding and comprehension, especially for beginners or struggling readers. However, integrating constructivist strategies enhances engagement, promotes deeper understanding, and nurtures intrinsic motivation to read.

As a future educator, I advocate for a balanced approach that employs explicit techniques to develop core literacy skills while incorporating constructivist principles to foster critical thinking and a love of reading. For example, explicit phonics lessons can be complemented with inquiry-based projects, student-led discussions, and authentic literacy tasks. This dual approach aligns with research findings suggesting that integrating direct instruction with student-centered exploration optimizes reading outcomes (National Reading Panel, 2000).

Implementing such a hybrid methodology addresses diverse student needs, promotes comprehension, and fosters lifelong literacy skills. Moreover, differentiated instruction can leverage this combination to support students across various ability levels, ensuring equitable access to reading achievement.

Conclusion

Both constructivist and explicit instruction approaches offer valuable strategies for teaching reading. While explicit instruction ensures foundational skill development through systematic methods, constructivist approaches cultivate critical thinking, motivation, and meaningful engagement with texts. Drawing from personal experience and current research, I support an integrated teaching model that synthesizes both methods to enhance literacy development effectively. As educators, our goal should be to adapt instructional strategies to meet individual learner needs, employing evidence-based practices to support all students in becoming confident, competent readers.

References

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
• Goodman, K. (1980). The reading process. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading in the content areas (pp. 99–118). Ashland Publishing.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.
• Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
• Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., & Pennington, C. (2011). Writing about reading: From theory to practice. Guilford Publications.
• Hiebert, E. H., & Reutzel, D. R. (2010). Teaching children to read: The role of active engagement. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 117-127.
• Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.
• Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). Guilford.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.