Keshav Jugtah

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM Social constructionism originated from sociology about thirty years ago as an attempt to come to terms with the nature of reality and has been associated with postmodernism. It is a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in social contexts. Social constructs are the by-products of countless human choices. It focuses on uncovering the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the construction of their perceived social reality. Burr (1 $uckmann (1 1" in its development. !" acknowledges the ma#or influence of Berger and

The word constructionism is a mnemonic for two aspects of the theory of the science of education underlying this project. From constructivist theories of psychology we take a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then we extend the idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences as constructing is a meaningful product. (Sa elli! ".! #$$%& %ergen believes that social constructionism is about social relationships. &e recognises some correspondence with the 'ygotskian formulations which focus on social interactions and cooperation. 't is concerned with the ways in which knowledge is historically situated and em edded in cultural values and practices. (ccording to this approach! meanings are socially constructed via coordination of people in their various encounters) therefore! it is always fluid and dynamic (*ergen + *ergen! #$,#&. (-amargo./orges + 0asera! #$,1& (he above statement is very close to that made by )ohn-Steiner * Souberman (1 +,"- in the light of 'ygotsky.s socio-cultural theory- claiming that historical conditions are constantly changing and for this very reason there can never be a universal schema that competently represents the dynamics between the internal and external aspects of development. Both historical and fluidity aspects of social constructionism shall be discussed in the context of the

Keshav Jugtah

ac/uisition of knowledge in the pedagogical discussions below. EDUCATION 0ducation being the ac/uisition of knowledge- it is interesting to note that 1uhn (1 +2" made the assumption in his understanding of scientific knowledge that knowledge is 3intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all4. 0ducation is essentially about student-teacher relationships and processes of teaching and learning- most often in classrooms (0rlbaum-1 !". (he two main viewpoints in knowledge ac/uisition are the exogenic and endogenic traditions. (he exogenic tradition can be traced to empiricism (world centered"- the endogenic tradition can be linked to rationalism. Both favour a mind-world dualism in which the existence of the material world is set against the existence of a psychological (cognitive" world. 5rom the exogenic perspective- the child is viewed as a tabula rasa. (he external world shall influence the child.s state of mind upon observation and assimilation. In contrast- the endogenic perspective is child centered. It emphasises upon changing a child.s ways of thinking- and his point of view- to make sense of the external world from within. CONSTRUCTIVISM AND CONSTRUCTIONISM (he terms constructivism and constructionism often cause confusions and are misused. (he terms constructivism and social constructionism tend to be used interchangeably and included under the generic term 6constructivism7 particularly by 8harma9 (:222- :22;". <iaget.s constructivism describes how children.s way of doing and thinking evolve over time and in which circumstances children are more likely to change or to hold on to their currently held views. =n the other hand- Seymour <apert.s constructionism emphasises more on the art of learning or .learning to learn. through conversations and how these boost self-directed learning and eventually facilitate the construction of new knowledge.

Keshav Jugtah

-onstructionism 2 the " word as opposed to the 3 word 2 shares constructivism4s view of learning as 4 uilding knowledge structures4 through progressive internali5ation of actions... 't then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a pu lic entity! whether it4s a sand castle on the each or a theory of the universe. (6apert! ,77,! p. ,& SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND EDUCATION 8onstructionists view knowledge and truth as created and not discovered by the mind (Schwandt- :22>". 8oncepts are believed to be constructed rather than unconcealed and yet they are considered to correspond to something real in the world. &owever- as ?orty (1 ,>" puts it- 3we are shoved around by physical reality.4 %ergen claims that social constructionism breaks away from both exogenic and endogenic traditions. ?ather than a concern with an external world or an individual mind- it commences with language (0rlbaum- 1 Burr (1 !".

