Social Constructivism and Deep Learning
in
Privacy, Security, Freedom:
Social Concerns for the 21st Century
A Case Study in Best Practice Using Empire State College’s
Online Learning Methodology
Center for Distance Learning
Nicola Martinez,
Director of Curriculum and Instructional Design
Who We Are:
Empire State College
Locations around
New York State
The Center for
Distance Learning
(CDL) serves adult
students around
the world
Center for Distance Learning
adult learning centered
offers asynchronous online courses in five, 15-week
semesters per year
leading enroller in the SUNY Learning Network
partner with several institutions such as eArmyU &
Navy, public & private organizations, labor unions,
member institution, The Consortium of Higher
Education for Emergency and Fire Services (CHEEFS)
offering baccalaureate degrees for the fire and
emergency services community through the National Fire
Academy’s Degrees at a Distance Program.
Center for Distance Learning
Course Statistics
350 distinct online courses,
many with multiple sections
46 courses developed/revised for Sept 03
50+ courses developed or revised for Jan 04
68 courses developed or revised for Sept 04
70 courses developed or revised for Jan 05
55+ courses in development or revision for Sept 05
all courses on a two year revision cycle
managed using the Coursetrak system
Areas of Study
The Arts | Business, Management & Economics |
Community & Human Services | Communications,
Humanities & Cultural Studies | Educational
Studies | Historical Studies | Human Development
| Labor Studies | Science, Math & Technology |
Social Theory, Structure & Change
Objectives
objectives:
1. Present a case study of an Empire State College Center for
Distance Learning Online Course (Privacy Security, Freedom:
Social Concerns for the 21st Century) illustrating best practices
in the application of social constructivist learning theory.
2. The author will demonstrate how carefully designed course
materials, as well as interactive, collaborative learning
activities requiring data collection, evaluation of evidence, and
interpretive analysis challenge the student and enrich the
learning experience.
Social Constructivism
social constructivism:
 is a variety of cognitive constructivism that emphasizes the
collaborative nature of much learning.
Social constructivism was developed by post-revolutionary
Soviet psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky was a cognitivist,
but rejected the assumption made by cognitivists such as
Piaget and Perry that it was possible to separate learning from
its social context. He argued that all cognitive functions
originate in, and must therefore be explained as products of,
social interactions and that learning was not simply the
assimilation and accommodation of new knowledge by
learners; it was the process by which learners were integrated
into a knowledge community.
(from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/learning/social.html).
The zone of Proximal Development.
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:
 It is the distance between the actual developmental level
as determined by independent problem solving and the
level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Social Constructivism and
Instructional Models
social constructivism and instructional models:
 Instructional models based on the social constructivist
perspective stress the need for collaboration among
learners and with practitioners in the society (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; McMahon, 1997).
 Lave and Wenger (1991) assert that a society’s practical
knowledge is situated in relations among practitioners,
their practice, and the social organization and political
economy of communities of practice. For this reason,
learning should involve such knowledge and practice (Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Gredler, 1997).
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives
on learning, teaching, and technology.
Social Constructivist Approaches
social constructivist approaches can include :
 reciprocal teaching
 peer collaboration
 cognitive apprenticeships
 problem-based instruction
 webquests
 anchored instruction and other methods that
involve learning with others (Shunk, 2000).
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.),
Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.
Deep Learning 1
deep learning:
 Marton and Saljo (1976) developed the following definitions of
surface and deep approaches to learning:
Surface approach: Students relate to the needs of the
instructor, rather than to either their own personal
identification with the subject or to the structure of the
imparted knowledge. The learning task is to reproduce the
subject matter at a later date (e.g. in an exam).
Deep approach: Students connect the structure of the subject
to their own learning structures. This involves thinking,
seeking integration between components and between tasks,
and ‘playing’ with ideas.
Marton, F., Saljo, R. (1976). "On qualitative differences in learning:
Outcome and process." British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:
4-11.
