‘Co-construction’: trendy term or pedagogical reality?

During an INSET day at Varndean School, Brighton, 12 members of staff attended a 45-minute session advertised as an attempt to co-construct a definition of ‘co-construction’. Although the term is popular at the moment in booklets published by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, there does not seem to be any agreement over its meaning in education. Indeed, a radical constructivist might argue that ‘co-construction’ is impossible as individuals interpret experiences in their own unique way. Moreover, the term’s uses in conversational analysis (as a description of a type of talk) and in social anthropology (as a theory of how communities develop) have no direct pedagogical implications.

We set out to explore the ramifications of the term for the classroom. Our initial discussion threw up other terms, such as ‘negotiating’, ‘sharing responsibility’, ‘creating’, ‘building’, ‘common understanding’ and ‘class reflection’. In a way, these terms, although needing definition in their own right, gave the group a common vocabulary to start coming to terms with co-construction. However, they did not get us closer to picturing a co-constructed classroom.

One teacher ‘facilitated’ the session and had an explicit aim to produce this article. As the discussion continued, it was felt that the facilitator role was necessary to ‘frame’ a lesson in order to ensure that it did not collapse into chaos. Yet surely that role of bringing pre-planned ideas to the classroom, it was argued, negates the ‘co’ part of co-construction. Should we not be discussing an equal partnership between students and teacher? At this point, the facilitator offered six brief passages in which ‘co-construction’ was mentioned for participants to consider. Did the introduction of stimuli suggest that, for co-construction to occur, at least one participant has to be informed about, and thus aware of possible routes through, a subject? Does that ‘expert’ have to be the facilitator?

We broke up into pairs to consider the following points in the classroom:

Co-construction:	Participants’ responses:
Of what	Skills/processes Text/resources Aims/objectives Framework/direction of the learning process
By whom	A facilitator (teacher, student, group of students, parents, or e-group). Students interacting with each other. Teacher and students interacting in a democratic way.
When (in the lesson)	At the end in a period of reflection. Teachers should ‘risk’ attempting co-construction throughout the lesson. A facilitator role implies ‘introducing’ stimuli to and structuring the learning environment, and ‘summing-up’.
How	Through dialogue (including the use of forums, chat spaces, blogs, surveys) with the teacher having an idea of what she/he hopes to achieve. Through the ‘active’ reading of texts. By taking risks, going off on tangents, and adapting to the situation. By being allowed to make choices on content, resources and the environment.

 

In further discussions, one teacher argued that there is a ‘hole’ in the idea of co-constructing the curriculum because students need to include technical skills that they have not been taught and are, therefore, not aware of. Another replied that in an inquiry classroom it is possible for students to request direct instruction in a particular skill if they deem it necessary to proceed. This is not to be seen as simple transmission teaching, but as a co-constructed agreement for the teacher to share a skill.

Then another teacher raised the concern that in an ‘ideal’ co-constructed classroom the role of a teacher would be redundant as students facilitated their own learning. There was widespread disagreement with this vision, mainly because many contributors took the position that students had to acquire certain cultural knowledge in order to become socialised members of the community. For that to happen, a ‘guiding’ teacher had to be present.

When we came to reflect, the facilitator asked if any parts of the session had been co-constructed. Participants responded in three ways:

Yes	Possibly	No
Knowledge of what co-construction might look like in the classroom had been achieved.	No clear definition of co-construction had been developed, but participants agreed they were closer to one than before attending the session.	The end point (an article) had not been reached, but ‘finishing’ was not necessary for learning to occur. The session structure was framed by the facilitator.

 

Reflection subsequent to the session has focused on the distinction between:

• to co-construct the lesson (i.e. to choose a stimuli or ‘prompt’ and to structure the environment and learning experience), which could increase motivation and build social relationships; and
• the co-construction of knowledge (i.e. the process of sharing understandings through talk, giving a product of co-constructed ‘deeper’ knowledge).

Yet confusion remains about this distinction, throwing into doubt whether it is so clear-cut. One of the last points made in the session was that the process was co-constructed, but the product (that the definition we sought) had not been. After the session, disagreement surfaced over this comment, with others arguing that the facilitator structured the lesson and the definition was in the process of co- construction. A more immediate concern for teachers of a national curriculum was also raised in the session: a class could spend a long time co-constructing the structure of a lesson and have little time left for ‘content’ learning.

Whether co-construction is possible in principle, the term has sparked an evolving debate in practice. Some teachers are keen to emphasise the high levels of animation amongst the participants, which, they claim, increased as the session continued – ‘controversy as a source of motivation?’ one asks. Another, whose experience was different, warns teachers of those who get ‘left behind’ if co-construction becomes fast moving and encompasses a number of tangential issues at the same time. The teacher as ‘orchestrator’ must aim to be sensitive to the different experiences of students.

The 12 participants now agree that ‘co-construction’ involves the desire to develop open-ended learning with a negotiated lesson structure and knowledge built in a collaborative experience. The level of scaffolding required from the teacher depends on the nature and age of the group. Moreover, the presence of a facilitator is necessary to promote learning appropriate to cultural norms. So the ‘partnership’ between students and teacher is not equal. In the balance of overall authority, the teacher must have a greater than half part in the co-construction process. As one participant wrote, ‘The teacher would ultimately have the final word – the chairperson, pulling things together’. But, after all, the majority of us were teachers.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

This paper was co-constructed by the teachers at Varndean School, in Brighton, England, United Kingdom. The teachers were Joseph Piercey, Jo Neville, Robbie Mitchell, Andrew Kemp, Tony Johns, Helen Horsley, Emily Evans, Martin Doohan, Andy Davies, Alison Browning, Andrew Blair and Jonathan Adams. Varndean School is an 11-16 secondary school in Brighton and Hove. It was designated as a high performing specialist school in 2005 (as a technology college), and now has a second specialism in music and a third in vocational/applied learning. Varndean has a national reputation for innovation and achievement.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion