Both theories, critical theory and social constructivism, as discussed above, originated from different ideological positions, but the link between the two arguably, can be established.
The scope of critical theory is wider than education and has its origins in social emancipation of more marginalised groups. Social constructivism, though rooted more specifically into education, illuminates the social aspect of learning and knowledge construction, bringing forward notions of equality through participation and democracy;
and also via the value it attaches to students’ previous learning and experiences. It is the co-construction of knowledge through dialogues and the explicit and implicit learning that affects both students and tutors, which connects social constructivism with critical theory.
Social constructivism, therefore, can potentially offer a pragmatic way to apply the ideals of critical theory into practice. The methodological application, as evident from earlier discussions, is possible through participatory research. Participatory research, again, has its origin engrained in emancipatory work, like critical theory, but emphasises the social aspect of knowledge construction, drawing upon participants’ local experiences and knowledge, hence showing a pedagogical coherence with social constructivism, too.
It is this interaction between critical theory and social constructivism, which I refer to as critical social-constructivism that I use as a conceptual framework for my study. The application of theories sits beneath the wider umbrella of participatory research, which comfortably accommodates various concepts from both theoretical perspectives. The details of participatory research and its position in my research is discussed further in the next chapter, Chapter Five. The figure below (figure 4.1) illustrates the interaction between the two and shows how the concepts from both theoretical perspectives can be studied and utilised under the umbrella of participatory research.
Critical social-constructivism that I derive by combining social constructivism with critical theory, as discussed above, overlaps with the idea of critical constructivism, which itself is grounded on the notions of constructivism. Critical constructivism, like most social constructivist approaches, asserts multiple perspectives of knowing and understanding (See section 4.2, above). To social constructivists, nothing represents a
84
neutral perspective and critical constructivism, too, emphasises a pluralistic orientation in understanding epistemological realities (Kincheloe, 2008). A combined theoretical perspective in education, therefore, can also be drawn from critical constructivism where students take the role of researchers, and tutors, co- researchers (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2005). There are various examples from practice where critical constructivism has been applied to study different educational phenomena, using different pedagogical and theoretical concepts from critical theory. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2005), for example, apply it to post- formal thinking and teaching asserting the value of a democratic and informal but intellectually disciplined classroom where students and tutors, through reasoning, enquiry and interaction, are able to create and co-create knowledge. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2005) set forth the case for creating classroom conditions where students can become sophisticated researchers, who are able to produce their own knowledge and, when facilitated by an adept tutor, construct their own curriculum. Kincheloe (2008) also argues for a place for critical pedagogy in HE to address the much wider social and educational issues surrounding intellectually depressed students who struggle to engage critically in their learning when they find that much of their higher education consists of the similar rituals of rote learning that dominated their school education, hence contributing to the discourse of transformative education (extending the work of Freire, 1973; Freire and Macedo, 1995).
Another researcher and educator advocating for critical constructivism in educational research is Bentley (2003). Bentley (2003) and Bentley et al. (2007) also utilise critical constructivism under the construct of critical pedagogy, especially to discuss students’
partnership in classrooms. A critical constructivist pedagogy, Bentley et al. (2007) argue, can facilitate the “students to shape and reshape their own conceptual biographies through the development of intellectual tools and attitudes about the social basis of knowledge” (Bentley et al., 2007: 2). Parallels here can be drawn between Freire’s notions of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970, 1973; Freire and Macedo, 1995- see section 4.1.3) and Kincheloe’s (2008) and Bentley et al.’s (2007) arguments on the use of critical constructivism in education. They all emphasise the social aspect of learning and the role of critical dialogues in extending the learning and teaching experiences of students and tutors.
85
A recognition of critical constructivism, therefore, can provide opportunities to a participatory researcher to build various openings within the research to help participants not only build ideas but also reflect upon their thinking and decision making. An exposure to reflective processes and critical knowledge construction, arguably, has the potential to help graduates challenge the production and reproduction of social power structures in society (Bentley et al., 2007). An acknowledgement of the social nature of knowledge, therefore, can help to give space to the learners to value the cultivation of critical communities of inquiry in order to establish a new democratic social order (Bentley et al., 2007).
Similar to participatory research, critical constructivism renders itself to seek benefit from a variety of social, cultural, philosophical and theoretical positions, giving the intellectual freedom to the researcher to formulate a rich conception of the phenomenon under study.
