Socially Distant Social Constructivism: Transitioning Visual Arts Pedagogies Online During COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the emergency pivot to online learning that this health crisis prompted, has inevitably impacted teaching and learning across all study conducted by tertiary visual arts educators who shifted their social constructivist teaching methods from the face-to-face classroom to the online setting during the first wave of the pandemic in Australia. In exploring the challenges and opportunities posed by this transition, this article outlines the affordances and limitations of the digital learning tools employed by the teaching staff within a pilot study. The success of this pilot was measured through data analytics, student surveys, and teacher observations and reflections. Based on the findings, the researchers propose several ways visual arts education can be adapted online, while still maintaining the integrity of the discipline and its concomitant pedagogies.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usae20
Studies in Art Education
A Journal of Issues and Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/usae20
Socially Distant Social Constructivism:
Transitioning Visual Arts Pedagogies Online During
COVID-19
Katrina Cutcliffe, Beata Batorowicz, Rhiannan Johnson, Kate Cantrell &
Tanya McLean
To cite this article: Katrina Cutcliffe, Beata Batorowicz, Rhiannan Johnson, Kate Cantrell
& Tanya McLean (2024) Socially Distant Social Constructivism: Transitioning Visual
Arts Pedagogies Online During COVID-19, Studies in Art Education, 65:1, 81-98, DOI:
10.1080/00393541.2023.2285208
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2285208
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Published online: 25 Mar 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Socially Distant Social Constructivism:
Transitioning Visual Arts Pedagogies
Online During COVID-19
KATRINA CUTCLIFFE , BEATA BATOROWICZ ,
RHIANNAN JOHNSON , KATE CANTRELL , and
TANYA MCLEAN
University of Southern Queensland
The COVID-19 pandemic, and the emergency pivot to online learning that
this health crisis prompted, has inevitably impacted teaching and learning
across all study disciplines in higher education. This article presents a case
study conducted by tertiary visual arts educators who shifted their social
constructivist teaching methods from the face-to-face classroom to the
online setting during the first wave of the pandemic in Australia. In explor-
ing the challenges and opportunities posed by this transition, this article
outlines the affordances and limitations of the digital learning tools
employed by the teaching staff within a pilot study. The success of this
pilot was measured through data analytics, student surveys, and teacher
observations and reflections. Based on the findings, the researchers propose
several ways visual arts education can be adapted online, while still main-
taining the integrity of the discipline and its concomitant pedagogies.
Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the first author at
Katrina.Cutcliffe@unisq.edu.au.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with
their consent.
“Consideration
of the online
space as an
‘expanded
studio’is
imperative to the
development and
enactment of
creative and
critical
thinking.”
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 81
© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Studies in Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research
2024, 65(1), 81–98
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2023.2285208

In his seminal article, “The Preface
as Exegesis”(2002), Nigel Krauth
suggested the role of the 21st-
century artist is interactive rather
than oracular, the function of art
is essentially social, and “there is
always correspondence to be
entered into”(p. 65). Contemporary
art prompts public discussion in its
very capacity to (re-)present ideas that
engage in social critique, while often
being immersed within the social–
cultural contexts and the consumer
influence it is critiquing. This social
function of art signals an important
shift away from stereotypical romantic
conceptions of artistic production, dis-
mantling the artist as sui generis and
calling into question the isolation and
individuality of the natural “genius.”As
Maihoub (2015) asserted, art objects
are “live social beings”that evolve
across space and time (p. 1). Even the
social nature of art criticism reminds us
that the authority and legitimacy of
criticism is always historically situated
(Elkins & Newman, 2007; Wesseling,
2011).
Likewise, within higher education, artmak-
ing itself is a social activity. Robyn Stewart
(2003) treated creative practice not as an
ineffable act, but as “a personal and profes-
sional expression of knowing”(p. 4). This
double articulation allows practitioners to not
only situate their work in broader socially
embedded constructions of art, but also
understand how arts knowledge is used to
generate theory from practice and vice versa
(M€
akel€
a, 2007). In this way, contemporary art
practice in academia is about producing an
applied visual narrative and accompanying
dialogue (Mannay, 2016). This dialogue is
both a creative and critical expression of
knowing that is interrogated and enhanced
by the artist’s peers and mentors, as well as
by the artist themselves. As Anderson and
Morgan explained, “Visual artists openly and
critically reflect on what they do and why
they do it”(2013/2016, p. 220). Indeed, in the
visual arts classroom, the embedded focus on
peer critique and critical self-reflection, a
major tenet of art education at undergraduate
and postgraduate levels (Jochum, 2019), is
central to the role and function of art practice.
In short, artists do not exist in isolation, nor
do they create in isolation. As jagodzinski
(1997/2019) reminded us, “Art does not hap-
pen in a vacuum”(2019, Art Means Text sec-
tion, para. 1).
Social Constructivism as a Visual Arts
Pedagogy
As a consequence of the social and collab-
orative nature of the visual arts, the authors
of this article, who are creative arts educators
and artist–academics at the regional
University of Southern Queensland in
Toowoomba, Australia, posit that the founda-
tional pedagogies of visual arts–based educa-
tion are inherently imbricated with social
constructivism. Social constructivism is an
active and collaborative approach to learning
that draws primarily from the work of social
psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) and influ-
enced by John Dewey (1916) and Jerome
Bruner (1986). Historically, social constructiv-
ism gained traction in literacy education
when educators recognized the shortcomings
of information-processing models of learning
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism82

