In this second post in the Divergent Series, I would like to look at some theoretical implications on learning in a professional context.
Giddens relates specific terminology to analytical levels of research approaches for small or large scale level respectively termed as micro and macro (Giddens, 2009). So, a key point to consider when discussing social constructivism is the further significance conflict plays within a learning environment. For example, Macpherson and Clark (2009) echoed how documentation of procedures hardly translates into knowing in action especially where novices and experts need to interact so deep learning reaches those who may be in need of it most. As individuals enrol, finance, and continue their studies on programmes such as this doctoral one, the differences in their individual learning performances comes into question. Moreover, it is possible to ask whether such a situation motivates and affects the student towards learning which reduces the gaps that may exist between individual. In fact, after reading Springer et al. (1999), I realised how the learning environment impacts the learner significantly that it contributes towards attrition or student drop out. So on the individual or macro level, the learner remains motivated to learn within a group due to a shared value such as goals achieved through a collective process.
On the means of reducing such gaps, as an individual communicating with an international cohort, unless I am willing to participate as a learner, it might seem that I will not gain as much from the learning exchange which might endorse surface learning maybe even allowing such surface notions in the mind of my colleagues. Therefore, how the learning culture transfers from the collective to the individual is significant within the social learning context especially where modelling, copying and noticing the roles everyone (student/teacher) plays.
Ellis (2008) identifies the willingness to communicate as a property of the learner which plays a significant portion in pushing the student to participate in different roles using the language as a context for interacting, connecting with content and enabling further linking with others who share similar willingness. Also, Lave and Wenger (1991) identified groups of individuals working together to a common goal, with learning materials and sharing similar levels of competencies. Therefore, the individual may be persuaded to act in the best interest of the group by adjusting the individual ego and unwillingness to participate negative learning qualities. On the other hand, thinking of the group’s best interest assures the learning of the individual through accountability measures such as individual grading for the individual role partaken during the group activities.
At work, some students do not value reading from their course books nor fully grasp the advantages of using the material as the basis for further discussions (Perkins, 2006). Hence, rather than ‘force’ them to read as expected and answer comprehension questions, I copy the paragraphs which may number one to five depending on the level of the class in order to allow them to adopt new learning habits. Then, I prepare four questions for each paragraph. After that, I assign students letters depending on the number of paragraphs. Finally, groups consisting of different paragraphs, questions, members with tasks sit around to read, answer, discuss, then write up as follow up to individualise the exercise and provide further critical thinking without (me) the teacher having any role apart from clarifying instruction. Such activities I prepare for students agrees with the findings of Springer et al. (1999) and in my professional context, such jigsaw reading using cooperative principles for reading fall under what Ghaith and Bouzeineddine (2003) described as jigsaw reading.
To recap, the theory of social learning aims to enhance student motivation, increase confidence through engaging the emotional side of a learner and jigsaw reading supports the theory of group learning through using social constructivist practice including cooperative and situated learning practices.
References
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (4th ed.). Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/8021
Ghaith, G. M., & Bouzeineddine, A. R. (2003). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING ATTITUDES, ACHIEVEMENT, AND LEARNERS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR JIGSAW II COOPERATIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCE. Reading Psychology,24(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390197444
Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology. https://doi.org/978-0-7456-4357-1
Groff, A. (2016). Community of practice (CoP). In Salem Press Encyclopedia. Research Starters. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.liverpool.idm.oclc.org
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Macpherson, A., & Clark, B. (2009). Islands of Practice: Conflict and a Lack of “Community” in Situated Learning. Management Learning, 40(5), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340810
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
Ibrahim's blog 