CEJ: Series 3, Vol. 10, No.

1 Copyright 2013

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND ONLINE

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: TOWARD A
THEOLOGICAL MODEL FOR CHRISTIAN
EDUCATORS

Angela A. Deulen
California Baptist University

Abstract: While many theories exist to explain the phenomenon of learning, one of the oldest and
most supported models is Vygotskys social constructivism. Although once a forgotten voice, many of
the newer Western studies support this model The present paper discusses social constructivism as an
andragogical model for Christian educators teaching in online learning environments and offers pos-
sible frameworks and strategies for doing so.

Keywords: social constructivism, Christian education, online learning, adult learning, Vygotsky

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, It is the supreme art of the teacher to

awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge (as cited in Blaydes, 2003,
p. 23). Few would disagree with his statement, but rather it is the means by
which this process should be approached that is the source of debate in edu-
cation and among scholarsso much so that the literature is replete with re-
search and discussion on how students learn and which delivery methods in-
structors should be using to that end.
The purpose of this paper is to present a framework of both theory and
application using Vygotskys social constructivism for Christian educators
teaching within online environments (e.g., online courses and virtual class-
rooms). The arguments and model that follow assume an andragogical ap-
proach rather than a pedagogical approach. While Gulati (2008) points out
that some (e.g. Brunner, 1999) have broadly described pedagogy as a science
that involves becoming aware of the different learning strategies and how, for
whom, and when to apply these strategies (Gulati, p. 183), Knowles, Holton,
and Swanson (2005) are quick to point out that the two models are different
in a couple of key ways. First, pedagogy (from the Greek paid meaning child
and agogus meaning leader of) is differentiated from the term andragogy
based on the chronological status of the pupil. In essence, pedagogy refers to
DEULEN: Social Constructivism and Online Learning Environments 91

the teaching of children, whereas andragogy refers to the instruction of adult

learners. The second important distinction is the burden of learning. In a
pedagogical model, the teacher holds the primary responsibility for what is
learned. In an andragogical model, however, it is the students that hold the
primary responsibility for their learning; the instructor is simply a facilitator
of that learning.

Social Constructivism

Educators in the West have long embraced cognitive constructivism

(e.g., the work of Piaget), but the work of Lev S. Vygotsky and his model of
social constructivism have received little attention (Estep, 2002). Vygotsky
was born into a Jewish family in Russia in 1896. He graduated from college in
the same year as the Bolshevik revolution. He became a well-respected
scholar in the field of psychology and authored over 296 articles and essays
before his death at the age of 38 due to tuberculosis (Estep, 2002). Estep
(2002) points out that while Vygotsky was probably influenced by Marxism,
he did not agree with its dogma. It is for this reason that his work was re-
pressed by the Russian government until the 1960s. Notably, most of his work
remains in Russian and has yet to be translated.
Social constructivism is both a social and cultural model of learning. Ac-
cording to Hausfather (1996), Vygotsky saw learning not as development but
as a process that results in development (p. 5). Further, learning is influenced
by both the culture in which the individual lives as well as the social process
that shapes an individual's concrete experience (Estep, 2002). In essence, Vy-
gotsky believed that learning takes place in the context of a community. This
collectivist approach stands in sharp contrast to Western theorists like Piaget
who argue that learning is both individualistic and biologically developmen-
tal (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Bronfenbrenner (1979) also commented on the
importance of socio-cultural learning by stating, The basic categories of hu-
man mental life can be understood as products of social historythey are
subject to change when the basic forms of social practice are altered and thus
are social in nature (p. 265).
Like most theorists, Vygotsky nuances his theories with particular vocab-
ulary and definitions. Vygotsky (1978) defines three core concepts within his
model of social constructivism. These include the zone of actual development
(where the student actually and currently is developmentally); the zone ofpo-
tential development (where the student potentially should or could be); and
the zone of proximal development (the amount of assistance required for a stu-
dent to move from the zone of actual development to the zone of potential
development). To elaborate, the zone of proximal development, Vygotsky
92 Christian Education Journal

(1978) said, is the distance between the [childs] actual developmental level
as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential de-
velopment as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or
in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 131). Working within this
framework, Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued,

The capacity of a settingsuch as the home, school, or workplaceto

function effectively as a context for development is seen to depend on the
existence and nature of social interconnections between settings, includ-
ing joint participation, communication, and the existence of informa-
tion in each setting about the other, (p. 6)

Therefore, it is the job of the instructor-facilitator to stand in the gapthe

zone of proximal developmentand to create a social context that will pull
students from the zone of actual development to their potential (Miller,
2010). It is for this reason that learning in a social constructivist model has a
strong mentoring component (Vygotsky, 1978).

