Constructivism, constructionism, social constructionism....??

Trying to locate my epistemological perspective and whilst this has taken some time for me to get my head around, I think I am now starting to know where I am.

As an informal educator in terms of youth work , the constructivist theories based on Vygotsky,  Piaget, and Dewey in that the individual's unique contact with the world creates their own reality, knowledge and understanding, and that an educator can promote learning by facilitating and supporting experiences with young people, is definitely where I am. 

 I was very struck with a conversation with my mother and my partner about a film that they'd both been to see (Cowboys and Aliens) and how their experience and interpretation of it were so different. My partner, a cinema 'buff' who goes most weeks, thought the story was weak and that the aliens were reminiscent of the original Alien films with Signourney Weaver. He was 'checking out' the film to see if it was suitable for our 12 year old, and the verdict was 'not suitable' even though the certification was.

My mother was motivated by seeing Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford in the same movie, and the fact that it was a rainy day with nothing else to do. She goes to the cinema rarely  and certainly doesn't understand the concept of CGI. She liked Daniel Craig, spent some time trying to see the 'strings' that the flying aliens were being operated by, and thought that it was good for her to have experienced a 'modern' story rather than something like the King's Speech which would be her usual genre. 

So, two people go in to see the same film, taking with them the motivation for their choice of film and a lifetime of experience (62 and  77), and they each come out with a very different experience, because of how they make sense of it or how they 'construct' meaning from what they've experienced. It also explains how students sit in the same lecture but take different things away and sometimes interpret what is said/heard in completely opposite ways. 

One of the principles contained within NLP is that each individual has their own 'window on the world', that we all have this movie playing in our heads that enables to make sense of what's going on. I'm interested in the fact that the brain will look for connections in order to make meaning, and that maybe explains why it is sometimes difficult to get one's head around new concepts.  Takes me back to a time when I was being taught to do a 'hockey stop' on ice skates and I couldn't do it because I was fearful of falling on the hard ice. When I was asked if I skied and whether I could do the same action on skis, the answer was not only 'yes' but also 'confidently'. I was then able to do it.

Social constructionism gives me a label to something that I have adhered to as an educator for a long time: not only do we construct our own meaning through the experiences that we have and how we interpret them, but that the social context that we are in also impacts i.e. whether on familiar territory on the ski slope or the unfamiliar territory of the ice rink. This has got to help me find my way through the constantly changing landscape of digital media in relation to the informal educator's role.....

Activity Theory

So, whilst struggling once again with the broadness of my questions,  I've just discovered activity theory which starts to make sense in relation to this idea of having a conceptual framework.

I like the idea that it  is  a  meta-theory or framework rather  than being a  theory that sets out to predict what will happen and why. I also like the idea that it stems from Vygotsky whose theories relate very much to informal education: ideas of a cultural psychology. It enables the researcher to consider the entire work or activity system within the chosen context, from the micro to the macro (including teams, organizations, etc.) which is particularly important in my case, since the motivations of the youth workers that I am researching are inevitably impacted by the organisation, policy or instruction from management, of which I was once a part. The idea that the totality of what is accomplished is beyond just one person gives permission to the researcher to take account of the environment, personal histories, culture, role of the 'artifact', motivations, complexity of real life action, etc.

The  analysis is  directed towards the subject's motivation for performing an activity, which in turn is directed at an object or goal. Activities are defined as conscious actions directed at specific goals, but the elements that make up the activity  are not fixed and  can  change.

Engestrom (1991, 1990) is known for developing the activity triangle that looks at how individuals, artifacts and systems  engage in purposeful activities :

 Breaking down barriers, innovation, and participation in a youth work sense often involves practitioners in the creation of new rules, structures and roles, something that is evident in the practice of the 2 youth workers that I have interviewed, They were chosen because they are at the forefront of this work within their local context, often battling with attitudes and motivations from colleagues that have not moved towards the usage of digital media in the same way.

Somekh (2001) states that "activity theory  not only explains the link between radical societal changes and new technology tools, it also provides a model for how similar changes could occur in schools". Her discourse relates this to a need for radical curriculum change in schools to something that looks familiar! More of an emphasis on informal education, in fact, youth and community tutors are even mentioned as are the words 'groupwork' and 'ownership'!.

Engestrom gives me the possibility of analysing what I'm interested in as follows :

• a collective activity system can be taken as a unit of analysis, giving context and meaning to seemingly random individual events
• the activity system and its components can be understood historically
• inner contradictions of the activity system can be analysed as the source of disruption, innovation, change, and development of that system, including its individual participants (1996:65)

I'm reminded of one of the quotes that I used in a previous post about constuctionism:
“Truth or meaning comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the realities of the world. There is no meaning without a mind. Meaning is not discovered, but constructed.” (Crotty, 1998 ). 

Is it starting to come together? 

The Fifth Discipline, revised edition (2006) - peter Senge.pdf

Haven't been blogging for a while but have now got 'head space' to really think about what I've been researching and what that might relate to...

Strangely enough, my thoughts have been taken into a realm of Eraut and Senge in relation to how practitioners or professionals make decisions about their intervention tools or methodology. Not sure how this might relate at the moment to digital literacy or how individuals become pre-disposed to explore the 'new' in relation to practice or not...

Eraut (2001: 2009) looks at how knowledge contributes to professional performance and has examined the processes for acquiring and interpreting information which by his analysis, means that we have a tendency to see what we want and expect to see.. I'm not sure in relation to the usage of social media in informal education contexts: as with the nature of social media itself , I see a lot of practitioners 'playing' with tools, sometimes with young people, sometimes not. The 'playing' is about experimentation: the basis of what informal educators term, experiential learning - the bedrock of youth work. Eraut's description of meta-processes or meta-cognition does fit here: the continuous evaluation of what works, what is possible, and the tweaking and adapting of ideas and tools to meet need.

One of the questions that pops up here in relation to the usage of social media is about how youth workers work with this meta-processing to enable them to think differently and to question assumptions?

Peter Senge (2006) in the Fifth Disciple however, talks about 'personal mastery': living life creativily rather than reactively. He states that we need creative tension to learn and develop as it is this that enables us to be curious and to question what we think we already know. A constant reappraisal of one's personal vision is one of the features of 'personal mastery': does this relate to those who are constantly seeking to improve or be engaging, 'playing' with new tools in order to work with young people on their level rather than their own?

Decision-making and the processes involved is an interesting area: maybe a focus for the next research assignment ....?