ETEC 530: Constructivism Strategies for E-Learning

 

For this assignment I research and designed a workshop curriculum centred around the phenomenon of communities of practice (aka ‘semiotic domains’ or ba). Check out the workshop website for further information.

Welcome

Welcome to my Research Café: Art as Constructivist Learning / Constructivist Learning as Art. Below, I’ve covered a few housekeeping related topics to get you started.

Navigation:

The easiest way to navigate through this Café is using the links listed in the top-left side of this screen. If you can’t see them, just click the three lines hamburger button ☰ and they will display.

Pages:

I have broken out the content of the Café into separate Pages. Navigate to the Pages link to see a list of the three subtopic pages:

1. Introduction & Overview

An introduction and overview that provides insight and sets the groundwork for what this Research Café is all about.

2. Reading(s) & Resources

Here you will find a list of the various readings I’ve collected and reviewed in preparation of this Resource Café. The readings are split up into different categories, with requirements indicated. I’ve also included a brief description of each to help you navigate through them.

3. Activities

On the Activities page, you will find a clear list detailing what is required of you in this Research Café.

Discussion Forum:

All participation in the Café will be shared/documented as posts and responses within the Discussion forum. There is only one Discussion forum for the Café, but as you will see, there are multiple ways to participate within it.

Questions / Comments / Contact:

If you have any questions or comments for me, you can either send me a private message through Canvas, or, feel free to post it in the Discussion forum if you feel comfortable doing so and think the answer would benefit everyone. I will be monitoring Canvas and the Discussion forum multiple times per day throughout the week and will respond as quickly as I can. I will also be participating regularly in the Discussion forum.

Etiquette:

Keep it casual. The design of this Café was intended to be fun and participatory, both within the Discussion forum in Canvas, and with the participants and their creative activity outside of the digital realm/Canvas. I am a social person, social constructivism is a key theme of this Café, and learning socially can make for a fun time. So feel free to use the Discussion forum in ways that are both academic in nature, as well as casual or conversational. That doesn’t mean that some posts must be academic, and some conversational (though if that’s what you want to do, that’s okay too), but do feel free to explore more open and relaxed forms of communication, shorter conversational responses as appropriate, or stream of consciousness styles of response.

Introduction & Overview

Key Words / Themes:

• Participation / Participatory Art
• Collaboration
• Social Constructivism
• Situated Learning
• Conceptual Art
• Relational Aesthetics

Art as Constructivist Learning / Constructivist Learning as Art:

This Research Café serves as an exploration in creative and experimental ways of teaching that are participatory in nature and informed by both cognitive and social constructivist principles. In this Café, we will look at examples of how studio arts education lends itself to constructivism (see the Pre-Readings listed on the Reading(s) & Resources page) but we will also see how constructivist-informed pedagogical practices themselves can be art. When I say this, I don’t mean that teaching is an art, I mean that a social project/activity/event of participants working together can itself be an artwork. A teacher may act as the facilitator, the students may participate at different levels, but the whole of the experience can be a collaborative work of art. Although it may often be the case, there is no requirement that art making results in an object. In fact, the most important element of conceptual art is the idea. Art can be ephemeral – it can be an experience, a process, or an event.

Art as an Idea

To help shift your thinking toward conceptual art, specifically, conceptual art that instigates action and provokes participation, I’ve listed just a couple examples of famous artworks where the core of the work is rooted in its concept. It is true that for each of these examples, something physical remains (e.g., a by-product, an instruction, documentation), but the part that most people might point to as the ‘art,’ either does not remain as its existence was ephemeral, or takes different forms depending on the participants involved.

• Sol Lewitt – Drawing Instructions

Lewitt is known for his giant, colourful and geometric wall murals – but did you know that many of these murals are actually by-products of Lewitt’s work? The actual ‘art’ is a set of instructions for the ‘drawings’. To display the work, galleries must first to create it by following Lewitt’s instructions.

Image of a wall drawing instruction for Boston Museum from: https://improvisedlife.com/2015/08/10/learning-stealing-sol-lewitt/

• Allan Kaprow – Happenings

Happenings were ephemeral events facilitated by Allan Kaprow. People could not attend to view the artwork, instead they were required to attend to participate in the work. The participants were seen as key elements in the creation of the artwork. Without them the artwork would not take form – it would not exist.

Image of one of Kaprow’s Happenings titled Fluids from: https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/happening-happenings-performance-art

Pedagogy as Art

In this Research Café we will be taking a closer look at the work of Portland, OR based artist Harrell Fletcher. Much of Fletcher’s work as an artist is social in nature, and may be described as being part of relational aesthetics, an art movement that has the “tendency to make art based on, or inspired by, human relations and their social context” (Tate). Fletcher also founded and heads the Art + Social Practice, Master of Fine Arts Program at Portland State University.

The required reading (see the Reading(s) & Resources page) is a transcribed conversation between Fletcher and collaborator artist Lisa Jarrett about their project, KSMoCA (King School Museum of Contemporary Art). KSMoCA is an ongoing contemporary art museum that exists within Martin Luther King Jr. Public School in Portland, OR. The students of the school have the option to participate in running KSMoCA, and Fletcher and Jarrett’s under-grad and graduate students at PSU also participate, along with visiting and exhibiting professional artists. KSMoCA is an example of a situated learning, where the situation is brought to the students, providing access to specialized kinds of learning experiences that students may not be exposed to otherwise.

Image of KSMoCA inside of Martin Luther King Jr School, from: https://www.pps.net/domain/5197

 As part of the Activities in this Café (see the Activities page), you are asked to check out another artwork of Fletcher’s with collaborator Miranda July, called Learning to Love You More (LTLYM). This now concluded project ran from 2002-2009 as invitations to the public (anyone) to participate in and document their completion of regularly posted ‘Assignments’. The documentation of these Assignments is available on the LTLYM website, and resulting objects and documentation were also shown in major galleries where participants were formally credited as artists.

