The implications of a social constructivist educational philosophy on a school's organisational culture and its leaders.

After an extensive exploration of academic literature, coupled with recent first-hand experience at a school advocating a social constructivist philosophy, what emerged was confirmation of the notion presented by Dendup & Onthanee (2020), that authentic social constructivist teaching and learning can only exist in a school setting where the philosophy is consistently embedded in the social interaction between the learner and an informed ‘other’. The latter is ultimately tasked with presenting new ideas and content within the ‘zone of proximal development’ - that is, beyond the student's current knowledge and skill set, but within the realm of possibility when aided’ (Armstrong, 2019). How effectively this is implemented in practice rests largely on the shoulders of school leaders and the prevailing organisational culture of the school. 

The notion of an all-encompassing definition of social constructivism is perplexing to say the least, largely due to common key misconceptions about social constructivism itself (van Hover and Hicks, 2017). A salient obstacle that repeatedly surfaces is that academics often treat social constructivism as a teaching framework for instruction, when in fact it is more of an epistemological or philosophical theory about the nature of learning itself (Brophy, 2008; Hyslop-Margison and Strobel, 2008; van Hover and Hicks, 2017). Interestingly, van Hoer and Hicks (2017) advocate that recognising this reductive misconception is essential, as a failure to do so does not acknowledge the spectrum of teaching methods, strategies and contexts that operate under the definition of social constructivism, but simply pitches traditional teacher-led transmissive models in opposition to student-centered socially constructed learning experiences. In contrast, Armstrong (2019), argues that there is a need for a clear distinction to be made when addressing the role of the teacher in social constructivism - where the role of the teacher shifts from a person who ‘teaches’ to one that ‘facilitates’ learning opportunities. The dichotomy argued by Armstrong (2019) certainly breaks down the role of the teacher, and on the one hand would make it easy to enter a classroom and categorize the teaching style observed, however, on the other hand such a clear cut distinction would be more indicative of a teaching strategy and not that of a philosophy (van Hoer and Hicks, 2017). Here, value is found in the earlier work of Brophy (2008), where it is argued that social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning do not require teachers to position their means of instruction at polar ends of the teacher-led / student-centered scale, but, that effective teaching and learning occurs through a blend of classroom teaching strategies and where discourse is the driving mechanism for cognition and the construction of knowledge. 

The above being true, salient indicators that characterize schools embracing the social constructivist approach include - but are not limited to: a democratic approach to decision-making, scaffolded learning and a celebration of the student voice (Vygotsky, 1962; Wood et al, 1976), high levels of staff participation and collaboration (Ahmad et al, 2021), time for reflection, a democratic approach to decision-making (O’Leary 2019), a strong sense of community, the use of exploration and inquiry as the primary method of learning, and a school infrastructure that facilitates such opportunities (Armstrong, 2019). In practice, these social constructivist principles see teachers, students, parents, school leaders and other stakeholders collectively construct the school experience (Teasley, 2016). It is therefore reasonable to expect that this in turn has the potential to expose teachers and school leaders to an array of challenges that are not encountered in fixed, rigid, traditional educational settings. Here, it would be remiss to not heed the warning of one such challenge highlighted by Zajda (2018), that some schools have been known to align, or claim to align their pedagogy with a particular philosophical approach without consciously fostering its implementation and development. Under such circumstances it is highly unlikely that the school would achieve the desired philosophical and actual outcome, as there are a range of cognitive, social and cultural dimensions that school leaders need to consciously and actively account for on a constant basis (Zajda, 2018). Such findings appear to hold true as Armstrong’s (2019) research produced congruent results; that a social constructivist philosophy for teaching and learning cannot be effectively implemented by school leaders, without considering the ‘social roots’, ‘tools for learning’ and ‘social interactions’ that are contextually bound to the particular setting. Moreover, Andersen el al (2018) claim that for a school to be deemed truly social constructivist, the philosophy would evidently be embedded into the school’s organisational culture, and that the corresponding structures and systems would exist in parallel for the student, staff, and leadership bodies. 

