Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 Copyright 2013
Angela A. Deulen
California Baptist University
Abstract: While many theories exist to explain the phenomenon of learning, one of the oldest and
most supported models is Vygotskys social constructivism. Although once a forgotten voice, many of
the newer Western studies support this model The present paper discusses social constructivism as an
andragogical model for Christian educators teaching in online learning environments and offers pos-
sible frameworks and strategies for doing so.
Keywords: social constructivism, Christian education, online learning, adult learning, Vygotsky
Social Constructivism
(1978) said, is the distance between the [childs] actual developmental level
as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential de-
velopment as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or
in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 131). Working within this
framework, Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued,
Theological Implications
One-Anothering
The argument can be made that social constructivism is a natural fit with
a biblical approach to learning. According to this collectivist model, learning
takes place in the context of community. As believers, we are to operate
within the context of community, for we are to consider how to stir up one
another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the
habit of some, but encouraging one another (Hebrews 10:24-25, Revised
Standard Version). The concept of community is arguably emphasized by the
use of the term one another, used 100 times in the New Testament. Many of
these instances refer to the believing community as a family, stating we are all
children of God and fellow heirs (Romans 8:14-17). As such, we are part of a
family and ought to relate to each other as such (Grudem, 1994).
The concept of one-anothering is extended beyond the familial structure
of the church to the manner in which instruction is to be carried out. Gru-
dem (1994) points to this fact, citing Colossians 3:16, reminding believers
that they are to teach and admonish one another in all wisdom (p. 959).
While this is certainly a social approach to instruction, Christian followers are
94 Christian Education Journal
Application
To begin, as argued throughout this paper, learning takes place in the
context of community (e.g., Brofenbrenner, 1979; Estep, 2002; Hill & Hall,
2002; White, 2006). The nature of that community, or ecosystem, must then
contain the elements that foster learning (trust, mentoring, and one-another-
ing). Therefore, a strict online learning environment may never be truly con-
ducive to learning under a social constructivist perspective. So, the first sug-
gestion for online instructors is the development of hybrid or blended
classes. According to Garrison and Kanucka (2004), simply defined, blended
learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning ex-
periences with online learning experiences (p. 96). Research demonstrates
that blended online and face-to-face learning environments offer students a
96 Christian Education Journal
reciprocal structure for student learning (Collopy & Arnold, 2009). This af-
fords students the socio-cultural advantages of learning, with exposure to a
more diverse learning ecosystem, but supplements the student with all the
benefits of online learning as well.
Another alternative is the use of synchronous virtual classrooms. Virtual
classrooms (e.g., Elluminate) allow students to see their teacher face to face
(and sometimes their peers) during class time via a computers web camera.
Virtual classrooms increase interaction and offer real-time learning and feed-
back (Skylar, 2009). These virtual classrooms also offer other options to re-
duce the social barriers to online learning, such as breakout rooms for stu-
dent projects and virtual office hours where students can meet with their
instructors, virtually face to face.
More and more, course management systems (CMS) are attempting to
learn how to become more socially friendly. The Australian company
Moodle, for example, is a CMS for educators, whose intent is to bring a so-
cial constructivist approach to its design. MOODLE has teamed up with Sec-
ond Life to offer a virtual learning space in which students can select an
avatar and interact within the virtual learning environment under that per-
sona. While there is some research to support the use of this model, the use of
this method has a large learning curve for instructors and students alike
(Kemp, Livingstone, & Bloomfield, 2009). Further, the authenticity of hid-
ing behind an avatar must be examined before scholars will know if this is
indeed a viable social constructivist approach.
A final, perhaps more creative, idea is to have students teach other stu-
dents the topic. Glasser (1990) is noted for saying that while students only re-
member 10 percent of what they hear and 20 percent of what they see, that
they remember 95 percent of what they teach. Students in a virtual learning
environment could be assigned a topic to teach, prepare a presentation, and
then post that idea to other students via a podcast, video-feed, or by teaching
the topic live in a synchronous virtual classroom.
Conclusion
While change may be difficult (Kotter 1996; Lewin, 1935), the world of
online learning is undoubtedly here to stay. That being said, it becomes essen-
tial that educators continue to investigate effective venues for learning. Social
constructivism offers a theoretical lens under which different strategies can
be evaluated. Further, this lens is a theological fit for Christian educators.