Screenshot of the LTLYM Website: http://learningtoloveyoumore.com/

Creative Practices in Education

The intention of sharing these examples through reading, exploration and participatory experience is to inspire education facilitators in different environments, serving varying age groups, to view their practice more creatively. To look at art education as a model for how education in other subjects and realms can be more socially constructive, and to reframe one’s teaching practice to see it as a collaborative work of art that is reliant on active participation to exist.

References

Tate. (n.d.). Relational aesthetics. Tate. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/r/relational-aesthetics

Reading(s) & Resources

So, the reading list below looks extensive, but don’t worry! I have categorized the readings associated with this Research Café and how to approach them. For example: the pre-readings are sufficiently addressed with a quick scan, there is only one required reading and it is fun, easy and consequently, a quick read, and the optional/future supplemental readings are there for you to check out only if you want to. I’ve included descriptions for all to help provide direction as needed.

Suggested Pre-Readings:

(See the descriptions provided for each for further guidance).

1. Teaching Creativity in Art and Design Studio Classes: A Systematic Literature Review – R. Keith Sawyer

Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational research review, 22, 99-113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X17300271

This paper provides a literature review of creative practices in arts education that point to constructivist learning. An overview scan is all that is required, with more focused attention to the findings identified on pp. 106 -111 that highlight the educational themes evident in arts education. This paper provides insight to the constructivist nature of studio-based arts education, yet through further reading/exploration in this Café, it becomes evident that studio practice is only one aspect of arts education.

2. Constructivism and Connection Making in Art Education – Judith Simpson

Simpson, J. (1996). Constructivism and connection making in art education. Art Education, 49(1), 53-59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043125.1996.11651424?journalCode=uare20

In this short article, Simpson relays how a constructivist approach lends itself well to arts education by allowing opportunities for the learner to connect with art history and art making through their own experiences and reflection of self. With this approach, art education can also be used as a tool to initiate connections to other subjects within a curriculum. This article is short, and can be scanned, yet the content is richer than the previously listed pre-reading and you may wish to give it more attention.

Required Reading:

1. Let’s Start with Kindergarten – Harrell Fletcher & Lisa Jarrett

Fletcher, H., & Jarrett, L. (2019). Let’s start with kindergarten. In H. Fletcher, & M. Sherman (Eds.), Shaped by the People: Conversations on Participatory Education (pp. 8–18). Pdxscholar. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/shaped_people/1

This chapter, found within the book, Shaped by the People: Conversations on Participatory Education (2019) is in the form of a conversation between Harrell Fletcher and Lisa Jarrett. The conversational format makes for an engaging and quick read. Although Fletcher and Jarrett do not explicitly discuss constructivism, their ‘art project’, the King School Museum of Contemporary Art (KSMoCA) represents an exciting and experimental method of education that is inherently constructivist in nature. KSMoCA is a contemporary art museum that exists within an operational public school. Students at the school have the option to participate in activities associated with the museum. Fletcher and Jarrett teach at Portland State University, and their undergrad and graduate students also participate in running the museum. This dynamic (and ongoing) project takes a social constructivist approach to engage with experimental and participatory situated learning that serves students and the community at various levels.

Optional Supplemental/Future Readings:

• The Creative Act

Duchamp, M., & Dachy, M. (1994). The creative act. Sub rosa. https://monoskop.org/images/7/7c/Duchamp_Marcel_1957_1975_The_Creative_Act.pdf

The notion that the completion of an artwork happens when it is perceived by the viewer is prevalent in art theory. An artwork itself may be what the artist intended, but the artist only has so much control in how it is perceived – it’s an idea that lends itself well to the constructivist notion that individuals each construct their own perception of the world. Marcel Duchamp, the artist often credited for initiating conceptual art, is also credited for popularizing this idea in his lecture, The Creative Act.

• A Pedagogical Turn: Brief Notes on Education as Art

Podesva, K. L. (2007). A pedagogical turn: Brief notes on education as art. Filip, 6. https://fillip.ca/content/a-pedagogical-turn

Podesva provides various key examples in modern art history of art taking the form of education itself. Each example presents art as something beyond a material object, but instead a social process, and presents education as something creative, and more than basic instruction – education itself is art. This article shows how relativist ways of thinking influenced art practices through modern history.

• Chapter 7 – A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts (from the Fosnot text)

Greene, M. (2013). A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 110-131). Teachers College Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=3545062

With this chapter, I was surprised to find that unlike with Simpson’s article (see above, in the Pre-Reading section) Greene took a more theoretical approach that manages to touch on many of the key aspects covered in a fine arts higher education such as semiotics, coded imagery connected to time and place, art as a language, rejection of binary opposition, inherent subjectivity/bias of the maker/viewer, and others.

• Chapter 12 – The Project Approach in Reggio Emilia (from the Fosnot text)

Forman, G. (2013). The Project Approach in Reggio Emilia. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 212-221). Teachers College Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=3545062

I first read about Reggio Emilia in Fletcher’s (2019) book, Shaped by the People: Conversations on Participatory Education (see the Required Reading), so I was interested to learn more through Forman’s chapter in Fosnot’s (2013) text. The similarities between the example illustrated in this chapter and what Fletcher and Jarrett are doing with KSMoCA are evident, but pre-school children are the focus of this example. This chapter is a very short read, and could be covered in one of this course’s future assigned readings. If you were charmed and intrigued by KSMoCA, this chapter might be for you.

