See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286903658

Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social

Media: Changing Minds and Learning Communities

Article  in  New Directions for Teaching and Learning · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/tl.20160

CITATIONS READS

26 7,336

1 author:

Dawn E Schrader
Cornell University
25 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dawn E Schrader on 02 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2
Social media provide new means and opportunities for learning
that are consistent with major tenets of both social and cognitive
constructivism, and extend the process of learning and meaning
construction to more diverse communities and universally
accessible shared activities that are jointly and concurrently
engaged in by both peers and experts.

Constructivism and Learning in the Age of

Social Media: Changing Minds and
Learning Communities
Dawn E. Schrader

Constructivism as a meaning-making philosophy that informs pedagogi-

cal practices dominated the past several decades of educational practice. At
its base, various forms of constructivism hold that meaning making and
learning are created through active engagement with knowledge and in so-
cial interaction. With rapidly evolving new media and technological tools,
the next major iteration of the constructivist learning paradigm is how to
use new media to promote learning. Constructivist theoretical concepts
blend beautifully with technological affordances provided by social media.
From both an individual and community perspective, learning is enhanced
through media that connect people through communities otherwise un-
available or unreachable without it. Education as a field of study, and as a
process of learning and teaching, would do well to take advantage of the
current technological revolution and challenge long-standing teaching and
learning paradigms.

Overview of Constructivism and Social Constructivism

Constructivist theories of learning traditionally refer to how the mind con-
structs knowledge and are typically rooted in the tradition of genetic epis-
temology of Jean Piaget. This tradition of constructivism focuses on the
knower’s reflexive and reflective abstraction of interactions with objects and
others in the environment. In comparison, and some argue in contrast, con-
structivist theories based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective describe
joint construction of meaning through community activity and distinctly
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 144, Winter 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/tl.20160 23
24 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

locate the knower in the traditions, tools, symbols, artifacts, and language
of the learning community. In looking closely at the processes and products
from constructivist and sociocultural constructivist views, they share more
commonalities than divergences.
Piagetian-Based Constructivism. Constructivism traditionally is
considered to focus on how people make meaning of or construct knowl-
edge when interacting with content knowledge and the active processes of
this interaction. This can happen both individually as a single “epistemic
knowing agent”—as Piaget referred to the knower, learner, and constructor
of knowledge—or in a group of peers or more expert others. For Piagetian
constructivists the focus is on the knower and on peer relations, equalizing
power and relationships to create optimal challenge and support for inves-
tigating knowledge. The process of construction of meaning, of learning,
and of knowledge development involves active engagement with the objects
and people in the environment, a sense-making reminiscent of the child as
a philosopher or a scientist (Dewey 1933; Papert 1999; Kohlberg 1968).
James Mark Baldwin’s fundamental conceptualizations of knowledge cre-
ation on which Piaget so heavily relied were grounded prominently in the
dynamic interaction between the person and the social and physical envi-
ronment. Baldwin states, “The individual is found to be a social product, a
complex result, having its genetic conditions in actual social life. Individu-
als act together, not alone—collectively, not singly” (Baldwin 1909, 211).
Piagetian-based constructivism uses the process of assimilation, ac-
commodation, and equilibration—borrowed from evolutionary biology—
as the mechanism by which increasingly complex understandings are cre-
ated. This is also called “intellectual adaptation” and involves the “fit”
between a knower’s current understandings, knowing system, view, or
lens (all terms used interchangeably by Piagetian-based theorists) through
which she interprets the world and her engaged experience.
Sociocultural Constructivism. In comparison, literature on
Vygotsky-based sociocultural constructivism focuses on the social and
cultural environment, artifacts, tools, temporal elements, and engagement
with both peers and—importantly—with more expert others to both
explain how meaning making takes place and how learning occurs. Like
Piagetian constructivism, the motivation for learning and constructing/
reconstructing knowledge is intrinsic to the learner. Vygotsky states that
“learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing
culturally organized, specifically human psychological function” (1978,
90). That is, in both constructivist views, the motivation to learn is inherent
to and within the human psychology of the knower, albeit socioculturalists
prioritize culturally evolving social influences as formational in individual
psychology and do not embrace the genetic epistemological framework
that privileges the individual.
For sociocultural constructivism, culture is the prime determinant of
individual learning and development. As such, the surrounding culture

