Community-centeredness and social learning theory: the best way people learn in our world today

‘No Man is an Island '. We have often heard this phrase and usually relate it to the physical resources an individual must have to be able to survive in this world. A man is not an island, being unable to sustain himself without the help of other people, be it in terms of food, security and shelter. However, beyond looking at the physical needs, I look at this statement from the knowledge and educational perspective. If a man were an island, he would be able to learn all he needed to know to be able to survive in this world on his own, by himself. However, this is often not the case. We all learn from our surroundings and from the people we interact with every day.

Our world is exceedingly interconnected and we interact with many people, in many different ways, every day. I argue that it is through these people in our world, who we sometimes refer to as our culture or community, that we learn best. This community-centered environment is what we should try to achieve in our classrooms. Our interactions with the people in our society may not be face-to-face or with people we know. Rather, the people could be those who had structured our society and culture to be what it is today. They could be from other parts of the world or may have already died. We may be connected to these people by media, traditions or word-of- mouth.

In the rest of this paper, I will further elaborate and give evidences on my claim and use a case study to prove it further. I will conclude by giving some implications of this claim in the classroom and in educational research.

Evidence

Lev Vygotsky is probably the most ardent supporter of community-centeredness. In his book, Mind in Society (1978), Vygotsky emphasised that learning is highly social and mediated by one's culture. He argued that even the development of the human brain is influenced by activities of the cultures in which people participate. The brain is not fixed at birth; instead it develops as a function of the social activities in which people engage.

Vygotsky also focused on the interaction between individuals and society through his concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defined the ZPD level as the distance between the actual developmental level, as determined by independent problem-solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. ‘What children can do with the assistance of others is even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone', Vygotsky (1978). Further to that, he added that ‘the social situation of development represents the initial movement for all dynamic change that occurs in development during the given period' (Vygotsky, 1998b), meaning that any learning that takes place is dependent on the social environment of the learner.

Merlin Donald (2000) has argued that social interaction is so pertinent that learning starts from culture. Despite the renowned belief that brain modifications are a precondition of the emergence of complex culture, this is mostly confined to automated responses of the body. In certain uses to which the brain is put, such as literacy, the brain is drawn along by culture. Due to the extreme plasticity of the human brain during epigenesis, the brain is able to change, together with rapid cultural change, generation after generation. Hence, culture is an important prerequisite to learning, proving that the brain learns much more when there is cultural intervention, rather than when left to develop on its own.

In some versions, the learning from culture is considered as important as, or more important, than the individual development: ‘Individual, interpersonal and socio-cultural processes constitute each other and cannot be separated' (Rogoff et al., 1993). Kruger and Tomasello (1996) go on to assert that children have not just the physical environment as their habitus but also various social activities, and even cultural institutions, that lead them to have highly specific learning experiences.

Further to that, Rogoff (1997) views learning and development as transformations of people's participation in sociocultural activities, in which both the individual and the rest of the world are active. Lave and Wenger (1991) offered the related idea of legitimate peripheral participation. As they put it, ‘Learning thus implies becoming a different person with respect to the possibilities enabled by these systems of relations'. These views abandon the idea that the social world is external to the individual and that development consists of acquiring knowledge and skills independent of the activity.

Rogoff (1993) uses her ‘guided participation' approach as another way of stressing the important roles of the individual, as well as their social partners, in participating in socio-culturally structured collective activity. The concept refers to the process and system of involvement of individuals with other individuals as they communicate and collaborate in carrying out culturally valued activity. As mentioned earlier, this does not require face-to-face interaction. Side-by-side or more distal interactions of people's activities, which does not require co-presence, can also constitute social interaction.

Even neurophysiologists have to give due recognition to the fact that behavioral functions develop only if the nervous system receives certain environmental inputs (Stillings et al., 1995). Genetically inherited pre-representations that prove to be functionally useful only through experience are stabilised to form the mental structures of the mind. More experiences are created through enriched environments and this leads to the increase in size of the cortex, the density of glial cells, and the density and number of synaptic connections (Diamond, 1984). In humans, more enriched environments are formed through social interactions. Durkheim has admitted to the duality of human existence: ‘…one purely individual and rooted in our organism and the other social and nothing but an extension of society' (Kozulin, 1990).

An important aspect of community-centeredness is the fact that everyone does not simply agree with everyone else on everything (Bransford et. al., 2005). Rather, true learning communities learn from one another and know how to ‘argue with grace'. As people share their understandings and reasoning with one another, they teach each other in a variety of ways. Not only are ideas shared, but modes of argumentation, reasoning, and problem-solving are also modeled and shared. Students would be able to develop their thinking abilities, as well as their store of knowledge. Most importantly, they would learn to respect and learn from each others' views and knowledge.