Activities

Listed below are the activities required for participation in this Research Café. Review this section in full before deciding which options to proceed with. The purpose of this engagement is to introduce you to thinking about Art as Constructivist Learning and/or Constructivist Learning as Art to inspire you to design creative pedagogies that are guided by constructivist principles and are participatory in nature.

1. After reading the Welcome!announcement, visit, read and explore the Introduction & Overview page to get an idea of what this Café is all about.
2. Visit the Reading(s) & Resources page. Lightly scan the suggested pre-reading and closely read the required text. Check out the optional supplemental/future reading if you have time, or just review the descriptions I provided.
3. Explore Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July’s (2002-2009) web-based project Learning to Love You More (LTLYM): http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com/index.php
4. Watch this 2019 interview (approx. 26 min.) about LTLYM between Fletcher and July and SF MOMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYMwcFpCFhI
5. Complete one of the following activities and post your response in the Café discussion:

      (Aim to complete this activity by Friday, March 10)

Activity A:

1. Complete any of the 70 Assignments from LTLYM

(Of note: The attention and time required for each of the Assignments varies wildly. Some could be completed in 15 min.-1 hr., others may take longer. Choose one that works with the time you have available).

2. Post documentation of your completed Assignment and provide a short reflection on your experience that connects back to the Café content, required reading, and/or any other content in the course to date. You may refer to the Guiding Questions (below) to help guide your reflection.

– or –

Activity B:

1. In consideration of the Café content, required reading and LTLYM, design a short learning activity (or ‘Assignment’) that is constructivist and participatory in nature. The learning activity should be something that could be completed relatively quickly by a classmate. It could be artistic, similar to those in LTLYM or could be creative in a non-artistic way and focused on a particular area of interest.
2. Include a brief rationale for your activity design and pull from the Café content, required reading, and/or any other content in the course to date. Post the activity instructions and rationale – use diagrams, images or external links as necessary. You may refer to the Guiding Questions (below) to help guide your rationale.

In the discussion, respond to at least one of the posts using either of the options listed below:

       (Aim to complete this activity by Sunday, March 12)

1. Respond to a classmates post by providing a brief yet thoughtful art critique (or ‘crit’)of one of the LTLYM assignments posted by a classmate. How do you connect with what they’ve posted? Does it relate back to the course content or this Research Café? Or does it make you think of something totally outside this course?

– or –

1. Carryout one of the activities (‘Assignments’) that another classmate designed and posted, and respond by posting documentation of the completed activity along with a brief reflection of your experience, pull from the Café content, required reading, and/or any other content in the course to date.

Guiding Questions:

The following questions are provided to help guide the written portions of your responses. You may choose to use them, or not if there is a different direction you wish to use in your responses.

• Do you believe Fletcher and Jarrett’s ‘art project’ at KSMoCA is an example of constructivist education? Do you think it goes beyond constructivism? Or do you think it’s something other than constructivist-informed learning?
• Is there anything about KSMoCA that you recognize as problematic? Or an element that could be improved upon?
• Throughout the Café content, and required reading, art is presented as a means to promote constructivist-informed education, but also education itself can be perceived as an artistic, creative practice. With this in mind, is constructivist-informed learning inherently creative? Can this way of thinking about creativity be easily applied to subjects other than art?
• With participation being a key theme in these articles, the connection to social constructivism is evident. How do you relate these kinds of educational practices to cognitive constructivism?
• Do you employ practices that engage participation, collaboration or situated learning in your role as a teacher? If so, share the methods and activities you use.
• Do you believe these kinds of participatory, action-focused activities (including Fletcher and July’s Assignments in LTLYM) inspire learning? Do you think they lend themselves to a constructivist-informed pedagogy? Does the artist’s intention/idea inhibit true learning?
• Do you find the examples provided inspiring? How so?
• The pre-readings focus on constructivist learning in a traditional art studio classroom setting. The required reading provides an example of arts education that takes a very different approach. Do you consider both pedagogies as constructivist? Is there a direction you see as being more beneficial to learners? If so, why? Considering both of these approaches, what elements would you consider/include if designing an arts curriculum?

A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts, Maxine Greene (2013)

Greene’s (2013) chapter is a poetic read that weaves constructivism into ideas about classic art history, contemporary art, and critical theory. Early on she highlights a key aspect that art makes use of visual and multimodal languages, or “symbol system[s]” (p. 115), but that the meaning of art, in whatever form it takes, is fluid, in flux, “provisional” because through a constructivist lens, each who perceives it, including the artist, does so through their own unique lens. There is a tension that exists when the artist and viewer share understanding through the interpretation of the sign systems evident in the artwork, yet concurrently are disconnected from being able to ever grasp the other’s perspective fully. There’s something lonely, yet beautiful about this, Greene states, “we know that, in decoding Moby Dick or The House of Mirth or Invisible Man, we are in some sense reading the texts of our own lived lives” (p. 115). As if to counteract the isolation that comes with being trapped within oneself, Greene explains how through arts-based languages communities of practice grow and evolve,

In the realm of the arts, as in other realms of meaning, learning goes on most fruitfully in atmospheres of interchange and shared discoveries…To reach beyond is to realize that there exists a tradition and a community of knowers, of seekers, none of whom has the final answer to any question, all of whom are engaged in a communal construct of knowledge. (p. 116)

The chapter concludes with an uplifting take on the inherent isolation of our own observations of reality, particularly our observations of art. Greene’s position is to celebrate the multiplicity of understanding that we collectively hold, and that art can invite, “this process, this opening of possibilities and plurality of interpretation enriches the object, feeds its potentiality” (p. 128).

