Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Session 24 Bettina Woodroffe
Session 24 Bettina Woodroffe
Session 24 Bettina Woodroffe
Bettina Woodroffe
Fiona Hallett with Dr Franc Potter
ABSTRACT
Originally, the intention of this paper and the presentation to which it relates was to
share the experiences of a novice academic and her attempt to engage teacher-
researchers in academic discourse, and to invite critical interrogation of preliminary
findings and insights.
In the context of widening participation, much research has been undertaken in the area
of undergraduate experience, and the enhancement of that learning experience through
innovative use of technologies.
Despite the growing graduate diversity, likewise recorded, there has been rather less
investigation into postgraduates’ experience, in the context of Lifelong Learning and
Professional Development, of transition to study at masters level, and perceptions of
their own confidence and competence to relate this meaningfully to their professional
practice, and to ‘write academically’.
KEYWORDS
On-line learning; collaboration; social constructivism; academic discourse
This experiment was deliberately and consciously conceived in such a way that we, as
tutor-learners, would expose ourselves not to the same but to similarly robust
challenges, both affective and intellectual, as our students are likely to face in the
process, in which we hope to be able to engage them. We believe that, in order to be
able to engage effectively in the dialogic encounter with students, in way that is ethical
and authentic, we should be able to share and model a lived experience on which to
reflect, and the lessons from which will inform future practice. This requires us to
destabilise our own perspectives, and identify and unsettle our own and each others’
assumptions.
At the time of spinning these seemingly disparate threads, it is hoped that more
colleagues will join us (either by invitation or as they become alert to this debate
conducted in a portal shared by all), to weave their own strands into this narrative
tapestry.
From this we hope will emerge a richer understanding of the discursive process itself,
and implications for the development of on-line personality, (cyber-self?). The
experience is already providing fertile ground for the growth of reflection and
opportunities for further interrogation of shared - and divergent - conceptual
standpoints, which may, or may not, be influenced by wider contextual tensions,
ambiguities and paradoxes.
The following question has been negotiated with Fiona Hallett, and we will be
attempting to engage in a dialogue in addressing it, the purpose being to attempt to
clarify our understanding of some of what has - and more crucially has not - taken place
in the vle (webCT) environment, concerning students' engagement with tasks or
activities, devised and designed to develop their own focus on an area of inquiry into
practice ....:
If the adoption of Social Constructivism requires an assumption that ‘the central fact
about our psychology is the fact of mediation’ (Vygotsky 1978:166) we need to consider
the implications of this when designing learning experiences. Equally, if we view H.E.
students as naturally inhabiting a ‘zone of proximal development’, it follows that
emphasis should fall on learners actively constructing knowledge and meaning through
participating in activities and challenges, with an added emphasis on the interaction
between learners and facilitators in order to arrive at a higher level of understanding.
Thus, I would suggest that, if we are to develop Socially Constructivist learning
experiences, we need to consider: the nature of the learner; the role of the facilitator;
the learning process; and the selection, scope and sequencing of the substantive
content.
Would you agree with this list? Do you see it as hierarchical? Fiona
Whilst this may seem somewhat pedantic, I think that my confusion mirrors some of the
issues that need addressing when developing learning opportunities.
In addition, where you cite Activity Theory are you talking about Engestrom?
I am surprised that I need this theoretical backdrop, I had not anticipated this, but am
increasingly aware that if we are to derive any benefit from this debate then we must, at
least, have a level of shared meaning and understanding with respect to defining the
terms that are so often mis-represented.
Now to the specific; you ask how we scaffold students' critical thinking (which may be
manifesting itself in the classroom interchanges) to enable the articulation of academic
discourse, which is predicated on constant challenge.
I agree that if we are to use a Vygotskian model of Social Constructivism, then this
concept of scaffolding must be central to our thinking when planning teaching and
learning activities. I would suggest that one form of scaffolding would be to ask students
to analyse and articulate how far a given theory can be used to explain an aspect of
their practice in order to create meaning in ways that students can make their own
(Hausfather, 1996). These analyses should be open to question and interrogation by
other experienced practitioners (Engestrom 1999) which supports your thinking around
Therefore, perhaps Engestrom’s Activity Theory (ibid), is more useful than Social
Constructivism (S.C) when analysing teaching and learning experiences due, in part,
to the inherent commitments of S.C. that are not present in Activity Theory.