While time is the friend of understanding, the present offers us a space to ex-
amine and develop an educational approach in the best interest of the adult
learner.
DEULEN: Social Constructivism and Online Learning Environments 97
REFERENCES
Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in
distance education: Putting pedagogy before online discussions: Is this constructivism or
technology. Teaching Theology & Religion, normalisation of learning? Innovations in Ed-
5( 1), 17-29. ucation and Teaching International 45(2), 183.
Blaydes, J. (2003). The educators book of Gupta, D., Bradley, L., & Yeoh, T. (2008). Tools
quotes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. for effective virtual team meetings. In J. Ne-
miro, M. Beyerlein, L. Bradley & S. Beyerlein
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology ofhu-
(Eds.), Handbook of high-performance vir-
man development: Experiments by nature and
tuai teams (pp. 461-478). San Francisco, CA:
design. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
lossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In J. Leach,
Hausfather, S. J. (1996) Vygotsky and school-
8c B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy I
ing creating a social context for learning. Ac-
(pp. 4-20). London: Paul Chapman Pub-
tion in Teacher Education, 18(2), 1-10.
lishing.
Hill, P. C., 8c Hall, T. W. (2002). Relational
Collopy, R. M. B., 8c Arnold, J. M. (2009).
schemas in processing ones image of God and
To blend or not to blend: Online and
self. Journal of Psychology and Christianity,
blended learning environments in undergrad-
21(4), 365-393.
uate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Edu-
cation, 18(2), 85-101.
Jacobson, L., 8c Rosenthal, R. (1966). Teachers
Dickens, W. T., 8c Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritabil- expectancies: Determinants of pupils IQ
ity estimates versus large environmental ef- gains. Psychological Reports, 19, 115-118.
fects: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological
Kemp, J. W., Livingstone, D., 8c Bloomfield,
Review, 108(2), 346-369. doi: 10.1037/0033
R R. (2009). SLOODLE: Connecting VLE
-295X. 108.2.346
tools with emergent teaching practice in sec-
Estep, J. R., Jr. (2002). Spiritual formation as ond life. British Journal of Educational Tech-
social: Toward a Vygotskyan developmental nology, 40(3), 551. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8535
perspective. Religious Education, 97(2), 141. .2009.00938.x
Garrison, D. R., 8c Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., 8c Swanson, R. A.
learning: Uncovering its transformative po- (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic
tential in higher education. Internet and in adult education and human resource devel-
Higher Education, 7, 95-105. doi: 10.1016 opment. Boston, MA: Elesevier.
/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Kotter, J. R (1996). Leading change. Boston,
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Manag- MA: Harvard Business School Press.
ing students without coercion. New York:
Harper and Row. Kotter, J. P., 8c Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of
change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Grenz, S. J. (2001). The social God and the rela- Press.
tional self: A trinitarian theology of the imago
dei, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of person-
Press. ality: Selected papers. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An
introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Lowe, S., 8c Lowe, M. (2010). Spiritual forma-
MI: Zondervan. tion in theological distance education: An
98 Christian Education Journal
ecosystems model. Christian Education Jour- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The de-
nal, 7(1), 85. velopment of higher psychological processes.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, M. (2010). Motivating learning.
Change, 42( 2), 4. White, R. (2006). Promoting spiritual forma-
tion in distance education. Christian Educa-
Powell, ., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and tion Journal, 3(2). 303-315.
social constructivism: Developing tools for an
effective classroom. Education, 130( 2), 241.
AUTHOR
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asyn-
chronous online text-based lectures and syn- Angela Deulen is a doctoral student in Orga-
chronous interactive web conferencing lec- nizational Leadership at Pepperdine Univer-
tures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69- sity. She is also an Assistant Professor of Psy-
84. chology at California Baptist University as
well as a Licensed Marriage and Family Thera-
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design conse- pist. Correspondence regarding this article
quences of an analogy between evolution by should be addressed to Angela A. Deulen,
natural selection and human cognitive archi- School of Behavioral Sciences, California Bap-
tecture. Instructional Science, 32( 1), 9-31. tist University, 8432 Magnolia Ave. Riverside,
CA 92504. Contact: adeulen@calbaptist.edu
Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant:
How conversational style makes or breaks rela-
tionships. New York: Ballantine.
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.