Exploring social learning with Ben Betts

Exploring social learning with Ben Betts: source

by Clive Shepherd

This week I got to have a go with Curatr 2, the just-released, latest version of what has to be one of the most interesting learning platforms on the market, one that I would love to use within the context of a real learning intervention. In going through the demo, one of the objects I explored was a video of Ben Betts talking about social learning. In this video, Ben made the claim that "People build knowledge for themselves in a social situation." Because Curatr is gamified and I stood to gain extra points by commenting on the video, I posted the following, leading to an interesting exchange with Ben:

Me:
The social constructivists would argue that knowledge needs to be constructed socially but are they right? Sure, the social component is important but many people learn quite happily on their own.

Ben:
It's a hell of a debate.  I think it very much comes down to semantic differences and your philosophy.  Is knowledge the art of constructing?  And, if so, how could you know if what you had constructed was of any practical application without an outside view?

I guess it's both in learning from others and receiving feedback that I'm most interested.  Putting words down for yourself is one thing, having others understand them is quite another.

Me:
I just feel it 's important not to overstate the social component. Sure it's very valuable but it is not always necessary.

Ben:
I'm on the fence as to whether I agree with you on that Clive.  Ironically I think it comes full circle to a behaviourist point of view in terms of observable outcomes - how do you demonstrate that you have learned something?

Me:
You don't need a social component to demonstrate you've learned something. If you figure something out for yourself by trial and error or you read something in a book and then successfully put it into practice then YOU KNOW you've learned something. Similarly if you test your skills and knowledge out with a game, simulation or quiz.

Ben:
Even in those situations Clive, I think the social context is having a profound affect on your learning.  Take the view on this from classic Bandura style Social Learning...

What spurred you to do something new in the first place?  Was it something you observed someone else do?  Being facitious now, but someone probably wrote that book and are you just modelling the behaviour they specified?

Just because I did something once doesn't mean I learnt.  Tends to be in my experience that the things I learn I do so over time with repeated practice.  And the trigger for that repeated practise could be seen as a balance between my perceived self-efficacy for the task (so a social comparison - am I any good at this?) and the motivation from those around me (everyone's doing it and I get positively reinforced for doing the same).

So, in my view, even if the action is solitary, it takes place in a social context that we'd do well to acknowledge as being fundamental to the success of learning.  What do you reckon?

Me:
I reckon that you're having to work too hard to make sustain this argument. Why can't we just say that a social component to learning is highly productive, rather than that it's always necessary. The fact that Curatr supports and encourages this element is a big plus.

But of course I have to concede that this debate only goes to reinforce Ben's argument. Huh!