Sorry to back-track but I believe that we need a shared understanding of the theoretical
positions that inform our respective teaching and learning before we can analyse how
far these aims can be achieved on-line. Fiona
This overlap does not guarantee success, for another condition has to be satisfied, and
that is that the tutor should have the ability to scaffold the student (to ‘get down to their
level’ in common parlance).
I would also suggest that a group tutorial (given an experienced tutor who knows the
students) will usually be better than a peer debate, partly because the tutor will be
actively concerned with developing the students’ understandings – whereas the
students will usually be more concerned with their own understandings. However, this
raises two interesting and related questions
1. in what ways can we help students make the most of the overlap between their
zopeds and the core knowledge of others in a peer debate (an aspect of learning how to
learn)?
2. in what ways can we encourage students to help other students in this manner (e.g.
by acting as e-moderators in an online environment)
PS Can I make a plea for colleagues to provide references – e.g. I don’t think I know the
reference to Palfreyman (2002), Fiona, though the name rings a bell. Thanks
PPS I prefer ZOPED to ZPD because ZPD works better for the American Zee than the
English Zed. ZedPD makes me think of police (Z cars and American police series - e.g.
NYPD). Whereas ZOPED brings to mind the much more pleasant image of Italians
riding past and waving 'Ciao' (you have to be an Eddie Izzard fan to understand that!)
I would like to address your questions Franc, which, I think, are central to our thinking
around the construction of on-line tasks.
Firstly, you ask ‘in what ways can we help students make the most of the overlap
between their zopeds and the core knowledge of others in a peer debate’
What I find difficult to accept in the Vygotskian view (exemplified by the model proffered
by Lewis 1997) is the suggestion that the teacher can scaffold the students’ learning but
that the student cannot scaffold the teachers’ learning, which I think implies that the
‘expert’ cannot learn from the ‘novice’. This would leave us in a difficult position. How
can we set up on-line activities which do not compromise the learning of the stronger
students?
Richard Dawkins (in Palfreyman 2002) describes the value of the Oxford Tutorial as
coming ‘not from listening to what the tutor has to say (as if a tutorial were a private
lecture), but from preparing to write essays, from writing them, and from arguing about
them in an unrushed session afterwards. It is the feeling that one’s essay will be valued
and discussed that makes the writing seem worthwhile’ (p.33)
Reading through this thread all in one go I get the feeling that so many issues have
been raised in so short a time that I am finding it difficult to cope, and to know where to
start.
I’d be surprised if we did not end up discussing Activity Theory, it being an extension of
Vygotsky, but I also think that discussing this prematurely is likely to get in the way
rather than help – I’d like to suggest that we need to attain a shared understanding of
social constructivism first, before broadening out.
It may be the case that our understandings of social constructivism are different,
because different sources will have different ‘takes’ on this. I have read more about Neil
Mercer and his co-workers’ take on this, and he describes his as a neo-Vygotskian
framework (so perhaps my understanding will be different from yours?)
For this reasons I’d like to suggest that we discuss this through a common source. I’m
open to suggestions about the source, but I am going to suggest a chapter from a book
(which happens to be an e-book) by Wegerif and Scrimshaw and to paste some
extracts from this into this posting.
Then I’m going to make some observations in a separate posting about issues relating
to overlaps of zopeds and Oxford tutorials etc.
Mercer, N. and Fisher, E (1997) The Importance of Talk. In: Wegerif, R. and Scrimshaw,
P. (Eds.): Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. (section 1, chapter 2)
The extracts are aimed either to tempt you to read this article so we can have a shared
focus for our discussion or to prompt you to suggest an alternative article we could use
as a shared focus
p.15
We therefore believe that a neo-Vygotskian framework offers a suitable basis for an
educationally relevant theory of learning and instruction. However, its principal concepts
(the Zone of Proximal Development and `scaffolding'; discussed below) have not yet
been properly defined for classroom research. Although the concepts are now in
common use in discussions of educational processes, they were developed in
observational research on parent-child interactions (Bruner, 1978; see also Wertsch,
1985a, b; Wood, et al., 1976), and only subsequently applied to educational settings by
drawing analogies between learners at home and in school and between the supportive
activities of parents and teachers (e.g. Bruner, 1985, 1986). Some educational
"The theory implies that each child's `scaffold' or ZPD is different and that the teacher
must treat each child's learning individually—this is probably an unrealistic aspiration as
far as most teachers and most classes are concerned."
