I received a number of helpful comments to last week’s blog so I would like to begin this week considering some of that and I believe it will nicely bring me to some thoughts on inquiry based teaching in social work education. To begin, I took a look at constructivism as epistemology. Below is a taken from the Wikipedia website. Next is constructivism as pedagogy. Finally, I will tie in inquiry based teaching strategies in social work from a constructivist pedagogical approach and consider how power fits in.
“Constructivist epistemology is an epistemological perspective in philosophy about the nature of scientific knowledge.[1] Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world. Constructivists argue that the concepts of science are mental constructs proposed in order to explain sensory experience. Another important tenet of Constructivist theory is that there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods.[2] Constructivism holds the view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought. Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Constructivist as pedagogy is considered relatively new within the last couple of decades of academic research, although constructivism as a learning theory has been in discussion much longer (Richardson, 2003). Constructivism as a learning theory is perceived as meaning making whereby students “create new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe and ideas and knowledge with which they come into contact” (Richardon, 2003, p.1624). Richardson (2003) identifies two ways of understanding constructivism; social constructivism (also referred to as social constructionism) and psychological constructivism. My understanding is that social constructionism and social constructivism are different but this author identifies them the same.
Richarson (2003) contends that psychological constructivism is typically what one thinks of when considering constructivist pedagogy. Within this way of thinking, formal knowledge comes from meaning making within social groups where members participate in the creation of meanings, which are shared meanings. Social constructivism centers on the ways in which power, economy, political and social factors affect the ways in which meaning is made. For this reason, psychological constructivism is considered more appropriate and frequently used, in the classroom (according to Richardson). This for me raised the question of what is the classroom in social work education, but that may be too distracting for today, so I will leave that for now and simply say there may be room for both social and psychological constructivism within social work education.
Richardson (2003) identifies characteristics of constructivist pedagogy including;
1. Student centered
2. Facilitation of group dialogue for the purpose of creating a shared understanding
3. Formal domain knowledge presented through direct instruction, for example, website
4. Tasks allow students to add, change or challenge beliefs
5. Students meta-awareness of their understandings and learning processes
In searching the literature for articles related to social work education, inquiry based learning and constructivism, I found four articles that consider how constructivist pedagogy is or can be used within social work education. First, from a constructivist or interpretive view, knowledge is constructed through active and deep learning (Brew, 2003; Healey, 2005). Next social work assumes students bring knowledge and take on a participatory role within the classroom (Healey, 2005). Then there was a focus on the development of critical thinking and reflexivity skills (Mangione, Mears, Vincent, & Hawes, 2011; Hughes, 2011). Finally, there are research based and problem based approaches to learning (Healey, 2005).
I would argue that social constructivism as pedagogy is also used in social work education through inquiry based learning. Searching the literature using power as a keyword along with social work education and inquiry based learning provided a number of additional considerations for constructivist pedagogy. If I consider a previous statement taken from Richardson above, “social constructivism centers on the ways in which power, economy, political and social factors affect the ways in which meaning is made”, a look at constructivist pedagogy through inquiry based learning in social work education using a power lens may be appropriate in the classroom. Social work is concerned with social justice and one could argue social justice is linked to the economy, political and social factors and power. Next week, I will look at how this power lens interacts with constructivist pedagogy.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning.
Hughes, M. (2011). Do challenges to students’ beliefs, values and behavior within social work education have an impact on their sense of well-being?
Mangione, L., Mears, G., Vincent, W., & Hawes, S. (2011). The supervisory relationship when women supervise women: An exploratory study of power, reflexivity, collaboration and authenticity.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy.
Wow, Beth! I have learned a lot through reading your clear and insightful blog! THank you.
ReplyDeleteBy following the view of constructivism, in the context of "what is education", that begs the understanding of who's view we pursue as accurate and valid for learning. Hmmm...
Good to see you engaging with feedback and pushing ahead, Beth!
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is often (though not always) an unreliable source of information, and while this is one of those times, the information is not so much incorrect as misleading. A few clarifications:
Constructivist epistemologies of all stripes deal with knowledge generally, not just scientific knowledge.
Most philosophers and others who study the mind would agree that concepts are mental categories used to explain the world (or our experience of the world), so this isn't a feature of constructivism per se.
I doubt there is any scientist (or philosopher of science) who would say that there is only one valid methodology in science, because even within each scientific discipline a variety of methodologies are used.
There's an important difference between the claim that we can only know reality as it is represented in thought and the claim that reality is merely the ideas/models/whatever constructed in our minds. The former claim, obviously, implies that there is something beyond our thoughts that is being represented. The next point, about the interaction between reality and meaning reinforces that point. It also illustrates the importance of distinguishing between a theory of knowledge (epistemology) and a theory of meaning (related to, but not synonymous with, learning theory). The Wikipedia authors don't make this distinction, so they mislead themselves.
More importantly for your purposes, perhaps: the Wikipedia entry is describing cognitive/psychological constructivism (meaning or knowledge is constructed by the mind) rather than social constructivism (meaning or knowledge is constructed socially, through interactions with others). Cognitive constructivists would say that whatever meaning is created socially is still represented in each individual in mental models, but many social constructivists would be reluctant to accept that.
The distinction between different kinds of constructivism should be important to you because, until the post, you have been talking about social constructivism. You will either need to choose one, or figure out a way to relate the two overarching types that will make sense for your purposes moving forward. You're correct, I think, in noting that they are distinct (Richardson is wrong; I have no idea what primary sources s/he has consulted but that distinction would have been apparent in the primary sources). The failure to distinguish between the two makes Richardson's account quite misleading and incoherent. In order to make the Richardson source useful to you, you'll need to do Richardson's work for him/her.
The issue you raise about social work classrooms would be good to pursue -- so I'm glad you're pursuing it! :) The matters you bring up toward the end of your post will be relevant to that inquiry, as you could delve into issues of power dynamics in the social work classroom, and their implications for power dynamics in social work practice. Exciting!
Thank you for the clarity on constructivism. I think the claim that 'social constructivism as pedagogy is also used in social work education through inquiry based learning' is consistent with the blog posting so far on it being student based, inquiry driven and thus achieving deep learning. So the belief that deep learning is taking place in such an environment is justified. However, the question I have is about the social and political constrains social workers have to deal with on a daily basis. Do we have any data on the variation in how these constrains are challenged or dealt with by social worker who have been through such a dynamic learning environment and students who have not had the opportunity to do so. Seems to me that students’ who have been through the experience of deep learning, would more be more inclined and feel more empowered to take on leadership roles in society. So the other question I have is do you incorporate some leadership training within your program?
ReplyDeleteLike you stated a good direction to distinguish between social work and social justice would be extension of your blog I am looking forward to.
Beth as I read I thought about the connection you make between IBL and the characteristics of constructivist pedagogy. In part, I felt that this was a logical connection, but it also made me think of other teaching approaches and if or how they can also adopt these characteristics. It seems to me that it might be an easy argument to make that constructivist pedagogy is used in social work via IBL.
ReplyDeleteI think I may misunderstood part of the direction of your post. When you made reference to examining the issue of power, I immediately started to think that this would move into a discussion of student versus teacher centred learning (and this kind of links to my statement/question above). I'm not sure if that is the direction you are heading - but this is what I was interpreted.