Constructivism

The integration of Web 2.0 tools for vocational training represents a significant pedagogical change in the learning process, so it is worth considering how this impacts on learning theory and the role of the education provider.

According to Prensky (2001, np), digital natives, that is, the generation who have grown up with the web, have developed brains that are ‘physiologically different’. He refers to evidence of neuroplasticity whereby the brain is constantly re-organising and evolving based on the inputs it receives. The evidence goes even further, suggesting that changes to the physical construction of the brain lead to psychological differences, meaning that the generation growing up in a digital culture ‘think differently’. Changes to their cognitive processes have lead them to develop ‘hypertext minds’ where thought structures are no longer linear and sequential, but now follow a parallel pattern of thought, much like the multi-tasking nature of the web.

When Prensky published these claims back in 2001, the web had been around for more than a decade, and since then, Web 2.0 tools have become firmly entrenched in the way we engage with the internet and each other for social interaction. Applying the same theory of neurobiological development to today’s learners would suggest that another new generation is emerging with a ‘different blend of cognitive skills’ than those of their predecessors, the digital natives. This Web 2.0 generation of natives may already be in vocational education, and if not, almost certainly will be over the next few years and education providers must be ready for them.   

Readiness requires an understanding of how digital natives assimilate knowledge as a result of their habitual use of Web 2.0 platforms, and then responding to their needs accordingly. In practice, that could mean dispensing with the traditional didactic methods of teaching, in favour of more appropriate methods that compliment the net generation’s desire for discovery, experimentation and collaboration. In essence, facilitating the integration of social and educational experiences, and providing the platforms for a learner driven process, regarded by many as a constructivist approach to learning.

Proponents of constructivism draw on the principles of key thinkers in education such as John Dewey, Maria Montessori and David Kolb. The theory revolves around the principle that knowledge is not out there waiting to be read and unquestionably accepted, it is what the learner constructs from their experiences. The learner plays an active role in the construction of knowledge as oppose to a passive acceptance of facts. Previous experiences provide the foundation to construct knowledge through discovery, experimentation and collaboration. As a consequence, the theory assumes that the learner will be self-directed, creative, and innovative; demanding higher-order thinking skills and metacognitive awareness. Glasersfeld (1989) informs that the responsibility for learning should reside increasingly with the learner; a view substantiated by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) who describe constructivist teaching methods as unguided methods of instruction. The outcome of this self-directed, unguided approach opens up the possibilities of learning extending beyond the classroom and into the learners social world where Web 2.0 tools are predominant.

However, in a vocational training environment, knowledge and understanding is usually built on a set of fundamental principles that define the content of the subject being studied.

That raises the question of how this foundational knowledge is to be constructed when the learner has very little to build upon. Mayer (2004, p14.) is sceptical of learning by discovery and ‘unstructured exploration’, proposed by supporters of absolute constructivism. Although he advocates the principle of constructivism, he states that it ‘may be best supported by methods of instruction that enable deep understanding of targeted concepts, principles, and strategies’. He challenges a constructivist teaching technique of pure discovery, suggesting that empirical data leans more towards a process of guided discovery instead. Kirschner et al. (2006) appear to concur with Mayer, by suggesting more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior knowledge.

Given the scepticism of constructivist learning theory in its purest form, perhaps the focus should not be on constructivism as a whole, but rather on a particular aspect of constructivism that appears consistent across the discourse, the experiential learning paradigm.

In the early 1970’s David Kolb and Ron Fry developed the Experiential Learning Model based on earlier work by Dewey, Lewin and Piaget. The model identified a learning process made up of four distinct elements; concrete experience, observation of and reflection on that experience, formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection, and testing the new concepts. This process would typically (but not necessarily) begin with the concrete experience and could be repeated over and over again, taking the learner on a perpetual journey of discovery and creating a dynamic learning experience. At the heart of this experience is the individual, in contrast to a didactic method of learning which revolves around the role of the teacher or instructor. Therefore emphasis must be placed on the attributes required by the individual and the resources and tools made available to them, in order for successful experiential learning to take place.

Kolb and Fry (1975) identifies these attributes, and proposes that the learner must:

1. be willing to be actively involved in the experience;
2. be able to reflect on the experience;
3. possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience;
4. possess decision making and problem solving skills in order to use the new ideas gained from the experience.

The first two attributes are very much within the control of the individual, assuming they are given a suitable environment in which to learn. However, citing Mayer (2003), Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich & Tenenbaum (2011, p3.) suggest that in order for meaningful learning to take place the individual must make sense of the material placed before them by ‘selecting relevant incoming information, organizing it in a coherent structure, and integrating it with other organized knowledge’. In other words, constructing new knowledge. Mayer (2004) concludes that this is where appropriate instructional methods must be used to promote such processes. Therefore, attributes three and four, may require considerable input by the instructor, if needed, and in doing so facilitating a meaningful learning experience. Imparting these thought processes has never been more important, given the amount and the accuracy of freely available information on the internet. It is estimated that the number of internet users has doubled over the last 5 years to over 2 billion, almost 33% of the worlds population (internetworldstats, 2011).  If these users have access to Web 2.0 tools, then it is likely that they will be actively sharing information in the public domain. Learners need to be able to locate, evaluate and integrate this information to form new knowledge in a constructivist approach to lifelong learning.

Ensuring that the learners possess the necessary skills to construct new knowledge is, according to Bauersfeld (1995) the role of the instructor, who will now have to adapt from being a teacher to facilitator of the Experiential Learning Methodology.

Reflections...

Do new generations of learners really think differently? – Have their cognitive skills adapted to Web 2.0 technology? – Thoughts on absolute constructivism or guided discovery? - Can Web 2.0 encourage reflection?