that treated learning as a passive or reactive
process (Shute & Slee, 2015, p. 122).
Grounded in cognitive and developmental
psychology, social constructivism reacts
against educational theories that suggest
learning is an isolated process that occurs
purely in the mind of the individual. It does
so by acknowledging the importance of those
with whom the learner interacts, primarily
peers and educators. As Vygotsky (1978)
explained, “Every function in the child’s cul-
tural development appears twice: first, on the
social level and, later, on the individual level;
first, between people (interpsychological) and
then inside the child (intrapsychological)”
(p. 57).
According to Vygotsky (1978), the individ-
ual’s learning is inherently tied to their social,
cultural, pedagogical, and experiential envir-
onment, along with the shared activities
undertaken within the learning space. Akpan
et al. (2020) suggested pedagogical strategies
associated with social constructivism are
those focused on “interaction, collaboration
and group work,”all of which are essential for
“effective learning”(p. 49). Indeed, Vygotsky
(1978) contended that “all the higher
functions”of problem solving, reasoning, and
communicating develop through social inter-
action and collaboration, thus originating in
Vygotsky’s words as “actual relations between
human individuals”(p. 57).
Today, social constructivist pedagogy is
widely practiced and extensively studied.
Barak (2017) described social constructivism
as a “prominent learning theory …[that has]
provided the pedagogical framework for pro-
moting meaningful usage of advanced tech-
nologies in the 21st century”(pp. 285–286).
Similarly, Knapp (2019) identified social con-
structivism as the “most cited [pedagogical
approach] in both educational and psycho-
logical circles today”(p. 87). While a popular
pedagogical approach, Gulati (2008) made
explicit the complexity of social constructiv-
ism in its application, stating that interactive
forms of education can retain some traditional
pedagogical practices and should not be
assumed as being social constructivist. In
more nuanced terms, social constructivism
requires the change of several “habitual ways
of thinking”(Gulati, 2008, p. 183) in education
from a “world of facts to a world of symbols
and models”that accounts for individual and
social experiences (Larochelle & Bednarz,
1998, p. 7). As such, Gulati (2008) challenged
pre-COVID-19 compulsory online pedagogy
for its “limited appreciation of diverse learning
preferences that is a central aspect of con-
structivism”(p. 183). The latter also high-
lighted social constructivism as potentially
having varying spectra that are not in binary
opposition to traditional educational practi-
ces, but as varying in their capacity to overlap
and become a point of departure.
The adaptability and applicability of this
pedagogical approach has, historically, seen it
utilized in a myriad of disciplines, from the
teaching of science (Barak, 2017) to mathem-
atics (Rytil€
a, 2021), psychology (Knapp, 2019),
digital literacy (Reynolds, 2016), and even
medicine (Hennrikus et al., 2020). Certainly,
the broad use, relevance, and value of social
constructivism is demonstrated through con-
temporaneous study of the educational
impact of subjects as diverse as digital story-
telling (Abderrahim & Guti
errez-Col
on Plana,
2021), inclusive education (Jamero, 2019), and
the decolonization of knowledge (Omodan &
Tsotetsi, 2020).
There is comparatively little research on
the use of social constructivism within visual
arts education. However, research to date
confirms the synergy between the social
aspects of meaning-making and the position-
ing of both art educators and art students as
collaborative agents. Buelow et al.’s(2018)
case study of preservice visual arts educators
employs social constructivism to understand
how elementary arts teachers interpret and
evaluate discipline literacies, drawing atten-
tion to “how powerful the social context is,
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 83

which then [becomes] the center of meaning”
(p. 251). In another case study, Wright et al.
(2017) explored the “shift in art praxis”(p. 1)
achieved by an elementary school teacher
when introduced to social constructivism,
concluding that “engaging deeply with the
meaning of quality visual arts education
helped [the teacher] feel prepared and moti-
vated to adopt an arts-based pedagogy in her
classroom”(p. 16). Similarly, Pitri’s(2006)
exploration of situated learning in art educa-
tion acknowledged that “a socioconstructivist
perspective generally aims at empowering
children through a process of negotiating
their own learning with their peers and the
environment”(p. 40). Likewise, Blagoeva et al.
(2019) concluded, based on an after-school
visual arts social constructivist program, that
social knowledge sharing as an integrated art
education approach can “enhance students’
abilities to make associative connections
between different subjects, to transfer their skills
from one project to another, and to apply their
knowledge from one subject area to another by
processing visual or verbal information”(pp.
235–236). Thuketana and Westhof’s(2018)study
of “decisive”and “indecisive”preschool stu-
dents adopted visual arts group work as a social
constructivist strategy to demonstrate “the
importance of collaborative learning to improve
confidence and decision-making”(p. 1).
Collectively, this research attests to alignment
between social constructivism and visual arts
practice-based pedagogies in early and middle
education settings and the need to more
deeply explore this approach.
Toward a Socially Distant Social
Constructivism
Unsurprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic
dramatically changed the nature and shape of
art encounters, transforming more traditional
in-person engagements to virtual interactions
or “disembodied”connections (Mandalaki &
Daou, 2020, p. 228). Likewise, arts education
was not immune to the pandemic. The wide-
spread lockdowns instigated a more abstract
crisis in the arts classroom: a shift away from
the collaborative and communal nature of
studio practice to artmaking in isolation as a
means of adjusting to “the ‘new normal’”
(Gildersleeve et al., 2022, p. 7). Educators had
little time to explore the affordances of edu-
cational technologies in relation to their cap-
acity to facilitate established elements of the
face-to-face classroom in an online and asyn-
chronous environment. At times, this inadvert-
ently replaced active, collaborative, and
“hands-on”learning with what appeared to
be more passive, isolated, unidirectional, or
teaching-then-learning processes.
Thus, as regional arts educators teaching
amid the pandemic, the authors of this article
were emboldened to consider how social con-
structivist pedagogies could be transferred to
an asynchronous online environment, while
retaining both the integrity and impact of
such methods. Turning to the literature, the
researchers identified a number of social con-
structivist models of online learning, including
the seminal community of inquiry framework,
which has been used by educators for over 2
decades (Garrison et al., 2010). In addition,
there is extensive literature on digital learning
tools and spaces, and their various affordan-
ces and limitations. Significantly, there is also
scholarship surrounding the experience of
teaching visual arts online (see, e.g., Alter,
2014; Cooke & Bouch
e, 2017; Miiller & Smith,
2009), as well as established literature docu-
menting the tensions between visual arts edu-
cation and virtual learning (Delacruz, 2004;
Wilks et al., 2012). As early as 2004, Delacruz
considered the “unmet promise of tech-
nology”(p. 6) in art education, while Wilks
et al. (2012) later scrutinized the “[un]easy
partnership”(p. 54) between digital technol-
ogy and the visual arts. Importantly, however,
there was little literature that explored the
synergies between arts education, social con-
structivism, and online learning.
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism84

