Constructing a Constructivist Context

Micah has written about the link between synchronous e-learning and constructivism. In my last post, I suggested that educators need to create structures which ensure that asynchronous learning adheres to social constructivism. In this post, I’d like to define more clearly social constructivism and discuss how it relates to the construction or design of e-learning.

Ernest suggests that social constructivism ‘posits that human agreement is the ultimate arbiter of what counts as justified knowledge.’ So then, social constructivism goes beyond mere cognitive constructivism in the sense that new knowledge is created and agreed upon by the community. So perhaps we can consider again Micah’s comment on the object sorting activity in his last post where he suggests that ‘students not only work with their peers, they also listen and learn from them’. Do the students agree upon the new knowledge? Implicitly, they probably do. But, to what extent does the facilitator need to ask questions that help students come to agreement on new, constructed knowledge? My guess is that agreement on new knowledge – with some level of sophistication – is more likely to happen naturally as students get older, though it cannot be a given.

Let me use blogging as an example. Students in my History class may each write their own blogs about particular historical issues (let’s say social life in Nazi Germany). Students may read each other’s blogs and find themselves thinking about new ideas. Indeed, they may even leave comments and influence each other’s thinking through debate. But have they agreed upon new knowledge?

My intuition tells me that: 1) students almost certainly construct their own new knowledge; 2) will often, implicitly, agree upon this new knowledge; 3) will rarely reflect that they have, together, constructed new knowledge without the guidance of an educator.

This guidance could manifest in a variety of ways. It may be through carefully structured questions, or it could be through careful development of learning activity guidelines and it should involve careful consideration of how the technology can be used to gain the desired results. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) put this another way, suggesting that a ‘system framework, an e-learning “ecosystem,” must be developed that specifies the learning system architecture for pedagogical development’ and that this “ecosystem” ‘must allow flexible, learner-centered education’.

Furthermore, Matt Rota writes that ‘highly effective asynchronous eLearning begins with understanding the roles that fall into the realm of the eLearning instructional design process’. Thus it would seem that the role of the educator is paramount to ensuring effective learning takes place in an asynchronous environment. Indeed, it would appear that constructivism does not have a ‘mind of its own’ but needs to be expertly manipulated.

Increasingly, it seems to me that a truly rich learning experience online will require a combination of synchronous and asynchronous activities. Certainly, I’m not convinced that asynchronous learning on its own provides enough opportunities to allow for shared, agreed upon, newly-constructed knowledge. Muniz-Solari and Coats (2009) affirm this when they write: ‘A need exists to incorporate real-time synchronous technologies for text, visual, and audio communication.’ Specifically, in relation to the “togetherness” of the learning experience, it may be argued that synchronous technologies work to enhance students’ sense of belonging to what may actually be deemed as a learning community (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). 

I wonder what the experiences of others have been in relation to e-learning and social constructivism. Have you found that synchronous technologies have contributed to a sense of community – learning from and with each other?

Philosophy, Constructivism And Asynchronous E-Learning: Part II

While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.

  Philosophy of Self and Other

Philosopher Paul Ricoeur, ‘consistently asserts the relational and dialogical nature of human existence, he rejects the fantasy of individual self-sufficiency in an acknowledgement of the realities of human interdependence’ (O’Dwyer, 2009). For Ricoeur, this dialectic between self and the other is fundamental to individual identity (thus, one is not more important than the other). In fact, in the introduction to his book, Oneself as Another, Ricoeur (1994) states that otherness ‘is not (or not merely) the result of comparison...[but] can be constitutive of selfhood’. Thus, he presents a critique of the common construction of a dichotomous relationship between self and other, which can be seen in, for example, Hegel’s master-slave dialectic or Levinas’ assertion that self can ‘can only exist in a meaningful way when it “answers” to the call of the other’ (O’Dwyer, 2009).  Contrary to these polarised perspectives that require comparison and difference to be realised, Ricoeur (1994), believes that ‘selfhood of oneself implies otherness to such an intimate degree that one cannot be thought of without the other’ (emphasis mine).

Creating the social constructivist learning environment

If we are to accept Ricoeur’s conception of selfhood (which, indeed, we may not!), then we can begin to see why it is that not only is engagement with the other a vital aspect of the learning experience, but more importantly, willing encounter with the other. Thus, there is a “moral” aspect to the way in which we construct learning environments that can impact on the way our students conceive of themselves as individuals and/or as part of a community. Asynchronous e-learning provides greater opportunities for individualistic approaches to, and experiences of, learning. Yet, at this point, I need to make clear that I would not argue that asynchronous e-learning is individualistic in essence. I would merely put forward the view that there is not the constructivist philosophy built into its “DNA” as there may well be in the case of synchronous e-learning.  But the point is, then, that educators need to take greater care to consider this when setting guidelines in asynchronous e-learning to ensure a positive, constructivist environment.

Philosophy, Constructivism And Asynchronous E-Learning

Introduction

Micah makes the very interesting point that a ‘synchronous e-learning classroom is a constructivist classroom.’ Indeed, he suggests that synchronous learning does not merely employ the ideas and strategies of constructivism, but actually is, in essence, constructivist. This is, perhaps, the key point of difference between synchronous and asynchronous e-learning.

Firstly, we need to be clear that there are two related, but importantly different strands of constructivism: social and cognitive. While I would argue that asynchronous has no problems in adopting a cognitive constructivist approach, there may be more difficulty in creating a social constructivist environment. For the purpose of this post, I am interested in social constructivism and this is what is meant by the phrase “constructivism” from here on. Finally, I am assuming the acceptance of constructivism as a desired educational philosophy. The debate over whether it is in actual fact desirable will come later.

Individualism and Asynchronous e-Learning

 There is the possibility for asynchronous e-learning to follow constructivist ideas. For example, a blog allows students to create knowledge together. However there is, inherent to asynchronous e-learning, the option to ignore the ‘Other’. Whereas synchronous e-learning is fundamentally communitarian, asynchronous e-learning provides for – perhaps even supports – the primacy of the individual over the community. In a world where the message conveyed is so often “it’s all about me”, we as educators may need to be careful that we do not unnecessarily or, indeed, unwittingly contribute to this.

Marketing professor at Monash University, Michael Morrison, is quoted by Rebecca Martin as saying that ‘While there's something like 15 million iPods out there, not one of them are the same. The iPod carries “my music”, it is “my space”’. In an asynchronous world, this customisation becomes possible. And customisation, of course, gives extraordinary power to the creator/host. I can choose to block people from being able to comment on my blog, or I can moderate comments or I can make it a “closed” site altogether. If this kind of becomes normative, it severely diminishes one’s understanding of, and commitment to, community. While we are indeed individuals, we exist as part of a society and, thus, other people, it could be argued, are integral to our own “journeys” and sense of self.

I will post again tomorrow, focusing on the relationship between the self and the 'other' and creating a social constructivist learning environment.