Perspectives into Learning at the Workplace, Päivi Tynjälä (2008)

In contrast to Greene’s writing, I also read a far more practical research review titled Perspectives into Learning at the Workplace written by Päivi Tynjälä (2008). As a fine arts graduate who works as an educator in a government office, the selection of these articles is directly reflective of my own lived experience. Interestingly Tynjälä also focuses prominently on the importance of communities of practice within the workplace and how integrating with work culture, networking, and becoming a contributing member of a work team is essential to success. In an almost laughable juxtaposition to Greene’s views, Tynjälä writes, “the ability to learn in collaboration with other people, both within and outside one’s organisation, often makes the difference between success and failure. Employees who cannot network with others to share and construct knowledge will fall visibly behind their peers in the possession of such abilities (Slotte & Tynjälä, 2003)” (p. 135). Although harsh, there is truth to this statement – relying on one’s singular perspective, without constructing a more robust understanding through information gathered socially, is a very limited way to learn.

Tynjälä also stresses that workplace learning is not the same as academic learning. She explains that “while informal learning occurs as a part of everyday work processes and activities and produces mainly implicit or tacit knowledge, formal learning takes place in the context of organised training and learning activities and is meant to generate explicit, formal knowledge and skills” (p. 140). The paper concludes with a recommendation that more formal learning structures be implemented into the workplace to balance the largely tacit or informal learning that is most prevalent. In reflection, my own workplace appears to have taken this advice and is mid-way through building a formal education structure for staff, in fact, the existence of my role is a part of this initiative.

 

A Statement on Education, Revisited

As such a strong proponent for social constructivism, it is hard to believe it was not the core theme of my initial statement, but at that time I was thinking more broadly, less practically.

Greene (2013) and Tynjälä’s (2008) texts turned my focus to social constructivism through communities of practice. Greene’s interpretation guides the reader to understand the depth of language systems within arts culture that contribute to a community of followers extended through history. Tynjälä’s description is localized to the microcosm of the workplace and suggests that joining a community of practice within a workplace can enhance and enrich learning, while failing to participate can lead to isolation and negatively affect performance. Although the delivery of each perspective varies significantly, both share the same sentiment that learning and experiencing socially are advantageous; that building perspectives that are aware and welcoming of a plurality of perspectives makes us more connected, whole people. In some ways, as a naturally social being, I have already implemented aspects of this concept with the group of learning staff I provide training and mentorship for, yet my attempts at community building has been somewhat unconscious. To approach my work with intentionality, and with a more informed notion of what a ‘community of practice’ might look like, allows me to further cultivate what has been initiated to provide more meaningful and connected learning for staff that benefits the department as a whole.

References

Greene, M. (2013). A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Arts. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 110-131). Teachers College Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=3545062Links to an external site.

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational research review, 3(2), 130-154.

I have incorporated my response into a Genially chart, embedded below, and linked here. First, I reviewed Sunal’s (n.d.) comparison on learning cycles, and compiled my own learning cycle, taking bits and pieces from the different ones represented. Within my chart, you can see my design and reasoning for each part of a cycle by clicking on the ‘+info’ button. In consideration of Reid and Valle’s (2013) chapter in the Fosnot text, I intended for my learning cycle to be inclusive of all learners, with the teacher/facilitator actively engaging and supporting each learner. Support may include allowing learners to participate in the ways that work best for them (e.g., using particular modalities, or with the assistance of helpful tools or resources).

The example can be explored in the chart by selecting the blue pin buttons. I chose an example that is specific to my role as a trainer within a government organization. I apologize in advance: as the information was going on a Genially chart, I wrote the description in such a way that would not provide explicit details of my role as I have to be careful what’s shared. To explain further in this context, the example provided is about teaching staff the role of the organization we work for and the specific authorities (set by legal documents, such as wills and/or provincial legislation) we operate under. This is a concept that at first seems simple, but often takes years to fully grasp, and is the source of ongoing questions throughout that learning period. Currently, I will admit, I do not train this concept in a way that supports constructivist learning, however using a constructivist-informed learning cycle framework may help staff to be more successful in grasping the concepts sooner. Firstly, by activating learners’ prior knowledge I would be able to gain an understanding of what knowledge they are building from to identify why they might be misinterpreting the concepts. Secondly, by initiating explorative learning, they are also learning how to be self-sufficient in finding their own resources and taking an active role in their training. I am excited to test this out with my next round of trainees!

References:

Reid, D. K. and Valle J. W. (2013). A Constructivist Perspective from the Emerging Field of Disability Studies. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 150-171). Teachers College Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=3545062

Sunal, D. W. (n.d.) The learning cycle: A comparison of models of strategies for conceptual reconstruction: A review of the literature. http://web.archive.org/web/20160426173157/http:/astlc.ua.edu/ScienceInElem&MiddleSchool/565LearningCycle-ComparingModels.htm

What factors are likely to promote the restructuring of ideas? What factors hinder the restructuring of ideas? How can educators provide feedback to support learning?

In So’s (2002) study key aspects were identified for promoting cognitive restructuring in learners. First, “identifying student’s views and ideas” or in other words encouraging students to draw on their past experiences and prior knowledge to connect to the new learning, and next, “creating opportunities for students to explore their ideas and to test their robustness in explaining phenomena, accounting for events and making prediction”. These elements are evident in the Reggio Emilia pedagogy. Specifically, an aspect of the pedagogy known as revisiting, where “the children will recall a prior event, adding their collective memory to the here and now as they talk” (Forman, 2005, p. 215). Revisiting includes a social process where personal ideas of both shared memories and individual thoughts are openly discussed. Forman explains, “the teachers have taught them how to make their thoughts explicit by using representational media – drawing, clay, wood pieces, simulations, cardboard, and of course, their words” (p. 215). This creative and exploratory method of discovery applies to additional factors outlined by So (2002), “providing stimuli for students to develop, modify and where necessary, change their ideas and views” and “supporting their attempts to re-think and reconstruct their ideas and views”. The process of revisiting includes the reiteration of ideas through various mediums to allow student’s thinking to develop, shift and evolve through personal and social exploration – and teachers support this process by providing materials and facilitating activities such as taking location-based photos, sculpting with clay or using other 3d materials, and using the photos to facilitate schematic drawing. “The revisiting occurs in many cycles expanding the richness of the children’s teaching” (Forman, 2005, p. 215).