1. the learners would not have been able to manage the task on their own
2. the teacher offers help which is intended to bring the learners to a state of
competence which will enable them to complete such a task on their own
3. the teacher wishes to enable the learners to develop a particular skill - or achieve a
particular level of understanding
4. there is evidence of a learner successfully accomplishing the task with the teacher'
5. some evidence of a learner successfully accomplishing the task with the teacher’s
help
6. the most stringent criterion of subsequent independent competence
p.16
That is, the ZPD is not an attribute of a child (in the sense that, say, IQ is considered to
be) but rather an attribute of an event. It is the product of a particular, situated,
pedagogical relationship.
p.21
It is not evident to us that the neo-Vygotskian concepts we have outlined are adequate
to understanding the educational role of talk between children working together in
classrooms. New concepts are needed if we are to understand peer learning.
‘We therefore believe that a neo-Vygotskian framework offers a suitable basis for an
educationally relevant theory of learning and instruction.’
I have a copy of the book which I will take to Holland with me this week-end to allow me
to re-engage in this debate when I return on Wednesday.
Before I go, please see below the full references for articles that I have cited thus far.
Fiona
Thus, with regard to the Oxford tutorial, I don't think that your 'takes' on this (Fiona and
Franc) are inconsistent. The question, I believe, is not one of the relative academic
'strength' of the participants, but rather of goal congruence and motivation.
The one-to-one argument and robust interrogation (I agree that, as Dawkins suggests,
the value of the encounter is not in the student listening to the tutor exposition) implicit
in that setting, the shared principal purpose of which is to sharpen and refine the
student's understanding, does not preclude learning on the part of the tutor. Indeed, it is
arguably a desirable feature of academic discourse that it stimulate and feed into further
investigation and research on the part of both interlocutors. Neither is this dynamic
necessarily disrupted by the participation of more than one student. Surely, however,
the dynamic shifts fundamentally, where the onus is on students to 'help other students',
where there is no tacitly, and certainly no explicitly, shared purpose? What we may be
discussing here are questions of motivation and individual task orientation, which
operate in conjunction with the student's ZPD .... Far from compromising the stronger
student's learning in the context of an online activity, we might be favouring it,
particularly in the context of a postgraduate programme, which foregrounds the
sharpening of criticality and the skills of research evaluation (of issues of validity and
reliability) as an integral part of one's own understanding of appropriate methodological
approaches to practitioner inquiry ..... a further paradox, I think ....
With regard, then, to Franc's question re. encouraging students to make the most of the
overlap between their zopeds in a peer debate and encourage them to help others, and
with reference, Fiona, to a brief conversation we had on Wednesday, 'the task is the
I sense that there has developed, around e-learning, whether integrated / blended or as
part of a fully online 'delivery', a pre-occupation with the 'debate' as an end in itself,
which is a strategy resting on fundamental assumptions - some of which, of course, we
are attempting to address here - about constructivist pedagogy, allied with those
around the attributes and dispositions of the learner. Additionally, and as a
consequence of unchallenged or uncritical acceptance of the pedagogical metaphor of
participation, (Sfard, 1998) and in particular its importance to e-learning (Garrison and
Anderson, 2001), there has been a blurring of the boundaries between pedagogy and
assessment, as, increasingly, written contributions to online tutorial discussion become
assessed genres.
I am grateful for the opportunity suggested to re-focus our own discussion around some
specific and shared reading. I'll follow that one up, Franc .... Bee
Lewis (1997:211)
This can be represented diagrammatically as in the figure below, where the core
knowledge is shaded, and the zoped is unshaded.
T
S
Note the important qualification In relation to this particular learning. For some other
learning the roles may be reversed…
References
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory
Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Felix, U. (2005) ‘E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining
social and cognitive constructivist approaches’. ReCALL, 17 (1), pp.85-100. [3]
Garrison, R. and Anderson, T. (2001) E-Learning in the 21st Century. London & New
York: Routledge Falmer.
Mercer, N. and Fisher, E. (1997) The Importance of Talk. In: Wegerif, R. and
Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.): Computers and Talk in the Primary Classroom. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. (section 1, chapter 2).
Sfard, A. (1998) On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just
One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), pp.4-13.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.