!" comments that it is language that makes that makes thoughts and concepts possible

and not the other way around. $anguage predates concepts and provides a means of structuring the way the world is experienced (@ndrews- :21:". Aittgenstein (1 !>" asserts that there is no private languageB rather language and other actions gain their intelligibility in their social use. (herefore- learning occurs in a social context- and in classroom settings this is achieved through cooperative learning. Students communicate in their own .peer-language. to share knowledge and build new constructs and schemas. (om @ndrews writes that 3Berger and $uckmann (1 1" maintain that conversation is the most important means of maintainingmodifying and reconstructing sub#ective reality.4 @lso- it has been found that 3students who learn the most are those who give and receive elaborated explanations about what they are learning and how they are learning (Aebb- 1 ,!"4 (Cooly- :22,". %ergen believes that social constructionism is not an attempt to replace existing traditions of

Keshav Jugtah

knowledge- it is rather an attempt to build upon the existing resources in the service of 3planetary well-being4. (his implies that there are no pedagogies that cannot be understood through the lens of social constructionism. @pplying social constructionism to education from a 'ygotskian perspective allows us to distinguish between constructs in a clear and concise manner with regard to their functions. 1nowledge is regarded as a changing body of schemas mutually constructed with others while learning is defined as the construction of socially outlined knowledge and values and culturally constructed opportunities through life experiences. (eaching is about co-constructing knowledge with students by sharing expertise and understanding and motivation occurs by observing and imitating others and attempting to reach the same or better levels of satisfaction. In this approach- the role of a teacher is that of a mediator who introduces something within the environment with which the child interacts. 8hildren use the teachers as guides- allowing them to perform tasks which are #ust beyond their current capacity- by observing and listening to the latter. (his was termed by ?ogoff (1 2" as guided participation.

Social constructionism encourages peers to play an active role in each others learning process within or outside the classroom context. @t the same time it describes the role of the student as that of an active thinker- interpreter- in/uirer and active social participator. &owever- in our system we see students as being passive participants to the extent that the teachers also do not have much of their own say in what to study or not since the system is curriculum-based and only those at the top of the ladder (curriculum designers" get to decide what is to be taught and learned. %ergen writes that teachers are considered as 3instruments to dispense the educational nutrients to the students. Students are expected merely to consume the knowledge.4 Dany are those who consider the curriculum-based education system not to be efficient enough- the failure and drop out rates being very high. (he main reasons for this is that everything has been standardised- irrelevant of the students. family background- economic status of the country- geographic locations or the more pressing issues which should have been made priorities- rendering teachers into 3mere technicians4.

Keshav Jugtah

Social constructionists lay emphasis on the problems of the monologic versus dialogic practices of meaning making. @s in the case of authoritative learning- the student in monologic system is denied a voice of his or her own. The endpoint to e achieved y monologic education is a student who has fully a sor ed that which has een presented 2 or in effect! ecomes a simulacrum of the authority. 8hatever! talents! insights! or specialised education the individual possesses is denied entry into the conversation. (*ergen! ,777& )ackson (1 ;," describes how hierarchical relationships in schools discourage creativity and innovation among students while wood (1 ,," writes that students are shaped 3to take their place unthinkingly in a world that operates beyond their control with no respect for their needs4. @pple (1 >" explains how standardised curricula deskill our teachers and thus strongly urges

the authorities to abandon the hierarchical model and adopt a heterarchical model. %ergen writes that 3disciplines should not be monologues to be mastered- but resources for particular conditions of living.... a shift from monologue (hierarchy" to dialogue (heterarchy" is invited.4 &owever- we seem to be going in the wrong direction as @ronowit9 and %iroux (1 >" report

that 3many of the educational reforms appear to reduce teachers to the status of low-level employees... whose main function is to implement reforms decided by experts in the upper levels of the state and educational bureaucracies4 (p.>>". @ccording to @rbind )ha (:21:"- one cannot expect a person to remain within the boundaries of a constricted sub#ect matter as in real life events- a person is expected to wander around and find the appropriate solutions by 3roaming across any domains that are necessary4. (his is the exact ideology that 5inland has adopted for more than forty years already. 0ven they had not realised how successful their system was until the year :222 when the <rogramme for International Students @ssessment (<IS@" revealed that 5inn students were the best in reading.

