510

One of the central theories that underpins contemporary models of education, and related curriculum designs, is “constructivism,” which, to oversimplify, typically refers to the notion that knowledge is not a given, that is “out there”, but represented in the mind, and it is created actively by the knower. Jonassen (1991) talks about constructivism as follows:

Constructivism, founded on Kantian beliefs, claims that reality is constructed by the knower based upon mental activity. Humans are perceivers and interpreters who construct their own reality through engaging in those mental activities…thinking is grounded in perception of physical and social experiences, which can only be comprehended by the mind. What the mind produces are mental models that explain to the knower what he or she has perceived…. We all conceive of the external reality somewhat differently, based on our unique set of experiences with the world and our beliefs about them. (p. 10)

Constructivism is a very important, and multi-faceted set of theories concerning how new knowledge is created, and the status of any understanding of a rationally determined, objective world of knowledge. Constructivism is probably the most prevalent philosophical orientation amongst Western, 21C educators, even if frequently our teaching practices and learning environments are more closely based on behaviorist learning principles, than constructivist ones.

The knowledge building construct is different from the current way we teach and assess in schools because it focuses on the advancement of knowledge built by the collective, not regurgitation of information by the individual. It is different from knowledge construction because the teacher acts as a participant, not an expert who guides or scaffolds the learning for the student. Knowledge building values “a desire to advance understanding rather than to display individual brilliance” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 8).
A design challenge for knowledge building would be to adapt the process for all ages and groups with high needs. Any program like Knowledge Forum would need to be accessible to these diverse groups but still seen as acceptable for everyone else. In terms of using knowledge building in the classroom, I think curriculum would need to be redesigned because the benefits of knowledge building wouldn’t be as effective if students only got to experience it in one classroom. Assessment would also have to change in order to adequately reflect the unique type of learning that knowledge building allows.

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say that the challenge for educational technology is to use it in a way that it remains student focused. In order to overcome this challenge, they suggest educators need to “ensure that contacts with outside sources grow out of the local knowledge-building discourse and that the obtained information is brought back into that discourse in ways consistent with the goals and plans of the local group.” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 9) However, I think another challenge would be guiding students to these outside sources who may or may not be available. I would also be concerned that this is a public forum and not all users may post respectful comments.

Another design challenge was that Knowledge Forum started fresh every year so the learners were reinventing knowledge instead of advancing it. However, the “BMC class of 2003 expressed the need to access to the 2002 database to build on previous ideas, to rise above what had been done before with the explicit goal of creating new ways of visually communicating complex medical information” (Lax et al., 2004, p. 6). The class of 2003 used various media to present their findings in innovative formats.

I’ve participated in Bible studies where the members build knowledge share multiple perspectives about a faith based topic. However, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say “In knowledge-building contexts, the focus is on problems rather than on categories of knowledge or on topics.” In the groups I mentioned, we didn’t usually focus on problems but themes. The projects I’ve participated in for the MET program build knowledge, distributed across a diverse group of learners, and is problem based. These projects also include expert feedback (from professors, in this case) which Lax et al. (2004) describe as being a component of Knowledge Forum.

In my educational setting discourse is teacher directed much like the “three-step unit” observed by Scardamalia & Bereiter (1994, p. 7). In order to shift to knowledge building discourse, students would have to be trained not to seek answers me. Parents would have to be briefed on why I wasn’t answering their children’s questions so that they understand I am in fact, doing my job. Students would need access to classroom conversations to allow them to mindfully reflect, participate after school, and give feedback to others. This would allow those who are more timid to share in a non threatening environment. Subject matter would need to be carefully selected in order to motivate students to participate. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say “What students find to be significant discourse – the kind they will get truly involved in, struggling for a turn to speak, actually listening to and responding to what others say – will often deal with issues closer to their personal lives than the issues arising from scholarly inquiry” (p. 7).

Specific affordances necessary to support knowledge building would be a central discussion board or forum where students can easily read and post about a certain topic without having to comment on multiple web pages. Participants would need to access a variety of resources to support their knowledge and a database to keep the information. The problem objective would need to be well defined so that everyone was clear on the collective goal.

Environments that ressemble knowledge building which I’ve personally participated in are online help forums, wikis, and google docs.

Lax, L., Taylor, I., Wilson-Pauwels, L., & Scardamalia, M. (2004). Dynamic curriculum design in Biomedical Communications: Integrating a knowledge building approach and a Knowledge Forum learning environment in a medical legal visualization course. The Journal of Biocommunication, 30(1), 1-10.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Educators’ time, teaching methods, creativity, etc. is limited because we have to cover so many learning outcomes. I often hear the curriculum being referred to as a mile wide and an inch deep. To learn without curriculum would mean restructuring the whole education system.

When planning a lesson, I start with the outcomes I am helping my students meet. Constructivist teaching methods or problem based learning takes time to plan and assess. Teachers have to spend time getting to know each student’s strengths and limitations in order to provide material within their zone of proximal development (Perkins, 1991 as cited in Driscoll, 2005). This limitation of constructivist teaching could be extended to assessment because it takes time to evaluate student progress.

To me, Papert’s (1980, p.31) comment that school can “infantilize the child” suggests that because the curriculum is so disjointed that we aren’t providing authentic learning contexts in school that our students will encounter in the real world. Not only would these contexts better prepare students for the future but they may serve as a motivation for learning. “Some children’s difficulties in learning formal subjects such as grammar or mathematics derive from their inability to see the point of such a style” (Papert, 1980, p. 27). Authentic or open learning allows students to pursue their talents and encourage multiple intelligences.

On the other hand, some teachers may benefit from having a curriculum because they need guidance on what students need to learn. For example, beginning teachers. A curriculum establishes trust between parents and educators because parents know that every child in grade three is learning the same outcomes.

The New London Group (1996, p.66) says,“as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life.” We need to prepare students for the changing workforce as companies take new approaches. For example, Google has a twenty percent time program. This means they can take 20% of their work week for special projects they want to pursue individually. Google says that they develop many of the ideas that come out of these projects. Could our students adapt to such a concept in their workplace? Does our curriculum take away our students’ abilities to think for themselves?

I agree with Papert when he says that there is a “conservative bias being built into the use of computers in education.” He goes on to say, “the idea of the computer as an instrument for drill and practice that appeals to teachers because it resembles traditional teaching methods also appeals to the engineers who design computer systems: Drill and practice applications are predictable, simple to describe, efficient in use of the machine’s resources” (p. 36). Therefore, designers and teachers need to think about how to create educational learning environments that are student centred.

Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 384-407; Ch. 11 – Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.  Harvard Educational Review. 66 (1), 60-92

Papert, S. (1980). Chapter 1: Computers and computer culture. In Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.