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 25

provides the processes or means of human thought. Through this process

of intellectual adaptation, culture teaches what and how to think. Thus, the
‘figure’ in the figure–ground relationship between person and culture in the
creation of knowledge is the culture.
Like Piaget, Vygotsky’s sociocultural constructivism reflects dialecti-
cal process whereby learning occurs through problem-solving experiences.
For sociocultural constructivists, this activity is shared with an other or
others, usually more expert, and involves language and collaborative dia-
logue. Through such guided learning, the process of knowing takes place.
Knowledge construction then, rather than occurring through assimila-
tion, accommodation, and equilibration as with Piaget’s constructivism,
occurs through the internalization of language to understand the actions
and/or instructions provided by the more expert other in order to use
that information to understand, guide, regulate, and/or inform performance
(Vygotsky 1962). It is that internalized speech that becomes knowledge.
Vygotsky states, “Inner speech is not the interior aspect of external speech—
it is a function in itself. It still remains speech, i.e., thought connected with
words. But while in external speech thought is embodied in words, in in-
ner speech words die as they bring forth thought. Inner speech is to a large
extent thinking in pure meanings” (149).
Furthering the comparison between the processes of learning described
by these forms of constructivism is how such learning and growth occur. In
cognitive constructivism, the cognitive learning process is through reflexive
and reflective abstraction located within the knower as an individual epis-
temic knowing agent; in sociocultural constructivism how growth occurs is
explained in terms of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD
is the difference between what the knower can do on her own and what
can be done with assistance. For Piagetian constructivism, the difference
between one’s current knowing system and experiences of not-knowing in
an activity is explained as disequilibration. This disequilibration begets the
assimilation and accommodation process as the knower activates (uncon-
sciously or not) reconstruction of a new, equilibrated cognitive knowing
system to reconcile the performance and knowledge disparity. In Vygot-
sky’s sociocultural constructivism, the disparities in knowing and learning
are scaffolded by the expert other(s) who dialogically share their processes
of activity to allow the knower to appropriate the better (more complex)
knowing system. In both these constructivist explanations of processes,
there is an incorporation of another knowing system and/or information
into the learner’s knowing system (assimilation/appropriation) as well as
a reconstruction of thought and a new understanding (accommodation/
intellectual adaptation).
John Dewey (1916), a pragmatic constructivist educator and philoso-
pher contemporaneous with Piaget and Vygotsky, offers a similar perspec-
tive stating, “Every individual has grown up, and always must grow up,
in a social medium. His [sic] responses grow intelligent, or gain meaning,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

26 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

simply because he lives and acts in a medium of accepted meanings and

values” (344).
Both Piaget and Vygotsky emphasize the reflective necessity of knowl-
edge construction, as does Dewey (1933), and locate education in a pro-
cess of social interaction and daily living. Constructivism is a philosophy,
even more than a pedagogical practice. In “My Pedagogical Creed” Dewey
states,

Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community
life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in
bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use
his own powers for social end. I believe that education, therefore, is a process
of living and not a preparation for future living. (1897, 78)

Vygotsky’s characterization of internalization is described as proceed-

ing from the interpersonal to the intrapersonal and involves temporal sep-
aration of the social and individual aspects of the activity. Rogoff’s (1995)
idea of participatory appropriation involves a temporal simultaneity in the
social and individual processes, but it is implied that reflection is done in
action and not post hoc.
Rogoff’s sociocultural constructivist approach is particularly useful for
understanding the dynamic between the personal, interpersonal, and com-
munity interactions. She describes three “planes” in which people learn
through apprenticeship, guided participation, and participatory appropria-
tion, respectively. Her focus is on everyday life activity, which she contrasts
to Vygotsky’s interests, which I think is a false contrast. Jean Lave (1988;
Lave and Wenger 1991) focuses on everyday cognition from a sociocultural
constructivist viewpoint as well from a Vygotskyan perspective. This focus
on everyday-ness is what may link constructivist theories to today’s emer-
gent technological focus. Technology brings everyday life and interactions
into the classroom and insinuates processes afforded by social media into
the activities that constructivist theories purport support learning, knowl-
edge construction and development.
In essence, it seems Paul Cobb (1994, 2005) had it right when he
said,

