XplanaZine

When it comes to learning theories and epistemologies, I think I’m a constructivist. Yes, that’s what I am — and about 99.9 % of all other people involved in online education. But what does being a constructivist actually mean?

Radical constructivism is what psychologist Ernst von Glaserfeld has characterized as a radical “theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an objective, ontological reality but exclusively an ordering and organization of a world constituted by our experience” (von Glasersfeld, 1984, p.24). What happens when you have limited experience? How does he account for the fact that people may have shared experiences, but they perceived them completely differently? It seems to me that there would be an utter and complete breakdown of communication. Would ANYONE have the same language? Would ALL language be a kind of Wittgensteinian “private language”? That’s what it sounds like to me.

Social constructivism is much more palatable for most people. It suggests that reality is an agreed-upon construct, gradually negotiated or mediated by a group. It has been explained by some that social constructivism “sees consensus between different subjects as the ultimate criterion to judge knowledge. ‘Truth’ or ‘reality’ will be accorded only to those constructions on which most people of a social group agree” (Heylighen, 1993p.2).

If I back up a minute and take a look at constructivism, I realize that constructivism doesn’t always work too well online. However, it certainly seems to at first – after all, the promise held out that meaning can be agreed upon by invoking collective experience, and establishing connections.

Invoking collective shared experience and establishing connections is often easier said than done. The e-learning space is often either too ambiguous or too rigid and overly defined. There can also be too much structure, or a lack of structure.

However, I still maintain that I’m a constructivist. I do think that people make meaning by means of connections, and we learn what is meaningful and what is NOT meaningful by means of social conventions.

I don’t think it is possible to take the cognitive out of the constructivist epistemology.

The cognitive (and connectionist) ideas of mind and meaning-making help explain why and how reality becomes constructed in the mind of the world.

I also like the notion that behaviorism can be employed. Perhaps I have fantasies of power. I love the idea that sensory - cognitive- behavior triggers exist in combinations of colors, images, sounds, etc. It starts sounding very science fiction — and, one can’t help but think of the various attempts to modify behavior. I enjoy thinking of fictional depictions — A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. Kafka does, too. (!) Of course, an online university is not a penal colony or a reform school — but I just love the possibilities. It would be nice to make an environment creates a “pleasure dome” effect — hmmm — wasn’t that what “virtual learning space” was supposed to be about? I remember the hype about being able to put on the “virtual reality glasses” and really get into the space.

I suspect we’re getting there when we start incorporating sims and “serious games” in online or hybrid classes. So far, I haven’t incorporated any in my classes, except I did make Tom Clancy’s “Splinter Cell” an option in one class.

Now, there’s more to the story. If I drill down, I think at heart, I’m a postmodernist and I love the notions of “meaning in flux” and that the world is a text to be deconstructed. Learning to “read” the world as a text — to decode the signs and messages in the signs / symbols / codes around us – is powerful stuff. It can even be dangerous in the wrong regime. In some countries you really dare not “read” political campaign posters, slogans, architecture, iconography, and artwork. In Turkmenistan, for example, it might be a bit dangerous to impute meaning to the monuments to the great leader, Turkmenbashi. (See “Monuments in Ashkabat” http://www.galenfrysinger.com/turkmenbashi.htm)

The pitfall with that approach is that students sometimes become upset or offended when their sacred cows get butchered. I remember some rather heated class discussions after looking at the images of femininity contained in Disney films.

I’d really like to dig into Edward Tolman’s work on rats and mazes and explore the dark side of operant conditioning. I’m also intrigued by “extreme conditioning.” This is probably wrong of me, but there you have it. I wonder if there is a particular icon on a computer screen that is UTTERLY irresistible, and one is incapable of not clicking. If so, I think that amazon.com has found it.

If operant conditioning works so well, does this mean that The Manchurian Candidate is true? Does it mean that such things happen every day? That’s a frightening possibility.

So – I guess that if I were to choose an epistemology, I’d still go with constructivism — mainly for the flexibility and the situated outcomes that can be tied to one’s real-life needs & interests; b) cognitive — for the “file cabinets” we can put in our minds for archiving and retrieving information; c) behaviorist — for reinforcing positive behaviors (and the still unrealized fantasy that some day I will be able to train myself to run on a treadmill / exercise wheel like a hamster and really like it).

Helpful References

Bruner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hanley, Susan (1994). On Constructivism. http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt

Honebein, P. (1996). Seven goals for the design of Constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson, Constructivist learning environments, pp. 17-24. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Simon. Herbert. (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality , 2 volumes.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick, The Invented Reality, (pp.17-40). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier, Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, (pp.3-17). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & N. Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education [Suppl.], (pp.162-163). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education, (pp.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995b). Sensory experience, abstraction, and teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education, (pp.369-384). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1996).Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, (pp.3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. B. (1913) “Psychology As the Behaviorist Views It” Psychology Review

Wilson, B. & Cole, P. (1991) A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47-64.

Wilson, B. (1997). The postmodern paradigm. In C. R. Dills and A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Also available at: http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/postmodern.html