Blog 3

Since my area of study is instructional design, I decided to focus on chapters 9 and 10 in the assigned text for this week. My goal was to make a connection between the two chapters in order to synthesize what I read in some meaningful way. In past reading I have done (including these chapters), constructivism and the internet are often talked about together. This has always puzzled me a little bit because I don’t see an overt connection between the two. In my mind, the internet is not necessary for constructivist designs. It seems to me that constraining the two elements together flies in the face of the concept of context as the driving force in knowledge construction. It makes it sound as though the internet is the preferred way to manipulate context. As I struggled with trying to solve this perceived inconsistency, I decided to frame my discussion prompt for this blog from that perspective.

What is the connection between the internet and constructivist learning that causes many experts to link the two together?

After I read and digested chapters 9 and 10, I found a common link that gave me some insight into this question.

Activity theory links consciousness and activity by working through four basic assumptions. The first is that consciousness and activity are interdependent. The second is that all actions or behaviors are intentional (directed at some goal). The third is that higher cognitive functioning within a system of activity is mediated by tools (technical and mental). The last is that activities evolve over time within a culture. Using these underlying assumptions, the theory proposes the central unit of analysis to be the activity (or activity system). This system has four components; subjects, objects, actions, and operations. The subjects are the people participating in the activity. The objects are the intentions of the activity (goals or objectives). The actions are goal-directed activities that are carried out in order to achieve the objective. The operations are plans and procedures that relate to how the actions are carried out. In this model the subjects transform the objects (construct learning) using tools such as computers, techniques, or theories. Community is related to the subjects that play a role in the transformation of the object and is defined by the rules, norms, and leadership structure by which the task is divided among group members. This process is dynamic and is unique to each community. Using the constructivist paradigm, the context is the whole activity system and it defines the learning process.

In describing e-learning communities, chapter 10 refers to Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) who propose a five stage model of community evolution which resembles the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development discussed in chapter 6. At each stage, Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) identify a pattern to community evolution and note that “the pattern is influenced by a dynamic balance of people, process, and technology elements.” They refer to the people as users of technology, the process as the support structures used to create a common experience, and the technology as the tools which promote the community formation process. When I read this section, the obvious connection to activity theory jumped out at me. It is an ideal fit.

What this says to me is that e-learning community formation is a good fit for the constructivist model for contextual learning. This doesn’t mean that on-line learning is the only way that activity theory can be utilized; it just says that e-learning is a good fit for constructivist learning. The tools of e-learning (blogs, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, webquests, etc.) can be used to carry out the operations and actions that allow the subjects in a learning community to negotiate or achieve learning objectives. Activity theory adds another dimension to the process of e-learning community formation. To me it suggests that mental tools and operations such as theories, cognitive processing, and concept mapping should be incorporated into each learning system in order to fully utilize the learning context. From a designer’s point of view, it seems to me that this is the factor that is often missing from e-learning environments. The tools are only a means through which we apply the elements of design.

Looking at the process of creating context in this way has helped me to get a better handle on the “fuzzy” nature of constructivist learning design. In my quest for a method for structuring inquiry learning environments, this gives me some concrete tools to use in integrating the nature of inquiry into lesson construction in the classroom.