I question assumptions that initiate this apparent forced choice between con-
structivist and sociocultural perspectives. I contend that the two perspectives
are complementary. Also, claims that either perspective captures the essence
of people and communities should be rejected for pragmatic justifications . . . I
argue that the sociocultural perspective informs theories of the conditions for
the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist
perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by which they do
so. (Cobb 1994, 13)

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 27

Situated Cognition
Situated cognitive theories state that knowing cannot be separated from the
context; it exists in situ, embedded in activity, people, culture, and language
across physical and social space and time. Situated cognition is a construc-
tivist theory, drawn from various fields such as anthropology, philosophy
and critical theory (e.g., Bakhtin 1981; Heidegger 1968; Lave and Wenger
1991). Indeed Rogoff (1995) cites Bakhurst as saying, “The study of mind,
of culture, and of language (in all its diversity) are internally related: that is,
it will be impossible to render any one of these domains intelligible with-
out essential reference to the others” (39). Those interested in constructivist
situated learning (Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger 1991) state that education
ought to find tasks and activities “situated” in the situations of the real
world and highlight the importance of using relevant situations for learning.
Rogoff locates her work loosely within this paradigm, although she infers
that knowledge transfers across time and situation.
A critique against constructivism by the situated cognitivists is that
constructivism is a philosophical construct and they thus caution against
making claims about the generalizability of knowledge gained in one con-
text to its application in another (Anderson, Reder, and Simon 1996). This
perspective advocates the use of apprenticeship and “authentic” problems
that are “ill defined” (that is, having no one right logical conclusive answer)
and are located in the complex social environments and modalities that re-
flect those that will be used in the future. Taken together with Rogoff and
continued work on constructivism, some of which is located in this volume,
I would argue that meaning-making construction processes are relevantly
similar.
As such, I propose here that constructivism—both cognitive and
sociocultural—apprehended together by common shared components,
blends with the affordances that social media provides to connect learners
in today’s and tomorrow’s technological world. Specifically, the Internet and
the availability and use of both hard and soft technologies by individuals af-
fect learning and social life. These media create opportunities for commu-
nity (interaction and creation) and possibilities for learning that are broader
than the pioneers of constructivist theories could have imagined. Remark-
ably, learning affordances through social media use are certainly within con-
structivist theorists’ collective vision of the process and products of teaching
and learning.

Constructivism in a Mediated World

New media, and social media in particular, provide affordances for learn-
ing, knowledge development, meaning making, and mind changing. Both
the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of constructivism address the

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

28 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

conditions, potentialities, and processes for doing so (Cobb 2005). Today’s

learners live in a technologically mediated world. I use several meanings
of “mediated,” sometimes with simultaneous meaning as each sense of the
word is conflated with another. The first sense refers to when the media
itself, the noun, is the intermediary for learning, as with the technology of
computers, applications (apps) and programs, and the Internet.
Another sense of the word mediated is epistemic in nature; that media
shapes and moderates our perspective on the world and the way in which
we live with the knowledge in it, that is, the way we see knowledge and the
way we see ourselves. For example, we actively participate in worldwide
events though commentary, tweeting on Twitter, posting on Facebook, tex-
ting, sending Instagrams, and otherwise contributing our knowledge and
perspective to potentially millions of people in a shared world community.
Constructivism and Social Media. Media shape how learners, espe-
cially the millennials onward, learn and how they know. Nielsen polled the
millennial generation about their uniqueness because they are the “first to
come of age with cable TV, the Internet and cell phones” and have it “essen-
tially baked into every millennial’s DNA.” Millennials ranked “Technology
Use” first (24 percent), followed by “Music/Pop Culture” (11 percent) as
most characteristic of them as a generation. An impressive 83 percent re-
port they sleep with their smartphones, 74 percent report technology makes
their lives easier, and 54 percent report closer relationships with friends and
family due to new technology. Millennials check in socially between 20 and
21 hours each month (Nielsen 2014); a number that in my own observa-
tions in daily life in a college environment seems a vast underreport. With
that intensity of social engagement, these cultural tools and the “conversa-
tions” that go on within them are important in how people make meaning
of and construct knowledge in the world.
Social media provides interactions that create opportunities for the evo-
lution of knowledge. This section highlights the theoretical concepts within
cognitive and sociocultural constructivism that relate specifically to new
and social media use and how such use promotes learning and stimulates
the evolution of meaning making. The cognitive equilibration processes
of assimilation and accommodation of new experiences to one’s knowing
system, or the sociocultural appropriation of new skills, evolve through
opportunities to interact in social networks online or mediated through
computer and/or mobile technologies. Knowledge occurs through shared
activity, through community engagement, dialogue, and communication
in a community of shared activity. Students learn to both think and ex-
plore within and outside of their own perspective or mindset. They also
learn to take perspectives of others in important ways that influence social-
emotional learning—competencies that are attracting significant current at-
tention in the United States (Gehlbach 2010).
Extending this idea, an amazing affordance of social media is related
to the transcendence of classroom boundaries and the social components

