Theoretical Perspective On Human Learning Analysis
Theoretical Perspectives on human learning
14 March 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Distinctive Features:
Constructivistic learning perspective ..........................................................................................3
Phenomenograpic learning perspective .....................................................................................4
Socio-cultural learning perspective .............................................................................................5
Learning perspectives: differences and similarities ...................................................................6 …show more content…
Conclusion 8
References 10
Introduction
The discussion in this task will explain the three perspectives on human learning, namely a Constructivist perspective where the major goal is to cultivate the learners’ thinking and knowledge construction skills (Vrasidas 2000:1), a Phenomenographic perspective where the internal psychological process of acquisition and elaboration is investigated and a Socio-cultural perspective which underpins the idea of an external interaction process between the learner and his or her social, cultural or material environment (Illeris 2003:397).
In an attempt to explore the relation between the learning perspectives, I indicated that the three learning perspectives could possibly be linked to the three main parts or functions of the human brain.
The constructivist perspective could be seen as applicable to the neo cortex (forebrain), the phenomenographic perspective could be linked to aspects of the limbic (middle) brain and the socio-cultural perspective could refer to the cerebellum, reptilian or hindbrain. I therefore argued that a new learning perspective should be inclusive of all the learning perspectives and embrace a holistic approach in order to be relevant to all aspects of human …show more content…
learning.
Constructivistic learning perspective
A Constructivist learning perspective emerged out of a pragmatic and reasoning frame of mind which developed in the face of a growing industrialized, machine-orientated world where the scientific orientation of cause and effect and belief in an objective reality became the axis of the learning and educational world. The long tradition of an objectivistic constructivist approach, “a belief in one true and correct reality“ (Vrasidas 2000:3) in education, has its roots in the mechanisms of scientific management, such as standardisation and task analysis which would ensure the most efficient production in business and industry (Vrasidas 2000:3) . Constructivism has dominated the field of education over several decades. Most of the traditional approaches to learning and teaching that are based on behaviouristic and cognitive theories, share philosophical assumptions that are fundamental in objectivism.
This perspective embraces a hierarchical, chronological approach where information is shared via the instructor (teacher) to the student. Key to this learning perspective is the notion of the teacher as guide of the process. The teacher will shape the information in such a way as seen see fit for the specific group or individual. A constructivist learning approach would focus on the individual learner’s aptitude to construct new knowledge while they engage in the process of interpret and make meaning of their classroom experience. This process is underpinned by the idea that new knowledge is constructed and built on previous knowledge. This approach is learner-centered and effectivity of the learning process relies partly on the amount of energy and innate ability of the individual (Wang 2006:151).
The focus is more on documenting change of student behaviour and cognitive structures, not meaning-making and understanding. This should not suggest that objectivist teachers are not interested in their students gaining understanding of the topics under study. Most of today’s teachers employ some form of constructivist strategies. Under traditional approach, based on objectivist epistemology, the predominant goal of instruction is to map the one external reality and the one correct understanding into the learner’s mind (Vrasidas 2000:6).
Contructivism has lately in the light of new writings been seen as not a unitary theoretical position but rather as a continuum divided into three broad categories: Cognitive Constructivism, Social Constructivism and Radical Constructivism which will be referred to and expand on later in the task (Doolittle & Tech).
Phenomenographic learning perspective
Phenomenography as a learning practice concerns itself with the nature of all experiences in the process of naming and describing the experience. Looking at an object or phenomenon not by describing it in relation to other objects but attempting to look at it from a “clean slate” point of view. Whatever an individual feels that he knows contributes to his actions, beliefs, attitudes and modes of experiencing. From the point of the instructor it is important to understand how students think about what they are taught and of making use of the knowledge they each have (Marton 1981: 183). The question is how can we find a uniquely suitable description of a domain taking all the point of views of different individuals into consideration? Even although there is consensus as to the scientific or essential nature (description) of a certain domain? We will have to contend with the problem that new descriptions and definitions can change the apparent “essential“ nature of something (Marton 1981:183). Content is used to find out more about the general properties of learning (a underlying operatory structure) and not the other way around and not how the particular content is understood and learned (Marton 1981:184). This proved to be a difficult task seen that research show that we can hardly categorize individuals unambiguously in terms of their possessing (or not possessing) of operatory structures (Marten 1981:194).
The common thread shown by researchers is that we cannot gain knowledge about learning as such, there is no operatory structure or content-free mental structures that provides a “safe and known base” to predict success in the learning process.