Piloting Socially Distant Social
Constructivism
In this context, the authors of this article
conducted an exploratory case study that
asked: How can visual arts educators exploit
the affordances of digital platforms, such that
the integrity of the discipline and its concomi-
tant pedagogy are maintained? As an explora-
tory case study, although its outcomes may
not be generalizable (Donmoyer, 2000; Roller
& Lavrakas, 2015), it was deemed essential to
the researchers’practice and relevant for
others in the field. Its research question was
necessary given not only the continued
impact of COVID-19 on the higher education
sector, but the expanding migration of trad-
itional face-to-face classrooms to the online
setting (Eisenhauer, 2013), and the growing
use of digital technologies in contemporary
art (Rusnack, 2012). Beyond this specific con-
text, the authors acknowledge that this pilot
study partakes in creative and critical dis-
courses in contemporary online learning.
These discourses are multifaceted, including
Tavin et al.’s(2021) seminal work Post-Digital,
Post-Internet Art and Education that makes
explicit that the internet, along with other
digital devices used for learning, comes along
with its own set of practices providing
contemporary social interactions as
“entanglements …between objects, humans,
algorithms, and other nonhuman actors”
(p. 2). Therefore, the pilot study seeks to offer
an online studio environment that is relatable
to students within a broader contemporary
art education discourse, while at the same
time meeting the university’s contextual
needs. In their critical reframing of the studio
as a site of online education, T. E. Lewis and
P. B. Hyland (2022) noted “the question facing
educators in an era of increasing e-learning
concerns the type of space and time of edu-
cation as it exists in the gap that separates
and conjoins the virtual and actual, the mater-
ial and the immaterial”(n.p.). As such, these
gaps alter the very interaction, including
processes of artmaking, critique, and reflec-
tion within social constructivist approaches.
In the first semester of 2021, the authors
engaged in predominately qualitative social
research (Priya, 2021) and applied Robert Yin’s
(2014) exploratory case study approach as a
form of research strategy or design. This
approach is based on empirical inquiry that
places focus on a phenomenon with the aim
of “exploring”innovative research questions
that could be more extensively applied in
subsequent studies (Priya, 2021; Yin, 2014).
This methodology was most appropriate to
this pilot because of its use of selected learn-
ing strategies and tools to transfer social con-
structivist visual arts pedagogies online.
The case study, and its piloting of several
online learning tools, was part of the recent
rollout of the online Bachelor of Visual Art
program at the University of Southern
Queensland. The focus course was VIS1010:
2D Studio Foundations. With a foundation-
building emphasis on digital interventions
across 2D art practices, the course is also
available to Bachelor of Education (Secondary)
and Bachelor of Creative Arts and Community
Wellbeing students undertaking a Visual Arts
major. It is an available elective course across
the university that articulates as part of an
approved minor in Visual Art Studio Practice,
while being open to multiple career
pathways. This course is also available for
cross-institutional study via selected tertiary
institutions and requires a prerequisite of stu-
dents having internet access to StudyDesk,
the University’s Learning Management System
(LMS), as per university-wide specifications. In
the 1st-semester course offering, which
spanned 13 weeks, there were 48 students
enrolled, with 29 studying in the online
mode, and 19 attending face-to-face
workshops.
The case study included multiple means of
data collection. Initially, educators’reflections
identified key elements within face-to-face
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 85

studio practice with a focus on learning meth-
ods that were social or collaborative in nature.
Then, working with the assistance of the
University of Southern Queensland’s
Technology Demonstrator Special Initiative
Grant, three learning tools were selected to
potentially facilitate a commensurate experi-
ence for online students. These tools, which
included Padlet, WordPress, and Zoom, were
embedded within the StudyDesk in VIS1010.
To monitor the pilot’s progress, data were col-
lected from course analytics, student feed-
back, and teacher observations. The course
analytics were attained from the LMS and
through WordPress and Padlet,
1
while stu-
dents were formally surveyed through
StudyDesk upon final assessment completion.
At the end of the semester, teacher percep-
tions and reflections were collected to provide
a qualitative assessment of the pilot and to
identify implications for future online learning
development in tertiary visual arts.
Social Constructivism in the Face-to-
Face Visual Arts Classroom
When delivered on campus, the course
included several instructional design elements
that Buelow et al. (2018) regarded as key to
social constructivist visual arts pedagogy.
Three of these elements, which were identi-
fied in the initial stages of the pilot through
teacher reflection, subsequently became the
focus of the online adaptation. The first
element, bidirectional feedback, focuses on
content delivery that encourages both
student-to-teacher feedback and teacher-to-
student feedback (Kanchan & Singh, 2017).
This two-way feedback process is deeply
immersed in social constructivist learning and
was designed to encourage knowledge co-
construction rather than knowledge reproduc-
tion. The second element of design focuses
on the use of iterative peer-to-peer feedback
that is offered as a natural outcome of work-
ing independently within the collaborative
studio environment. The final element, The
Artist Studio, refers to the construction of a
hybrid physical–virtual artist space that dou-
bles as a learning site where students can
develop their artwork as well as their emerg-
ing professional artist identities (Coward et al.,
2015; Kivunja, 2014).
Element 1: Bidirectional Feedback
In the face-to-face classroom, educators
often engage in multiple methods of active
and demonstrative content delivery, allowing
for the integration of both student-to-teacher
feedback and teacher-to-student feedback
(Palincsar, 2005). Importantly, this feedback is
not only enacted by the learner, but it also
allows the educator to modify instruction dur-
ing the learning process. For instance, while
providing feedback on a student’s work in
progress, the instructor might demonstrate, in
response to a question, comment, or problem
in practice, the technical skill or application
required to achieve a desired outcome (such
as drawing a two-point perspective or cutting
into lino for print). These active and reactive
feedback loops enable a social constructivist
approach to learning, where learning is
extended and enriched through the co-
construction of knowledge and the creation
of shared understanding (Kivunja, 2014).
Element 2: Peer-to-Peer Feedback
Peer-to-peer feedback is an important
element of face-to-face studio work (Smith,
2021; Winstone & Carless, 2019). Within the
studio environment, students are exposed to
each other’s works in progress and to their
peers’creative processes and constraints. The
studio, by its nature, offers a space where
peer-to-peer feedback occurs naturally and
spontaneously. As Sheridan explains, “In mid-
process critiques …students see the deci-
sions others have made, imagine how their
own and others’works could be changed,
and try to articulate these differences”(2020,
p. 325). In the face-to-face studio, instructors
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism86