So (2002) suggests that teaching practices that are “teacher-centered” or “textbook-centred” obstruct constructivist-informed learning and are more focused on rote learning strategies. Drawing from a 1989 American Association for the Advancement of Science Report, So, restates that, “the present science textbooks and methods of instruction emphasized the learning of answers more than the exploration of questions, memory at the expense of critical thoughts, bits and pieces of information instead of understanding in context, recitation over argument, reading in lieu of doing”. The approaches used in Reggio Emilia reject the notion of learning that focuses on teacher or textbook and opts for action oriented creative experiences rooted in social collaboration. The Reggio Emilia approach is geared toward younger children, yet perhaps the same approach (or key aspects of it) should be integrated with high school and university curriculums.

Topping’s (2017) literature review on peer assessment provides a method of assessment that is conducive to constructivist-informed pedagogies. The study identifies that peer assessments, when incorporated into classrooms in thoughtful and strategic ways can produce accurate assessment results when compared with teachers’ assessments (pp. 3-4). Peer assessment practices also promotes a student-centred classroom environment that encourages autonomy and accountability in students. Pulling from a 2015 study by O’Hara and McNamara, Topping identifies that “during self and peer assessment, students developed skills as critical, creative thinkers, effective communicators and collaborative team workers, becoming more personally productive and effective” (Topping, 2017, p.8). Utilizing peer assessment, particularly in ways that allow for further revisions on projects after feedback is received, allows students to practice constructive criticism to facilitate their peers’ development while developing their own ideas and skills in tandem.

References

Forman, G. (2013). The Project Approach in Reggio Emilia. In Fosnot, C. T. (Eds.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 212-221). Teachers College Press.

So, W. WM. (2002). Constructivist teaching in primary scienceLinks to an external site.. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1), Article 1.

Topping, K. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1-17.

Acknowledging My Prior Knowledge

To illustrate my synthesis of the content within this course, it only makes sense that I would start by sharing key cultural references that have positioned and informed my conception. I have a fine arts academic background that was focused on critical theory, and visual and cultural theory. In a previous discussion within this course, I shared how my introduction to semiotics activated a profound paradigm shift for how I have come to view my world, (my “worldview” or “Weltanschauung”, as Swoyer (2014) describes). I began to see the world as a fluctuating construct built with signs and symbols, with a deeply layered and complex system of meaning.

The theories of Vygotsky and Piaget were introduced early in the MET program. I immediately connected with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory for its explicit coherence with semiotics, “…Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the importance of social interaction with more knowledgeable others in the zone of proximal development [ZPD] and the role of culturally developed sign systems as psychological tools for thinking” (Fosnot, 2013, pp. 41-42). In a later MET course, I discovered Latour, Actor Network Theory and New Materialism, concepts that radically amplify elements of sociocultural theory and constructivism by emphasizing the importance of the relational space between everything, including living and non-living things. Everything has agency, everything is in flux, and everything has come from somewhere and will continue somewhere else in a continual state of becoming.

Actively Scaffolding

As I develop my understanding of constructivism through reading about the classical philosophical ontologies and epistemologies it emerged from, I tap into my collected experience, rearrange, and adjust what is there to find a place where something new can fit, a process analogous to Piaget’s notion of equilibration, “a nonlinear, dynamic “dance’ of progressive equilibria, adaptation and organization, growth and change” (Fosnot, 2013, p. 18). Through Pritchard’s (2018) text, I connected with the notion of indirect realism, “the idea is that we can only make sense of our perceptual experiences as responses to an external world, even if we are not directly acquainted with this world in perceptual experience” (p. 69) and Kant’s notion of transcendental idealism, “the leading idea was that much of the structure that we ascribe to the world – such as the temporal or casual order – is in fact a product of our minds” (p. 73). Although the concepts appear similar, I speculate that a key difference lies in the concepts’ origins, with indirect realism emerging as a modern take on realism, and transcendental idealism emerging as a more grounded, more reasonable view of idealism. Both assert that a reality exists, but that it cannot be directly experienced through sense perceptions: the former focuses on the ‘real’ objective world and acknowledges that perception requires internal construct; the latter focuses on a constructed world and acknowledges that its validity requires the existence of ‘real’ objective world. Both correlate with semiotics and sociocultural theory and substantiate and enlighten my own becoming.

Traversing the ZPD

My interpretation of constructivism combines notions of cognitively constructed realities that are inherently affected by the environments they develop from and with. I subscribe to Fosnot’s (2013) claim that social and cognitive constructivism are connected processes, “in effect, active individual construction constitutes the background against which guided participation in cultural practices comes to the fore for Rogoff, and this participation is the background against which self-organization comes to the fore for von Glasersfeld” (p. 48). However, I see both cognitive and social constructivism as holding equal weight. This results in a personal conceptualization of learning that portrays a constant and potentially chaotic movement of inward reflection and outward connection: information outwardly gleaned is subject to relational affect through an infinitely vast and dynamic entanglement, and the information taken in is subject to the inner network of collected knowledge – a microcosm of said entanglement.

