Confused Dichotomies: A Response to Ducharme, Earl, and Poplin

In their presentation of the constructivist view, DuCharme, Earl, and Poplin raise several good points, many of which I agree with wholeheartedly. They cite several authors who point out the importance of function and meaning to writing. Writing, by its very nature, is a communicative function and should be taught as such. We agree that developing fluency is important for the beginning writer and that emphasizing form will frustrate initial writing attempts. However, DuCharme, Earl, and Poplin draw a distinction between the reductionist view presented in my article and the constructivist model they claim I have omitted. This distinction is theirs, not mine. To the extent that constructivists, as well as reductionists, use col