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 29

of new media use. Social media use creates new and larger communities
of learners, reaching a broader spectrum and more diverse collaborators in
the learning process. This may include those with physical and cognitive
disabilities and a plethora of personalities and interaction styles. In tradi-
tional classrooms care must be taken to attend to those less outspoken, the
bullied, the shy, the less popular, or less socially integrated, that is, the non-
participants and excluded others. Interpersonal skills are important com-
ponents of learning and sociocultural adaptation and can be appropriated
via social media use. These skills include social compliance, cooperation,
and the development of positive, effective relationships (Gehlbach 2010).
Students with less developed social skills or who may possess socially nor-
matively objectionable or awkward interpersonal skills and be less socially
integrated face challenges in the classroom, may perceive school more nega-
tively, have lower achievement goals, and may frustrate teachers and friends
(Raver, Garner, and Smith-Donald 2007; Shin and Ryan 2014).
Thus, with technology, the classroom is broader and participation
more equalized. The moral implications of participation among equals
are more likely to be achieved via computer and technologically mediated
social networking. Each person has equal access (if possessing the technol-
ogy) to participation. Technology potentiates active diverse communities
of learners who may be judged more on the content of their contributions
than on the color of their skin, socioeconomic status, or other feature,
which Kegan (1982) refers to as “recruitability” of the person. These
media may obscure or moderate the negative social skills or may render
them less normatively objectionable and thus fail to interfere with positive
social and academic learning goals. According to Mbati (2013) there is a
dearth of research on experiences of the use of online social media, but her
meta-ethnographic analysis found that “discussion forums are ideal for the
stimulation of constructivism and observational learning.” In other words,
technologically mediated social interaction may counter the well-known
gender, race, and expectancy effects of performance in classrooms (e.g.,
Dweck 1986; Weiner 1985).
Social media platforms engage all participants in the education process
to share activities in a virtual synchronous or nonsynchronous time and space.
The processes and products of social interaction that are evidenced in digital
forms and spaces can be drawn together to create confluence. This conflu-
ence potentiates more creative, accurate, inclusive learning than could have
occurred without social media’s ability to bring together a diversity of minds
and mindsets in shared activity, thus affording abundant opportunities for
learning as well as shifts in epistemological perspective about the nature of
knowledge creation itself. It is this kind of learning that is at once peda-
gogically engaging and paradigm shifting—both for individuals and for the
field of education.
In sum, social media benefits constructivist philosophies and prac-
tices. It makes use of everyday cognition by virtue of it being used

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

30 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

every day by millennials for every conceivable type of social interaction.

It uses the technological tools, language, and cultural artifacts so essen-
tial to sociocultural appropriation yet simultaneously engages learners cre-
atively in the teaching-learning process as they are and they become more
expert with the tools and create new cultural artifacts that are afforded
by the available technologies. The process of learning and development
in this technologically engaged community of knowers is dynamic; at the
same time it is cognitive, emotional, and social. The natural curiosity in-
herent in both cognitive and sociocultural constructivist theories is kept
active as the social media and technologies themselves change, as do the
knowers’ interactions with them and use of them with larger and more
diverse communities. Thus, the social dimensions of learning—the inter-
personal and community planes—are large, pervasive, and are mutually
affected by individuals as they take opportunities to present themselves
(Goffman 1959)—their personhood/experiences and their constructed
knowledge perspectives—to literally the entire world, albeit virtually. Jean
Piaget’s concept of possibility and the hope for stimulated creativity derived
from situated cognition in diverse learning communities is augmented by
the use of social media.

