Thoughts on why we teach English and Constructivism

I recently read an article that was about the changing definitions and additions of words to various dictionaries(i.e. ‘twerking,’ ‘emojis,’ and new uses of ‘literally’).  The writer and people reposting the article were bemoaning how this denigration signified the fall of the English language….literally, that’s what they were saying. 

As an English major, and future English teacher, I always find this attitude amusing.  There’s an assumption about our field pertaining to the sacredness of language and literature and an emphasis on the immutability of grammar, spelling, and the literary canon. 

What if we believe that all these things can and should be called into question?  The rote memorization of spelling bees seems nonsensical with modern technology.  When teaching grammar and literature there is always the dilemma of imposition and appropriateness: whose grammar/literature is being taught and why does it dominate the classroom?  However, it seems there is almost a fear that these entities must remain intact and essential or the entire field will collapse into itself. 

So if I do not believe I’m teaching English for grammar, spelling, or even specific literature, what am I teaching?...Or as Sarah posed this topic on the first day of class: “why teach English?”

An answer which I’ve been considering recently is discourse.  We need to help students to have access to the diverse discourses that make up and influence the world they are in.  Informing students on interpreting and appropriating the critical discourses in the world around them is an essential skill that would I believe empower students.  The content, therefore, would be secondary to the choice and affect(on the individual and society) of the language it contains.

Peter Smagorinsky seems to support the teaching of skill over set interpretation: the conversation is framed as transmission(authoritative teaching) or construction of knowledge.  Constructivist teaching is clearly a preferred method over what is sometimes termed a ‘banking method,’ where dead information is passed onto waiting students.  In the constructivist framework the teacher’s role is co-constructing by providing a framework, or scaffold, for the students’ growth.  The question that continues to trouble me with this method, and it is addressed in the chapter, is that the scaffold is still then limiting in someway: forcing some predefined interpretation and endpoint.  As Smagorinsky explains in the second chapter, “it’s clear that the teacher is imposing a value on students; that is, the teacher is specifying a stance toward literature and procedures for taking that stance.  Some critics would accuse her of being hegemonic here by imposing her view of literature on students”(25).  I understand from a practical standpoint why this is necessary and that it is being carried out fully with the students’ interest at heart, however, I am not sure I am comfortable with this notion from a theoretical perspective and I continue to be baffled by how to align that with my future career.