Support for Vygotskys Model

Support for the theory of social constructivism can be found in current
research in the areas of intelligence and social psychology. For example, while
heredity can be a critical factor in intelligence, large environmental effects
(such as mentoring, emotional availability of caregivers, and other social fac-
tors) have been known to profoundly influence the development of IQ (Dick-
ens & Flynn, 2001). Further, the Pygmalion Effect, first introduced by Ro-
senthal in the 1960s, demonstrates how a teachers expectancy of student per-
formance greatly influences how students perform, creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy (Jacobson & Rosenthal, 1966).
It is also important to note that support for Vygotskys theory can be
found in various ecology of learning models (Lowe & Lowe, 2010). Although
Bronfenbrener (1979) was among the first to describe learning environments
as ecosystems, Lowe and Lowe point out that more and more scholars are do-
ing the same. Further, considering the nature of a healthy ecosystem is an im-
portant element in creating a social constructivist environment. Lowe and
Lowe (2010) describe an ecosystem in this way:

One can think of a natural ecosystem as a series of interconnected parts,

none of which can exist without the other. In this ecological environ-
ment, all of the different species, plants, insects, and other biotic entities
regulate the flow of inputs and outputs through the reciprocal forms of
interaction and accommodation. It is a highly dynamic setting that when
working properly stimulates the nourishment of all living things, (p. 87)
DEULEN: Social Constructivism and Online Learning Environments 93

Further, in describing either an ecosystem or a social constructivist learning

environment, it is necessary to note the importance that ecological diversity
plays in creating sustainability and vitality (Lowe & Lowe, 2010).

The Argument for Social Constructivism

While the argument for social constructivism may be strong, it is imagi-
nable that some may still question its relevance. In spite of this objection, it is
an important item for discussion. First, as theorist Kurt Lewin (1935) argued,
there exist social barriers in development. Lewin used the power pull in adult-
child learning relationships as an example of this dynamic. While the power
pull is not necessarily the same for adult-teacher/adult-learner dynamics, it no
doubt exists. It stands to reason that such social barriers must be considered in
the development of a course. Further, an understanding of theory is important
in the development of a course because, as Sweller (2004) states, knowing
how students learn and solve problems informs us how we should organize
their learning environment and without such knowledge, the effectiveness of
instructional designs is likely to be random (p. 9). Courses should therefore
be designed with intent and grounded in thought (Ascough, 2002; Sweller,
2004). The following sections will discuss implications of social construc-
tivism for both Christian educators and facilitators of online learning.

Theological Implications

One-Anothering
The argument can be made that social constructivism is a natural fit with
a biblical approach to learning. According to this collectivist model, learning
takes place in the context of community. As believers, we are to operate
within the context of community, for we are to consider how to stir up one
another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the
habit of some, but encouraging one another (Hebrews 10:24-25, Revised
Standard Version). The concept of community is arguably emphasized by the
use of the term one another, used 100 times in the New Testament. Many of
these instances refer to the believing community as a family, stating we are all
children of God and fellow heirs (Romans 8:14-17). As such, we are part of a
family and ought to relate to each other as such (Grudem, 1994).
The concept of one-anothering is extended beyond the familial structure
of the church to the manner in which instruction is to be carried out. Gru-
dem (1994) points to this fact, citing Colossians 3:16, reminding believers
that they are to teach and admonish one another in all wisdom (p. 959).
While this is certainly a social approach to instruction, Christian followers are
94 Christian Education Journal

also exhorted to instruct in a socio-cultural (and cross-generational) fashion:

What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful
men who will be able to teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). We are then, as
believers, to live, learn, and teach in a socio-cultural and cross-generational
context.

A Relational God as an Andragogical Model

Further still, it has been argued that not only is the body of Christian be-
lievers called to be a social learning whole, but that God Himself is a social
being. Grenz (2001), in his commentary The Social God and the Relational
Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei, argues that as the Godhead ex-
ists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He is in essence a social-re-
lational being. As such, this is the very nature of what it means to be created
in the image of God, making us relational beings, meant to function in the
context of social relationships (Grenz, 2001; Hill & Hall, 2002).
Therefore, in the context of Christian education, and in the context of an
andragogical model, the instructors purpose seems to be less about issues of
parochial management and more about instillation of the truth. Therefore,
the role of the Christian educator is not mere instructor of content, but as a
facilitator in the students journey to not be conformed to this [present age]
but to be transformed by the renewal of [their] mind (Romans 12:2). This
goes hand in hand with the mentoring nature of social constructivism. Fur-
ther, if instructors and church leaders spent more time in this relational men-
toring role, if they were actively involved in giving private words of admoni-
tion and in prayer for one another, very little formal discipline would ever
have to be administered (Grudem, 1994, p. 894). Further, it should be noted
that the role of truth in the relational mentoring process has even been re-
fleeted in the secular literature as an effective vehicle in creating change and
growth. For example, the authors of the book The Heart of Change introduce
their work by saying, People change what they do less because they are given
analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that in-
fluences their feelings (Kotter & Cohen, 2002).