What is observed is that, key to the successful executing of a task is the content and context in which a task is presented and if the task is interpreted by the student on the same premise as those on which the task was based (Marten 1981:192-193). Research in phenomenography are aimed at characterising the different ways of understanding various aspects of reality. (Marten
1981:196)
What is clear is the complex possible ways of viewing various aspects of the world, the aggregate of basic conceptions underlying not only different, but even alternative and contradictory forms of suggested knowledge. By means of scientific progress new ways of conceiving aspects of reality are introduced into thinking in general. This new forms of thought are introduced occasionally and become through common categories of interpretation part of the social and collective inheritance.
This collective intellect can be seen as a structured pool of ideas, underlying possible interpretations of reality and can slowly change as new ideas are added to the previously available collection of possibilities (Marten 1981:197-198)
“This superindividual system of forms of thought, this perceived world, is descriptive of human thought in two ways. It can be used as an instrument for description of the way people think in concrete situations and, from the collective perspective, it can be seen as a description of thinking” (Marten 1981:198).
Socio-cultural Learning perspective
Key to describing this learning perspective is the concept that the human species is regarded as an organism which function as a whole and an individual is seen as one of the parts which is in a constant state of change and development as part of the bigger body of humans. This perspective would theoretically mean that the knowledge of each individual is available to each member of the bigger organism. A socio-cultural learning perspective would imply ways or processes of how to share, transfer or make accessible the information in such a way that individuals can cognitively and actively make use of it or apply it to real life. Vygotsky says that learning ¬“appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsycology), and then inside the child (intrapsychology).” (Wang 2006:151) “Knowledge is considered to be located in the community rather than the individual” (Imel cited in Wang 2006:152). According to socio-cultural theories, learning is enhanced when knowledge is shaped by the activities and perspectives of the group. While students talk to each other, they hear themselves and others and it becomes easier to clarify their own thinking. This forces them to engage in higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. This learning approach has the added benefit of providing students with the opportunity to practice various social skills as they co-construct knowledge in the learning community.
An important aspect of this collaborative approach is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which, according to (Vygotsky cited in Wang 2006:152), includes all of the knowledge and skills that a person cannot yet understand or perform on their own, but is capable of learning with guidance from a teacher or peer group member. This guidance can be seen as “scaffolding” which assists the student to step from one level of engagement with knowledge to a higher level.” Of equal importance is that the “scaffolding” process should be underpinned by “intersubjectivity”: all members should have the same perspective as to a tasks’ definition of its goals and limits. “Communities of learning” is defined by Lave as a space where learning is recognized as a social phenomenon constituted in the experienced, lived-in world, through legitimate peripheral participation in ongoing social practice and where the shaping of identity and mastery of skill is part of an organizational, relational characteristic of such a community (Lave 2010:64). When considering the possibilities of this collaborative approach it is noteworthy to consider the time and place contextuality of a socio-cultural learning perspective:
“This truth is not to be found inside the head of an individual person (but) it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction” (Bakhtin cited in Doolittle & Tech). Truth, in this case, is neither the objective reality of the cognitive constructivists nor the experiential reality of the radical constructivist, but rather is a socially constructed and agreed upon truth resulting from “co-participation in cultural practices” (Cobb & Yackel cited in Doolittle & Tech).
Learning perspectives: differences and similarities
All the theoretical perspectives on learning explained in this task could be seen as different angles on learning which were developed at a certain time and place and could be linked to a certain frame of mind in the development of learning models. Although some perspectives could be more popular than others when time and place are taken into consideration, they all are indicative of aspects of our existence in relation to learning and should all be considered as possibilities to ensure a holistic approach to teaching and learning. Furthermore an argument in favour that the three perspectives cover all the aspects of human learning could be the correspondence between the function of the three main parts of the brain and the goals of the learning perspectives as discussed above. The constructivist perspective could be seen as applicable to the neo cortex (forebrain), the phenomenographic perspective could be linked to aspects of the limbic (middle) brain and the socio-cultural perspective could refer to the cerebellum, reptilian or hindbrain.