The implications of adopting a multiple theoretical and methodological study validates the researcher to use a variety of research methods and theoretical constructs, a phenomenon, referred by Kincheloe (2008) as “bricolage” (pg: 8), which I also found useful in my own study.
Whilst these inspirations from critical constructivism (Bentley, 2003; Kincheloe, 2004, Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2005; Bentley, et al., 2007; Kincheloe, 2008) offer important insights, I have preferred, instead, to use the term ‘critical social- constructivism’, as it resonates more closely with the combined ideological principles of social constructivism and critical theory (mainly, Dewey, 1897, 1903, 1938; Freire, 1970, 1973; Mercer, 2008;
and Wegerif, 2013b, 2015, 2016). Critical constructivism, although grounded in the notions of constructivism, predominantly displays the ideological beliefs of critical theory. The ideas and beliefs are in accordance with those of Freire (which I have already discussed above, in section 4.1.3), who in turn, was mainly inspired by a Marxist view of human emancipation from oppression. In this thesis, although, the participatory nature of the educational research project aligns with critical constructivism, but in order to engage more explicitly and fully with the social aspects of knowledge construction, I draw more strongly, than the critical constructivists, upon democratic, dialogic learning and therefore, describe the theoretical conceptualisation for the work as critical social-constructivism (see figure 4.1).
86
Figure 4.1: Theoretical conceptualisation: critical social-constructivism (overlapping with critical constructivism)
87
Of particular relevance in this conceptualisation, as illustrated in figure 4.1, are Freire’s notions of critical pedagogy that include aspects of conscientisation (culture circles and critical reflection), power relations, marginalised voice and transformation; Dewey’s views on democracy and experience embedded education; and Wegerif’s assertion on dialogic learning. The dialogic understanding of literacy education, as articulated first by Freire, proposes that education is not culturally or politically neutral. He places value on relationships and believes that it is the mechanisms used to develop and foster relationships that contribute in the building of different kinds of communities (Freire, 1973). The extent to which these relationships can be collegial and mutual, can be established with the help of social constructivism, especially, through Dewey’s notions of ethical democracy (1903/1916) and Wegerif’s view of dialogic pedagogy (2015, 2016). All these theories and concepts, either in isolation or in collaboration, have influenced the data collection and analysis of my project, as explained in the implementation of the project and data analysis chapters that follow.
As evident from figure 4.1, Dewey’s ethical democracy and Freire’s conscientisation can be regarded as pedagogical ideals which can be applied in educational contexts by establishing and opening dialogic relationships between tutors and students. Dialogues can take different forms, such as speech, activity, problem solving, writing and other more subtle and symbolic forms of communication, such as creative text and drawings.
With the careful creation of a safe dialogic space, both students and tutors can participate, listen and learn simultaneously from each other. Listening, therefore, leads to greater inclusivity, reducing the likelihood of marginalising groups or individuals.
Dialogues provide a framework for activity based education where stimuli, such as a task to plan and develop an ECRR Room as a pedagogical space, give opportunities to students; especially ECS degree students, a majority of whom are already in practice;
to participate and draw upon their previous and newly acquired knowledge and experiences, and co-construct new learning through critical reflection.
Knowledge co-constructed in a more equitable environment, with the inclusion of problem and activity based situations; and embedding of opportunities for critical reflection, has the potential to transform individuals, groups and even institutions. ECS
88
students, through their collective participation, were therefore able to make use of their previous learning and experiences, and presented a critically co-constructed plan and design for an ECRR Room. The processes reflected the ethos of democracy and participation, concepts that underpin the theoretical curriculum of participants’
academic course in the university. Knowledge and skills that the ECS students brought, acquired and co-constructed during their participation in the project are therefore likely to help them further in their academic and also professional contexts (Weimer, 2002).
The methodological application that I utilised for my study, therefore, drew from critical theory and social constructivist frameworks. Social constructivism, as stated earlier, is often regarded as a social construction or reconstruction of ideas of learning as contributed by various theorists, ranging from classic Dewey and Vygotsky to new educationists, like Wegerif. Similarly, Paulo Freire’s ideas on critical pedagogy were developed in an effort to democratise education in Brazil, which led to the perception of pedagogy as a means to political liberation and revolution (Elias 1994). In Freire’s writings, pedagogy had a specific or emancipatory purpose (Heikka and Waniganayake, 2011). The adoption of these two theoretical frameworks, developed in different socio-cultural contexts and times, were being applied cautiously to offer lenses of meaning making in contemporary HE. Their application, in the conceptual analysis of my work, arguably, is far away from the original locations of their initiators but the concepts are used as a vehicle for critical engagement with the meaning making process.
