Social Collectivism

So I was pondering about learning and teaching and had an insight about what I am calling Social Collectivism.

Constructivism consists in individuals constructing knowledge for themselves. Social constructivism entails the social aspect of individual constructivism. With constructivism, individual volition, motivation, engagement, purpose, etc. is a core element.

In the past, I have felt that constructivist positions have treated individual volition in a cursory way, acknowledging that it influences learning, but avoiding any kind of explanation or description of how it influences learning.

If volition is a major influence on individual construction of knowledge, then it is also a major influence on the social influence on individual construction of knowledge.

Individual and social construction of knowledge are different processes. Social construction consists of individuals constructing knowledge under the influence of others. In other words, the social experience actually alters the way an individual constructs knowledge. Individual construction of knowledge in isolation is a different experience than individual construction of knowledge in a social context.

This brings me to the idea of social collectivism. Social collectivism is a description of how the individual volition of a group of people interact with one another, influence one another, and manifests itself as a collective volition. This collective volition is representative of the individual volition of each person in the group, without being identical to it. This is an extremely important distinction. When talking about motivation, I often see the tacit assumption being made that the manifest volition in a group represents identically the volition of each of the group members. Practical experience indicates that this position is counterintuitive. Each individual has, in fact, his or her own volition, motivation, etc. that comes to bear on the manifest volition of the group. Therefore, the manifest volition of the group is a collection and amalgamation of the individuals' volition present in the group. I am calling this idea social collectivism or collectivist volition.

Social collectivism has important implications for learning and instruction. From a learning perspective, individuals are influenced by peers within a social context and the collective volition is perceived by each person differently. The perception of the collective volition can influence the individuals' volition, which in turn affects the collective volition. In this cyclical manner, a balance is struck between the volition of the individual and the collective volition. The balance is never perfect. More often than not, individuals make trade-offs between their individual volition and the collective volition. There is a zone of tolerance which represents an acceptable degree of difference between the individual volition and the collective volition. If the difference becomes too great, then the individual will disengage from the group in an effort to pursue his or her own volition pathway. Oftentimes individuals whose zone of difference is exceeded will seek a different group or operate in isolation within the group.

It is important to note that collective volition refers to a manifestation of collective intrinsic motivation. Other extrinsic motivating factors may entice an individual to remain with a group whose collective volition would otherwise be undesirably different from his or her own. This is an important point here because it indicates that the collective volition can be influenced and/or managed extrinsically. Much research has been done on the relationship of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators to one another. In this research, however, no mention is made of how extrinsic and intrinsic motivators can be used to appropriately manage the individual and collective volition. This leads to important implications for instruction.

Many instructional theories pay homage to the importance of motivation, but fail to give a full accounting of it in their theoretical descriptions of learning and teaching. Therefore, these theories remain impoverished, to the extent that the success of any instruction designed resides in the learner accepting the invitation to engage in the learning provided. Social collectivism points to the need for instructional theory to not only address, but also to clearly define the role of the collective volition in the learning. This is a powerful source of energy in the learning experience. By energy I am referring to the social, emotional, and sensory forces present in a learning experience. Once it is understood that this energy exists, it is then fundamental to the learning experience that this energy be managed through designed instruction. Social collectivism defines how certain measures of this energy operate upon the individual and the group. Through defining this phenomenon, social collectivism becomes a generative principle, enabling the instructional designer to more efficiently utilize the energy present in a situation to manage volition, and hence, improve the learning experience for the learner.

The question now becomes: How does one manage the collective volition?

Krippendorf makes the point that the instructional designer is really a designer of ideal futures (ideal to the designer, but also ideal to the learner - ideally...). So a first question for the instructional designer is: what is the ideal future for the learners I am designing for?

In order to be complete, part of this ideal future should include what the individual volition of the learner ought to look like. This description of the ideal individual volition will influence what the collective volition will look like as well. However, it is probably futile to try to describe the collective volition in a design because the collective volition is a social phenomenon, only vaguely understood until individuals begin to interact and make their volition manifest through their decisions. But, by identifying what the individual volition should look like, it is then possible to design instruction that reinforces that individual volition through the management of the collective volition and extrinsic motivation.

Practical example:

Joseph is in a college algebra class. He really struggles with math, but the most of the other learners in the class at least seem to enjoy math. He wants to succeed in the class so that he can earn his degree.
- At this point Joseph is still within his zone of difference as far as his motivation and the collective volition of the class is concerned.

In the second week of class, the instructor notices that Joseph is really struggling with the course concepts. The instructor invites Joseph to come in during office hours to discuss his struggles. Joseph accepts the invitation and has a great discussion with the instructor. The instructor relates how she was not particularly gifted in math while beginning her college career, but at one point took a college course from a truly inspiring professor who helped her to see math in a different light. During the conversation, the instructor helps Joseph to begin making connections between the course concepts and his personal interests in history and music. Joseph begins to pursue his studies in the course more avidly and succeeds in learning about college algebra, history, and music in more depth. He also comes to appreciate math in a new way that motivates him to take more advanced courses in mathematics, despite that fact that they are not required for his particular degree.
- I would say that through the instrumentality of the instructor, the difference between Joseph's volition and the collective volition of the learners in the course was reduced, thus enhancing Joseph's engagement with the subject matter. The instructor has been able to simultaneously manage the collective volition of the course and the individual volition of Joseph through extrinsic experiences. This is a powerful instructional concept.