Discussion and Application

Profound disagreements exist among theological educators regarding

the wisdom of delivering theological education at a distance, apart from the
salient attributes of a campus community (Lowe & Lowe, 2010). If that is the
case in theology, what about more inter-personal disciplines such as the be-
havioral sciences or even nursing? The emerging online learning literature
DEULEN: Social Constructivism and Online Learning Environments 95

frequently refers to learning as a socially constructivist experience (Gulati,

2008). However, thought should be given to whether or not that is in fact the
case. For example, Tannen (1986) notes that as much as 90 percent of com-
munication is nonverbal. If one cuts out 90 percent of the inter-personal
communication between and among students and instructors, how much of
a social learning environment is left? Courses designed without intent toward
social constructivism could easily lack the type of socio-cultural environment
necessary for learning. In fact, experts in creating virtual teams for online
working environments strongly discourage those leaders from holding online
meetings in certain instances, including occasions of a first-time meeting for
a team or when trust has not yet been developed, stating that relationships
must first be established (Gupta, Bradley, & Yeoh, 2008). If this is true in the
business world, would it not also be true for educators instructing students in
similar virtual environments?
While the literature on the use of online learning continues to grow, it is
still relatively new and not enough longitudinal data can yet be collected to
evaluate any lasting efficacy of this format over time. Additionally, the popu-
larity of online learning in the literature may reflect the trend toward online
learning and not necessarily the wisdom of it. Further still, some argue that
some online activities, designed to be social, are so compulsory as to become
mere normalization of learning (Gulati, 2008). While distance learning has
been around for years, the world of online learning remains in its develop-
mental stage. Therefore, a critical eye toward best practices for online learn-
ing modalities seems appropriate in this emergent time.
Still, what constitutes both a socio-cultural and online learning environ-
ment? Can attempts at discovering a social constructivist online learning en-
vironment be made? What follows is a list of suggestions related to social con-
structivism and its implications for online learning for Christian educators.

Application
To begin, as argued throughout this paper, learning takes place in the
context of community (e.g., Brofenbrenner, 1979; Estep, 2002; Hill & Hall,
2002; White, 2006). The nature of that community, or ecosystem, must then
contain the elements that foster learning (trust, mentoring, and one-another-
ing). Therefore, a strict online learning environment may never be truly con-
ducive to learning under a social constructivist perspective. So, the first sug-
gestion for online instructors is the development of hybrid or blended
classes. According to Garrison and Kanucka (2004), simply defined, blended
learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning ex-
periences with online learning experiences (p. 96). Research demonstrates
that blended online and face-to-face learning environments offer students a
96 Christian Education Journal

reciprocal structure for student learning (Collopy & Arnold, 2009). This af-
fords students the socio-cultural advantages of learning, with exposure to a
more diverse learning ecosystem, but supplements the student with all the
benefits of online learning as well.
Another alternative is the use of synchronous virtual classrooms. Virtual
classrooms (e.g., Elluminate) allow students to see their teacher face to face
(and sometimes their peers) during class time via a computers web camera.
Virtual classrooms increase interaction and offer real-time learning and feed-
back (Skylar, 2009). These virtual classrooms also offer other options to re-
duce the social barriers to online learning, such as breakout rooms for stu-
dent projects and virtual office hours where students can meet with their
instructors, virtually face to face.
More and more, course management systems (CMS) are attempting to
learn how to become more socially friendly. The Australian company
Moodle, for example, is a CMS for educators, whose intent is to bring a so-
cial constructivist approach to its design. MOODLE has teamed up with Sec-
ond Life to offer a virtual learning space in which students can select an
avatar and interact within the virtual learning environment under that per-
sona. While there is some research to support the use of this model, the use of
this method has a large learning curve for instructors and students alike
(Kemp, Livingstone, & Bloomfield, 2009). Further, the authenticity of hid-
ing behind an avatar must be examined before scholars will know if this is
indeed a viable social constructivist approach.
A final, perhaps more creative, idea is to have students teach other stu-
dents the topic. Glasser (1990) is noted for saying that while students only re-
member 10 percent of what they hear and 20 percent of what they see, that
they remember 95 percent of what they teach. Students in a virtual learning
environment could be assigned a topic to teach, prepare a presentation, and
then post that idea to other students via a podcast, video-feed, or by teaching
the topic live in a synchronous virtual classroom.