Conclusion
The chapter discussed different theoretical perspectives and their position within my study. Inspirations, particularly, were drawn from critical theory and social constructivism, especially, Freire, Dewey, and Wegerif’s views on critical pedagogy, democracy, and dialogic learning, respectively. The ideals from each theory were discussed and argued for inclusion in participatory work with students. The chapter also reviewed the methodological application of key concepts from each theory, leading to an amalgamation of ideologically separate, yet related theoretical ideas, proposed as
89
critical social- constructivism. The use of critical social- constructivism in knowledge construction, especially for HE collaborative learning activities, is argued and contextualised for my research, with ECS students. The influence and application of the underpinning theories on my research is extended and argued further in the next two chapters on methodology and implementation of the project.
90 Chapter 5: Methodology and research design
In the previous chapter, I argued for the inclusion of a combined theoretical perspective as a framework to support my study. Concepts from critical theory and social constructivism, in particular the views of Freire, Dewey and Wegerif, were used to theorise the approach to research. This chapter extends that discussion and argues for the application of those theoretical ideas into a participatory research methodology. The research itself focused upon the use of participatory approaches in understanding HE students’ views and meaning making processes; and the implication of these approaches on wider pedagogical practices, in this case, the planning and development of an educational space, in the form of an ECRR Room. The ECRR Room was intended to provide students with curriculum enhancement opportunities through the provision of practical resources and development of research skills. The study, therefore, sits within the broader area of participatory research, with the following aims and objectives:
1. To analyse the use of participatory approaches in developing a co-constructed and critical understanding of a pedagogical space in the form of an Early Childhood Resource and Research Room (ECRR Room).
2. To analyse the benefits of students’ participation in a pedagogic activity that supports their learning and personal development.
3. To critically reflect on my own experiences of facilitating a participatory project as an academic and a participatory researcher.
In Chapter Two and Three, I argued that students’ participation in HE is generally limited to feedback mechanisms, largely used for quality enhancement purposes (Seale, 2010;
Cook-Sather, 2011; Bovill, et al., 2011). There is a dearth of the utilisation of student voice in pedagogic processes, which are more dialogic, empowering and transformative in nature (Jaitli, 2010; Seale, 2010; Seale, et al., 2014), indicating insufficient conceptualisation of participatory research in HE (Seale, 2010; Seale, et al., 2014). My research contributes to the pedagogical discourse in HE by providing a methodological framework for the use of participatory approaches in understanding students’ views; and is likely to have both pedagogical and empowering benefits for the participants,
91
including myself as a researcher. The research aimed to assist in the development of a pedagogical space; with prospects for students’ learning at personal, relational and social level. This ambition suggested the need for a small scale; primarily, a qualitative study;
which could be meaningful for both students and staff; and could provide opportunities for both groups to share their views and perspectives in a mutual, shared and democratic environment. It was, therefore, paramount to select appropriate research methods that would enable the students to value their own knowledge and experiences; and also develop their capacity to participate critically in group situations (Pant, 2008), alongside the members of staff.
The chapter, therefore, presents a methodological account of my study, which enabled the adoption of democratic processes (Dewey, 1897, 1903/1916), in a pedagogical environment. The aim was to use dialogic mechanisms (Fielding, 2011; Wegerif, 2013a, 2013b, 2015, 2016), which were participatory, rather than representative in nature, to help in the co-construction of knowledge about the needs and purposes of an ECRR Room. The chapter starts with a discussion of the ideological, methodological and epistemological position of participatory research (PR), and its position in my study, with ECS students. The value of an open-ended research methodology, with reference to participatory group meetings, is also discussed. The chapter, overall, gives an account and a justification for the methodological approach, selection of research participants, role of the researcher and the methods employed in working in partnership with students, to understanding their views and perceptions of an ECRR Room.
5.1 Ideological, methodological and epistemological position of participatory