All three learning perspectives described in this task have different focus areas, namely learning in relation to cognitive constructions (Constructivist), learning in relation to perceived or felt contents of thought or experience (Phenomenography) (Marton 1981:189) and learning in relation to social-cultural aspects (Social-cultural). Still many similarities and areas of intersection occur between the learning perspectives. Doolittle notes that all of the eight principles essential in constructivist pedagogy are not solely constructivist in nature but have been proposed by other theories and theorists in other times (Doolittle & Tech). A closer evaluation of some of the eight factors that is seen as essential in constructivist pedagogy provide the opportunity to ascertain some of the similarities between all three theoretical perspectives. The principle: Learning should take place in authentic and real-world environments implies that authentic experiences are important so that the individual may construct mental structures that are viable in meaningful situations (Doolittle & Tech). This seems to overlap with the notion of phenomenography where light is shed on the development of knowledge in terms of its different forms, reflecting various aspects of experiences (Marton 1981:191). The principle: Learning should involve social negotiation and mediation, intersect with the social-cultural learning perspective and with phenomenography by the conception that psychological entities are epistomologically unattainable independently of context and content (Marton 1981:194). This could imply that new knowledge structures are impossible to obtain without the social and cultural environment to feed and give meaning to these structures. Could it be argued that Constructivist Pedagogy touches on all the elements of learning perceptions? Firstly because Cognitive constructivist place an emphasis on mental constructions of reality, Radical constructivists emphasizes the construction of a coherent experiential reality which is parallel with the interest of phenomenography and thirdly because Social constructivists maintain the social nature of knowledge, and the belief that knowledge is the result of social interaction and language usage (Doolittle & Tech).
Conclusion
In a globalised world where our current understanding of science and psychology tends to lead us to a position of equal appreciation of all the parts of a whole, valuing the many similarities and possibilities of integration rather than emphasizing and devaluating the differences, it is equally important for learning and education to keep up with this transformational process. In reference to learning it is implied that the process involves relatively lasting changes of capacity within the learner and that learning should take place bridging the apparent borders of work- school- and societal life (Illeris 2003:397).
A contemporary, current learning construct that implies the integration of the main historically acknowledged learning theories, would consider that all learning essentially implies the integration of two different processes, it will firstly take into consideration the learner’s external interaction with the social, cultural and material environment and secondly it will consider that learning implies an internal, psychological acquisition and elaboration upon connection with prior learning (Illeris 2003,:397).
Many learning theories deal only with one of these processes, they do not cover the whole field of learning, it either focuses on the internal psychological process or on the traditional behaviourist and cognitive learning process or some modern social learning theories which e.g. draw attention only to the external interaction process of social constructionism (Illeris 2003:398).
A current viable learning perspective will consist of elements of all three learning theories mentioned in this task, and will claim “that all learning will always involve three dimensions” (Illeris 2001: 980. It can be explained by a triangular diagram which involves the individual operating from a specific environment, seen as a vertical double arrow between two points and a horizontal double arrow which indicates a process of interplay between two equal psychological functions involved in any learning, namely the function of cognition, dealing with the learning content, and the emotional or psychodynamic function, providing the necessary mental energy of the process. Foremost is the condition of the bigger society in which the triangle can be placed, seen that this is crucial to the nature and conditions for learning possibilities. (Illeris 2001:400).
A socio-cultural learning methodology which takes into consideration real life circumstances and which is underpinned with the knowledge of all learning perspectives available and enable students to participate in learning communities of today in order to be able to participate in the ever changing yet unknown learning communities of the future (Marton & Trigwell 2000:394), is most likely the only methodology which could bring us closer to determine a workable contemporary teaching praxis. Furthermore, taking into consideration the wealth of untapped indigenous knowledge, like the notion of Ubuntu, we have available to invest in, much could be said for changing schools into contemporary communities of learning where the strength lies in support and where dignity and identity are achieved through empathy, generosity and community commitment. Closely related to the spirit of Ubuntu and linked to the socio-cultural perspective, is the African saying that ‘it takes a village to raise a child. (Swanson 2007:54)
References
Doolittle, P.E. & Tech, V. Constructivism and Online Education.
Illeris, K. 2003. Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4):396-406.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice [Online]. Available: http://199.87.225.219/facultydevelopment/tla/documents/CommunityofPractice.pdf [June 9, 2008].
Lave, J. 1993.Situated learning in communities of practice, in L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association. 63-82.
Marton, F. 1981. Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10:177-200.
Marton, F. & Trigwell, K. 2000. Variatio Est Mater Studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3):381-395.
Swanson, D. 2007. Ubuntu: An African contribution to (re)search for/with a ‘humble togetherness’. Home, 2(2):53-67
Vrasidas, C. 2000. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
Wang, L. 2006. Sociocultural learning theories and information literacy teaching activities in higher education. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2):149-158.