also encourage critical discussion and reflec-
tion by inviting students to speak to their
practice and to offer constructive feedback on
each other’s work. For example, students
might question concepts or provide recom-
mendations for future practice, all of which
can prompt self-criticism and improve unre-
solved work. Moreover, this form of know-
ledge sharing can remove the onus on the
teacher to “teach”by fostering a collegial
environment where cooperative learning is
valued, and where classroom citizenship is
characterized by shared responsibility, partici-
patory decision making, and inclusive relation-
ships (Maslowski et al., 2009).
Element 3: The Artist Studio
The final element of the face-to-face class-
room that is essential for effective implemen-
tation of a visual arts social constructivist
pedagogy is the facilitation of a collective stu-
dio space. Throughout history, the very notion
of the studio itself has been inextricably
linked to the production of art (Buren, 1979).
When teaching in a tertiary context, it is
important to construct the contemporary stu-
dio in accordance with industry expectations,
which broadly demand a more active and
communicative approach to practice. In turn,
consideration of the online space as an
“expanded studio”is imperative to the devel-
opment and enactment of creative and critical
thinking, as well as play, risk-taking, and
experimentation—all of which are increasingly
mediated by digital tools and approaches
(K
arp
ati et al., 2016; Orr & Shreeve, 2018).
Sheridan (2020) noted,
The social contexts for art learning have
been in rapid expansion in recent deca-
des, often intertwining with new tech-
nologies, and transforming studio arts
learning and pedagogy. …The conver-
gence of these new technologies for
artistic production with domains more
commonly associated with construction-
ist learning, such as computer
programming, create opportunities for
more comprehensive accounts of learn-
ing. (p. 328)
Thus, given the centrality of the digital to
the sociocultural landscape of contemporary
art, and the importance of digital literacy in
arts curricula (Orr & Shreeve, 2018), the con-
cept of the hybrid studio, as both a place-
based and “placeless”online space, is crucial
to appreciating the transformative potential
of the visual arts (Luger, 2016).
Designed, then, to enhance both student
learning and the development of emerging
artist identity, these instructional strategies
embody tenants of social constructivism. Prior
to COVID-19 and the necessary shift to online
learning, these strategies were successfully
“embodied”in the face-to-face classroom, cre-
ating an interesting tension for the emer-
gency pivot to online learning, as prompted
by the pandemic.
Reframing Visual Arts Pedagogies
Online
To shift these instructional strategies or
commensurate experiences online, the teach-
ing team selected three digital tools. Padlet
was selected to facilitate bidirectional feed-
back and peer-to-peer feedback, while
WordPress was used to assist with the devel-
opment of artist identity. Zoom was
employed to create both a shared and indi-
vidual studio environment. While each digital
tool contributed to the online experience, it
was the combination of these tools that
allowed for the social constructivist pedagogy
to be successfully transitioned to an online
format (Wood, 2021).
Strategy 1: Padlet as a Tool for
Bidirectional and Peer-to-Peer Feedback
Padlet is a visually dynamic, interactive,
online tool that allows users to post images,
videos, audio recordings, links, and text-based
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 87

material asynchronously. These posts can
then be commented on or “liked”by others,
mimicking popular social media platforms,
such as Facebook and Instagram. Indeed,
recent university studies strongly suggest that
Padlet enables active social learning. For
example, in her exploratory case study of stu-
dents’perceptions of Padlet’s impact on class
engagement, Nadeem (2019) noted her
results: “[The tool’s] perceived effectiveness
was mainly due to Padlet features that sup-
ported student collaboration, promoted stu-
dents’agency, and helped in creating a
positive learning atmosphere”(p. 72).
Similar sentiments are also expressed in
Gill-Simmen’s(2021) study of Padlet’s use in
an undergraduate marketing course, with the
researcher noting that “Padlet …encouraged
curiosity”(p. 7). Saepuloh and Salsabila (2020)
also reported that Padlet’s deployment in the
tertiary classroom encouraged student creativ-
ity, while DeWitt and Koh (2020) suggested
that Padlet enabled effective cohort building
through positive interaction that can generate
new knowledge. Thus, Padlet’s visual and
textual modalities work together to create a
collaborative engagement tool (Frison & Tino,
2019; Rajiah, 2018) that supports visual arts
communication and application.
With this in mind, the research team
designed a class Padlet to function as a web
of interconnected feedback loops that were
sustainable at many levels: teacher-to-student
and student-to-teacher, as well as peer-
to-peer (Figure 1). At the peer level,
Padlet allowed students to upload progressive
iterations of their works in progress as images
that were supported by critical reflection or
commentary. This strategy provided a space
where students could offer constructive feed-
back to their peers as they previously could in
the face-to-face environment. The feedback
naturally informed the students’subsequent
practice and the next set of posts that stu-
dents contributed, allowing Padlet to evolve
as the works themselves developed. In short,
Padlet enabled asynchronous peer-to-peer
feedback to be conducted effectively online
in a tangible articulation of the feedback cycle
and concomitant student learning. This feed-
back could be tailored by students to foster a
sense of belonging, to showcase practical
works at various stages of production, and to
facilitate peer dialogue, ultimately producing
a virtual and asynchronous social constructiv-
ist learning environment.
Another key to Padlet’s success was educa-
tor engagement, which manifested as an
iterative process, with educators initially mod-
eling the process of posting their own works
in progress. The staff “buy-in,”combined with
the instructors’willingness to share their own
work for critique, encouraged students to
engage in a similar fashion. Similarly, educa-
tors modeled feedback protocols. This feed-
back was not only integral to the
development of course-specific knowledge
and skills, but a means to developing more
widespread collaborative engagement within
the Padlet itself. Moreover, instructors were
able to review students’creative and critical
contributions to the Padlet as a means of
checking for understanding, subsequently
allowing staff to tailor the pace and focus of
future lessons to cater to student needs.
Importantly, this practice emphasized learning
and teaching as a form of participatory
exchange (Jones, 2015), promoting a collab-
orative skills-based model of learning.
A quantitative evaluation of the pilot
implementation of Padlet demonstrated its
success in enhancing student engagement
through both bidirectional and peer-to-peer
feedback. Student use of the platform began
early in the course, with the process appear-
ing to be intuitive and reliant on behaviors
established in prior use of social media.
Across the 13-week semester, engagement
with Padlet steadily increased. The virtual wall
received 319 posts in total, with 403 written
comments on these posts and 1,164 reactions.
These figures represented, on average, 57
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism88