In previous discussions in this course, I questioned Pritchard’s (2018) cynical take on relativism and interpreted it as a signal to be cautious with the subject, yet after reading Swoyer (2014) and watching Taber’s (2020) talk, I am not certain such caution is warranted. Swoyer explains that relativism asserts that “…what we see (hear, feel, etc.) in any particular situation is partially determined by the concepts, beliefs, and expectations we bring to the situation”, a perspective that aligns with my worldview. Swoyer implies that extreme forms of relativism invite criticism. Taber refutes this criticism and suggests it’s the opposers who assume constructivists and relativists take this extreme stance. Taber explains, “…assuming a greater level of objectivity than what is possible is what would really be unscientific. By applying appropriate methods to the materials studied, a researcher seeks to be more scientific. Again, the choice made by constructivist researchers is not an ideological rejection of objective methods but doing the best job considering the nature of the task at hand” (Taber, 2020). This epitomizes what education can and should be – like an outward iteration of the internal act of equilibration, our aim should be to assess and reflect on the methods available, to welcome “adaptation and organization, growth and change” (Fosnot, 2013, p. 18) to create and facilitate the necessary conditions for learning to succeed.

 

References

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp 3-54). Teachers College Press.

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

Swoyer, Chris, “Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Taber, K. (2020, December 11). Constructivism – the good; the bad; and the abhorrent? [Video]. University of British Columbia. https://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/constructivism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-abhorrent/

My role is to train new staff in a highly complex position. The direct training occurs over an approximate 1-year period, but additional training and mentorship continues after that point, and most staff are fully trained within 2 years. I have recently started training a new group of 7 staff, which is the largest group we’ve had. Usually there are 1-3 new staff at a time, and the training is much more personal. With this larger group I have had to implement group learning techniques, which I know very little about. As I read the text, I considered the different types of constructivism (cognitive and social), or as Fosnot (2013) describes, “those that place more emphasis on the individual cognitive structuring process and those that emphasize the social and cultural effects on learning” (p. 28). I kept thinking about the 7 new staff and wondering which type of constructivism they would believe is most useful to their learning both individually and as a group.  Some other questions I had are as follows:

• Do they find both independent and social aspects of learning beneficial or does one aspect stand out?
• Are they drawing on their past knowledge?
• Are they sharing their knowledge with their peers?
• Do they feel part of a community?

The content of what I am training is an opposing mix of rules based on internal policy, procedures, and provincial legislation, but also, and of equal importance, competencies such as communication skills, problem solving, strategy and risk analysis. This can be challenging to teach, as at times, there is not much room for interpretation, but simply a correct and incorrect action. However, within that action there is room for style and strategy, and occasionally there is space to shift what might initially appear as having a binary outcome. Due to this, I feel I am doing a lot of (too much) talking at the staff. Fosnot (2013) writes, “…cultural knowledge that is assumed to be held by members of the culture is in reality only a dynamically evolving, negotiating interaction of individual interpretations, transformations and constructions…Yet cultural knowledge is a whole larger sum of the individual cognitions” (p.28). With the fluctuating nature of cultural knowledge in mind, I don’t want the staff to be only hearing my past perspective – I want them to have access of other senior staff’s active knowledge as well as each other’s as they gain experience. I want them to feel they are part of a dynamic community of discourse and practice (p. 34). Furthermore, I want them to feel they have the space and support to collectively explore disequilibrium as it arises. As Fosnot states, “Challenging, open-ended investigations in realistic, meaningful contexts need to be offered which allow learners to explore and generate many possibilities, both affirming and contradictory. Contradictions, in particular, need to be illuminated” (p. 34).

I designed a poll titled Checking-in: A Reflection on Learning to Date to serve as a check-in for the new staff I am training to get a clearer sense of where they are at, and to allow the opportunity to collaboratively design future learning scenarios and activities. For those of you who will be filling it out in this course, you can consider the questions from the perspective of a new learner of this course content, and a student of the MET program as a whole.

You can access the poll HERE.

References:

Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp 3-54). Teachers College Press.

Sandra Harding’s (2003) article, Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project is a critical response to an article by Tony Lawson (2003) Ontology and Feminist Theorizing. If I didn’t look further into Lawson’s article, I likely would have missed the fact these two writings are only parts of an ongoing dialogue between Harding and Lawson regarding the incongruency of Critical Realism (CR) and feminism. Below is a list of the dialogic articles I could find, in chronological order.

• Theorizing Ontology (2003) – Tony Lawson
• Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project (2003) – Sandra Harding
• Ontology and Feminist Theorizing (2003) – Tony Lawson
• The Case for Strategic Realism: A Response to Lawson (1999) – Sandra Harding
• Feminism, Realism and Universalism (1999) – Tony Lawson

Harding’s (2003) Representing Reality critiques Lawson for claiming that his conception of CR firstly, includes one, true ontology and secondly, that this ontology exists outside of culture as it must have “universal validity” (pp. 152-133). Harding argues that this notion of one true reality goes against the core postpositivism ideologies inherent to feminism, “…that a culture’s or individual’s favored ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and other kinds of beliefs form a network of belief…” (p. 152).

To better understand this, I found a definition of postpositivism (only to immediately remember that I have looked this term up numerous times before):

Postpositivism rejects the positivist approach that a researcher can be an independent observer of the social world. Postpositivists argue that the ideas, and even the particular identity, of a researcher influence what they observe and therefore impacts upon what they conclude. Postpositivism pursues objective answers by attempting to recognise, and work with, such biases with the theories and knowledge that theorists develop (E-International Relations, 2021).