Social Media and Constructivist Goals and Practices

As described previously, cognitive and sociocultural constructivist per-
spectives are two sides of the same coin; they are indissociable from one
another—just as Piaget (1981) claimed are intelligence and affectivity. So-
cial media is a process by which learners and teachers can co-construct
the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively know and communicate
the self, to interact positively and ethically in social relationships, and to
co-construct knowledge necessary for the world of work. Use of social me-
dia in education has been shown to aid in the development of that which
is already incorporated in educational goals: the development of care and
concern for others, prosocial behavior, problem solving, and making ethical
and responsible decisions (Jones and Bouffard 2012).
Some educators and students may limit social media in their learning
activities (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck 2001). One explanation is the fail-
ure of technology itself, but additionally, teachers and students alike may
feel insecure about technological competence or may wish to avoid, or may
actually fear, the connection between the abstract or academic world of
knowing and their personal world of sociality. But social media are sim-
ply another means by which the daily social interactions of caring, re-
sponse, and responsibilities toward each other take place in the teaching-
learning context. Parker Palmer (1998) states that fears “let us know we
are on the brink of real learning” (39). Social media in educational con-
texts allow deeper interactions among more, and a more diverse set, of

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 31

educational participants—teachers and learners—so that the dimensional-

ity of the teacher-student-context-knowledge dynamic interactions is visi-
ble and large.
Continuing with constructivist concepts that inform how social me-
dia fits with learning, Churcher, Downs, and Tewksbury (2014) note that
“the very heart of social media is the ability to generate connections” (34).
This aspect of social media use addresses community-level learning and
appropriation. Through “friends” and dialogues online, a “community of
practice” forms for educational learning purposes. Learners can collaborate
in order to articulate its common goals and act to achieve them, follow-
ing ideas put forward by Lave and Wenger (1991). The use of collabora-
tively constructed and mutually observed videos can be a means of achiev-
ing observational learning (Craig, Chi, and Van Lehn 2009, 179–189). For
example, Churcher, Downs, and Tewksbury (2014) use Vygotsky’s (1978)
conceptualization of social constructivism within a Facebook community
of practice and a wiki-based student-generated exam. Likewise, social me-
dia can be used for group work, peer teaching, sharing documents, group
editing, and other collaborative, novice-expert or peer-to-peer learning
activities.
On the interpersonal plane, the class community is learning to relate to
one another. By posting respectful, helpful feedback, students are learning
interpersonal skills as well as content knowledge. Such shared discourse
in the classroom community can be furthered on discussion boards, and
commentary during class can be furthered using social networking apps,
cell phones or even iclickers. This type of interaction helps create shared
meaning and personal connections to peers, the teacher, and the subject
matter under study. Not much time is required to develop interpersonal co-
constructed meanings. Twitter is a great example. Twitter’s 140 character
maximum microblogs can be instantly sent to others. Interestingly, over
time, a language has developed that people now commonly use in ‘tweets’
to maximize information sent within the limited character count. Social me-
dia facilitates interpersonal co-constructions of knowledge and information
and a construction of shared meaning and activity as students engage in
daily interactions in and out of classrooms.
The effects on the individual plane are also seen in constructivist class-
rooms that use social media. Cognitive and social epistemic co-construction
and joint activity allow people to better understand how and what they
themselves know, how to learn, and how to teach others. The interpersonal
connections may be distal or virtually or in reality face to face. The pre-
sentation of self, the communication of one’s current way of knowing, and
the achievement of desired learning goals are important in learning. Edu-
cational contexts and practices must treat social media as both a process of
teaching and learning and a community of shared activity of joint meaning
construction.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

32 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Educational Challenge: Changing Minds and Learning