engagements per student. For comparison, in
the previous iteration of equivalent courses,
an online forum in the LMS was used to pro-
mote peer-to-peer discussion and feedback.
This forum received 0.05 engagements per
student across the same semester. Student
survey data also revealed that 80% of
respondents either “agreed”or “strongly
agreed”that Padlet allowed them to connect
with their peers and instructors in a way that
fostered their sense of belonging. Padlet was
thus embraced by students as an authentic
opportunity to provide and receive online
feedback.
Strategy 2: WordPress as a Tool for Artist
Identity Formation
Students used WordPress to create artist
websites (Figure 2). WordPress is an example
of a content management system that can
enable the development of a visual portfolio
to support digital literacy, employability out-
comes, and both peer and industry connectiv-
ity, allowing students to become “self-
reflective, critically engaged, lifelong learners”
(Watty & McKay, 2015, p. 194). The peda-
gogical potential of e-portfolios to support
and enhance learning has been explored in
educational research (L. Lewis, 2017; Watty &
McKay, 2015), with Deneen et al. (2018)
affirming that “eportfolios are of great interest
in higher education …because of presumed
benefits to teaching, learning, assessment,
and curricula”(p. 487). Rico (2017) also identi-
fied an increase in the use of e-portfolios in
higher education disciplines “where student-
centred methodologies are key”(p. 79).
Aligning the tool with social constructivist
learning, Rico (2017) further posited that e-
portfolios are directly aligned with social con-
structivist principles by positioning learning as
a dynamic process where outcomes and pro-
cedures are subject to ongoing monitoring
and review. L. Lewis (2017) agreed that e-
portfolio is a social pedagogical tool that
“engag[es] users in iterative cycles of creating,
reflecting, seeking feedback, [and] reviewing”
(p. 73). Thus, while the affordances of
WordPress portfolios do allow for the gener-
ation of static repositories of collated images
and documents, they additionally allow for
reflection, asynchronous feedback, and collab-
oration. It was the potential for the latter that
was the focus of their use within this pilot
study, with these elements replicating the
bidirectional and iterative feedback of the
face-to-face classroom.
The embedding of WordPress in the foun-
dational course was intended for longitudinal
development through its subsequent use in
the study of eight practice-based art courses
over the duration of the 3-year undergraduate
degree. Watty and McKay’s(2015) study of
the affordances of the e-portfolio as an educa-
tional resource confirmed that WordPress has
“the potential to integrate learning across a
series of units/subjects over an extended
period of time in a single repository,”thus
providing students with the opportunity to
present “innovative, technology-based ways
of evidencing their learning outcomes”(p.
198). Importantly, Watty and McKay further
postulated that as an identity development
tool, WordPress allows for self-representation,
“the nuances of crafting an identity for a par-
ticular audience”(2015, p. 200). At the start of
semester, and in the early stages of website
development, students were invited to photo-
graph their semester’s resolved work and
share these images on their WordPress site
alongside explanatory text that expounded
the work’s impetus or inspiration, as well as
the artist’s process or intention. Some stu-
dents additionally opted to utilize the blog-
ging tool to further capture and disseminate
the conceptual and process-based narrative
behind their work. In doing so, these students
humanized their arts practice, opening up
communication in the digital artscape, and
using WordPress as an intermediary tool to
bridge feedback offered through the use of
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 89

Padlet to a public space where artwork could
be published and critiqued (Kivunja, 2014).
By virtual means, WordPress positioned
students as emerging artists operating in dia-
logue with each other and with tradition,
rather than working in isolation or seclusion.
Through their sites, students invited others
into their “virtual”studios. Additionally, by
sharing reflective practice on their sites and
welcoming feedback, online students still
received the iterative and bidirectional feed-
back underpinning face-to-face classes.
Importantly, the WordPress portfolios invited
students to sustain this approach into their
careers as emerging artists. As the WordPress
pilot is part of a longitudinal study, it is diffi-
cult to evaluate its overall success as a tool
for transitioning social constructivist peda-
gogy online. However, early indications are
positive. Preliminary data gathered from the
end-of-semester student survey (2021) indi-
cates that 100% of respondents (n¼13) either
“agree”or “strongly agree”that having an art-
ist website is an asset to their future career.
As one student reports, “I am so glad I have
created [the website,] as it is such a great
resource. It actually made me take photos [of]
my work and is a great record of my practice.”
Strategy 3: Zoom as a Studio Interaction
Tool
The final learning tool that was selected to
capitalize on the social aspect of online learn-
ing was Zoom, which facilitates live and
recorded classes through the software’s video-
conferencing and messaging capabilities. As a
video platform, Zoom has been widely
adopted in higher education, particularly with
widespread lockdowns necessitating a rapid
pivot to online learning during the pandemic
(Memis¸, 2021; Piotrowski, 2021). While Zoom
and similar technologies enable synchronous
yet remote communication, educators are still
faced with the challenge of how to support
Figure 1. Padlet design for VIS1010: 2D Studio Foundations.
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism90

authentic and meaningful learning in the
online environment without simply attempt-
ing to replicate or replace face-to-face learn-
ing. Piotrowski highlighted the importance
of employing “principles of varied repetition,
accessibility, and interactivity …to create a
meaningful classroom experience”(2021,p.
142), while Tran and Nguyen (2021)fore-
grounded the necessity of providing genu-
ine opportunities for both peer and
instructor interaction. In both instances,
active engagement, as facilitated by social
interaction, is paramount if instructors are to
overcome “the deficit interaction”in online
learning (Tran & Nguyen, 2021,p.45)and
foster instead “cognitive presence”in the
online environment (Paechter & Maier, 2010,
p. 293).
Throughout the course, Zoom was regu-
larly utilized to enable synchronous discussion
and to establish a sense of community
through open communication, mutual
socioemotional support, and affective con-
nectedness (Paechter & Maier, 2010; Tran &
Nguyen, 2021). Similar to a flipped learning
approach, instructors hosted a weekly Zoom
tutorial to consolidate the information con-
veyed in prerecorded lectures and demonstra-
tion videos, and to afford students a “safe
space”to discuss ideas, exchange information,
and seek formative feedback. While the teach-
ing staff initially observed that some students
were reluctant to engage in the online class,
participation gradually improved, as was the
case for student engagement with the class
Padlet. Notably, as the Padlet developed,
Figure 2. WordPress portfolio exemplar for VIS1010: 2D Studio Foundations.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 91

