Constructivism.

As I said I would I went back and looked again at the professional communication technologies reader as well as some of the original articles that it refers to. I've been putting off writing this blog for about four days now because I feel as if I have too many thoughts to put down into words. I'm not sure yet which ones are relevant or even which ones are related to each other. I probably have about three different blogs worth of ideas to talk about but I'm going to start with one and see if it clarifies things for me. Perhaps if you have any thoughts you can help too.


Whilst reading this article:


Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L. & Shen, R. 2008, 'Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes', ACM, pp. 705-714 accessed at http://www2008.org/papers/pdf/p705‐ullrichA.pdf 


I came across the phrase "Social Constructivism." As far as I understand in simple terms it is a theory that says people learn through experiencing things and then reflecting on them. This seemed a very appropriate description of the way we are approaching this course so I thought I'd investigate more.


Apparently the ground work for the theory was done by a man called Lev Vygotsky 1896-1934. He did a lot of research into the way that children develop and learn and over the years others have adapted and enhanced the work to apply to learning in general. Vygotsky came up with a theory called the "Zone of Proximal Development" (Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.). This theory suggested that children didn't learn as well on their own as they did when they were working with an adult. The collaboration with the adult allowed the child to "refine their thinking". The following diagram explains it better than I ever could.

The green area shows what a child can do and the dark orange shows something that the child is currently unable to do. The light orange area however is something that the child has the potential to do with the help of an adult. Eventually, the child will be able to do whatever task it is on their own and the green area expands to encompass the light orange area. The dark orange area then becomes light orange and so on. In other words the child learns, their understanding increases and the cycle continues. For a better description of it and for more information look at the following website where I sourced my diagram and information:


ATHERTON J S (2010) Learning and Teaching; Constructivism in learning [On-line] UK: Available:http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm Accessed: 30 September 2010


I found the above piece of information so interesting because it really applies to what we are doing. At the moment we are just starting out, we are the children with a limited understanding. However, through collaboration with our advisors and with each other we will improve our ability to reflect and expand our understanding of our various professions.


I seem to have strayed away from the idea of professional communication technologies but all the ideas I've talked about so far started me thinking about why web 2.0 is important for my career and its progression. For simplicity I am going to continue by discussing web 2.0 in relation to one particular area of my professional practice.


I have always watched a lot of theatre. I go to see something almost every week and I use it to inform my own performances. I evaluate what I think works and what I think doesn't. I learn form different styles of performers and productions whilst constantly improving my background knowledge of the industry as a whole.


When I was younger this process was accidental or at least certainly not deliberate. It was something I did unintentionally in my own mind. My ideas therefore were quite static and I never ventured far from what I knew. I then went to drama school and we were encouraged to discuss things we saw with each other. So the idea of collaboration was introduced within a small group of people. Our ideas informed each other and our various perceptions help each other learn.


It is only since starting this course that I have realised that this process has moved on again. With the use of Facebook and also Whatsonstage I now have discussions about my thoughts on productions with much wider groups of people. Not just people I know well, but people I am only vaguely acquainted with and some I have never met at all. Also Youtube now gives me the opportunity to repeatedly watch stage performances I would never otherwise have seen, and critique them with people from all over the world. My ideas and viewpoints are continually stretched by this ever growing community of people and my own choices as a performer are therefore also affected.


Now I am aware of this process and the benefits (thanks to the information I've read on constructivism) I think I will be able to enter into it more fully and therefore reap even greater rewards. As I've said previously this is only one area of my professional practice and I am going to think about other areas where I already use web 2.0 collaboration as well as areas where I could introduce it.


It's also worth saying that I think this process encapsulates the phrase "democratisation of the media". Hundreds of people commenting on a production on the Whatsonstage website certainly seems to negate the job of the traditional reviewer. I do however have some reservations about whether this is completely a good thing. The idea of "collective intelligence" suggests that when people comment on a site like Whatsonstage their collective ideas are more valuable than the solitary ideas of one reviewer. Is this right? Ronan McDonald, author of Death of a Critic certainly doesn't think so. In his book he argues there is still a place for the traditional reviewer. A person who is trained in academic writing and who understands the historical contexts and other complexities of productions that are perhaps lost on the "general public." I do to a certain extent understand his concerns. I have often witnessed discussions on Whatsonstage turn in to nothing more than slanging matches. I have also seen wonderful pieces of theatre trashed due to lack of understanding whilst mediocre productions are exalted simply because they are easy to understand. 


I can't honestly say I know what the answer is. I can see the amazing benefits of open discussion and collaboration but also the down side of a pack mentality. I suppose one solution on a personal level is to continue to improve my critical thinking and reflection with the help of someone more experienced than me, for example my advisor on this course, so that I can see the difference. I guess that idea takes me full circle to Vygostky's theory on the "Zone of Proximal Development." I am still a child at the moment but with guidance I will expand my current level understanding in ever increasing circles.