Keshav Jugtah

<IS@ exams are held for fifteen year old students from participating countries in readingmathematics and science areas. (he /uestions asked are about applying their knowledge and not about reciting facts or rote learning. (hroughout the years 5inland has been consistently one of the best countries. (he hierarchy system is practically non-existent in the country. (he students do not have to take any mandated standardised test except one at the end of the senior year in high school. (here is no ranking system and no kind of competition between students or schools. 5innish teachers claim that they have a 3whatever it takes4 attitude with regard to the success of their students and that their emphasis is on pulling up the weak students. (he general belief is that wealthy children from families with lots of education can be taught by 3stupid4 teachers. @nother field example of the pedagogies of the constructionist approach is the experiment called 3the hole in the wall4 carried out by Sugata Ditra in 1 much 0nglish and had never seen a computer before. @fter noticing the results of the experiments carried out in different parts of the world- Sugata Ditra said that 38hildren will learn to do what they want to learn to do.4 8hildren younger than ten year old learned how to browse the internet and taught each other. In ?a#hasthan- within four hours of coming into contact with a computer for the first time in their life- children learned how to record their own music without any adult guidance. @fter the success of the first phase- the pro#ect became a little more ambitious and a speech-to-text software was installed in a computer which was left in a village with students with poor 0nglish language skills for two months. In the end- they were all speaking 0nglish an almost neutral British accent. In some places primary school level students- with a little help from their elder peers- even went on to understand abstract concepts like genetics and CE@ structures. Ditra claims that our present day schooling system was implemented about three hundred years ago when the British empire was ruling the world and there were no computers and they were very successful in what they did- but the time for change has now come and we are not able to cope yet. when he fixed a computer to a wall with internet connection in a slum where the children barely went to school- did not know

Keshav Jugtah

=ne last example worth mentioning is that of teacher and public orator 1iran Bir Sethi who started her own school the ?iverside School in India. @s encouraged by constructionists to develop and shift the focus to teacher-student relationships and relations in the 9one of proximal development- students at the above mentioned school were made to 3lead the change4 with the assistance of their parents and teachers. (he children who were being taught about child rights and child labour were made to experience the pain by rolling incense sticks for eight hours. (his transformed them to the extent that they started going door-to-door to sensiti9e the general population about the problematic phenomenon in /uestion and they did so convincingly since they were talking from experience and not something that they had learned from some book. Cespite the success of the social constructionist approach- it does not remain free of criticism. CRITICAL APPROACH <ositivism gives credit to science and human knowledge whereas social construction credits human understanding and thinking. 5iona &ibberd holds that 3given that logical positivism is typically held to be deeply mistaken- it follows that social constructionism has been likewise ensnared by a similarly mistaken view.4 (he positivist perspective claims that professional knowledge through ob#ectivity while social constructionism gives no importance to such knowledge as it is derived from one.s routine through socialisation. (he point here is that #ust as positivism is not all inclusive- the same applies to the other for the lack of consideration for structured academic knowledge. @lexander $iebrucks argues that social constructionism 3cannot help but be compatible with realism4 which means that it is not mutually incompatible with realism nor is it epistemologically relative. @t the same time- @delbert )enkins emphasises on its failure to distinguish content from process. &e explains that 3the content of the self differs radically across cultures but the processes that presumably generate and maintain that self are universal (from a dialectic accountF mutually created and sustained". (herefore- our understanding of

Keshav Jugtah

persons is limited. @lso- social constructionism falls towards the nurture end of the nature versus nurture debate and thus has a tendency to neglect biological factors. @ll that said- we should not assume that it is of no substantial importance. CONCLUSION 5rom an ob#ective point of view- It would be very appropriate to /uote $ukerF 0easona le people who are located in different parts of the social world find themselves differentially exposed to diverse realities! and this differential exposure leads each of them to come up with different 2 ut often e9ually reasona le 2 constructions of the world. (:uker! ,7%;! p.,& @pplying this statement to the context of education- it is worth mentioning that curriculumbased systems do not provide for differential exposures situation. &owever- the teacher- even though he does not have his say in the content to be taught- can influence the way in which the materials are presented and taught. It is up to the teacher to decide whether they want to teach in an individual manner or on a one-to-one student-teacher relationship system or through cooperative learning. Cespite the theoretical inconsistencies that have been pointed out- we should still give our full support to the approach in /uestion #ust for the sake of the undeniably positive results that it has had. @ll the while- scientific knowledge that cannot be made easily accessible through social interactions should remain a priority.