Throughout the reading of Pritchard’s (2018) text I attempted to piece together parts to form my own personal ontology. Both indirect realism, or similarly, Kant’s transcendental idealism resonated with me: that reality outside of us exists, but we can only experience it through the subjective lens of our sense perceptions, “…what we are immediately aware of in sensory experience is not the world itself…we are required to suppose that there is an external world that gives rise to this sensory experience since, without this supposition, we would not be able to make any sense of such experience” (Pritchard, 2018, pp. 72-23). This notion led me to believe that to attempt to identify truths, we must look somewhere between us, where our perceptions collect in agreement. It’s difficult to explain in words, but I envision something like the below diagram, with the points being the places where we come closest to objective truth.

I’ve essentially developed a postpositive approach – one that I may have built for myself without knowing it was postpositivist, but surely based on other readings and media that were intentionally created through a postpositivist lens. So, what is Critical Realism, and why is it such a contestable topic for Harding and Lawson? I read this blog post and this one and finally found a simplistic definition of CR:

In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some sense-data (for example, of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other sense-data (for example, secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. In short, critical realism refers to any position that maintains that there exists an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality, while acknowledging the roles of perception and cognition (New World Encyclopedia).

Lawson’s argument for CR pushes that an objectively knowable ontology exists, whereas Harding (2003) questions, “…is it [even] valuable to seek to identify and represent universal features of human nature and of social relations (‘social reality’)” (p. 151)? This statement reminds me of Pritchard’s (2018) rather strongly worded ideas on relativism, e.g., “I’m not sure that anyone actually is a relativist (although some claim to be), because anyone who puts a modicum of thought into what the view is about will surely realise that it is self-defeating” (p. 219). At first I was taken aback, as I thought Pritchard was arguing for empiricism and objectivism – but at a closer read, I realized that what Pritchard is saying is that striving for truth, attempting at nearing the objective world, believing that it exists even if skewed through our biases, is a lot different than denying one exists at all.

Questions:

1. Where has your personal ontology landed throughout these readings?
2. What are your thoughts on Harding’s question, “is it valuable to seek to identify and represent universal features of human nature and of social relations (‘social reality’)”? Or is a culturally subjective, sociocultural ontology of more value?

References:

E-International Relations. (2021, September 26). Positivism, post-positivism and interpretivism. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.e-ir.info/2021/09/25/positivism-post-positivism-and-interpretivism/

Harding, S. (2003). Representing reality: the critical realism project. Feminist Economics, 9(1), 151-159.

New World Encyclopedia. Critical realism. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2023, from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Critical_realism

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

Richard Linklater’s 2001 animated film, Waking Life, is comprised of a series of vignettes, most of which are monologues of disparate characters. There is a plot that ties the many pieces together: the main character, unnamed, played by Wiley Wiggins is trying to decipher whether he is dreaming or awake. He repeatedly wakes within a dream, or a false awakening. Dreamscape tropes are prevalent, Wiggins floats through space and time effortlessly, yet simultaneously, in a slow-motion pursuit, he cannot seem to grasp how to wake up.

I first watched this film as a high school student. I did not understand it, but felt I was supposed to think it was cool – so I watch it more than once, and probably fell asleep watching it more than once. I wanted to watch it again to find out if I have gained more knowledge in the 20 or so years since my last viewing, I also know that I at least have a better understanding of Linklater’s work at this point. On this recent viewing I realized that Waking Life serves as a variant to Linklater’s earlier work, Slacker (1990), which is also a collection of vignettes, but with a quotidian focus on life amongst nonconformists in Austin, Texas. Waking Life mimics this form, but its focus is philosophical musings about language, existence, collective memory, society, free will and the meaning of life (amongst other things), and unlike Slacker, it’s animated, with illustrative styles that shift per scene, amplifying a dream-like quality. What I failed to grasp as a teenager, is that Waking Life is not quite a documentary, nor presented as strictly educative, it’s art; the line between what is scripted and not is blurred, and the line between what is based on established theory and complete nonsense is also blurred. Some of the characters are actors acting, some are lecturing and hold academic stature, and some are artists making art. The monologues are at times poetic, poignant, and thought provoking, and other times ridiculous, bizarre, and funny.

Indirect Realism

Early in the film is a scene of a blonde woman sitting on a couch in a blurry living room asserting that humans, instigated by “…a striving and frustration…” created language, and what she finds particularly interesting is when humans use this “…system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things we’re experiencing” (Linklater, 2020). She explains that we use language to communicate that which is elusive, such as feelings and emotions, and the receiver accepts our words, and they believe to have understood them, and we believe they have, but how can we know that they truly do? This notion that we perceive our reality, synthesize the information, then use communication tools to share our experiences with others, yet cannot fully and accurately relay our total truths is agonizing. It is an idea that is reminiscent of indirect realism, described as that which “holds that we gain knowledge of an objective world indirectly by making inferences from our sense impressions,” (Pritchard, 2018, p. 69). Although plausible, indirect realism overwhelms me with a sense of claustrophobia, as though we are each trapped within a body that both allows us to experience our world (albeit indirectly), but also restricts us from moving beyond the limits of our sense perceptions, or the limits of ourselves. Rather than feeling trapped and alone, the blonde woman ends her musings on a more optimistic note: “…when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected, and we think that we are understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion”. It is as though, it doesn’t matter if we truly understand each other, or if our perceiving selves obscure that which exists outside of us, if we believe we are connecting, it’s the same as if we are.

Viewing our reality through this lens, how can objective true belief be possible? I come back to Pritchard’s (2018) statement, “…that truth is objective in the following sense: at least for most propositions, your thinking that they are true does not make them true” (p. 7). Yet, perhaps the closest we can get to grasping knowledge is to gain an acceptance of a kind of relative truth – one that is considerate of many perspectives to find the truth amongst them, or between them – an averaging of truths.

