As I continue researching the constructivist approach to teaching (including the article for 21st Century) I am finding more helpful information and ideas. I don't think any of us thrive as passive learners. I think we learn the most from our actions. Especially when they turn into mistakes! I read that the average attention span, once someone has sat down in a lecture type setting, is 7 minutes. Then the mind begins to wander and turn off. 7 minutes!!! The research says that at the very least, after 7-10 minutes you should have the audience/students find a friend and share something they've learned. Anyway, back to finding something in the article I can/will/do use. I think I am extremely constructivist in my homework. Usually I have the students construct their own homework based on mistakes they made/are continually making, or based on something that intrests them. Also, I often have students write 10-20 question using the new vocabulary in open ended questions (no yes/no answers) then trade with a good friend. The homework is then to answer those questions in complete sentences. They suddendly become more invested in answering the questions and tend to anwer in more detail (hence using more Spanish!) You gotta love that!

Throughout our department we have been discussing the constructivist classroom and what that looks like. Most of us have the idea that in a constructivist classroom students are autonomous learners that "discover" all of the essential learnings. Where the teacher is only a facilitator. In some reguards, this is true. However, the more that I research the constructivist classroom, the more I am finding that it really is just "good teaching". I feel that although most articles on constructivist teaching state that the teacher is a facilitator, they continue to add that our role is much more. Even when we use direct teaching to give them essential facts or information, we need to then give the students an opportunity to digest, disect, use, analyze and internalize that information to create connections and meaning. Again, this is just good teaching and always has been. I liked this quote I found from one of the articles I recently read on the constructivist classroom:
"Constructivist classrooms are structured so that learners are immersed in experiences within which they may engage in meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal reflection," Audrey Gray.

So, I think I may have answered my own question, "Is there a place for "rote" learning". I have been researching the constructivist approach to teaching and have been finding some thought provoking things for me to think about, ponder and hopefully use to integrate new teaching methodologies/lessons into my classroom. Here are some of my findings:

1. "We have at least two different types of memory: a spatial memory system, and a set of systems for rote learning" (p. 85). Teaching that heavily emphasizes rote learning does not promote spatial, experienced learning and can inhibit understanding.
2. "The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously" (p. 83). People have difficulty learning when either parts or wholes are overlooked.
3."Emotions are critical to patterning" (p. 82). Learning is influenced by emotions, feelings, and attitudes.
There were more at this web site and others, but for some reason, these three struck a cord with me. Do I incorporate spatial and rote memory? Parts and the whole simultaneously? And am I promoting emotions and attitudes that drive students to critical thinking and the motivation to learn in my class?
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3const.htm

This week in the Critical Thinking PLC we decided to look at education throughout the world, consentrating on those countries that are the highest achieving. I thought that it might be interesting to get some of your feedback on some of the things I found. I'm not sure if any/all of these facts I found are relavant individually or not, but it is definitely some food for thought. These are some factors that I found to be true in Sweden, Norway, and France, some of the highest achieving countries in language, math, and physics.
1. Average paid maternity leave 1 year
2. Average age to start school 61/2 years old.
3. No school affiliated athletics. (although almost 60% do club athletics)
4. Second language stared first year of primary school, third language started in about 4th grade, the 4th language often starts after compuls0ry school (grade 9).
5.School is only required until age 15 (10 years of school required on average).
6. At the age of 14 the students decide which field they would like to study and schools becomes specialized (there are even sports schools).
7. Almost no students have jobs or cars.

Anyone have any great insights or comments?

Take 5: I would like to get into learning and discussing the constructivist approach in our 20th century cohert. I want to start integrating more activities using this approach/methodology. I have a great deal of questions. Many of my lessons lend themselves well to this approach and I have had an abundance of success having the students truly "create" their learning. However, there are some areas of my content in which I seem to greatly struggle with how to use this approach (for example an extremely confusing new grammar point). At some point, I feel like a direct instruction (even if only for a few minutes) is essential. Do I just have enormous growth ahead of me, or are there times for direct instruction?