Deep Learning 2
deep learning:
 Gibbs (1992) further refines the definition:
Most students can adopt both surface and deep approaches to
their learning; students can develop an increasingly
sophisticated conception of learning; inappropriate course
design, teaching methods and assessment can foster a surface
approach; and appropriate course design, teaching methods
and assessment can foster a deep approach. Gibbs, G. (1992a).
Improving the quality of student learning through course
design. In R. Barnett (Ed.). Learning to Effect . Buckingham:
SRHE/Open University Press. Part I Using research to improve
student learning.
Gibbs, G. (1992b). Improving the quality of student learning . Bristol:
Technical and Educational Services.
Adult Learning Theory
adult learners need:
 To know why learning is required
 To direct their learning
 To contribute their experiences to the learning situation
 To apply what they have learned to serve real world
problems
 To feel competent and experience success throughout the
learning program.
adapted from:
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, Elwood F., Swanson, Richard A. (1998). The adult
learner. Houston: Gulf.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1993). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A guide to
improving instruction and increasing learner achievement. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
A Case Study
an online course:
Privacy, Security, Freedom: Social Concerns for the
21st Century. The course is a sociological and
philosophical exploration of the questions of
privacy, security and freedom in the 21st Century in
the context of both the theory and practical, policyoriented aspects of these social concerns.
Official Course Description
Privacy, Security, Freedom:
The sociological and philosophical exploration of the questions of
privacy, security and freedom in the 21st Century in the context of
both the theory and practical, policy-oriented aspects of these social
concerns.
This study will include an examination of some of the concepts of
political and social philosophy, such as private vs. public domains, the
individual and the state, freedom, political obligation, and their
relevance to contemporary society and government, with a particular
focus on the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and Total
Information Awareness/Terrorism Information Awareness.
Credits
4 Credits, advanced level course
Course Prerequisites
Upper Level Standing
Knowledge or Skills Needed
Writing and internet and/or library research skills.
Activities for Collaborative Learning
collaborative learning:
1. Students engage collaboratively in both pro-con debate (on
the Patriot Act) and (Security) policy development while
harnessing the availability of Internet based resources.
2. They read, evaluate and analyze primary sources, such as the
Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.
3. They search for and share other resources presenting a
variety of perspectives, which allow the student to form his or
her own educated opinion grounded in both philosophical
inquiry and policy analysis.
4. In addition, each student introduces a topic for discussion,
based on assigned readings for every module.
5. Due to the high level, highly relevant professional experience
of many of the students,
their study is enhanced with
practice-based research.
Sample Students 1
students:
 Classmate A: I am a Lieutenant with a large metropolitan
police department, assigned to the Commissioner who
spearheads crime control strategies. I have a background in
the areas of criminal intelligence, investigations, antiterrorism as well as WMD training (CBR) from the Department
of Homeland Security.
 Classmate B: I am working toward a bachelor's degree in
Social Theory, Structure and Change with an emphasis on
National Security.
 Classmate C: In 1965, as a colonel's orderly, I observed
Rudolph Hess tending his flowers in Berlin's Spandau prison
 Classmate D: I am employed as a Lieutenant in a Correctional
Facility. I am a certified instructor at my place of employment,
specializing in terrorism and emergency response to WMD
Incidents. I just returned from a training course for Domestic
Security in Washington, DC.
Sample Students 2
students:
 Classmate E: I am heavily involved in emergency services. My
current position is EMS Coordinator for my county and
Commander for a federal response team. In my spare time I
volunteer on my local ambulance corps..
 Classmate F: I am in the Navy. I am an IT working with Intel.
 Classmate G: I work as a Systems Architect designing CRM
(Customer Relationship Management) systems mostly for
banks. This software is used to collect contact information
about clients and prospects to help increase the quality of
customer service as well as to analyze the “sales pipeline”.
The software may or may not pose privacy issues.
 Classmate H: I work for a large high-end retailer and I am an
investigator. I investigate all aspects of internal theft from the
theft of goods and money, to the theft of company time and
resources.
Course Readings 1
readings:
 David Brin. The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us
to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? June 1999 Edition.
Perseus Publishing.
 Reginald Whitaker. The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance
Is Becoming a Reality. February 2000 Edition. New Press .