Conclusion

While change may be difficult (Kotter 1996; Lewin, 1935), the world of
online learning is undoubtedly here to stay. That being said, it becomes essen-
tial that educators continue to investigate effective venues for learning. Social
constructivism offers a theoretical lens under which different strategies can
be evaluated. Further, this lens is a theological fit for Christian educators.
While time is the friend of understanding, the present offers us a space to ex-
amine and develop an educational approach in the best interest of the adult
learner.
DEULEN: Social Constructivism and Online Learning Environments 97
REFERENCES
Ascough, R. S. (2002). Designing for online
distance education: Putting pedagogy before
technology. Teaching Theology & Religion,
5( 1), 17-29.
Blaydes, J. (2003). The educators book of
quotes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology ofhu-
man development: Experiments by nature and
design. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In J. Leach,
8c B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy I
(pp. 4-20). London: Paul Chapman Pub-
lishing.
Collopy, R. M. B., 8c Arnold, J. M. (2009).
To blend or not to blend: Online and
blended learning environments in undergrad-
uate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Edu-
cation, 18(2), 85-101.
Dickens, W. T., 8c Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritabil-
ity estimates versus large environmental ef-
fects: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological
Review, 108(2), 346-369. doi: 10.1037/0033
-295X. 108.2.346
Estep, J. R., Jr. (2002). Spiritual formation as
social: Toward a Vygotskyan developmental
perspective. Religious Education, 97(2), 141.
Garrison, D. R., 8c Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended
learning: Uncovering its transformative po-
tential in higher education. Internet and
Higher Education, 7, 95-105. doi: 10.1016
/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Manag-
ing students without coercion. New York:
Harper and Row.
Grenz, S. J. (2001). The social God and the rela-
tional self: A trinitarian theology of the imago
dei, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press.
Grudem, W. (1994). Systematic theology: An
introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
Gulati, S. (2008). Compulsory participation in
online discussions: Is this constructivism or
normalisation of learning? Innovations in Ed-
ucation and Teaching International 45(2), 183.
Gupta, D., Bradley, L., & Yeoh, T. (2008). Tools
for effective virtual team meetings. In J. Ne-
miro, M. Beyerlein, L. Bradley & S. Beyerlein
(Eds.), Handbook of high-performance vir-
tuai teams (pp. 461-478). San Francisco, CA:
lossey-Bass.
Hausfather, S. J. (1996) Vygotsky and school-
ing creating a social context for learning. Ac-
tion in Teacher Education, 18(2), 1-10.
Hill, P. C., 8c Hall, T. W. (2002). Relational
schemas in processing ones image of God and
self. Journal of Psychology and Christianity,
21(4), 365-393.
Jacobson, L., 8c Rosenthal, R. (1966). Teachers
expectancies: Determinants of pupils IQ
gains. Psychological Reports, 19, 115-118.
Kemp, J. W., Livingstone, D., 8c Bloomfield,
R R. (2009). SLOODLE: Connecting VLE
tools with emergent teaching practice in sec-
ond life. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 40(3), 551. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8535
.2009.00938.x
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., 8c Swanson, R. A.
(2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic
in adult education and human resource devel-
opment. Boston, MA: Elesevier.
Kotter, J. R (1996). Leading change. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., 8c Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of
change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of person-
ality: Selected papers. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Lowe, S., 8c Lowe, M. (2010). Spiritual forma-
tion in theological distance education: An
98
ecosystems model. Christian Education Jour-
nal, 7(1), 85.
Miller, M. (2010). Motivating learning.
Change, 42( 2), 4.
Powell, ., & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and
social constructivism: Developing tools for an
effective classroom. Education, 130( 2), 241.
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asyn-
chronous online text-based lectures and syn-
chronous interactive web conferencing lec-
tures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-
84.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design conse-
quences of an analogy between evolution by
natural selection and human cognitive archi-
tecture. Instructional Science, 32( 1), 9-31.
Tannen, D. (1986). That's not what I meant:
How conversational style makes or breaks rela-
tionships. New York: Ballantine.
Christian Education Journal
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The de-
velopment of higher psychological processes.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, R. (2006). Promoting spiritual forma-
tion in distance education. Christian Educa-
tion Journal, 3(2). 303-315.
AUTHOR
Angela Deulen is a doctoral student in Orga-
nizational Leadership at Pepperdine Univer-
sity. She is also an Assistant Professor of Psy-
chology at California Baptist University as
well as a Licensed Marriage and Family Thera-
pist. Correspondence regarding this article
should be addressed to Angela A. Deulen,
School of Behavioral Sciences, California Bap-
tist University, 8432 Magnolia Ave. Riverside,
CA 92504. Contact: adeulen@calbaptist.edu
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.