Communities
Constructivist learning in a digital age: is it really any different from learning
in any other age? That is, technology has been changing the way we think,
know, work, interact, and socialize for decades. Collins and Halverson state,
“The genesis of our current schooling system occurred in response to a
similar technological and economic tumult—the industrial revolution. Our
current model of schooling grew out of the technologies and social prac-
tices of the industrial revolution” (2010, 18). Even during the Industrial
Revolution, John Dewey (1916) challenged education to be different due to
the changing times; people have been challenged to construct new mean-
ings from new technological affordances that have enhanced their lives.
These technologies brought with them opportunities for changes in the way
people learn: the way they learn about others, they experience the impact of
others’ presence/absence in the activities of their everyday lives. The tech-
nologies changed industry and with it the way people conduct business and
think about work—from the delineation of the parameters of the work-
day to the knowledge necessary to operate the new “machines.” There is
no doubt that what Dewey said a hundred years ago during the last major
technological revolution—the industrial revolution—still holds for today’s
social and new media revolution.
Constructivism is the psychological foundation and explains the nec-
essary theoretical scaffolding necessary to construct new meaning in edu-
cation created by the abundant and novel building blocks of technology.
What is different in this technological revolution that includes social
media is that we now have far more opportunities to interpersonally in-
teract with a variety of people from a diversity of that grounds. We can
converse with people from different socioeconomic statuses, from different
cultural backgrounds, and from different parts of the world without even
leaving our desk chairs. Millennials not only know how to use technol-
ogy, social media, and digital media; they are new creators of knowledge
within those processes and are active contributors to the co-construction of
knowledge across the globe. Seymour Papert states, “Meaning-construction
happens particularly well when learners are engaged in building external
and sharable artifacts” (1996, 4), and knowers today use social media, in-
cluding Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, wikis, discussion sites, blogs, and
other means to contribute artifacts of their current culture, language forms,
and thinking systems that interact collaboratively to further knowledge
co-construction across cultures, languages, and communities.
Social constructivism has a fundamental claim that we, and our un-
derstandings of the world—including knowledge within it—are mutually
co-constructed. Baviskar, Hartle, and Whitney identified four essential fea-
tures of constructivism based on a comprehensive review of the literature:
1. eliciting prior knowledge to determine what is known and not known,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 33

2. creating cognitive dissonance in order to be aware of the differences be-

tween old and new knowledge; 3. applying new knowledge in new contexts
along with feedback from peers and more expert others; and 4. reflecting
on learning in order to express, explain and evaluate what was learned
(Baviskar, Hartle, and Whitney 2009, 544–545). This present chapter ad-
dresses these components from both the cognitive constructivist and the
sociocultural constructive perspectives of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s seminal
theorizing.
When Piaget first imagined the conception of “possibilities” and Vygot-
sky envisioned collaborative constructive discourse as critical to learning,
they could not have imagined that the world of so many languages, cultural
perspectives, abilities, problems, and tools would be available to so many.
Nor could they have imagined the epistemic shift where all people partici-
pate in knowledge dissemination and creation to the degree to which they
now can on the Internet through blogging, wikis, and social media. The
future of education must include changing the classroom, educational pro-
cesses and activities, and student and teacher roles. Social media allows even
more opportunities to change minds and learning contexts. The classroom
will not be as primary in our future as in the past—with learning occurring
“on the go” via mobile technologies such as cell phones, tablets, Google
Glasses, smart watches . . . and who knows what else will be developed.
Such cyberspace learning is already happening in MOOCs—Massive Open
Online Courses—now gaining popularity. These and other “immersive mul-
timedia” and computer aided support (CAS) software make learning mul-
tidimensional and ubiquitous (Passey 2014). Teacher roles shift with new
media use. Teacher as expert is shifted to teacher as one of many knowledge
sources. Teachers become creators and coordinators of learning communi-
ties (Collins and Halverson 2010). Students are experts for one another as
they construct knowledge through dynamic interpersonal and community
interactions and reflective thinking
New media and technology and especially social media are the new
mediators of learning, as learners together develop and share expertise and
knowledge co-constructed via the affordances of these media. Not only is
new knowledge constructed, but also the relationship to knowledge itself is
transformed and new epistemologies and paradigms of intellectual engage-
ment are made possible. Social media is the new context and process of
teaching, learning, and changing minds. Piaget stated, “The principal [sic]
goal of education in the schools should be creating new ways of doing new
things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and
women who are creative, inventive, and discoverers, who can be critical
and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered” (Duckworth 1964,
499). New and social media augment cognitive and sociocultural theories
of learning, not so much by expanding the theories, but by expanding their
reach, affording more communities to be joined together in constructivist
learning.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

