Co-Constructivism

The on-going research in the field of education challenges traditional epistemological constructivism that stems from symbolic inter-actionist (Mead, 1934) and socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1962), as a result of some very important questions which it raises about achieving inter-subjectivity (Chi, 1996; Brown et al., 1989; Bruner, 1986). These researchers find it confusing how different human beings or learners may reach the same or similar cognitive structures. They also investigate the influence of surrounding factors on the course of learning and challenge that learning cannot be a passive process. The researchers claim that learning is fundamentally a social activity. Contrary to constructivist theory, they say that learning and enculturation are not led by any one individual or one brain but are a result of social interaction, embedded in a society which is a mixture of belief, perspectives and knowledge. According to this philosophy which is called co-constructivism, human beings do not learn anything from one single person.

33

The literature, however, does not provide any one definition of the term co-constructivism in the process of learning but MacBeath et al. (2009) present some comparisons in terms of some underpinning factors which make this concept different from any other learning theories. These factors highlight three main characteristics:

(a) Different types of social discourses have a different impact on learning: (for example, parent-child dialogue, peer interaction, teacher and student interaction, learning in teams, project-based learning, learning through placements).

(b) Different teaching methodologies have different psychological effects which co-construct knowledge differently from each other. For example, processes involved in collaborative discussion after socio-cognitive conflict or productive exploratory talk and collective or tutoring and scaffolding.

(c) There may be expected and sometimes unexpected outcomes of collaboration in case any other interactive factors are overlooked: for example, academic task fulfilment, student motivation and conceptual development.

The basis of personal development no more resides in socially isolated construction of knowledge, but its co-construction takes place in a social and cultural space (MacBeath et al., 2009). Similarly, as Bruner (1986) states: “Most learning in most settings is a communal

34

activity, a sharing of the culture. It is not just that the child must make his knowledge his own, but that he must make it his own in a community of those who share his sense of belonging to a culture” (p.86). Knowledge, from this perspective, is no longer seen as solely coming out of any one person‟s brain, but resides in its wider spread across individuals whose joint interactions and negotiations determine decisions and the solution of problems and encourage further growth of knowledge and learning (Cohen, 1994). Commenting on shared decision- making, Follett (1927) explains that “the leader has not always the largest share in decision- making, and yet he may not thereby be any less the leader” (p.257). As highlighted in the earlier part of the chapter, an impressive array of researchers from different parts of the world come to a consensus that leadership distribution does make a difference in the effectiveness of school. Freire (1990) concludes in his research that any one leader may not justify all of his decisions taken alone. For this reason, he advocates the practice of “co-intentional education” where leaders and the led are busy exploring the existing realities but may also create and recreate knowledge. Spillane (2006) also emphasizes the similar thought under the “concept of co-performance” (p.59) in decision-making through a democratic way of working and sharing the leadership. He argues that leadership must be prevalent at all levels among teachers and all other stakeholders to establish a “conceptual pluralism” (Bolman and Deal, 1997) towards a shared vision about learning and learning outcomes (Kohm and Nance, 2009). Advocating co-ordinated and collaborated efforts, Spillane (2006) cautions that done otherwise allows for “the possibility that those performing the routine might, intentionally or unintentionally, pursue different or even contrary goals” (p.59).

35

In a study, Reich (2007) recommends John Dewey‟s work as a pragmatic turn in education which still gives orientation to educational goals, methods, and practices. Taking his notion further, Reich introduces the idea of “interactive constructivism” in education where teachers and learners explore, invent and co-construct meanings of existing or new knowledge. This typology is similar to what Hopkins (2001) and Watkins (2003), as mentioned earlier, have discussed in their work. They give a lot of emphasis to experience and the concept of democracy in education where teachers and learners are equally important to decide the process of learning. Lingard et al. (2003) also highlight the importance of the collective and combined contribution of everyone linked with students and schools from leaders, teachers, students and community to parents for improvement in learning. This type of shared and collective effort results in what they call “productive leadership”. As discussed in the earlier part of the literature review, different researchers‟ work indicates the importance of a co- constructivist approach by integrating the teacher centred and student centred approaches together (Biggs, 1992; Broadfoot, 2000 and 2001; Shayer and Adey, 2002; Blase and Blase, 2004; Rhodes and Brundrett, 2010).

