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.

What is a theory? What is an instructional theory?

What is a theory?

A theory is an explanation or set of explanations that define something.

A hypothesis is developed as a tenable explanation for something. The researcher then tests the hypothesis somehow. If the hypothesis is supported, then the hypothesis becomes a theory that continues to undergo additional testing and validation. If the hypothesis is not supported, it is revised based on the experiment and then is tested again.

Thus a theory is a constantly evolving hypothesis that serves to explain something.

An instructional theory is an explanation or set of explanations that define instruction. This is a broad definition and hence there are a multitude of different types of instructional theories. Different people look to define different elements of instruction, thus different theories are developed to define different elements of instruction.

The value of instructional theories is that they draw me to different elements of instruction that I may not have thought of before. Thus, instructional theories help me to flesh out my own explanations and definitions of what instruction is and should be. This is why I can analyze instructional theories and in many cases find elements that seem intuitive to me. This is because those specific elements are intuitive to me. In other words, I have already defined that specific aspect of instruction in the same way that the theorist has presented the element. The real exciting experiences in researching theory is when the theory addresses an aspect of instruction that I have not previously though about. At this point, I have an opportunity to evolve my understanding of instruction. The greater my definition of instruction, the greater number of opportunities for design decisions I have.

As an example, if I define instruction as a function of content and pedagogy, then all of my design decisions are constrained to those two elements. If I then learn about principles of instructional aesthetics,  then I have increased the domains of my designs (as well as the complexity).

Design Theories address the different ways that domains are configured in instruction to work together to achieve some instructional objective. These are the most important types of theories in terms of expanding or constricting my design decisions.

Learning Experience Design vs. Instructional Systems Design

I have concluded that ISD is fundamentally behaviorist in nature. It couches the development of instruction in terms of "what will be done to or for" the learner as opposed to "what the learner will do to learn". Some may argue with this distinction, stating that the purpose of the development of instructional systems is to provide learners with opportunities for experience. I would respond with the fact that ISD does not generally describe what learners "will do" to learn, but only what learners "can do" to learn. In this sense, ISD constrains the learning process to achieve "desirable instructional objectives in the learner".

Because the learner is ontologically dynamic and evolving, the concept of a static instructional system presupposes that the ontological nature of the learner can be circumscribed by a "system of learning". I believe that the development of artificially intelligent "learning systems" is an attempt to address the deficiency of static instructional systems. In other words, the development of a system that can emulate the learner's capacity to adapt and evolve cognitively is an attempt to improve the efficiency of instructional systems that are constantly rendered inadequate and outdated by the evolution of the learner. A good example of this is the evolution of video games in instruction. Originally, the games of edutainment were designed to target a specific skill (Math Blaster, Timez Attack, Reader Rabbit, etc.). But once the skill was achieved by the learner, the game lost its utility as a tool to develop skill (although it may be argued that the games could be used as memory aids and refreshers). As gaming has evolved to MMORPG-type games, there is a richer environment presented and a broader range of skills to be developed (although the argument about utility of cognitive transfer of these skills is still ongoing) but the learner is still being "acted upon by the environment" (because it is an artificially created environment constraining the learner) instead of taking control of learning tools to achieve some personally determined objective (although it may be argued that the learner is using tools within the gaming environment to learn, the objectives of the learner are artificially constrained by the environment itself).

Most of these insights I have come to through an exploration of intrinsic learner motivation (ILM). When a learner is truly motivated, they:

1.Determine their own learning objectives
2. Assess what tools and resources they have available to them
3. Make a plan to achieve their objectives
4. Work to achieve their objectives

It is also important to note the the objectives of the learner, as well as the tools and resources available, change constantly. Experience changes the learner, which can also lead to the learner altering his/her learning goals. Experience can also expand or reduce the tools and resources available to learners.

These are some of my thoughts. Here are some implications for what I want to  call Educational Design (ED):

• ED needs to focus on developing tools and resources for learners to use (we are starting to do this a lot better - moving away from programmed instruction boxes)
• ED needs to acknowledge the dynamic nature of the learner and hence the inefficiency of designing instructional objectives for the learner
• The Learner needs to be empowered to determine his/her own objectives from the domain of the instruction.
• ED needs to avoid coercing the learner through constraining the learning environment
• ED needs to provide tools, resources, opportunities, etc. for Learners to learn as much as they want to learn in the domain of the provided instruction
• ED needs to allow the Learner to choose domains
• ED needs to change the way of assessing the Learner
• Personal progress of the Learner needs to be assessed
• Evaluation by the Learner
• Self-Report
• Extrinsic Evaluation
• Cognitive Assessments
• Performance Assessments

Defining design as a verb

Design is the process of reducing uncertainty and complexity to an internally acceptable level.