After all the theoretical evidences to support this claim, I carried out a classroom activity to confirm that the social theory and community-centered learning is one of the best ways for students to learn.

Rational for case study

Olson and Astington (1993) view instruction as involving complex social cognitive processes. True enough, in the lesson I had planned, via discussion, the students were to construct an inter-subjective understanding of the lesson. There are categories of things created by society, and that the world is out there, but that it is not for our minds to learn everything about it independently. Rather, it is our mind making a perception of the world, together with it. It is for us to understand and construct our knowledge using our mind, together with the world, through social interaction.

Educational objectives

Keeping this rationale in mind, I wanted the students to, firstly, learn how to put their ideas across in a confident manner, debate with others on their views without putting them down and basically to be able to ‘argue with grace', as described by Bransford (2005). Secondly, I wanted them to respect each others' knowledge and opinions and to see that they could learn from their peers as much, if not more than what they could learn from me, in certain situations. Finally, I wanted the students to appreciate and understand that powerful learning occurs in the social context, through people and discussions, and not just through homework, tests, and mugging for the examinations.

Methods

There were 35 students in the class and they were equally divided into seven groups of five students each. After teaching the class the theoretical aspects of sexual reproduction in mammals and the principles of fertilisation, each group was given a sub-topic from either of the topics: sexually transmitted diseases, birth control methods, premarital sex or homosexuality. Each group was told to research and speak on a few areas, including facts about that sub-topic, the positive and/or negative factors about that sub-topic and what the group members thought about it. They were given one day to prepare.

The next day, each group presented their findings and views. At the end of each group's presentation was a question and answer session, where the rest of the students could ask the presenters anything regarding that particular topic. The only rule was that the students could not be rude or condemn other's views. As a teacher, I only provided factual information if required and did not interfere in their discussion at all.

Results and observations

As I was measuring non-factual learning, and the educational outcomes were not empirical, my results were based mostly on observations. Despite the fact that I did not interfere with the students' discussions, the presentations and questions and answer sessions proceeded in a very smooth and orderly manner. There were a lot of questions and opinions thrown about but this was done in a civil and respectful style. This proved that the students were learning from each other, realising that they had something to learn from their peers, as each group had the expertise in one sub-topic only. However, rather than being condescending, each group presented their findings in an earnest way, wanting the rest of their classmates to learn what they had learnt as well. When others presented, they asked questions to clarify their doubts. When there were clashes in opinions, the disagreements were argued through in a mature and discerning manner, without criticising each other. In one instance, where impatience was shown, the team mates chided the ‘aggressor' and reminded the student to argue politely.

Discussion

At the end of the lesson, I took a poll of the students and most of them said that they enjoyed the lesson because they could all speak up and discuss their answers. They also did not feel threatened about airing their differing views or questions, as they knew everyone was learning. Groups felt more confident in the sub-topic that they had presented, as they had to critically think of answers when questions were asked, making them understand that sub-area to a greater depth.

From a teacher's perspective, the starkest difference I noticed was that the students who usually speak in a very unrefined and crude way had made the effort to put their questions and opinions forward in a concise and non-aggressive way. They certainly ‘argued with grace'. There was also respect for each others' opinions and views, although these may have differed from their own.

There was social interaction and peer learning, where each student knew that they could learn something from their friends. They tried to explain better when others could not understand what they had presented, or tried to find an explanation or reason when someone else brought up a differing point. Most impressively, they acknowledged when someone had a differing opinion, contributing it to the person's prior knowledge and saying that it could be the case in a certain time and space. They could understand that it was alright to differ in opinions. In short, they agreed to disagree and moved on from there to learn what they could from each other. They had certainly met the educational objectives of the lesson, surpassing even my expectations. It was definitely a community-centered learning experience.

Implications for teaching

Teachers can do well to search for ‘funds of knowledge' in students' lives (Bransford, 2005). As we know, the community outside school, such as peers, family and culture, help to shape students' learning and teachers can try to find out more about them. This may help them to build upon their students' motivation and learning. By knowing more about their students, teachers can communicate better with, and help, their students learn. Through students' answers and questions, we can learn more about their background and thought processes. We can use this to plan future lessons, tailoring it to their experiences and temperament. Discussions could also be means of detecting the emotional needs of students, especially when they do not discuss during a discussion. All these help a teacher to reach out and make learning more accessible for each student.

