My initial research focused on social constructivist pedagogy which involves group work, interaction and discussion with peers. These interactions and group work are executed by the instructor as she adjusts how she teaches rather than what she teaches and students become active participants rather than passive participants (Chandler, & Teckchandani, 2015). In an academic setting, social constructivist pedagogy is exhibited through the instructor organizing the activities and facilitating discussions with students. According to Chandler, & Teckchandani (2015), the instructor is not the sole distributor of knowledge and learning is not a one-sided download of information where the teacher provides all the content for the students. Learning and the construction of knowledge becomes the responsibility of the team and each individual is tasked with co-creating knowledge. The co-creation of knowledge by a community of students working together defines the social constructivist pedagogy.
Social constructivist pedagogy is centered on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of learning. Phillips, Sheffield, Moore & Robinson (2016), asserted that learning is a social activity which occurs through group discourse and emphasis is placed on group work created by all participants. According to Vygotsky students can advance their learning through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which he conceptualized as “the distance between a person’s cognitive development level as determined by independent learning and the level of potential cognitive development as determined through collaboration with peers …. ZPD includes a variety of cognitive operations that a person cannot achieve independently, only with assistance from others” (Barak, 2017, p. 285). Therefore, ZPD focuses on the concept that a student’s cognitive development increases with peer collaboration as other perspectives are shared within the group. It also reinforces the notion that non-collaborative independent studies have the potential to limit cognitive development as the student does not have the opportunity for discourse with others and knowledge in this environment occurs in isolation. In addition, Vygotsky purported that in order for collaboration to excel, each group should consist of individuals who are more capable then other group members or who are subject matter experts on the topic (Vygotsky ,1978, as cited in Phillips, Sheffield, Moore & Robinson, 2016). Not only can subject matter experts provide guidance and answers for the group, but also this individual can be a mentor and leader to the group. The role of the instructor is to provide the opportunity for learning, the leader provides insight and direction and the team co-creates their knowledge within a community of practice.
In an academic setting, teams can be organized by the instructor to ensure a zone of proximal development for all participants, however, in a corporate learning environment the instructor may not have an existing relationship with the participants to know their strengths and areas of growth. Groups may be formed without an understanding of who has exposure or experience as the subject matter expert. Therefore, in a corporate learning environment, I see the value of creating team agreements. These agreements provide opportunities for discussion to highlight each team member’s interests, capabilities and strengths which in turn is the first step in designing a community of practice to build an environment that is founded on the co-creation of knowledge.
References
Barak, M. (2017). Science Teacher Education in the Twenty-First Century: a Pedagogical Framework for Technology-Integrated Social Constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Chandler, J. D., & Teckchandani, A. (2015). Using Social Constructivist Pedagogy to Implement Liberal Learning in Business Education. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 13(3), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12073
Phillips, Alana S., Anneliese Sheffield, Michelle Moore, and Heather A. Robinson. 2016. “An Online Social Constructivist Course: Toward a Framework for Usability Evaluations.” Quarterly Review of Distance Education 17(1):1–10. Retrieved from https://royalroads.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7132229715
May 25, 2020 at 11:05 am
As you’ve probably experienced yourself more than once, teamwork to support social constructivist pedagogy can become very complex as many dimensions come into play. The range can include such issues as:
– From similar or different professional fields
– Work and home commitments and scheduling preferences
– Topics individuals wish to explore
– Mix of skills and knowledge needed to produce a team project
– Preferred team management styles – loose and free-form to highly structured
– Different locations/time zones
– Positive, less than positive histories of working together
– And so on…
There are many different ways to deal with team issues and in the end, while these and other issues may come into play, the primary issue is the desired learning processes and outcomes, including the learning that occurs with being a team member. It’s an imperfect process, and in both workplace and formal educational environments, ideally there is scaffolding in place to support teamwork as a learning experience in its own right. In general it’s a pretty critical skillset in all areas of life.
May 29, 2020 at 11:39 am
Hi Caroline,
You’ve brought up some really interesting points! I often struggle with how to embed social constructivist pedagogy into designing one off training sessions. While I think it’s a good approach, especially when attendees don’t know each other and/or they come into the session with varying degrees of knowledge, the lack of time and one off training without follow up have been big challenges for me. Have you been able to try out team agreements with staff from your municipality? If so, how were they received?
At the beginning of COVID-19, my organization decided to set up weekly virtual meetings to cultivate virtual communities of practice groups. With information and news moving so quickly, there was a huge need for space to share information and ask questions. Since our members have varying issues that take place, we’ve developed three groups based on population sizes to help bring together those who work in similar environments. I wonder if creating something like this within your municipality might support relationship building outside of training events so that it can pave the way for social constructivist pedagogy to be weaved into corporate learning environments?
Thanks for sharing!
Eunice
June 1, 2020 at 9:57 am
Hi Eunice
Thank you for your comments. I have tried out team agreements. Initially, participants are hesitant and then once they realize the purpose they become more open to this format. When teaching adults, it is really about making them comfortable to learn and letting them know what to expect. Oh and of course keeping them engaged. Particularly because some participants are ‘sent’ to learning events and truly are not engaged in the content of the event.
Yes, community of practice certainly does build relationships. COVID-19 has changed the landscape of today and tomorrow. Staff are learning to welcome zoom meetings and we have introduced Moodle and podcasts (thanks to Kathy Moore’s subject of critical inquiry) 🙂 Baby steps when it comes to change and ensuring participants receive support and guidance along the way.
Caroline
May 31, 2020 at 11:44 am
Hi Caroline,
Very interesting. I agree that team agreements can support social constructivist pedagogy for all the reasons you mentioned. That said, I would have expected that corporate trainers are at least equally equipped to organize teams to encourage a zone of proximal development (ZPD) as instructors are, so long as the familiarity with the learners is held constant. In other words, the team agreement would be a beneficial support in all cases – academic or corporate – where the team is not well known to the teacher. Is this consistent with your experience and readings? Or is there some evidence to suggest that professors/teachers in an academic setting are more skilled at effectively organizing for ZPD?
So interesting! Looking forward to hearing more.
Warm regards,
Terra
June 1, 2020 at 10:12 am
Hi Terra
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your perspective. As a facilitator in a municipality, it is possible to organize teams to encourage a zone of proximal development. The challenge I have is that I do not work with a consistent group of individuals. We have 600 full time and 400 part time/temporary employees. I develop and facilitate learning or I contact a third party to help with the facilitation. Sometimes I walk into a classroom, and only somewhat know 10 people of the 25 who are attending the event. Team agreements work in this environment to lessen the anxiety participants feel at a learning event. In my previous life (as I call it) I facilitated learning to staff in a law firm. I knew the participants and everyone had some form of education. They were comfortable being the consumer of education. What I have found, and based only on my experience and not on evidence, is that if employees are not comfortable being consumers of education, they do not come to the table engaged and ready to learn. Team agreements and engaging activities that do not reflect abilities are a starting point in my current world.
Caroline