14 March 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Distinctive Features:
Constructivistic learning perspective ..........................................................................................3
Phenomenograpic learning perspective .....................................................................................4
Socio-cultural learning perspective .............................................................................................5
Learning perspectives: differences and similarities ...................................................................6 …show more content…
Conclusion 8
References 10
Introduction
The discussion in this task will explain the three perspectives on human learning, namely a Constructivist perspective where the major goal is to cultivate the learners’ thinking and knowledge construction skills (Vrasidas 2000:1), a Phenomenographic perspective where the internal psychological process of acquisition and elaboration is investigated and a Socio-cultural perspective which underpins the idea of an external interaction process between the learner and his or her social, cultural or material environment (Illeris 2003:397).
In an attempt to explore the relation between the learning perspectives, I indicated that the three learning perspectives could possibly be linked to the three main parts or functions of the human brain.
The constructivist perspective could be seen as applicable to the neo cortex (forebrain), the phenomenographic perspective could be linked to aspects of the limbic (middle) brain and the socio-cultural perspective could refer to the cerebellum, reptilian or hindbrain. I therefore argued that a new learning perspective should be inclusive of all the learning perspectives and embrace a holistic approach in order to be relevant to all aspects of human …show more content…
learning.
Constructivistic learning perspective
A Constructivist learning perspective emerged out of a pragmatic and reasoning frame of mind which developed in the face of a growing industrialized, machine-orientated world where the scientific orientation of cause and effect and belief in an objective reality became the axis of the learning and educational world. The long tradition of an objectivistic constructivist approach, “a belief in one true and correct reality“ (Vrasidas 2000:3) in education, has its roots in the mechanisms of scientific management, such as standardisation and task analysis which would ensure the most efficient production in business and industry (Vrasidas 2000:3) . Constructivism has dominated the field of education over several decades. Most of the traditional approaches to learning and teaching that are based on behaviouristic and cognitive theories, share philosophical assumptions that are fundamental in objectivism.
This perspective embraces a hierarchical, chronological approach where information is shared via the instructor (teacher) to the student. Key to this learning perspective is the notion of the teacher as guide of the process. The teacher will shape the information in such a way as seen see fit for the specific group or individual. A constructivist learning approach would focus on the individual learner’s aptitude to construct new knowledge while they engage in the process of interpret and make meaning of their classroom experience. This process is underpinned by the idea that new knowledge is constructed and built on previous knowledge. This approach is learner-centered and effectivity of the learning process relies partly on the amount of energy and innate ability of the individual (Wang 2006:151).
The focus is more on documenting change of student behaviour and cognitive structures, not meaning-making and understanding. This should not suggest that objectivist teachers are not interested in their students gaining understanding of the topics under study. Most of today’s teachers employ some form of constructivist strategies. Under traditional approach, based on objectivist epistemology, the predominant goal of instruction is to map the one external reality and the one correct understanding into the learner’s mind (Vrasidas 2000:6).
Contructivism has lately in the light of new writings been seen as not a unitary theoretical position but rather as a continuum divided into three broad categories: Cognitive Constructivism, Social Constructivism and Radical Constructivism which will be referred to and expand on later in the task (Doolittle & Tech).
Phenomenographic learning perspective
Phenomenography as a learning practice concerns itself with the nature of all experiences in the process of naming and describing the experience. Looking at an object or phenomenon not by describing it in relation to other objects but attempting to look at it from a “clean slate” point of view. Whatever an individual feels that he knows contributes to his actions, beliefs, attitudes and modes of experiencing. From the point of the instructor it is important to understand how students think about what they are taught and of making use of the knowledge they each have (Marton 1981: 183). The question is how can we find a uniquely suitable description of a domain taking all the point of views of different individuals into consideration? Even although there is consensus as to the scientific or essential nature (description) of a certain domain? We will have to contend with the problem that new descriptions and definitions can change the apparent “essential“ nature of something (Marton 1981:183). Content is used to find out more about the general properties of learning (a underlying operatory structure) and not the other way around and not how the particular content is understood and learned (Marton 1981:184). This proved to be a difficult task seen that research show that we can hardly categorize individuals unambiguously in terms of their possessing (or not possessing) of operatory structures (Marten 1981:194).
The common thread shown by researchers is that we cannot gain knowledge about learning as such, there is no operatory structure or content-free mental structures that provides a “safe and known base” to predict success in the learning process.