educators could exploit Zoom’sscreen-sharing
function to showcase visual content on Padlet
as a catalyst for class discussion. In doing so,
students were again encouraged to deliver con-
structive feedback to peers, and educators
guided active and reactive learning in real time.
Here, the same method of interactivity
employed in the face-to-face setting was imple-
mented in the virtual classroom, which estab-
lished a collegial environment where students
shared common goals, tools, and practices.
Additionally, the private-yet-public nature
of Zoom enabled educators to reconstruct
and challenge broadly held notions of the stu-
dio and its overarching role within arts pro-
duction. While the studio, then, has long been
regarded as a site for creative art production,
Hoffmann (2012) suggested we need to rec-
ognize “the expanded concept of the studio,”
by which he means that we must acknow-
ledge how studios house myriad functions as
“social and professional spaces where artists
meet with curators, other artists, collaborators,
dealers, and collectors”(p. 13).
Thus, in VIS1010, educators used Zoom as
a virtual space that enabled students to
redefine their “home”studios as public
spaces, and thus spaces of collaborative
engagement. Indeed, Blackaller (2008)
affirmed “the interactive potential of the
digital medium is infinitely richer than any
other medium,”and this “has pushed cultural
artifacts towards forms defined by interaction,
participation, and social systems”(pp. 3, 22).
By using Zoom in conjunction with Padlet
and WordPress, educators were able to foster
the development of a connected studio mind-
set that draws on the studio as physical space
for making but extends this further in terms
of dialogic professional practice through the
hybrid physical–virtual space. Relyea (2010)
noted, for example, that
the studio is now that place where we
know we can always find the artist
when we need to, where she or he is
always plugged in and online, always
accessible to and by an ever more inte-
grated and more dispersed art world.
(p. 349)
In VIS1010, students demonstrated grow-
ing competencies in connected practice, as
evidenced by increased and meaningful prac-
tice sharing enabled via Zoom, throughout
the course of study.
At the end of semester, the use of Zoom
culminated in a synchronous sharing and
feedback session in the final teaching week.
The last class of the semester was a virtual
salon in which students across both modes of
study were invited to share two artworks
made during the semester: one that students
felt proud of, and one they considered a
“mistake”or a “learning opportunity.”The lat-
ter could be, for example, a resolved work
that did not meet the artist’s expectations, or
a work that the artist would approach differ-
ently next time around. To model critical
reflection, as well as the communication of
key concepts and ideas, educators were also
tasked with presenting their own works under
the given brief. Attendance at the salon was
high, and the collective response from the
cohort was positive. Educators noticed stu-
dents were keen to engage in the peer-
critique process. Students were articulate in
describing their ideas and processes, and they
were generous in their feedback. The teaching
team also observed that when called on, stu-
dents were responsive and eager to deliver
feedback. In this way, students actively con-
tributed to their learning, both as individuals
and as a creative collective.
Moving From Pilot to Practice
This case study sought to identify if visual
arts social constructivist pedagogies could be
transitioned online, while at the same time
retaining their integrity and impact. Three
tools and their specific affordances were
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism92

piloted as part of this undertaking. Each of
these tools demonstrated initial success in
promoting both peer-to-peer and teacher-to-
student feedback, as well as the consideration
of the artist’s studio as an expanded field. As
these three elements were initially deemed
core to social constructivist pedagogies within
the face-to-face studio environment, their
transference online suggests the capacity of
these tools to foster commensurate learning
experiences for visual arts students studying
online and asynchronously.
The outcomes of the pilot, however, go
beyond the success of individual tools and
their capacity to transition elements of visual
arts social constructivist pedagogies online.
Upon reflection, the combination of these
tools extends beyond conventional social con-
structivism to a sustainable form of online
interaction. The cyclic feedback process sup-
ports the development of works from concept
development to work in progress, and then to
work resolution and reflection. It merges edu-
cational and professional industry require-
ments of an artist, including digital skills, and
thus supports students’learning and engage-
ment across the full length of a semester. LMS
data analytics speak to the success of this cyc-
lic feedback loop, and the combined use of
Padlet, WordPress, and Zoom revealed greater
engagement in the course overall. It is worth
noting that in the year prior to the pilot, there
was an average of 265 clicks on StudyDesk
per student throughout the semester. During
the pilot’s implementation, the average was
over double this, at 588 clicks per student.
Although there are many variables to consider
in interpreting these data, the doubling of stu-
dent engagement, as measured by clicks
within the LMS, is tacit confirmation of the
education technologies chosen within the
pilot approach and the capacity of these tools
to work in conjunction to fulfill social con-
structivist teaching methods online. In turn,
the pilot, via its very use of this combination
of digital tools, can contribute to a reframing
of visual arts online pedagogy by informing
how the potential integration of industry
requirements can assist in professional artist
identity formation (Buffington, 2007, pp. 210–
211) within a COVID-19 context. With student
learning engaging in industry, and student
works being founded on their personal life
narratives, the pilot study provides an
example of an approach in which transform-
ational online learning can be enabled via
what Woo and Reeves (2007, p. 15) referred to
as impactful interaction resulting in a mean-
ingful learner-based experience. Engaging stu-
dents in meaningful, life-scenario learning
within the pilot study can potentially contrib-
ute toward further expanding and redefining
social constructivism in the visual arts. The
pilot study therefore negates more general
concerns regarding social constructivist edu-
cation as “increasing conformity to tutor-
defined process”rather than enabling learner
individuality and a broader decentralization of
learning itself (Gulati, 2008, p. 184).
Importantly, this pilot has changed not
only the way the researchers teach online, but
how they teach within the studio environ-
ment. The tools trialed within this pilot have
continued to be used within the researchers’
visual arts courses. In a postpivot world, as
educators begin to turn back to established
ways of working, they remain entrenched in
hybrid learning and living environments that
can lead to transformational educational expe-
riences that have broader benefits within the
field of arts education. That is, the social impli-
cations and efficacy of these digital tools
within arts education can foster an inclusive
and accessible online learning environment.
This is demonstrated within our regional uni-
versity pilot study, which encompasses geo-
graphically diverse student cohorts, including
those from rural and remote regions, as well
as students coming from various discipline
backgrounds. Broader benefits also include
more transformative and interconnected
online and on-campus classroom learning that
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 93

