Content uploaded by Dani Ben-Zvi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dani Ben-Zvi on Dec 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
66
Developing Participatory Learning Practices when Studying the Learning Sciences
Developing Participatory Learning
Practices when Studying the
Learning Sciences: A Theoretical
Framework and its Pedagogical
Implications
Yotam Hod and Dani Ben-zvi
University of Haifa, LINKS I-CORE
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, the learning sciences has become an inuential discipline
in education on how people learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), advancing
learning research into real use as technology has proliferated (Kolodner, 2012),
and producing ideas that are at the heart of a robust movement to reform education
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Graduate courses and programs of the learning
sciences that have sprung up worldwide (e.g., Network of Academic Programs in the
Learning Sciences - NAPLES) have sought to teach the next generation of scholars
and practitioners the complexity of this discipline (e.g., Ronen-Fuhrmann, Kali, &
Hoadley,2008).Yet,thisremainsachallengingtaskgiventhedifcultyofdeepening
novices’ often naive or traditional understandings on learning (Rogoff, 1994).
Based on our own extended experiences in a graduate level course that has a goal
of teaching the learning sciences, we1 have developed an innovative pedagogical
model where students learn about the science of learning through the prism of their
own experiences. This is based on the view that learning involves enculturation of
the authentic practices of experts in a discipline (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989;
Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). In our unique setting, students participate in an
emerging classroom learning community (LC) (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999; Brown &
Campione,1994).Astheydothis,theyareguidedtoaskpersonalreectivequestions
about their participatory learning practices – practices relating to the way they
1 Developedandledbythesecondaryauthorofthispaper,andlaterjoinedbytherstauthor
as a researcher and contributor.
67
Yotam Hod Dani Ben-zvi
learn alone or with others – with a focus on the individual and collaborative learning
they experience in the present LC. Students’ informal and personal ideas about these
learning processes are deepened by relating them to the learning sciences content that
they study. For example, students may be challenged to collaboratively build their
knowledge on an article about collaboration. Thus, the process of their studies is
integrated with the content.
While this pedagogical approach builds upon an established view of learning by the
learning sciences community that all learning is situated (Sawyer & Greeno, 2006),
upon close investigation we have found a unique phenomenon occurring (reported
inHod& Ben-Zvi,in press).Specically,the deeplearningexperiences thatmany
students were reporting could be described by an adapted theoretical framework
which underlies process-oriented group psychotherapies (henceforth referred to as
just GP).
While the relationship between learning about learning and GP may seem odd at
rst,thereisaninherentconnectionbetweenthesetwo.Inbothcases,deeplearning
isbasedongoingthroughagroupprocessandmakingsenseofitbyreectingupon
it individually and interpersonally (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Although GP deals with
a different population of participants and has therapeutic goals, it offers a unique
lens that sheds light on some of the processes involved in learning about the learning
sciences.
Adapting a GP framework to describe learning of
the learning sciences
We have adapted a framework that has been articulated in GP for therapeutic change
into three learning dimensions that include (a) social microcosms, (b) motivation
for change, and (c) changing practices. These adaptations were made to relate
the framework to learning-based research while maintaining the basic principles
underlying GP.
The essence of the framework is based upon social microcosm theory, which is “of
paramount importance in group therapy and is a keystone of the entire approach to
group therapy” (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005, p. 32), and is a widely accepted clinical
68
Developing Participatory Learning Practices when Studying the Learning Sciences
assumption (Markin & Kivlighan, 2008). Social microcosm theory posits that the
group setting serves as a social microcosm, whereby each participant transfers2 their
general relationship pattern in their everyday life to the group situation. When given
the opportunity to interact freely, over time participants’ interpersonal styles from
their everyday lives manifest within the therapeutic group. For example, a person who
is very competitive with others in their everyday life will recreate such competitive
practices in their new social microcosm.
Building upon the social microcosms that manifest, a reective process allows
participants to become aware of their participatory learning practices within their
microcosm, enabling them to decide if they are satised with what they nd, and
if not, empowers them to exercise the will to change it (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).