34 CONSTRUCTIVISM RECONSIDERED IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

References
Anderson, J. R., L. M. Reder, and H. A. Simon. (1996). “Situated Learning and Educa-
tion.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 25, No. 4. (May, 1996), pp. 5–11.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.),
Austin.
Baldwin, J. M. 1909. “The Influence of Darwin on Theory of Knowledge and Phi-
losophy.” Psychological Review 16 (3): 207–218. https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject
/Baldwin/Baldwin_1909.html.
Baviskar, S. N., R. T. Hartle, and T. Whitney. 2009. “Essential Criteria to Characterize
Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a Review of Literature and Applied to Five
Constructivist-Teaching Method Articles.” International Journal of Science Education
31 (4): 541–550.
Churcher, K. M. A., E. Downs, and D. Tewksbury. 2014. “‘Friending’ Vygotsky: A
Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom So-
cial Media Use.” Journal of Effective Teaching 14 (1): 33–50. http://uncw.edu/cte/et
/articles/Vol14_1/Churcher.pdf.
Cobb, P. 1994. “Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on
Mathematical Development.” Educational Researcher 23 (7): 13–20.
Cobb, P. 2005. “Where Is the Mind?” In Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice,
edited by C Fosnot, 39–57. New York: Teachers College Press.
Collins, A., and R. Halverson. 2010. “The Second Educational Revolution: Rethinking
Education in the Age of Technology.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1):
18–27.
Craig, S. D., M. T. H. Chi, and K. VanLehn. 2009. “Improving Classroom Learning by
Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Polving.” Journal
of Educational Psychology 101 (4): 779–789.
Cuban, L., H. Kirkpatrick, and C. Peck. 2001. “High Access and Low Use of Tech-
nologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox.” Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 813–834. https://www2.bc.edu/∼peck
/CubanKirkpatrickPec.pdf.
Dewey, J. 1897. “My Pedagogic Creed.” School Journal 54, no. 3: 77–80. http://www
.rjgeib.com/biography/credo/dewey.html.
Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Duckworth, E. 1964. “Piaget rediscovered.” The Arithmetic Teacher. Vol. 11, No. 7
(November 1964), pp. 496–499. Published by: National Council of Teachers of Math-
ematics. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41186862
Dweck, C. S. 1986. “Motivational Processes Affecting Learning.” American Psychologist
41 (10): 1040–1048.
Gehlbach, H. 2010. “The Social Side of School: Why Teachers Need Social Psychology.”
Educational Psychology Review 22 (3): 349–362.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Heidegger, M. 1968. What is called thinking? (Vol. 8, p. 208). New York: Harper & Row.
Jones, S. M., and S. M. Bouffard. 2012. Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From
Programs to Strategies. Social Policy Report, vol. 26, no. 4. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for
Research in Child Development. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540203.pdf.
Kegan, R. 1982. The Evolving Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kohlberg, L. 1968. “The Child as a Moral Philosopher.” Psychology Today, Vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 24–30.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
(Learning in Doing). Cambridge: MA Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

 CONSTRUCTIVISM AND LEARNING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 35

Mbati, L. 2013. “Online Social Media Applications for Constructivism and Observational
Learning.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14 (5).
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1579/2709.
Nielsen. 2014. “Millennials: Technology = Social Connection.” http://www.nielsen.com
/content/corporate/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-technology-social-connecti
on.html.
Palmer, P. J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Papert, S. 1996. “A Word for Learning.” In Constructivism in Practice: Designing, Thinking
and Learning in a Digital World, edited by Y. Kafai and M. Resnick, 9–24. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Papert, S. 1999. “Papert on Piaget.” Time Magazine, March 29. http://www.papert.org
/articles/Papertonpiaget.html.
Passey, D. 2014. Inclusive technology enhanced learning : overcoming cognitive, physical,
emotional, and geographic challenges. New York: Routledge.
Piaget, J. 1981. Intelligence and Affectivity: Their Relationship During Child Development.
Translated and edited by T. A. Brown and C. E. Kaegi. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Raver, C. C., P. W. Garner, and R. Smith-Donald. 2007. “The Roles of Emotion Reg-
ulation and Emotion Knowledge for Children’s Academic Readiness: Are the Links
Causal?” In Kindergarten Transition and Early School Success, edited by R. C. Pianta,
M. J. Cox, and K. L. Snow, 121–147. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Rogoff, B. 1995. “Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appro-
priation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship.” In Sociocultural Studies of Mind,
edited by J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, and A. Alvarez, 139–164. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Shin, H., and A. M. Ryan. 2014. “Friendship Networks and Achievement Goals: An
GExamination of Selection and Influence Processes and Variations by ender.” Journal
of Youth and Adolescence 43 (9): 1453–1464.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. 1985. “An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion.”
Psychological Review 92 (4): 548–573.

DAWN E. SCHRADER is associate professor of communication ethics and moral

psychology at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING • DOI: 10.1002/tl

View publication stats