enables knowledge development with peer-
based exchanges of ideas and critical feed-
back that is industry immersed. Such dialogue
enables an inclusive and often interdisciplin-
ary professional creative identity/ies formation
within its broader educational development of
critical and creative thinking across diverse
arts contexts and approaches. This can be sup-
ported by the way the pilot has reshaped how
face-to-face courses are taught by artist–
academics, with online learning tools and their
social constructivist affordances now used to
broaden the individual’s potential to thought-
fully provide, and gracefully receive, peer
feedback, and to develop stronger connec-
tions between cohorts.
A key impact of this pilot study has been
the broader adoption of these digital tools
within our university’s School of Creative
Arts core courses, including the use of
Padlet in music and drama programs, and
WordPress in drama. Beyond this, it is sug-
gested that the informed combination of
digital tools and platforms with social con-
structivist affordances can be applied within
preK–12, particularly in the online space of
professional artist skill development, leading
to a more empowered and inclusive under-
standing of peer development in artistic prac-
tice(s) and enhancing the learner’s
preparedness as an emerging artist and/or
their potential transition into tertiary study. As
this is a pilot study, the researchers are now
seeking to explore the potential of other
online learning tools within hybrid and hyflex
learning environments, with a specific focus
on those with affordances that align with the
core principles of social constructivism.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
FUNDING
This pilot was supported by Rhiannan Johnson being awarded the Technology (and Digital
Affordances) Demonstrators Special Initiative Grant from the University of Southern Queensland
in 2020. Katrina Cutcliffe acknowledges the University of Southern Queensland’s Graduate
Research School and the support of the Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship.
ORCID
Katrina Cutcliffe http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8662-8955
Beata Batorowicz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4915-8357
Rhiannan Johnson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0092-5954
Kate Cantrell http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5689-614X
Tanya McLean http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4885-4078
REFERENCES
Abderrahim, L., & Guti
errez-Col
on Plana, M. (2021). A theoretical journey from social constructivism to digital
storytelling. EuroCALL Review,29(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2021.12853
Akpan, V. I., Igwe, U. A., Mpamah, I. B. I., & Okoro, C. O. (2020). Social constructivism: Implications on teaching
and learning. British Journal of Education,8(8), 49–56.
Alter, F. (2014). The experience of teaching tertiary visual arts education in a purely online learning environ-
ment. Australian Art Education,36(1), 48–64.
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism94

Anderson, B., & Morgan, K. (2016). Beyond the text: Critique and creativity. In Z. Ba
nkowski, M. Del Mar, & P.
Maharg (Eds.), The arts and the legal academy: Beyond text in legal education (pp. 213–224). Routledge.
(Original work published 2013)
Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for
technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education,47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
Blackaller, L. (2008). Performing process: The artist studio as interactive art [Unpublished master’s thesis].
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Blagoeva, N. V., Karppinen, S., & Kairavuori, S. (2019). The integrated approach to teaching visual art in after-
school activity classes. International Journal of Art & Design Education,38(1), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jade.12173
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Buelow, S., Frambaugh-Kritzer, C., & Au, C. (2018). Communicating like an artist: Disciplinary literacy instruction
in elementary visual arts. Literacy Research and Instruction,57(3), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19388071.2018.1453896
Buffington, M. L. (2007). Contemporary approaches to critical thinking and the World Wide Web. Art
Education,60(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2007.11651622
Buren, D. (1979). The function of the studio (T. Repensek, Trans.). October,10,51–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/
778628
Cooke, R. M., & Bouch
e, A.-M. (2017). Team-teaching art appreciation online without a traditional textbook.
Reference Librarian,58(4), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2017.1352557
Coward, F. L., Hamman, D., Johnson, L., Lambert, M., Indiatsi, J., & Zhou, L. (2015). Centrality of enactive experi-
ences, framing, and motivation to student teachers’emerging professional identity. Teaching Education,
26(2), 196–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.996741
Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers’working conditions and the unmet promise of technology. Studies in Art
Education,46(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2004.11650065
Deneen, C. C., Lumsden Brown, B. T., & Carless, D. (2018). Students’conceptions of eportfolios as assessment
and technology. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,55(4), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14703297.2017.1281752
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Simon & Brown.
DeWitt, D., & Koh, E. H. Y. (2020). Promoting knowledge management processes through an interactive virtual
wall in a postgraduate business finance course. Journal of Education for Business,95(4), 255–262. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1635977
Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalizability and the single-case study. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster
(Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 45–68). SAGE.
Eisenhauer, J. G. (2013). Student migration to online education: An economic model. Journal of Academic
Administration in Higher Education,9(1), 19–28.
Elkins, J., & Newman, M. (Eds.). (2007). The state of art criticism. Routledge.
Frison, D., & Tino, C. (2019). Fostering knowledge sharing via technology: A case study of collaborative learn-
ing using padlet. In M. Fedeli & L. L. Bierema (Eds.), Connecting adult learning and knowledge management
(pp. 227–235). Springer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A
retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education,13(1–2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003
Gildersleeve, J., Cantrell, K., Bryce, I., Daken, K., Durham, J., Mullens, A., Batorowicz, B., & Johnson, R. (2022).
Coping with COVID: Pandemic narratives for Australian children. Heliyon,8(5), e09454. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09454
Gill-Simmen, L. (2021). Using Padlet in instructional design to promote cognitive engagement: A case study of
undergraduate marketing students. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (20). https://doi.
org/10.47408/jldhe.vi20.575
Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in online discussions: Is this constructivism or normalisation of
learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International,45(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14703290801950427
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 95

Hennrikus, E. F., Skolka, M. P., & Hennrikus, N. (2020). Social constructivism in medical school where students
become patients with dietary restrictions. Advances in Medical Education and Practice,11, 505–511. https://
doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S259727
Hoffmann, J. (Ed.). (2012). The studio. MIT Press.
jagodzinski, j. (2019). Postmodern dilemmas: Outrageous essays in art and art education. Routledge. (Original
work published 1997)
Jamero, J. L. F. (2019). Social constructivism and play of children with autism for inclusive early childhood.
International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education,11(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.
670475
Jochum, R. (2019). Forward design: Creative technologies in art education. In G. Blast, E. G. Carayannis, &
D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), The future of education and labor (pp. 181–202). Springer.
Jones, B. L. (2015). Collective learning resources: Connecting social-learning practices in deviantART to art edu-
cation. Studies in Art Education,56(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2015.11518975
Kanchan, M., & Singh, N. (2017). Constructivist approach: A way of learning. GHG Journal of Sixth Thought,4(2),
68–72.
K
arp
ati, A., Simon, T., & Gaul-