What is observed is that, key to the successful executing of a task is the content and context in which a task is presented and if the task is interpreted by the student on the same premise as those on which the task was based (Marten 1981:192-193). Research in phenomenography are aimed at characterising the different ways of understanding various aspects of reality. (Marten
1981:196)
What is clear is the complex possible ways of viewing various aspects of the world, the aggregate of basic conceptions underlying not only different, but even alternative and contradictory forms of suggested knowledge. By means of scientific progress new ways of conceiving aspects of reality are introduced into thinking in general. This new forms of thought are introduced occasionally and become through common categories of interpretation part of the social and collective inheritance.
This collective intellect can be seen as a structured pool of ideas, underlying possible interpretations of reality and can slowly change as new ideas are added to the previously available collection of possibilities (Marten 1981:197-198)
“This superindividual system of forms of thought, this perceived world, is descriptive of human thought in two ways. It can be used as an instrument for description of the way people think in concrete situations and, from the collective perspective, it can be seen as a description of thinking” (Marten 1981:198).
Socio-cultural Learning perspective
Key to describing this learning perspective is the concept that the human species is regarded as an organism which function as a whole and an individual is seen as one of the parts which is in a constant state of change and development as part of the bigger body of humans. This perspective would theoretically mean that the knowledge of each individual is available to each member of the bigger organism. A socio-cultural learning perspective would imply ways or processes of how to share, transfer or make accessible the information in such a way that individuals can cognitively and actively make use of it or apply it to real life. Vygotsky says that learning ¬“appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsycology), and then inside the child (intrapsychology).” (Wang 2006:151) “Knowledge is considered to be located in the community rather than the individual” (Imel cited in Wang 2006:152). According to socio-cultural theories, learning is enhanced when knowledge is shaped by the activities and perspectives of the group. While students talk to each other, they hear themselves and others and it becomes easier to clarify their own thinking. This forces them to engage in higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation. This learning approach has the added benefit of providing students with the opportunity to practice various social skills as they co-construct knowledge in the learning community.
An important aspect of this collaborative approach is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which, according to (Vygotsky cited in Wang 2006:152), includes all of the knowledge and skills that a person cannot yet understand or perform on their own, but is capable of learning with guidance from a teacher or peer group member. This guidance can be seen as “scaffolding” which assists the student to step from one level of engagement with knowledge to a higher level.” Of equal importance is that the “scaffolding” process should be underpinned by “intersubjectivity”: all members should have the same perspective as to a tasks’ definition of its goals and limits. “Communities of learning” is defined by Lave as a space where learning is recognized as a social phenomenon constituted in the experienced, lived-in world, through legitimate peripheral participation in ongoing social practice and where the shaping of identity and mastery of skill is part of an organizational, relational characteristic of such a community (Lave 2010:64). When considering the possibilities of this collaborative approach it is noteworthy to consider the time and place contextuality of a socio-cultural learning perspective:
“This truth is not to be found inside the head of an individual person (but) it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction” (Bakhtin cited in Doolittle & Tech). Truth, in this case, is neither the objective reality of the cognitive constructivists nor the experiential reality of the radical constructivist, but rather is a socially constructed and agreed upon truth resulting from “co-participation in cultural practices” (Cobb & Yackel cited in Doolittle & Tech).
Learning perspectives: differences and similarities
All the theoretical perspectives on learning explained in this task could be seen as different angles on learning which were developed at a certain time and place and could be linked to a certain frame of mind in the development of learning models. Although some perspectives could be more popular than others when time and place are taken into consideration, they all are indicative of aspects of our existence in relation to learning and should all be considered as possibilities to ensure a holistic approach to teaching and learning. Furthermore an argument in favour that the three perspectives cover all the aspects of human learning could be the correspondence between the function of the three main parts of the brain and the goals of the learning perspectives as discussed above. The constructivist perspective could be seen as applicable to the neo cortex (forebrain), the phenomenographic perspective could be linked to aspects of the limbic (middle) brain and the socio-cultural perspective could refer to the cerebellum, reptilian or hindbrain.