Through creating a community culture in the classroom, teachers can also help to ensure that each student reaches his or her own educational goal (Bransford, 2005). As every student has different learning trajectories, students who are the faster learners would not be looked upon as show-offs or nerds and students who are slower would not be left behind. Instead, the classroom as a community can learn from, and teach, each other and there would not be any trepidation on the parts of students to be comfortable. A fundamental principle for effective learning to take place is that students need to feel safe and comfortable.

Discussions play a big role in increasing students' confidence. When they have to provide an opinion or present, it requires the self-esteem and self-belief to be able to do it. Many students go through their school experience without learning how to speak or present. This is especially so in our local context, where giving opinions may be seen as being rude and not deferring to authority. However, what students can be taught is how to say things in a non-offensive way. They are entitled to their differing opinions; they just have to say it in the right way. Finally, they learn to be quick-witted when they are questioned.

Implications for further research

There is a lot of literature that proves or advocates for community-centered learning and the social learning theory. What needs to be done is to try out different methods in which this theory can be enacted in the classroom and school environment, so that students can benefit from it. It has been agreed that the social environment plays a very important role in learning. We now need concrete methods and techniques that schools and teachers can use or modify for their own use. Research should focus on these methods and techniques, using this community-centered and social approach for different levels, subjects and students, so as to get an optimal protocol that would make it easier to teach students in the most effective way possible.

Conclusion

The case study was an example of a community-centered learning environment. It successfully proved that the environment is an essential part of our learning and we not only learn what to learn from the environment but also how to learn. The students gained not just their biology facts (product) from their peers, but also how to receive and impart this knowledge (process). It was one of the most enjoyable and enlightening experiences for both the students and I.

As demonstrated in this paper, Vygotsky, Rogoff, Bansford and Dewey all stressed that the individual is not an independent or separate entity but is inherently bound to the environment. Dewey, resembling Vygotsky's view, has succinctly summarised what I have been trying to emphasise: that thinking occurs best, and is profoundly affected by, communities:

‘The social environment … is truly educative in its efforts in the degree in which an individual shares or participates in some conjoint activity. By doing his share in the associated activity, the individual appropriates the purpose which actuates it, becomes familiar with its methods and subject matter, acquires needed skills, and is saturated with its emotional spirit'
(Dewey, 1916).

Hence, the social world, such as the classroom, plays a huge role in affecting the participation and, in turn, the learning of the students. We should thus endeavor to move away from knowledge-centered and assessment-centered modes of teaching and learning and gravitate towards the community- centered and social learning theories. Truly, in this time and age, where the world is so intricately connected by all types of media, we get most of our knowledge, biases and mannerisms from our culture and society.

Researchers, schools and teachers must all make sure that they reap maximum benefits from this learning theory and use it to the best of their ability, as this is definitely the way the young of this generation learn best.

References

Bransford, J et al. (2005). Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J Bransford (eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Jossey-Bass.

Diamond, MC (1984). ‘Age, sex, and environmental influences'. In N Geschwind and AM Galaburda, eds., Cerebral Dominance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Donald, M (2000). ‘The central role of culture in cognitive evolution: A reflection of the myth of the “isolated mind”.' In Nucci, LP, Saxe, GB, & Turiel, E (eds.), Culture, Thought and Development. Erlbaum.

Kozulin, A (1990). Vygotsky's Psychology: A Biography of Ideas, Ch.45. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Stillings, NA (et al.) (1995). Chapter 7: Neuroscience-Brain and cognition, in Cognitive Science: An Introduction (2 nd edn.) (p. 290) MIT Press.

Kruger, A. & Tomasello, M. (1996). Cultural learning and learning culture. In Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Blackwell.

Rogoff, B (1993). ‘Children's guided participation and participatory appropriation in sociocultural activity'. In Wozniak, R & Fischer, KW (eds.), Development in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments. Erlbaum.

Rogoff, B (1997). ‘Evaluating development in the process of participation: Theory, methods, and practice building on each other'. In Ansel, E & Renninger, KA (eds.), Change and Development: Issues of Theory, Method and Application. Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, LS (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rogoff, B (et al.) (1993). ‘Questioning assumptions about culture and individuals'. In Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 533-534.

Lave, J & Wenger, E (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, DR & Astington, JW (1993). Cultural learning and the educational process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, pp. 531-532.

Vygotsky, LS 1998b). ‘The problem of age' (M. Hall, Trans.) In R. W. Rieber (ed.). The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5. Child Psychology. New York: Plenum Press.

Dewey, J (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.