How often do teachers create common language when they thought they were constructing meaning?

The math teacher says, "Follow these steps", but the student doesn't understand why those steps are followed or in that sequence.

The science teacher says, "Know these parts of the cell, these parts of the atom, these equations", but the student doesn't understand how knowing those relates to the big picture of the world around us.

The english teacher says, "This is an adjective, this is punctuation, this is persuasive writing", but the student doesn't understand how knowing these helps in writing.

These teachers have all constructed common language, language that can be bubbled in on a standardized test, but there is no application, no meaning.

The teacher thinks they need to connect to the students.  So they somehow try to bridge the gap by understanding hip hop, texting, or My Space.  But this doesn't make a connection, it merely uses students' experiences to construct common language.

How then do students create common meaning?  How does the teacher show the math student that the sequence is only one type of problem solving, critical thinking, logic.  How does the teacher show the science student the connection that the atom, the cell, the formulas have for observing, analyzing, understanding the world around us, for applying prior knowledge in new and creative ways?  How does the teacher show the english student how this all comes together to prepare a great speech, to explain difficult science concepts, to describe a logical sequence, to poetically describe something beyond words?

Since when did analyzing the world around us, communicating to others, and thinking logically begin between four walls with a text book?  Does a carpenter learn by doing homework problems?  Does a great scientist learn about the universe from a classroom?  Does a great writer go to a classroom to compose?

Can we really construct meaning within a classroom?  Or does meaning happen intrinsically within ones own mind?  Does meaningful learning happen sequentially, or through reverse design, or both?
 ________________________________________________________________________________
Added--> "I was asked the other day to do a seminar at the Redmond office in regards to why I have such a high closing ratio and high quality of business. What you shared in this message is very similar to what I shared with the class. They can have a script or understand numbers but none of that means anything if they don’t feel and understand the big picture. The most important thing to do is to be able to transfer your feelings and experiences in a way so that the client can see the big picture. The same concept applies to leadership. A leader can lead and teach from a book, slide show or video but none of that means anything if the students are not able to feel and understand the big picture. A lot of that comes from sharing experiences that relate to the topic being discussed.
Little children respond and relate in a positive way to stories more than any other form of communication. And aren’t we as adults just grown children?" 

The above quote is from an email response from my dad.  Dad, I hope you don't mind I made this public as it answers what I was struggling with while connecting to the point Dr. Terry Deal and Dr. Patrick Faverty are making.

For the rest of you, let me give a brief background.  My father has been with the same company since I was a young boy.  At one point, he owned the record in the entire United States for this national company and has managed the states of Florida, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii and the province of British Columbia.  He is often requested as a key-note speaker at various regions throughout the nation.

As a highly successful business leader, he identifies the connection between successful leadership and stories.  This is exactly Dr. Deal and Dr. Faverty's point. 

Who doesn't listen closer and internalize better when they hear a story from a great story teller?  A story teller with drama, with charisma, with experience?

A former colleague of mine teaches his English students to "show me" don't "tell me".  Show me the picture, show me the passion, show me with words...don't tell me.  This is why my first blog began with a story.  We have lost the art of oral tradition in learning. 

Are we mass manufacturing children in education?  Have we lost the ability to take the time to intimately show the story?  In my first year of teaching, I took several students and a couple chaperones from Los Angeles camping to Joshua Tree National Park.  There, we showed them what we were learning in geology.  A favorite moment was when we were hiking and a student made us all stop and be silent.  Then after a few awkward seconds he said, "That is the first time I've ever heard quiet." 

Unfortunately, especially with today's economy, we do not have support or funding to do many of things we would like, so we resort to textbooks and the internet.  It's as if it's okay to mass produce cookie-cutter children. 

I have heard teachers refer to themselves as glorified babysitters.  Try this, I have.  It works.  Turn off the lights, put a flashlight on the ground in the middle of the room shining into the air and tell a story around the campfire.  You'll be amazed.