The significance for the latter is evident as the interconnected relationship between school leadership and social constructivism is well documented (Lingam and Lingam, 2015; Munir and Khalil, 2016; Velasco, Edmondson and Slate, 2012). Moreover, Lyon et al’s (2018) succinct observation that it is people and not programs that determine the quality of an educational offer, and Teasley’s (2017) claim which places the onus on school leaders to drive and sculpt the school philosophy, make salient the need for school leaders to actively engage with the school’s philosophy and the way it is implemented. It is overwhelmingly conclusive that a school’s teaching and learning philosophy should not be left unattended by school leaders, as the way staff respond to the philosophy will spread - either by chance or by deliberate action. Here, the complexity of this relationship between a school’s educational philosophy, leadership, and organisational culture is brought to the fore, as it is often the ‘perceptions’ of school staff about school leaders - and not always their ‘real’ actions - that prove instrumental in shaping the real school experience (Lyon et al, 2018). Yet, leading with a social constructivist lens, is not a ‘known truth’, but a construct of the prevailing behaviours, thoughts, perceptions, values, and the discourse of a given organisation (Bravo et al, 2019; Slaney and Racine, 2013). In contrast, organizational culture is clearly defined and is best conceptualized as the filter through which all facets of daily business practices must pass; the cumulative effects of the common beliefs, behaviours, and values of people within a company (Vincent and Wapshott, 2018). Something often overlooked, is that organisational culture infiltrates all forms of interaction and communication between all stakeholders (including leaders), with a causal impact on; employee motivation, the attractiveness of a company to current and future employees, employee morale, productivity and efficiency, as well as the quality of work performed in general (Pink, 2013). Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that regardless of a school’s educational philosophy, that schools will change over time, whether this be intentional or as a response to external factors. Regardless of the push or pull catalyst, it is the role of the leadership team and managers to take control and determine when and how this occurs rather than leaving the change management process to chance (Vincent and Wapshott, 2018). Canaday (2021), claims that leaders and managers are to be held accountable for providing a positive and cohesive work environment where “all employees are on the same page”. This being true, a purposefully nurtured and well-monitored culture has the potential to turn an internal strength into a competitive advantage, with culture driving both business strategy (Whittington et al, 2018) and success (Canaday, 2021).  

Future exploration on the themes addressed could focus on the work of Canaday (2021) as an integral contributor to the academic literature on organizational culture due to the identification and extrapolation of explicit links between organisational culture and different leadership types. Of particular interest is the key role attributed to leaders, and the corresponding impact that leadership decisions and behaviors are likely to have on a respective organisation. While, Canaday’s (2021) findings are not rooted in the field of education, Manaseh (2016), Ross and Cozzens (2016), and Zorlu and Arseven (2016) suitably fill the gap with education-based case studies conducted in public and private schools in Asia, South America, and Europe.

References

Ahmad, A., Khan, I., Ali, A., Islam, T., & Saeed, N. (2021). Implementation of Social Constructivist Approach in Teaching English Grammar in Primary Schools. Ilkogretim Online, 20(5). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Itbar-Khan/publication/352901162_2803_Aziz_Ahmad_Implementation_of_Constructivist_Approach_in_Teaching_English_Grammar_in_Primary_Schools/links/60deb5b9a6fdccb745fbf8a6/2803-Aziz-Ahmad-Implementation-of-Constructivist-Approach-in-Teaching-English-Grammar-in-Primary-Schools.pdf

Andersen, J., Watkins, M., Brown, R., & Quay, J. (2020). Narrative Inquiry, Pedagogical Tact and the Gallery Educator. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 21(4). http://www.ijea.org/v21n4/v21n4.pdf

Armstrong, F. (2019). Social Constructivism and Action Research: Transforming teaching and learning though collaborative practice. Routledge. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10068456/3/Armstrong%20x%20Chapter%201%20Social%20Constructivism%20and%20Action%20Research.pdf

Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2019). Analysing teamwork in higher education: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1153-1165. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049

