An excellent post from Leigh Blackall at Learn Online, which includes a break down of the three well-established learning theories (which, as we know, inform our instructional design), is built around the premise that social media is a product of social constructivism yet is being (mis)adopted into behaviorist practices. He argues that social media cannot be used inside behaviorist media like the LMS or LCMS). But he’s not saying we should abandon these systems but look at the bigger picture which, if I’m grasping this as he intended and applying it to workplace learning, is not to control social media through such systems but join with abandon the ‘open social space’ (for lack any better) of informal learning.
Some interesting questions are posed , argued, and I ponder:
- is social media a product of social constructivism?
- Is an LMS/LCMS behaviorist media?
- If so, can social media be used inside behaviorist media?
The way I see it (without a good nights sleep) is that if the circle of social media/informal learning is big enough the square part (the LMS “widget”) will fit inside of it along with a bunch of other widgets. As a realist, even if I agree with Leigh, I see that solution at the middle of a bridge. Many LMS vendors are there or heading there. I am seeing a lot of mashups.
Bottom line: if its good for learning (on the learner’s terms) then it’s good enough. And, as far as informal learning goes, I think there is still a huge need for the facilitator, the instructional designer, the curriculum designer, etc. to provide structure, support, feedback, and guidance that is part of a formal education.
Without that, you’ve got a bunch of people wandering aimlessly with hit-or-miss moments of critical thinking, synthesis, and deep learning. No one taught them to learn.
Have I pummeled enough metaphors and analogies at you?
There’s a lot of beef in the comments too.
- Is informal learning sufficient for cognitive development for all learners?
- How does assessment fit in with social constructivism?
One last thing…is there learning going on in Leigh’s post? Was his post not the stimulus to the responses(s)? Is that not behaviorism at its core?
(my apologies for all the links to Wikipedia…just wanted to provide a definition terms)
Workplace Learning Today
Subscribe by Email
Connect on Facebook
Connect on LinkedIn
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
But once they’ve learned how to learn, will they need the LMS/LCMS? How ya gonna keep them down on the corporate farm, once they’ve learned how to learn for themselves
PS: love the bears!
Very stimulating, Janet. Now I’ve got stuff I have to follow up on. My initial take, though, is that to claim you can’t use social media inside an LMS is at worst ideological and at best just silly.
Your “good enough” comment recalls Duke Ellington’s theory of music criticism: “If it sounds good, it is good.” (Thelonious Monk said, in a similar vein, “The piano ain’t got no wrong notes.”)
I’ve heard Dick Clark of USC more than once cite research suggesting that often a person’s preferred way of learning runs counter to the way in which learning occurs.
For example, the software developers I used to work with, with extensive skills, really liked highly structured training on some new application or technical topic. But they tended to learn more by banging the application around, essentially figuring it out in context.
Newcomers, in contrast, tended to like freeform, unstructured stuff, lots of choice and so on. They can easily end up doing what you highlight as “wandering aimlessly with hit-or-miss moments…”
Dave Fergusons last blog post..John Kao on innovation
I guess the one thing that bothers me about Leigh’s post is that once you pick a way to teach people – that’s it. You cannot vary from this course or people will rebel. Huh? Different people learn in many different ways. And each individual learns in many different ways, as Dave points out. I am guessing the software developers he mentioned got different information that they needed out of each type of learning.
I guess the way I view my job in a corporate learning department is to ensure our employees have as many tools as possible to learn what they need to learn to do their jobs better, faster, cheaper. Who cares whether using a wiki in a formal class introduces constructivist tools into a behaviorist methodology. Our students learn in different ways and some will get a lot out a formal class and others will get more out of a wiki. Some people like to be alone when they learn new things while others need to be in a group. We just need to make sure they learn what they need to learn.
So I can’t help being practical, it is my nature. And it is hard for me to understand philosophical discussions when I have got so much work to do. Needless to say, I would not do well in academia!
Maria Hlass last blog post..Yes, But Not Necessarily Just for Digital Natives
Hi Janet, my concern with Blackall’s comments are that it’s a big leap to say that a given tool reflects one of the three learning frameworks.
Couldn’t a supposedly behaviorist tool like an LMS/CMS (say, Blackboard) be used to have a discussion among students in which they construct their own meanings and opinions about a topic? Or couldn’t students read articles posted on Blackboard and write papers in which they construct their own views and evaluations of them?
And couldn’t a supposedly constructivistic tool like Second Life be used to build a giant 3D model of something that students have to study and learn specific, prescribed content about the 3D model that is then tested?
And couldn’t I use Facebook to locate an expert or a module and then learn something in an objectives/delivery/evaluation, behaviorist way?
I think unequivocally connecting a tool to one of the three learning frameworks sort of turns those frameworks into caricatures.
Tom Werners last blog post..The Education Grid on Sun Wonderland Opened
Hi Janet, when I first saw your post all seemed well. But I’ve stumbled back in and found comments that are taking my meaning the wrong way.
Interesting to see more comments landing here about my post than on my actual post.. what’s with that? No worries actually, its just that if I hadn’t happened along here this many months later, I would have missed all these people who seemed to have missed my point!
It is not Bb or an LMS that is inherently behaviorist, it is the educational institution and its many funny practices. Bb, Moodle, etc are used by institutions to reinforce their practices, which are mainly driven by a requirement to control and measure people’s behavior for a period of time. A teacher deciding to “have them use Facebook” is no different. A teacher deciding to “have them use blogging” is the same again. It is all behaviorism and my argument is that formal education can be nothing but that.
I don’t see it as a negative thing necessarily. What I see as negative is when teachers delude themselves into thinking that they are not behaviorists, or that they “are” social constructivist. Socially constructed learning happens long before, during, and long after school and universities and their measurable learning outcomes. School, university, a course online, are all small blips of activity (but unfairly weighted) inside that massive sphere of our life long consciousness and learning. Those little events designed to limit our behavior for a period, so that we may measurably learn a particular targeted thing and show evidence of that.. that’s not socially constructed learning.
The slogan I think I might use is: Learning doesn’t happen in education, education happens in learning.
The audio recording might be more useful than the post if anyone is still interested in this argument.
Leigh Blackalls last blog post..4 years later
Thanks Leigh. I look forward to revisiting this by way of your recording. Glad you stopped by. Funny how conversations are more immediate in blogs. I was initially all like, ‘did I write that?’ (as if revisiting an old school paper). I probably have ketchup older than this post though…so it’s only old in the blogosphere. thanks for being the catalyst here.