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, ...

1. 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

2. 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-

3. 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

4. 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,

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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:

10. {".-,
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-IIETEE:
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
Ethical Leadership in Business

11. In this paper, I will be discussing the importance of ethical
leaderships in business workplace because ethical leadership is
related to better organizational performance.
I will talk about what it takes to be ethical in the first
paragraph. Some ethical traits, such as justice, honesty, and
integrity, will be defined and justified as in how they would
produce positive impact in a business environment, to
organizations and to individuals. Then I will talk about how top
managers should integrate ethical decision-making into the
organizational culture and encourage the conduction of ethical
behaviors. The key is to inspire employees by presenting visible
actions and through communication, for example, building a
reward system that recognize and praise the use of ethical
behaviors, creating feedback surveys to ask about employees’
opinions on ethical issues in the workplace. Moreover, top
managers must develop their set of morals that contributes to
the persuasion of organizational goals and integrate these
morals into the code of conduct and the training and developing
sessions.
Bibliography
Lawton, A. & Páez, I. J Bus Ethics (2015) 130: 639.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2244-2
Linda, K. T., Laura, P. H., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person
and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for
ethical leadership. California Management Review, 42(4), 128-
142. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.auc.ca/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/doc
view/216131545?accountid=46683
McLachlan, J. A. (2009). The right choice: Making ethical
decisions on the job. Toronto: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

12. Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R. , Hartog, D. N. and Folger, R.
(2010), The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. J. Organiz. Behav., 31: 259-278.
doi:10.1002/job.627
Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A
Qualitative Investigation of Perceived Executive Ethical
Leadership: Perceptions from Inside and Outside the Executive
Suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5–37.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001448
Xu, A.J., Loi, R. & Ngo, H. J Bus Ethics (2016) 134: 493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2457-4
LEV VYGOTSKY
“The Mozart of Psychology” (1896 - 1934)
LEV VYGOTSKY
“The Mozart of Psychology” (1896 - 1934) Paradigm of
Constructivism…asserts that meaning is constructed by the
subject rather than the existing externally and waiting to be
discovered (Piaget, Brunner fellow theorists). ZPD - Zone of
Proximal Development…defines those functions that have yet
matured but are in the process of maturation, “buds that will
become fruits”. “The distance between actual developmental
level in independent problem solving….and the potential
development level via COLLABORATION.

13. LEV VYGOTSKY
“The Mozart of Psychology” (1896 - 1934)
“Vygotsky was a genius. After more than half of century in
science I am unable to name another person who even
approaches his incredible analytical ability and foresight in
psychological construction theory” - Alexander Lurra
“The Little Professor”! Nickname at age 17, - University of
Moscow.
Ten Classroom Strategies which promote Collaborative
Learning
Rationale: Research-based conceptual understanding of
language functions, discourse
and pragmatics can be applied directly to instruction. Materials
and curriculum reflect
the specific linguistic and socio-linguistic challenges of
learners that affect second
language development, as well as group dynamics and strategic
pairings in the
classroom.
1.0 Tap prior knowledge of students to engage everyone with
meaningful
instruction. Brainstorming and scaffolded instruction engage
learners from the start
to finish of each lesson. Checking frequently for comprehension
facilitates the
completion of each task, as input is monitored by the instructor.
Consider cultural
connections and implement culturally responsive curriculum to
connect to English
Learners.
2.0 Strategic pairings. Implement strategic pairings, with mixed
levels - intermediate
level students with higher level students, for example, using
Vygotsky’s zone of

14. proximal development theory. (ZPD) Tasks should challenge
both partners, yet be
within a comfort learning zone. The partners abilities should not
reflect a wide gap of
academic levels or language proficiencies. Implement peer
tutoring for most effective
results in which both students gain- the tutor gains confidence
and competence in
explaining to another student, the lower level student gains
confidence and competence
in improving language ability with the help of a peer. Triods
and heterogeneous groups
of four or five are also effective means to complete and practice
language tasks.
3.0 Process AND Product—Value the process of Interaction,
allowing
ample time for practice, oral production, and mistakes along the
way. Reference 4.0
listing tools to promote fluent and cohesive discourse.
Students are motivated to work toward a final product (clearly
defined outcome) and
interactive tasks provide a meaningful venue to practice
authentic language. Respecting
and promoting the “process” in achieving the outcome builds
confidence in students as
well as retention of language structures.
4.0 Varied instruction and modalities reaches ALL students.
Multiple Intelligence
tasks (Gardner) offer various ways to reinforce and practice
language structures. Art,
music, and problem solving are examples which utilize all the
four domains in a varied
approach that reaches across levels to all students. Incorporate
varied tasks to build
competence and retention.
5.0 Give students tools for oral production and promote active

15. participation:
(e.g., ability to engage in oral and written discourse that is
fluent, coherent and
cohesive). I implemented these fluency builders to bridge the
gap in my Cambridge
University curriculum in 2000 and have used them ever since;
different answer.”
“Well… Let’s see…”
-Taking ..“How about you?”
6.0 Feedback is the key. Recognize the need for assessing
English language and
literacy developmental levels of students, monitor progress and
provide both authentic
and summative evaluation. Coming in at the right times to offer
feedback is key in the
collaborative process. “Leading from Behind” role of the
teacher is powerful
7.0 Utilize assessment information to identify effective
strategies to promote
language development, communicative competence and
academic achievement. Creating
Rubrics, Checklists, and Student Self-evaluative forms are ways
to monitor
improvement and keep the I + 1 level in check (Krashen). Tasks
should reflect input of
current language level plus one level beyond, realizing that
input and output are
constantly in flux. A good teacher reacts and responds to flux.
8.0 Establish Roles in Group work. The following roles are
effective in my classes variations
you come up with would work well also:

16. -Keeper/Task-Keeper
9.0 Demonstrate an understanding of affective factors in
language development (i.e.,
motivation, attitudes, anxiety and self-esteem); create tasks to
build confidence in all
four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing.
10.0 Culturally responsive tasks promote a positive and
meaningful language
environment. Refer to my folk-tale multi-cultural lesson plan,
nutrition, and Pepsi
advertisement lesson plan.
Additional Lecture notes and Demonstration, Campus Class for
visiting
Brazilian Teachers:
SCAFFOLDING the lesson plan, KWLH Chart and
Collaboration
Refer to weather and solar system lesson plans
Before students begin reading, introduce the title or topic, some
key words
associated with it. Elicit any background knowledge from
students.
Try the brainstorm I introduced-share with partner and then
group.
1. Consider what you already know on the topic and fill it in the
“K” column…
“WHAT DO I ALREADY KNOW?”
2.Think about WHAT you would like to know or learn about
this topic and
fill in those questions… “WHAT DO I WANT TO KNOW?”
3. Upon completing the reading or task, fill in information
under “L” and
“H”.. “WHAT did I learn and HOW did I learn it?”