Participants may also develop the motivation to change by observing others in the
group and by getting advice from their peers or the moderator about how or what
to change. Moreover, participants may have certain dispositions making them more
or less ready to change (Hod & Ben-Zvi, in press). While all of these contribute to a
person’s motivation to change, ultimately it is up to a person to decide for themselves
if they are willing. This implies that change is deliberate, directed towards a goal, and
is the responsibility of the individual.
Pedagogical and Design Implications
A great deal is already known about the design of LCs based on various descriptions
and syntheses of them. One prominent example is Bielaczyc and Collins' (1999)
14 principles for the design of effective LCs. In relation to these, we offer a design
principle that we believe is innovative in that we do not nd it described in any
relevant literature on LCs, yet is central to ours. As such, an exploration of this
principle on theoretical and pedagogical grounds is important so that future research
can investigate its existence elsewhere. Our principle is based on the process and
content integration that underlies the adapted GP framework. We believe there are
fourcharacteristicsofthisprinciple,brieydescribedhere-in.
2 We use the terms transfer and transference in the context of its use in GP and not in relation
to the concept as it is used commonly in the learning sciences (e.g., Bransford, et al., 2000).
69
Yotam Hod Dani Ben-zvi
Here-and-now reective discourse
Reective here-and-now discourse focuses on eliciting the group’s present
collaborative experience. To do this, the moderator must focus students on sharing
their feelings openly about their present collaborative efforts. This can include, for
example, preventing students from intellectualizing or digressing into past, historical
experiences that are outside the boundaries of the group.
Ill-structured collaborative learning
Instead of being assigned clear and organized tasks, assignments should be ill-
structured, leaving the group members to decide for themselves how much and where
to invest their efforts. Additionally, the moderators’ interventions should challenge the
students to be in a continual search for improvement and deepening of understanding,
evenwhentheycreatedproductsthattheyperceiveasnished.
So that these collaborative experiences are deep, face-to-face sessions are not
enough. Thus, there needs to be a supplement to ftf sessions, otherwise there may be
agroupprocess,butwithoutasufcientexperientialbasistoreect.Assuch,online
collaborative processes can supplement face-to-face meetings so that the community
is continually active, as Fig. 1 illustrates.
Fig. 1 Process-content integration via reection in GP and in our framework
70
Developing Participatory Learning Practices when Studying the Learning Sciences
Technology-enhanced relationship building
So that students can speak openly, honestly, and non-defensively about their own
participatory practices, technology must support relationship-building efforts.
Emergent-design
The emergent-design principle guides decisions of the moderator(s) based on the idea
that they need to be sensitive to the activities of the group and respond accordingly. The
moderator(s) must actively review the events that transpire in each meeting, discuss
theirmeaning,andplanthesubsequentmeetingsbasedontheirinformalndings.
In this presentation, we will further describe these four characteristics and provide
illustrative examples of them to demonstrate our innovative approach. Likewise,
we will show their inter-connectivity in supporting process-content integration. We
believe that this can contribute to graduate programs and courses worldwide seeking
to teach their students the learning sciences, as well as the design of LCs in general.
71
Yotam Hod Dani Ben-zvi
Bibliography
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization
of educational practice. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and
models, Vol. II (pp. 269-291). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School (Expanded). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.
McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice
(pp. 229-272). Cambridge, U.K.: The MIT Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Hod, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (in press). A group psychotherapeutic perspective on transforming
participation in a learning community. Instructional Science. Doi: 10.1007/s11251-
014-9321-x
Kolodner, J. (2012). Envisioning the next generation classroom and the next generation of
learning technologies. In The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 2).
Markin, R. D., & Kivlighan, D. M. (2008). Central relationship themes in group psychotherapy:
A social relations model analysis of transference. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 12(4), 290-306.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209-229.
Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., Kali, Y., & Hoadley, C. M. (2008). Helping education students understand
learning through designing. Educational Technology, 48(2), 26-33.
Sawyer, K., & Greeno, J. (2006). Situativity and learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355-367). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th Ed.).
New York, NY: Basic Books.