Constructivists define learning as a process of meaning-making by discovering complex information which is converted into internal constructions of reality (Naude, van den
51
Bergh & Kruger 2014). This perspective is influenced by a wide range of discipline areas and their associated theorists including Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, von Glasersfeld and Montessori (Phillips 1995). The construction of knowledge, led by students rather than teachers or facilitators, is a principal premise of constructivism. In contrast to the single objective reality position of cognitivists and behaviourists, constructivists recognise and build multiple subjective realities, where knowledge is contextualised, and the meaning of experiences is internally constructed and interpreted by individuals (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy & Perry 1991; Jonassen 1991) with contributions from environmental factors (Ertmer & Newby 2013). From both personal and social constructivist perspectives, new understandings are constructed based on an array of prior experiences, knowledge, values and beliefs (Jones, Carter & Rua 1999; Kumar 2006). Constructivist assumptions underpin transformative learning theory, which itself has roots in humanism and critical social theory.
Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) argued that, to be meaningful and lasting, constructivist learning required the three relevant elements of concepts or knowledge, activity or practice, and culture or context. Jones and Brader-Araje (2002) extended contextual relevance to the concept of viability, whereby constructed meanings were consistent with individual schemes of the world and the broader social perspectives of others. For Carter and Jones (1994), such learning included: engagement in real world tasks, consciously thinking about and analysing actions for continuous improvement of practice, and active, social engagement among peers in small group work and whole classroom interactions, and Carnell (2007) recommended co-learning communities of student peers and teachers. The essence of the above viewpoints was aptly captured in Semple’s (2000) depiction of a constructivist learner as the central entity, who actively engaged in seeking and constructing meaning through the integration of authentic, reflective and collaborative learning experiences.
Student-centred learning environments, which are curricula and instructional settings focused on learning activities of students, have been closely and frequently associated with constructivism (Elan, Clarebout, Léonard & Lowyck 2007). Such environments have been described, variously, as: inducing relevant learning through the use of authentic
52
tasks (Grabinger 1996); supporting in depth rather than surface approaches to learning compared to more traditional teacher-centred settings (Entwistle 2003; Gow & Kember 1993); and as a mediating variable between learning readiness and academic performance outcomes (Alotaibi 2016). Furthermore, for student-centred instruction to be genuinely effective, Elan et al. (2007) concluded that the classroom environment must be crafted and facilitated based on a balanced incorporation of knowledge-, learner-, community-, and assessment-centred learning sub-environments. However, Allendoerfer, Wilson, Kim and Burpee (2014) found that beliefs about teaching practice, at least for science and mathematics higher education academics’ in the USA, were embedded within a knowledge-centred learning framework. This is suggestive of the influence of different discipline areas on teaching practices.
Teachers with a constructivist view displayed characteristics that supported learning by: sharing authority with learners, encouraging positive exchanges, formulating stimulating questions rather than providing answers, and assisting learners to develop effective ways of generating and validating knowledge (Maclellan 2015). According to Waddock and Lozano (2013), the successful constructivist educators created ways for learners, students, colleagues and themselves to work on self- and systems-awareness, and to engage in authentic, meaningful interactions with others undergoing similar experiences. Teachers reinforced constructivist classroom learning through overtly valuing students' ideas, recognising cognitive preferences (Gardner 2011), and promoting critical thinking. Themes of meaning making, connection to oneself, others and the environment, consciousness raising, and reflective practices permeate this learning approach. In addition, the emotional dimensions of experiences, evident in constructive and holistic approaches, challenge the traditional dominance of reason and scientific ways of knowing. This integration of experiential, whole person, and embodied learning, including attending to feelings in teaching and learning, can be transformative in nature (Dirkx 2008).