Hopkins (2001) says that learning experiences are combinations of content, process and social climate. Hopkins has identified three main areas of collaboration as mandatory for the completion of the process of learning. He identifies them as the content (the syllabus and course content), process (classroom practices) and social climate (interactions and environment existing in and outside the class). Involvement, interaction and contribution from all three levels make the process of learning complete. Watkins (2003) presents three models

36

of the learning process as being instruction, construction and co-construction. In the first level called instruction, “learning is taught”. According to Watkins, this level remains concerned with quantity, essential facts and skills; often dependent on transmission of knowledge from an external source (for example, the teacher). “Learners” remain mostly passive here. The next level, called construction, is concerned with the learners‟ construction of meaning through discovering, open-ended learning, and making connections. Learners seem to be engaged in the process of learning. The third level is concerned with the learners‟ construction of meaning through interaction and collaboration with others, especially through dialogue. This type of learning is an integration of content, process and social climate that puts “the power into powerful learning experience” (Hopkins, 2001: p.73). The question arises as to how co-constructivism integration is actually established in school. Is the learning process only about classroom experiences where teachers are the main designers of the process or does it involve learning at different levels in school where each other‟s knowledge and involvement in this process can make it more effective? Are the four Rs in Claxton‟s (2002) work used to create co-constructivism? It is argued that leadership has a direct impact on this co-constructivist approach in teaching-learning practices (Rhodes et al., 2009; Swaffield, 2009; Swaffield and MacBeath, 2009a; Leithwood, 2006). The term learning-centred education refers to pedagogical philosophy and practices in which all of the educational objectives, plans and procedures are designed and implemented in such a fashion that make the learner and learning the principal focus (Freire, 1973; Boyatzis et al., 1995; Bilimoria and Wheeler, 1995; Southworth, 2004; Rhodes et al., 2009).

37

Agreeing with Senge‟s (1990) discussion in The Fifth Discipline, many of the contemporary researchers in educational leadership and management recommend that schools should become learning organizations in a socially constructed and interdependent environment which is continuously changing (Fullan, 1993; Leithwood and Louis, 1998; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000; Lauder et al., 2008 and 2009; Ashton et al., 2009). Brown and Lauder (2001) maintain that schools which have a focus on learning become habitats of learning communities which work with a shared vision and collective intelligence for continuous improvement (Deming, 1986). A system thinking approach enables the stakeholders to see the bigger picture of their organizations analysing the importance of moving from the part to the whole. This environment nurtures a co-constructed learning ethos in the organization keeping the individual‟s personal, interpersonal and other social interaction in view where schools have learning at different levels (Zaleznik, 1997; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000; Stöcklin,2010).

Southworth (2004) divides learning into six levels moving from micro (pupil level) to macro (learning networks level) as the pupil level, the teacher level, the collaborative staff level, the organizational learning level, the leadership learning level and finally the learning networks level. Rhodes et al. (2009) give an interesting illustration of how leaders may respond to each level differently based on the inter-subjectivity. At the pupil level, leaders may want to make interventions based on the data of learning outcomes. At the teachers‟ level of learning, the leader may provide opportunities of professional development through mentoring. In the next level, the leaders institutionalize and develop systems of collaborative staff development that promote culture for learning in schools. In the organizational learning level, a culture of trust

38

and openness prevails establishing a learning community within school. In the next level of learning, wider promotion of LfL at all levels takes place. Leaders themselves like to be the lead learners. In the sixth level, networking for learning takes place. This networking may be intra or inter organizational. This interpretation clearly denotes the importance of the role of leader interaction at all levels of learning. Hallinger and Heck (1999) state that learning centred leaders‟ influence may be direct, “reciprocal” or indirect, but it is definitely there. Referring to Knapp et al.‟s (2003) three tiered model of learning, Swaffield (2009) adds system learning as the fourth tier to already existing levels of student learning, professional learning and school learning in the LfL model. The important aspect of the model is the interconnected flow of activities that gives a boost to the learning outcomes at each level. The imperative aspect of the model is the continuity of the learning phenomenon, involving everyone from students to leaders as co-constructivists to see the entire learning as an essential socio-cultural interaction; every one continues to negotiate and re-negotiate the known and unknown towards a collective conceptualism. This particular aspect of the learning environment, where everyone is a lead learner and shares the LfL at the same time, makes this concept different from many other school improvement and school effectiveness themes (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009; Johnson, 2007). LfL is a process of developing and maintaining a high performance learning environment that ensures sustainability in the system (Gronn, 2006; Fullan, 2006; Giles and Hargreaves, 2006; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006).

39 2.5 Summary

The chapter provides an introduction to the concepts of leadership, learning and LfL. It provides a wider picture of these concepts that highlights the importance of the context, moral aspect and agency in the process. No work in the literature explains how the process is conceptualized in a developing country like Pakistan. Therefore the study might contribute to the existing knowledge in this area by exploring how leadership and learning are conceptualized in Pakistan. The literature suggests there is no one definition of LfL available. This distributed perspective of leadership provides a chance to all in schools to become partners in the process of learning with a co-constructivist approach. LfL promotes the idea of learning at different levels in school but co-constructivism is considered important in this regard. Do schools in Pakistan have a learning environment that is based on co-constructivism and promotes learning at different levels or is it only teacher led classroom activities? Claxton‟s (2002) four Rs model to improve learning outcomes among students is appreciated in the literature about LfL for being pragmatic and improving students‟ learning but can the model be used for improving learning at all levels? Co-constructivism in LfL takes place when social interactions and contexts of different actors shape and form knowledge. The general description of the concept highlights the importance of certain underpinning factors as the main principles or the constituents of the concept which are explored in detail in the next chapter.

40