All three learning perspectives described in this task have different focus areas, namely learning in relation to cognitive constructions (Constructivist), learning in relation to perceived or felt contents of thought or experience (Phenomenography) (Marton 1981:189) and learning in relation to social-cultural aspects (Social-cultural). Still many similarities and areas of intersection occur between the learning perspectives. Doolittle notes that all of the eight principles essential in constructivist pedagogy are not solely constructivist in nature but have been proposed by other theories and theorists in other times (Doolittle & Tech). A closer evaluation of some of the eight factors that is seen as essential in constructivist pedagogy provide the opportunity to ascertain some of the similarities between all three theoretical perspectives. The principle: Learning should take place in authentic and real-world environments implies that authentic experiences are important so that the individual may construct mental structures that are viable in meaningful situations (Doolittle & Tech). This seems to overlap with the notion of phenomenography where light is shed on the development of knowledge in terms of its different forms, reflecting various aspects of experiences (Marton 1981:191). The principle: Learning should involve social negotiation and mediation, intersect with the social-cultural learning perspective and with phenomenography by the conception that psychological entities are epistomologically unattainable independently of context and content (Marton 1981:194). This could imply that new knowledge structures are impossible to obtain without the social and cultural environment to feed and give meaning to these structures. Could it be argued that Constructivist Pedagogy touches on all the elements of learning perceptions? Firstly because Cognitive constructivist place an emphasis on mental constructions of reality, Radical constructivists emphasizes the construction of a coherent experiential reality which is parallel with the interest of phenomenography and thirdly because Social constructivists maintain the social nature of knowledge, and the belief that knowledge is the result of social interaction and language usage (Doolittle & Tech).
Conclusion
In a globalised world where our current understanding of science and psychology tends to lead us to a position of equal appreciation of all the parts of a whole, valuing the many similarities and possibilities of integration rather than emphasizing and devaluating the differences, it is equally important for learning and education to keep up with this transformational process. In reference to learning it is implied that the process involves relatively lasting changes of capacity within the learner and that learning should take place bridging the apparent borders of work- school- and societal life (Illeris 2003:397).
A contemporary, current learning construct that implies the integration of the main historically acknowledged learning theories, would consider that all learning essentially implies the integration of two different processes, it will firstly take into consideration the learner’s external interaction with the social, cultural and material environment and secondly it will consider that learning implies an internal, psychological acquisition and elaboration upon connection with prior learning (Illeris 2003,:397).
Many learning theories deal only with one of these processes, they do not cover the whole field of learning, it either focuses on the internal psychological process or on the traditional behaviourist and cognitive learning process or some modern social learning theories which e.g. draw attention only to the external interaction process of social constructionism (Illeris 2003:398).
A current viable learning perspective will consist of elements of all three learning theories mentioned in this task, and will claim “that all learning will always involve three dimensions” (Illeris 2001: 980. It can be explained by a triangular diagram which involves the individual operating from a specific environment, seen as a vertical double arrow between two points and a horizontal double arrow which indicates a process of interplay between two equal psychological functions involved in any learning, namely the function of cognition, dealing with the learning content, and the emotional or psychodynamic function, providing the necessary mental energy of the process. Foremost is the condition of the bigger society in which the triangle can be placed, seen that this is crucial to the nature and conditions for learning possibilities. (Illeris 2001:400).
A socio-cultural learning methodology which takes into consideration real life circumstances and which is underpinned with the knowledge of all learning perspectives available and enable students to participate in learning communities of today in order to be able to participate in the ever changing yet unknown learning communities of the future (Marton & Trigwell 2000:394), is most likely the only methodology which could bring us closer to determine a workable contemporary teaching praxis. Furthermore, taking into consideration the wealth of untapped indigenous knowledge, like the notion of Ubuntu, we have available to invest in, much could be said for changing schools into contemporary communities of learning where the strength lies in support and where dignity and identity are achieved through empathy, generosity and community commitment. Closely related to the spirit of Ubuntu and linked to the socio-cultural perspective, is the African saying that ‘it takes a village to raise a child. (Swanson 2007:54)
References
Doolittle, P.E. & Tech, V. Constructivism and Online Education.
Illeris, K. 2003. Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4):396-406.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice [Online]. Available: http://199.87.225.219/facultydevelopment/tla/documents/CommunityofPractice.pdf [June 9, 2008].
Lave, J. 1993.Situated learning in communities of practice, in L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association. 63-82.
Marton, F. 1981. Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10:177-200.
Marton, F. & Trigwell, K. 2000. Variatio Est Mater Studiorum. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3):381-395.
Swanson, D. 2007. Ubuntu: An African contribution to (re)search for/with a ‘humble togetherness’. Home, 2(2):53-67
Vrasidas, C. 2000. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
Wang, L. 2006. Sociocultural learning theories and information literacy teaching activities in higher education. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(2):149-158.