Brophy, J. (2006). Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and qualifications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(5), 529-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.01.008

Canaday, S. (2021). Organisational Culture. https://www.linkedin.com/learning/organizational-culture/welcome?u=42447028 

Dendup, T., & Onthanee, A. (2020). Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning on English Communicative Ability of 4th Grade Students in Bhutan. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 255-266. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1239314.pdf

Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2007). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Johannes-Strobel/publication/233326590_Constructivism_and_education_misunderstandings_and_pedagogical_implications/links/00b7d5289aade65a00000000/Constructivism-and-education-misunderstandings-and-pedagogical-implications.pdf

Lingam, G. I., & Lingam, N. (2015). Are They Fit for Leading? Teachers' Perceptions of Leadership Practices of Niuean School Principals. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 43(1). https://www.academia.edu/42121330/Are_They_Fit_for_Leading_Teachers_Perceptions_of_Leadership_Practices_of_Niuean_School_Principals?auto=citations&from=cover_page

Lyon, A. R., Whitaker, K., Locke, J., Cook, C. R., King, K. M., Duong, M., ... & Aarons, G. A. (2018). The impact of inter-organizational alignment (IOA) on implementation outcomes: evaluating unique and shared organizational influences in education sector mental health. Implementation Science, 13(1), 1-11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-018-0721-1

Manaseh, A. M. (2016). Instructional leadership: The role of heads of schools in managing the instructional programme. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 4(1), 30-47. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mireia-Tintore/publication/314272232_IJELM_Vol_4_N_1/links/5a26884f0f7e9b71dd0a20c6/IJELM-Vol-4-N-1.pdf#page=34

Munir, F., & Khalil, U. (2016). Secondary School Teachers' Perceptions of Their Principals' Leadership Behaviors and Their Academic Performance at Secondary School Level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(1), 41-55. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210320.pdf

O’Leary, M., & Savage, S. (2019). Breathing new life into the observation of teaching and learning in higher education: moving from the performative to the informative. Professional Development in Education, 46(1), 145-159. https://cache.1science.com/f7/3e/f73ea8d22c51d8a050a473bddf456147ba7e344a.pdf

Pink, D. (2013, August 11). Dan Pink Drive Ted Talk [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9wDmRMtPnA

Ross, D. J., & Cozzens, J. A. (2016). The Principalship: Essential Core Competencies for Instructional Leadership and Its Impact on School Climate. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9), 162-176. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1106737.pdf 

School X Website. (2021). https://colegioaleph.edu.pe/propuesta-educativa/ 

Slaney, K. L., & Racine, T. P. (2013). What’s in a name? Psychology’s ever evasive construct. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(1), 4-12. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathleen-Slaney-2/publication/241096416_What%27s_in_a_name_Psychology%27s_ever_evasive_construct/links/59c7d1ca0f7e9bd2c0146677/Whats-in-a-name-Psychologys-ever-evasive-construct.pdf

Teasley, M.L. (2016). Organizational culture and schools: A call for leadership and collaboration. Children & Schools, 39(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw048

van Hover, S., & Hicks, D. (2017). Social constructivism and student learning in social studies. The Wiley handbook of social studies research. Wiley Publishing. New York. 

Velasco, I., Edmonson, S. L., & Slate, J. R. (2012). Principal Leadership behaviors and school climate: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Education Research, 6(3).

Vincent, S., & Wapshott, R. (2013). 'Critical realism and the organizational case study: A guide to discovering institutional mechanisms.' In P. Edwards, J. O'Mahoney & S. Vincent (Eds.) Putting Critical Realism into Practice: A Guide to Research Methods in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge. MIT Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.

Zajda, J. (2021). Constructivist Learning Theory and Creating Effective Learning Environments. In Globalisation and Education Reforms (pp. 35-50). Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-71575-5_3

Zorlu, H., & Arseven, A. (2016). Instructional Leadership Behaviors of School Administrators on the Implementation of Secondary School Curricula. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 276-291. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091741.pdf