Critiques

The constructivist approach to education is fundamental in most of our learning environments, which gives way for legitimate critiques outlining the limitations, constraints, and pitfalls of the theory in educational settings. As educators and instructional designers, we benefit from understanding the ways in which constructivism can improve our learning contexts, and be aware of some challenges that may surface when applying the theory to our practice.

In critically examining constructivism in educational technology, we are focusing on four themes in the literature:

Relativism

Relativism is often brought up as a product of constructivism, and has to do with the nature of perceiving reality. The relativist viewpoint suggests that “what is experienced as ‘real’ depends upon the mindset of the person who is experiencing it and that there is no ‘reality’ beyond such subjective realities” (Willig, 2016, p. 1).

Kransi observes that social constructivism, in particular, has created a path to the relativization of topics such as scientific facts, values, ethics and morals, common sense, and even democracy (2020). Considering that in constructivism learning, knowledge, and meaning are constructed by the learner and built on from their experiences (Bush, 2006), you can see why scholars have come to criticize the theory in muddling facts. Kransi warns that acknowledging truths are not absolute and only exist as they relate to society, culture, and human perception, provides an opportunity for alternative facts, conspiracy theories, and fake news to compete with empirical facts (2020).

As mentioned in the BBC video, relativism can benefit a classroom by considering another person’s perspective, or the context of other cultures. However, when integrating educational technologies into the classroom with social constructivism in mind, it emphasizes the need for caution, guidance, and observation when using existing social platforms where learners can be exposed to fake news and alternative facts perspectives, and moderation within closed technology where learners are creating knowledge through discovery and discussion.

Epistemological vs Pedagogical

A concern in the literature, most notably when looking at constructivist strategies applied in the sciences, is the conflation of constructivism as a theory of knowledge, with a method and practice of teaching. A constructivist approach does not disregard procedures or empirical knowledge but instead suggests they should be learned in the culture, context, and social realm of their particular disciplines (Swan, 2005).

O'Connor states that when curriculum content is transformed and recontextualized as a result of incorporating active learning and constructivist activities, it is assumed to cause no problems (just a straightforward transformation), though in reality it can potentially change or redefine the expected outcomes in the course. Krasni notes that there should be boundaries based on competence and skill (expertise) that guide the free flow of learner interpretation (2020) taking place during constructivist activities.

"These learning environments are in no way “unscripted,” rather, the teacher designs activities that push students in their zone of proximal development, orchestrates the flow of the class, guides students by providing scaffolds and withdrawing them when students become more independent, and offer effective strategies when they struggle. In other words, fruitful integration of CSCL tools relies on the transformation of knowledge practices and pedagogical approaches in educational contexts by skillful teachers” (Hakkarainen, 2009).

Overwhelming Everyone Involved

Educational technology provides more opportunities for interaction, content building, and data collection, especially in elearning and virtual learning environments. So how do we manage it all? With learning experiences changing as the technology continues to be updated, Reid-Martinez & Grooms suggests following established guidelines and best practices to reduce and prevent instructors and students from being overwhelmed (2020).

Constructivist activities facilitated through technology can allow more sharing, collaboration, and community building. Interactions are increased as you take into consideration the triangulation of learner-teach-content (Reid-Martinez & Grooms, 2020), so boundaries in an online space must be considered to moderate and guide the flow, otherwise it can be challenging for anyone involved to follow or find their way towards the targeted outcomes of the learning experience.

Once you are in a digital environment, Reid-Martinez & Grooms state that the biggest challenge is how to take an abundance of data, and build meaningful knowledge from it (2020). Data generation and collection can seem like an opportunity with the affordances of educational technology, but boundaries should be established to:

• Focus data collection on quality instead of quantity;

• Match the capacity you have to review, collate, and analyze the data;

• Filter data to what you need to inform the continued facilitation of constructivist activities

Chasing Technology

Utilizing constructivist learning technologies can be challenging in a time where they are changing all the time, either through software and application updates, or hardware replacements. Reid-Martinez & Grooms caution that instead of solving technology needs with pedagogy and course design, you should proactively establish good pedagogy and learning process that the technology then supports (2020).

Consider the below diagrams as a way to reframe how you react when technology changes:

In educational technology, we must acknowledge the limitation of equitable access to devices, software, and other tools, taking into consideration ethnicity, gender, class (Scott et al., 1992), and the intersectionality among these and other qualifiers.

Constructivist educational technologies are of varying quality, and the most effective tools might not be economically attainable for some learners or could still be in development (Feyzi Behnagh & Yasrebi, 2020). Even with the availability of cost effective computing, (e.g. Chromebooks) as a platform for enabling computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), educators must be properly trained and skilled at employing CSCL tools to deliver effective constructivist pedagogy.

Hakkarainen (2009) claims computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) have the following goals:

• Supporting educational equity

• Democratization of knowledge

• Improving learning quality

However, he stresses that technological tools alone do not affect and transform learning, they must be facilitated through “transformed social practices” (2009, p. 214). To make the use of educational technology tools more meaningful, the roles of teachers, students, and the larger community, the pedagogical approach to teaching, and the process of producing knowledge all need to undergo a transformation.

New innovations in educational technology, and any resulting constructivist affordances and new learning processes, can also place new pressures on students and educators (Reid-Martinez & Grooms, 2020). This includes possible strain of being available for social interaction and educational tools 24 hours, 7 days a week. To mitigate these pressures, Reid-Martinez & Grooms suggest “guidelines are needed to manage the continuously changing nature of virtual learning experiences. Such research is essential to prevent online instructors and students from feeling overwhelmed” (p. 735).

The rapid growth of educational technology can also “create a moving target challenge for course developers who often find themselves reacting to the technological advances rather than proactively establishing the technology’s relationship to the learning process” (Reid-Martinez & Grooms, 2020, p.736). Learning designers can respond by supporting effective, pedagogically-sound, online constructivist course designs and structures (Wang & Newlin, 2002; Beetham & Sharpe, 2007; Rourke & Coleman, 2011). And given the sheer amount of open-source, digitized knowledge and data available, Reid-Martinez & Grooms insist designing with structure is key to sharing meaningful knowledge amongst and between learners. “Through this open-source structure, participants interact to share experiences and knowledge, thereby expanding their awareness of new concepts and differing approaches to problem-solving as they modify the information in the open-source environment and re-distribute it back to fellow participants“ (Reid-Martinez & Grooms, 2020, p. 736).