Bråten, Britt, Strømsø and Rouet (2011) described such activities as a ‘subtle’ teaching approach which involved presenting stimulating activities and challenges, highlighting and framing meaningful goals and tasks, and expecting critical thinking and problem
53
solving in students. Rather than decreeing an interpretation, teaching practice is one of facilitation and negotiation of meaning (Driscoll 2005), through provision of constructive feedback, and encouragement of reflection. In particular, formative feedback on performance, designed to empower students as self-regulated learners, was recommended to improve and accelerate learning (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick 2006; O’Neill 2015; Sadler 2010; 2013), while Schön (1983; 1987) identified the criticality of reflective practice or reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action to learning, and to growth and maturity of professional judgement. Learning models such as Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle, Argyris and Schön’s (1974) double-loop learning, which seeks to expose differences between espoused theory and theory-in-action, and Senge’s (1990) concept of learning organisations are relevant exemplars of the role of feedback and reflection in constructing knowledge and improving quality practice.
This constructivist perspective, then, repositions students as active agents who collaboratively construct their learning and understanding, and whose voices and insights are valued and actionable (Bovill, Cook-Sather & Felten 2011; Davis & Sumara 2002). In such a ‘powerful’ learning environment, students assume greater responsibility for the construction of their knowledge with targeted assistance (Alotaibi 2016). This has potential to develop into co-creation of quality learning between students and academics (HEA 2014). Pappalepore and Farrell (2017), for example, suggested the incorporation of co-creation activities by students and teachers in the quality control processes of higher education institutions to increase flexibility, adaptability and timeliness to curriculum and assessment changes. As effective teaching practices are, indisputably, critical to quality academic work, and are likely to be impacted upon to some extent by different educational settings, these are explored in detail in this study.
Based upon the preceding discussion, it is reasonable to contend that, in general, a transition from teacher-centred to student-centred learning environments would be desirable for effective learning (Prosser, Trigwell & Taylor 1994; Prosser & Trigwell 1999). However, the suitability for different cultural settings has been questioned. While Wang (2008) supported the concept that teachers and students become partners in intercultural construction of meaning in offshore programs, constructivist educational
54
approaches were likely to be unfamiliar to students in Confucian cultures, so typical onshore teaching styles would not evoke the anticipated positive responses in different contexts. Therefore, as Lowyck, Elen and Clarebout (2004) cautioned, a smooth transition would depend on mutual understanding, agreement and adjustment of students and teachers, and, ideally, of all relevant parties. An additional concern is teachers’ own beliefs in their self-efficacy when faced with classroom management conditions such as large class sizes, inadequate physical resources and curriculum materials, and insufficient time for planning (Ektem 2016), all done while they are working in unfamiliar cultural settings with reduced institutional support. Such conditions were encountered by academics in this study.
Drawing on a social constructivist learning perspective, an appreciative inquiry approach that builds on strengths rather than weaknesses, and collaboration amongst diverse stakeholders, has been suggested to facilitate this type of transition process towards student-centred learning (Bushe 1998; Lewis, Passmore & Cantore 2011; Watkins, Mohr & Kelly 2011; Whitney & Trosten-Bloom 2010). For example, appreciative inquiry provided a foundation for shared understandings through structured peer professional dialogue in appraisals of development of educational understanding and practice (Ludema, Cooperrider & Barrett 2001), and Jean Francois (2015) proposed it as a framework for collecting information about the perspectives of all internal and external stakeholders for global higher education programs with the purpose of highlighting positive abilities, accomplishments, and assets of individuals and entities. In these ways, the approach is unifying rather than polarising in nature. As the above descriptions implied, collaborative, inclusive and supportive principles and activities, such as those in appreciative inquiry, are a sound basis for a greater understanding of different perspectives on identifying and improving quality learning and teaching in offshore contexts.
As demonstrated above, whilst the constructivist learning perspective shares features with the other perspectives, it is, however, particularised by the combination of: assumption of multiple subjective realities; knowledge contextualised by lived experiences and personal characteristics; and constructions and interpretation of new understandings either by
55
individuals or co-constructed in groups. Quality learning and teaching activities and environments were learner-centred for both students and academics, with opportunities for collaborative and mutual engagement supported by feedback and reflective practices. Valuing and appreciating differences and diversity, recognising contextual influences, and stakeholder involvement in quality enhancement are inherent in this approach.