Constructivism and ICTs

Whereas behaviourism emphasises stimulus-response, programmed learning sequences, purposefully limited cognitive input and output, and technologies that function according to the principles of instructional design, constructivism differs both epistemologically and theoretically. Constructivist knowledge grows through development (Piaget) and/or sociocultural interaction (Vygotsky). The outputs of both processes are thinking, knowledge, and language-based understanding. Central to constructivism are the role of the learner vis-à-vis the environment and the maturation process and the possibility of achieving “holistic” learning (Jarvis et al, 2003, p. 43)

In terms of ICTs, constructivist pedagogy is discernible in the software and programming tools of the 1980s and 1990s that allowed users (children) to build graphics. The symbolic programming language Logo, for example, allowed users to create images using an on-screen pen by inputting angles and distances. With the arrival of multimedia and, later, virtual environments, computer-based constructivist learning evolved into network and community virtual practice, so provided online sociocultural interaction. Because online environments can be engineered to provide learning experience/knowledge, pedagogic and andragogic objectives can be achieved.

Constructivist options increased dramatically with the mid-1990s introduction of educational platforms with far greater interactive capabilities and the advent of web 2.0 decade later. An example of the meeting point of these is the personalised learning environment (PLE), through which entire courses can be delivered, with multiple online tools accessible to teacher and learner. Moodle and Blackboard are probably the most well-known platforms of this kind. These are constructivist in so far as they can be modified by the user or an administrator on behalf the user. This flexibility allows each learner to sculpt the virtual environment of learning around his/her learning requirements. The user can engage in discussions if s/he believes discussion enhances his/her learning, or can take a solitary, diagnostic behaviourist option in the form of an online multiple-choice quiz, for example.

From such tools has emerged the concept of the ALS (adaptive learning system), which is intelligent, since it senses the learner’s interaction and responsively shapes the learning experience for maximised individual efficacy. It is at this point that ICTs and constructivist learning present themselves as prime candidates for further enhancement via artificial intelligence. The ALS, therefore, appears to be little more than a conceptual steppingstone between what presently exists and what is undoubtedly to come.

Unanswered are the following: can simulated environments provide the social and andragogic equivalent of the physical social environment, which is the environment that Lave and Wenger (1991) inter alios claim enriches learning and the learner? Also, how “holistic” can learning be if human-to-human interaction is computer-mediated, material is algorithmically tailored to the learner’s strengths (so precluding the possibility of addressing weaknesses), the experience is metrically managed, and the possibility of the learner’s encountering collateral, social, or spontaneous creative additions (as might occur in a physical learning environment) is extremely limited?   

Phillips (1995) praised constructivism for its learner-centric emphases, but criticised it for epistemological relativism, i.e. positive and negative being socially determined. Similar is claimed by Cobb (1996) and Fox (2001): is quality – and by implication factuality – to be a matter of social consensus?

There is also this: learner-centric theories in eras of didactic, behaviourist, pre-digital learning may have represented a radical inversion of premises, so probably forced much needed revision of mechanistic, prescriptive models. However, when applied in the post Web 2.0 era, in which information is ubiquitous, all opinion is communicable, and there is no novelty in virtual environments or user-defined experiences, computer-facilitated constructivism is possibly theoretically redundant due to its being pragmatically de rigueur. If the alleged benefits of constructivist learning are deemed sufficiently valuable, today’s challenge may in fact be achieving a reversal to non computer-facilitated constructivism.