 Bruce Schneier. Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security
in an Uncertain World. September 2003 Edition. Copernicus
Books.
 John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. June 2002 (Paperback) Edition.
Dover.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau. On The Social Contract. January 1998
(Revised) Edition. Hackett Publishing Company.
Course Readings 2
readings:
Texts and additional course materials provide students with a
foundation in political science, social policy and political
sociology.
In addition to the texts, students read excerpts from:
the Patriot Act,
the Homeland Security Act,
total/terrorism information awareness,
predecessors and successors
 analyzes of the acts, both pro and con
 and other official documents, policies and
legislature having direct relevance to the
issues of privacy, security, and freedom.



Students also examine current case studies online using
sociological and social policy making methodologies.
Discussions
discussions:
 Discussion will include philosophical inquiry and social
critique. We will also discuss recent developments such as the
Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Act, Total Information
Awareness/Terrorism Information Awareness (and related
developments). There are a number of outstanding websites,
both governmental and organizational, that will provide the
basis for outstanding coverage of the issues.
 The discussions are intended to help you further explore and
think critically about the information you are reading and
viewing. I shall pose questions to get the discussions going. I
intend to be an active--two or three times a week--participant
in the discussions, and expect each of you to be so, as well.
Please Note: Each discussion response must have a minimum of
125 words, spell checked, well written and citing references in
support of arguments. Student led discussion topics must have a
minimum of 250 words for the original posting, 125 words for
responses.
Written Assignments
students complete the following written activities:
(1) lead 4 discussion topics with a 250 word commentary;
(2) participate in a pros/cons debate on privacy in relation to the Patriot Act
using case studies and recent "real" events to support arguments. This
assignment requires the research, review, analysis and evaluation of six
articles;
(3) Join a team for a role play scenario based learning activity. This
assignment includes deciding on the scenario (what happened, how, what
are the implications), participating in a group discussion, researching and
reviewing 2 articles/websites, and contributing to the development a 500
word security policy;
(4) Design a research project of using one or more of the following
methods: data collection, evaluation of evidence, and employment of
interpretive analysis using resources on the World Wide Web, examination
of primary text materials such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security
Act, and observation within their communities. The research project includes
a formal research proposal and an 10-15 resource annotated bibliography.
The Role Play Scenario, Part 1
choose one of the following scenarios:
1. Imagine that you are all board members of a school
district having to establish a security policy after an
incident in the school.
2. You are the computer security team for a
government organization housing highly sensitive
information. An unknown hacker has accessed your
files and leaked confidential information to the public.
Concerned that insider information may have given
the hacker easier access, you must develop a tighter
internal security policy.
The Role Play Scenario, Part 2
steps:
 First, decide on the scenario: what happened, how, what are the
implications. Start an initial group discussion on the scenario. Each
group member must research and review 2 articles/websites that
might be relevant to the case, and submit an evaluation/review of
the article to the group.
 Then, develop a 500 word security policy after weighing the rights of
the individuals against the security of the group.
 As you develop your policy, follow the five step process proposed by
Schneier in Beyond Fear (Chapter 16, pp 257-258). Be sure to
consider the four "environmental constraints on behavior" (pp264265). In addition, consider Schneier's three final rules (pp. 279280).
 In addition, the group must reference one or more sections of the
Homeland Security Act in support of the proposed policy.
Comments from Students 1
 Has this course achieved the objectives that it set out to
accomplish? From every conceivable aspect, this course has
surpassed these objectives and more. Our group as a whole
was introduced to some of the most complicated issues facing
citizens and government today. We explored, analyzed,
researched and even debated acts of legislation, political and
social commentary, not to mention philosophy. Our eyes were
opened to the various issues facing modern society; privacy,
security, terrorism and cultural awareness were only some of
the topics we delved into.
 Group discussions and debates allowed for us to deliver our
individual and collective stances on the issues we examined.
Although sometimes energetic and yes, maybe heated, we
were all part of a unique learning process. Nicola led us
admirably through the gauntlet of subject matter; by design
and good chemistry within the group, I think we will all walk
away from this course better students and citizens with a host
of useful information.