Acs,

A. (2016). Digital creativity and net generation students: retooling the art
and design environment at school. In Proceedings of the European Distance and e-Learning Network 2016
Annual Conference (pp. 599–609). Mason. https://proc.eden-online.org/index.php/PROC/article/view/1500
Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be job-ready with 21st century skills? Change pedagogies: A
pedagogical paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to critical thinking, problem solving,
and Siemens’digital connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education,3(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.
5430/ijhe.v3n3p81
Knapp, N. F. (2019). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom. Teaching of
Psychology,46(1), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318816181
Krauth, N. (2002). The preface as exegesis. LINQ,29(2), 50–66.
Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. (1998). Constructivism and education: Beyond epistemological correctness. In M.
Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 3–20). Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, L. (2017). ePortfolio as pedagogy: Threshold concepts for curriculum design. E-Learning and Digital
Media,14(1–2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017694497
Lewis, T. E., & Hyland, P. B. (2022). Studious drift: Movements and protocols for a postdigital education.
University of Minnesota Press.
Luger, J. D. (2016). Must art have a “place”? Questioning the power of the digital art-scape. M/C Journal,19(3).
https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1094 https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.
1094
Maihoub, A. (2015). Thinking through the sociality of art objects. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture,7(1). https://
doi.org/10.3402/jac.v7.25782
M€
akel€
a, M. (2007). Knowing through making: The role of the artefact in practice-led research. Knowledge,
Technology & Policy,20(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-007-9028-2
Mandalaki, E., & Daou, E. (2020). (Dis)embodied encounters between art and academic writing amid a pan-
demic. Gender, Work & Organization,28(S1), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12499
Mannay, D. (2016). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Application, reflection and ethics. Routledge.
Maslowski, R., Breit, H., Eckensberger, L., & Scheerens, J. (2009). A conceptual framework on informal learning
of active citizenship competencies. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), Informal learning of active citizenship at school: An
international comparative study in seven European countries (pp. 11–24). Springer.
Memis¸, C. (2021). Elementary school teachers’views scale on the using Zoom in compulsory distance educa-
tion during the pandemic: Psychometric properties. European Educational Researcher,4(2), 267–282.
https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.428
Miiller, S., & Smith, L. (2009). Distance learning in the visual arts. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,5(3),
496–505.
Nadeem, N. H. (2019). Students’perceptions about the impact of using Padlet on class engagement: An
exploratory case study. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching,9(4),
72–89. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2019100105
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism96

Omodan, B. I., & Tsotetsi, C. T. (2020). Decolonization of knowledge-construction in university classrooms: The
place of social constructivism. Journal of Gender, Information and Development in Africa,9(2), 183–204.
Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2018). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values, and ambiguity in
the creative curriculum. Routledge.
Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’experiences and preferences in e-learning.
The Internet and Higher Education,13(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An intro-
duction to Vygotsky (2nd ed., pp. 279–308). Routledge.
Piotrowski, J. T. (2021). My pandemic pedagogy playbook: A glimpse into higher education in the Dutch
Zoom-room. Journal of Children and Media,15(1), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.
1858906
Pitri, E. (2006). Teacher research in the socioconstructivist art classroom. Art Education,59(5), 40–45. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2005.11651610
Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conun-
drums in its application. Sociological Bulletin,70(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
Rajiah, K. (2018). Technology enhanced collaborative learning in small group teaching sessions using Padlet
application—A pilot study. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology,11(9), 3943–3946. https://doi.
org/10.5958/0974-360X.2018.00724.2
Relyea, L. (2010). Studio unbound. In M. J. Jacob & M. Grabner (Eds.), The studio reader: On the space of artists
(pp. 341–349). School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring “social constructivist digital literacy”development
in learners: A proposed framework. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(4), 735–762.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4
Rico, C. (2017). The ePortfolio: Constructing learning in translation technology. Interpreter and Translator
Trainer,11(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2017.1306995
Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach.
Guilford Press.
Rusnack, L. M. (2012). Virtual arts online educational trends. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Computer-
mediated communication: Issues and approaches in education (pp. 89–99). IGI Global.
Rytil€
a, J. (2021). Social constructivism in mathematics? The promise and shortcomings of Julian Cole’s institu-
tional account. Synthese,199(3–4), 11517–11540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03300-7
Saepuloh, A., & Salsabila, V. A. (2020). The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet. Indonesian EFL
Journal,6(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v6i1.2637
Sheridan, K. M. (2020). Constructionism in art studios. In N. Holbert, M. Berland, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Designing
constructionist futures: The art, theory, and practice of learning designs (pp. 323–330). MIT Press.
Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (2015). Child development: Theories and critical perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Smith, C. (2021). Strategies for nurturing evaluative judgement in design students. In C. Smith (Ed.),
Progressive studio pedagogy: Examples from architecture and allied design fields (pp. 100–124). Routledge.
Stewart, R. (2003). (Re)inventing artists’research: Constructing living forms of theory. TEXT,7(2). https://doi.
org/10.52086/001c.32504
Tavin, K., Kolb, G., & Tervo, J. (Eds.). (2021). Post-digital, post-internet art and education: The future is all-over.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Thuketana, N. S., & Westhof, L. (2018). Group work during visual art activities to reduce indecisiveness. South
African Journal of Childhood Education,8(1), a447. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.V8i1.447
Tran, D., & Nguyen, G.-N. T. (2021). Presence in online mathematics methods courses: Design principles across
institutions. In K. Hollebrands, R. Anderson, & K. Oliver (Eds.), Online learning in mathematics education (pp.
43–63). Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University
Press.
Watty, K., & McKay, J. (2015). Pedagogy and ePortfolios: Purpose aligned to design (or the why and how).
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,10(3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2015.
1135498
Wesseling, J. (Ed.). (2011). See it again. Say it again: The artist as researcher. Valiz.
Studies in Art Education / Volume 65, No. 1 97

Wilks, J., Cutcher, A., & Wilks, S. (2012). Digital technology in the visual arts classroom: An [un]easy partnership.
Studies in Art Education,54(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2012.11518879
Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused
approach. Routledge.
Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpret-
ation. The Internet and Higher Education,10(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005
Wood, J. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education,46(8), 1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1852174
Wright, S., Watkins, M., & Grant, G. (2017). Making visual arts learning visible in a generalist elementary school
classroom. International Journal of Education & the Arts,18(13). http://www.ijea.org/v18n13
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
ENDNOTE
1
As there was no historical data available for VIS1010, course analytics were compared to available data
for commensurate courses.
Cutcliffe et al. / Socially Distant Social Constructivism98