When I first started designing this learning activity, my aim was for students to think reflexively on how knowledge is created, instead of merely consumed. I also wanted to self-reflect and think more critically. It makes sense to ground the activity in constructivist learning theory and interpretivist philosophy. They both highlight meaning making. According to the constructivists, understanding is “constructed” by each one of us. This idea was the basis of the learning activity design. To illustrate how philosophies differ, which shapes what becomes ‘evidence’, I chose these two case studies, one quantitative, the other qualitative. Study A looked at clicks, logins and time spent. It felt solid, organized, and backed by data. Study B included student reflections and journals. They capture experiences that numbers can’t. When I consider both things, it strikes me how technology “filters” our views of learning What measured often drives what we deem as the most important. On working through it, I saw how far I had to interpret to conclude. Through discussion I could see that evidence does not just appear, it is produced by assumptions about “good learning.”
Learning this filled me with smiles and made me enjoy constructivist approaches even more. The knowledge wasn’t going to be given to me; it was something that we all co create. That activity was more than theories; it was turning back. The habit of asking questions of the data, the tools, and even of me was part of it. It was clear to me by this time that educational technology is not neutral. We need to question the values and choices that are coded into it.