Idealism

The question of, ‘what is reality?’ is a core theme of Waking Life that is explored through philosophical dialogue set within a meandering narrative dream state. In another early scene Wiggins’ is a student to a university professor who lectures on existentialism and Sartre. The professor explains these ideas are not pessimistic, but rather empowering, “…life is yours to create…what you do makes a difference…”. He describes a “person as a social construction” (Linklater, 2020). This scene introduces the notion that reality is constructed, a movable force that we have the power to affect. This idea is carried throughout the film, as Wiggins becomes aware he is dreaming and is introduced to the notion of lucid dreaming, which he essentially what he is doing. Once aware of his lucid dream state, Wiggins is passively urged by a variety of characters to take control of his reality – a reality that reflects the notion of idealism, or “…knowledge of a world that is constituted by our perception of it… ‘constructed’ out of appearances rather than being that which gives rise to such appearances, and thus it is not ‘external’ in the relevant sense at all” (Pritchard, 2018, p. 71). Setting Wiggins in this inescapable dreamscape amplifies the notion of idealism: not only is he in a world that he is repeatedly told is his to construct, but he is also within his own dream, a world that both philosophically and actually exists within his mind.

In the final scene of Waking Life Wiggins wakes up once more, and the viewer is hopeful that perhaps this time he is actually awake.  He walks outside his house and begins to float. At first, he grabs on to the handle of a car door, but eventually lets go and floats away into the sky. In an idealist world, what happens if you refrain from constructing? Does your world cease to exist? Do you float away?

References:

Linklater, R. (Director). (2001). Waking Life [Film]. Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326

What does it mean that one has formed a belief in a reliable way?

To form a belief in a reliable way means that the reasoning for your belief is from a trusted source. That trust might be formed from a perception that the source is an authority on the topic, or it might be formed through repeated patterns of logical or successful outcomes that have appeared to substantiate other true beliefs, or trust may be formed simply through consistency over time. In fact, consistency over time appears to be a key element of reliability, Pritchard asserts that “…at the very least, the method used was more likely to get you to the truth than not” (2018, p. 54) but how would one trust a method’s likelihood to get to the truth, if it had not consistently done so, repeatedly, time and time again? Which perhaps means that reliably formed belief comes through experience; through repeated activity, that has led to similar or adjacent outcomes forming a sense of reliability of a set of beliefs.

Could a belief so formed be false, do you think?

Pritchard provides an example of one person who repeatedly checks a faulty thermometer, while secretly another person adjusts the faulty thermometer so that every time it is checked, it appears correct, which leads the unsuspecting thermometer checker to belief the thermometer works (2018, p. 55). In this scenario the thermometer checker forms what they believe is a reliable belief in a world that they do not realize is partially built on a well-kept lie. Pritchard’s example seems somewhat fragile (really, how long can the adjuster keep up their sneaky work without the checker finding them out?) Though it’s not too difficult to imagine whole perspectives based on beliefs formed seemingly reliably that are in fact false.

When I was around 4 years old, my family moved houses and for some reason, I thought that moving meant you switched houses with another family. I would often talk about the family that used to live in our new house and wonder aloud what they were doing in our old house, I would ask which of the children took which room as their bedroom. It took years before my father pointedly asked what I was talking about and explained to me that the family did not live in our old house, they bought a different house, but I had believed this for so long because when I talked about it, no one had corrected me, and would respond with “I don’t know, Erin!” without truly listening to me. In retrospect they probably thought I was just making up stories as children do.

At work, I often am in a position of educating the public about estate administration practices. To provide meaningful information, I first listen to their questions and comments closely to gain an understanding of their perspective – where might their beliefs or biases come from? What might they consider a reliable belief and why? How can I best respond to their inquiry? A common example is that many people are hesitant to become involved with their next of kin’s estate because they believe they will be required to personally pay the deceased’s debts. They might believe this because this is true in other jurisdictions, such as certain US states, or certain countries in Europe. They might believe this because a friend of theirs told them this, but perhaps that friend administered an estate in error and was forced to pay out-of-pocket to correct the error. In Canada, generally speaking, a debt solely owned by the deceased is only payable by their estate, not by their family members personally. Yet this example highlights how easily we might form false beliefs through sources that are falsely reliable.

Give an example of a reliable and an unreliable way of forming a belief about the following subject matters (try to avoid repetition in your answers):

     the time;

• Reliable: Once a week, look up the world clock on the internet and ensure my watch is set to match.
• Unreliable: Once a week, ask a friend what time their watch says and ensure my watch is set to match.

     the Capital of France; and

• Reliable: Go to a bookstore and cross-reference multiple current travel books about France.
• Unreliable: Consult a Ouija board.

     the solution to a crossword puzzle.

• Reliable: The clue is related to something I know a lot about, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with all three of the other words.
• Unreliable: The clue is vague to me, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with only two of the other words, I erase the third word, but have difficulty thinking about another suggestion that fits that clue, I think of a loosely fitting word, guess how to spell it, and it fits.

Questions:

1. While reading and writing about reliabilism I was thinking a lot about cultural norms, or insular groups with shared beliefs. I questioned whether a problem with reliabilism is that reliability is relative, and what might seem reliablecould only be so within an insular group. I wonder, do others have similar (or differing) thoughts, or thought of an examples related to this idea?
2. Another theme that came out of my focus on reliabilism (and what I was attempting to get at in my second, work-related example above), is the recognition that I actively try to anticipate how to deliver information that is accepted as reliable. And although I’m not sure ‘reliable’ alone can replace ‘justified’s’ partnership with ‘true belief’, I do think it has a role in helping us understand knowledge. If we think about strategies we employ to attempt to impart knowledge, can we identify other criteria for what knowledge is?

References:

Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326.