For our activity this week, we were assigned the first eight chapters of Martin Weller’s book 25 Years of Ed Tech, which discusses the history of ed-tech across higher education since 1994. Each chapter sheds light on a particular technology, theory, or concept that has impacted each year from the proposed beginning up until present day. Chapter 1 through 8 touches on topics ranging from Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) to Constructivism to E-learning standards. All eight chapters were very insightful and presented a plethora of information, most of which was utterly foreign to me. However, it was Weller’s Chapter 4 1997 on Constructivism, which is not a technology, nor a pedagogy, but a learning theory that was particularly fascinating to me. Here’s why…
When I think back to 1997, I am flooded with thoughts, inflamed by a vivid imagination and having watched too many sci-fi movies, about how technology would irrevocably change the world. Regrettably, now in 2021, I am still waiting on my hover skateboard, like the one from “Back to the Future II“. The problem lies in the common misconception that innovations once realized (whether in the form of tools or ideas) will work for everyone in every situation.
In the 1990s, with the introduction of the web, educators sought an alternative to Instructivist, lecture-based teaching models due to the technological limitations of that time. Constructivist theory, developed in the 1960s from a synthesis of Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives, was adopted as a ‘solution’ to compensate for these limitations, which subsequently sparked a broader progressive education movement. A teacher went from being a “sage on the stage” (a person who teaches) to a “guide on the side” (a facilitator of learning) with their primary responsibility to create an interactive and collaborative setting where learners sat at the center of the knowledge sharing and construction process (Weller, 2020, p. 29). It is therefore not hard to see the attraction of this theory in an online learning context as “the web gave agency to learners — they could create, collaborate, and discover for themselves, freed from the conventions of time and distance.” (Weller, 2020, p. 29).
Yet, Weller cautions that this constructivist approach was in some cases an excuse for poor online course design: grounds for educators to remove themselves from the content creation process, because as Weller mentions, in Constructivism, knowledge is not acquired until one reflects upon and creates meaning from their experience, for only then can they come to understand the world around them. Conventional teaching practices (e.g., developing learning materials, reviewing lecture notes, anticipating questions and formulating answers, and preparing for examinations) may no longer seem appropriate under the principles of Constructivism. A dichotomy therefore emerges between the magic-bullet (Constructivism) and the old-fashioned Instructivist approaches that were now deemed wrong. But, it doesn’t have to be this way.
After reflecting on 10 years of experience as an ESL instructor in conjunction with the learnings from this chapter, I believe Constructivism may be too broad to be of use in all teaching situations. I understand there can never be one overarching theoretical framework that accounts for how people learn in all contexts. How we learn depends on multiple interacting factors that defy any one-size-fits-all solution. Yet, it appears we are continuously trying to find a simple solution to teaching and learning problems with emerging fads. As there appears to be no one evidence-backed method that dominates, for educators to make informed instructional choices, I argue one should be aware of both the hugely promoted strengths as well as the under-acknowledged limitations. And, instead of viewing something as good or bad, we should be asking, “In what situation is this appropriate?” and “What kind of learning is likely to result?”. For, even though some approaches are more likely to succeed than others, they all have their limitations.
What do you think? Has teaching and learning become lost in a sea of educational trends? If so, how did it get this way? Or, more importantly, is there something that can be done to stop it?
References
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. AU Press, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
Sage on the stage! That resonated with me as well. When I heard that I was walking along the seawall, thinking about how this MALAT journey has changed how I view education and the fact that I find myself thrust mid-career into on online learning environment. If I look way way back to when I was studying Kinesiology and Fine Art for my undergraduate, the times I learned the most were when I was working with others in a lab or a small class situation. The 400 people lectures were the ones I found the most challenging. There needs to be much more hybrid learning in traditional university settings. Sage on the stage is great sometimes but we can learn so much more when we have some PBL and peer work reflection. In our readings from LRNT 521 unit 2, we read about time being the costliest thing to mitigate for universities, and that sometimes teachers understanding of learning can be the biggest barrier.
I couldn’t agree more, Sam! This makes me think of an article I read in LRNT 522 about a university in Sri Lanka and their desire for an OER-based blended learning environment. The author of this article stated that conventional teaching practices were no longer appropriate with the learners’ current association with technology in the 21st century. However, due to the reluctance of teachers to use novel approaches in course delivery (since both learners and teachers do not like drastic changes in teaching and learning), change was incredibly slow. I think you’re right, “sometimes teachers’ understanding of learning can be the biggest barrier” as they tend to model their teaching style on the way they were taught. Maybe learning how to teach the students we have and not the students we want can be an eye-opener! By the way, I appreciate your first-hand testimony on Problem Based Learning (PBL). Sadly, I didn’t experience any PBL in my undergraduate studies. I guess I had to wait until my first teaching job to experience its power. And let me just say boy, did I learn fast that year!