The Course
Privacy, Security, Freedom:
Social Concerns for the 21st Century
Here I take the audience to a reference copy of the
course (student and term independent) to illustrate
my points
 http://sln.suny.edu/courses/21/2842100210.nsf/
Comments from Students 2
 The course presentation and materials were excellent : I just
wished that I could have absorbed more. Some of my precourse thoughts have gotten stronger, others have weakened,
while many new ideas have been aroused by the writers ,the
tutor, and the classmates. Collective participation was both a
necessity, and asset and not a hindrance which was my
original fear.
 I have had some mandatory online Verizon schooling, but that
involved, cut and dry-yes and know, type answers. A course in
history or philosophy online was not for me. How could I cut
the other person off, just to insert my twopense into the
discussion. This technique of preemptive interruption is widely
used by the experts as they project their importance and
knowledge, but rather useless in an online course. I learned to
wait my turn, and not alone listen to, but also read and
interpret what others had to say. What a blessing and what a
lesson in manners for the information age. Can we teach our
elite, the politicians?
Comments from Students 3
 I would like to say how much I have enjoyed participating in
the group/student led discussions and the group project. They
have been very enlightening and have helped me to reevaluate my personal beliefs about privacy, freedom and the
impact that the Patriot Act has on both.
 I have thoroughly enjoyed debating with my classmates about
these topics and have learned so much from all of you. It
always amazes me that just when you think you have a firm
grip on your personal beliefs, that someone brings something
to light that changes everything. This is how I felt, over and
over again. I have always been a very opinionated and
outspoken person, but I have often had a hard time being open
minded to the opinions of others. This class has helped me to
learn that being open minded may not always be easy, but that
it definitely has it’s rewards.
 More importantly, I learned a lot about myself , including how
to “temper my arguments”. The way in which information is
presented has a lasting effect on those who are listening, good
or bad. Knowing that, will help me achieve the desired
outcome of the information presented, whatever that may be.
This is something that will stick with me forever.
Comments from Students 4
 I thoroughly enjoyed the books as well as being involved in the
projects. I thought that the groups projects really helped us to
share a great deal of information and both groups put together
some great presentations.
 Believe it or not my favorite part of this class was the group
reports/projects. While it was not the easiest task in the world
trying to get all of us on the same page; the end result was
well worth the effort. Other than enjoying the whole “group
aspect” of it, I also found the task of making our own school
weapons policy very intriguing. Also, a series of unfortunate
events also synchronized with our project as well
(shootings/stabbings in school). Those events, I believe
played an important part in some of our decisions about what
to include, and not include in our policy.
 I have taken many classes, in a number of schools, throughout
my life. Some of the information I absorbed, some went in one
ear and out the other. The lessons we have learned in this
course will probably stay with us for the rest of our lives. We
will re-evaluate political policies and security measures, be
more aware of privacy issues, and cherish more deeply the
freedoms that remain available to us.
Conclusion
in conclusion:
 I hope that I have demonstrated that carefully
presented course materials combined with active,
authentic, engaging and collaborative learning
activities within a social constructivist approach
provide the student with opportunities for enriched
learning.
 and that this method, applied to teaching and
learning in online environments, supports a deep
approach to learning.
…Nicola Martinez
References 1
 Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Gibbs, G. (1992b). Improving the quality of student learning . Bristol:
Technical and Educational Services.
 Kim, B. (2001). “Social constructivism”. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging
perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Available Website:
http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm
 Knowles, M. S., Holton III, Elwood F., Swanson, Richard A. (1998). The Adult
Learner. Houston: Gulf.
 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
 Marton, F., Saljo, R. (1976). "On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome
and process." British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4-11.
 McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide
Web - A Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference.
Perth, Australia.
 Shunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective (3rd ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
 Wlodkowski, R. J. (1993). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A guide to
improving instruction and increasing learner achievement. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
References 2
websites on social constructivism:





http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/learning/social.html
http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html#social
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/constructivism.htm
http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm
http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/Vygotsky(1978).htm
Contact Information
Nicola.Martinez@esc.edu
518-587-2100 x 776