I will reduce uncertainty and complexity through design to the degree I understand the uncertainty and complexity.

As uncertainty and complexity are in constant flux in the real world, we need to engage in adaptive design practices.

*** Donald Schon's "reflection-in-action" is a response to dynamic complexity and uncertainty.

Operational principles are like generative metaphors. The principle is the simplest case that allows for the generation of several acceptable configurations that function on the principle.
- The principle of "aeronautical lift" leads to any number of technologies that can create lift, different wing designs, objects to be 'lifted', direction of lift, etc.

The key is to develop the skill of stripping away non-essential components to get at the operational principles inherent in an artifact.

In order to learn about something we need to have experience with the thing in order to have sufficient motivation to learn about the thing.
- If I am learning about World War II, I may not be motivated to learn what is being presented if I am not familiar with the geography, implications, personalities, weapons and warfare, etc. associated with it.

When I am explaining/describing a theory, model, framework, etc., I absolutely need to be explicit about what I understand the operational principles to be.

Design always takes place in a context. Understanding the context will lead to an understanding of the design.

Describing Learning

I have come to understand that the way we describe learning places constraints on learning. Learning is an abstract concept. By making it more concrete, we lose parts of the abstraction and, hence, the ontology contracts around the concrete definition supplied.

What is needed is multiple definitions/characterizations of learning. We need layered understandings of the complexity inherent in learning. One such proposal is provided here:

Potential “Layers of Learning” Theory

“Layers” of Learning	Domain Theories
Changing behaviour	Neuroscience Behavioural science
Enhancing skills	Cognitive development
Storing information	Cognitive sciences
Gaining knowledge	Cognitive sciences Epistemology
Making sense of the world	Social sciences Socio-cultural and activity theory
Interpreting reality in a different way	Phenomenology

(adapted from slideshare presentation) Click here for reference

*** What other layers of learning might exist?

*** Other than layers, how might we characterize the complexities of learning?

Seeing-As and the Generative Metaphor

Seeing-As: Two dissimilar things are juxtaposed that they might be 'seen-as' being similar. This helps to create a transfer of structures between the two dissimilar things until they can both be identified as being related in someway. Some previously unthought-of functionality is transferred to the dissimilar object and a new conception of the things and its function or properties arises. This redefinition of the things generates new avenues for exploration and  understanding. Schon calls this a "generative metaphor". The metaphor for the thing becomes generative it that it generates new ways to think about the thing, its properties, its configurations, etc.

" Not all metaphors are generative" (185). Not all metaphors "generate new features of ..." (185).

What is the value add of explicit design

I have found it interesting today that design seems to be a ubiquitous part of people's lives. I use the word ubiquitous because I believe people take it for granted, or in other words, they have automatized the design processes in their lives. They have developed habits, models, algorithms, etc. all to reduce the decision-making that needs to take place each day. The only time they think about their designing is when their automation breaks down. This idea relates to cognitive dissonance in suggesting natural causes of cognitive dissonance. It's not necessarily just previously unencountered ideas that can create cognitive dissonance, but previously unencountered experiences and situations. Schon talks about this phenomenon in "The Reflective Practitioner" and about how when people are confronted with ideas, experiences, or situations they are not familiar with, they first try to frame or set the problem in terms of what they already know. If that is impossible, then Schon puts forth that individuals engage in dialogue with themselves, the situation, or other individuals to try to understand more about the problem so as to frame it in terms of something previously encountered. The goal is always to get to a well-framed problem, because then the individual can ritualistically apply the previous methods, models, algorithms, etc. to resolve the problem. I have not seen Schon make the explicit statement that this is what people do in the everyday course of their lives, but that is what I believe. Schon illustrates a process that everyone engages in, but they do not necessarily understand what or why they do what they do. Hence Schon's phrase "you know more than you can say". For Schon, everyone is constantly designing and redesigning their life, their paradigms, their environments, etc. through purposeful action.

In working on our design-based research project, it is clear to me that the value-add of the class project is not necessarily the presentation of a finished proposal/project, but the making explicit of certain 'design' decisions and 'designerly thinking' of individuals involved in the project.

This is the value of explicit design: when we know why we are doing something, we can control it, manipulate it, alter it, conform it, etc to produce some 'more desirable future' to quote Klaus Krippendorf ("The Semantic Turn"). That is what we as agentive human beings are doing constantly through design: shaping a 'more-desirable' future based on our personal values. We just don't realize it as design because it has become ubiquitous and as a result has become mysterious.

Change your values, change your design. Change your design, change your life. Change your life, change the world.