Constructivist, Andragogy, Collaborative Leadership Theories Analysis

This report provides an in-depth analysis of constructivist and andragogy theories, exploring their learning principles and applications within the context of smart communities. It examines how these theories contribute to the development of knowledge and skills, emphasizing the roles of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium in the learning process, particularly within educational settings. The report also delves into collaborative leadership, outlining its characteristics, competencies, and importance in fostering effective teamwork and organizational success. It highlights the significance of collaborative leadership in various sectors, including public-private partnerships, global supply chains, and government, emphasizing its role in addressing complex challenges and promoting innovation. The report further discusses the educational functions of professional networks, underscoring the importance of lifelong learning and the development of collaborative leadership competencies among school leaders. This includes an examination of andragogy, which guides adult learning, and its connection to building smart communities. The report concludes by emphasizing the need for leaders to cultivate trust, share power, and align diverse interests to achieve collective goals and drive organizational success, particularly in the context of a smart community of practice.

Running head: CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
With the advancement of technology and scientific reasoning the perspectives of
community is enhanced as well as expanded in the paradigm of current technological
revolution through learnings and explorations. Following it, the constructivist theory is the
knowledge that can be existent in human and it may or may not match with the reality of real
world (Bada, and Olusegun 2015). Constructivist theory traditionally is referred to the course
of the construction of knowledge in one’s mind. The theories of learning are typically
identified in the tradition of genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget. With the governing tradition
of constructivism, the concept converges on the knowledge bearer’s reflexive as well as
reflective abstraction of communication or interactions with the objects (Bada, and Olusegun
2015. On the contrary, it is said that the theory of constructivism is based on the sociocultural
perspective of Vygotsky that describes the joint construction through active participation of
the community and locate the knowledge bearer in the traditions, symbol, tools and
communicational language of the learning societal environment or community (Bada, and
Olusegun 2015. The learning principles of the constructivist theory revolves around the
process of assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium (Bouledroua 2019). It is the concept
through the mechanism of complex understanding is constructed (Bada, and Olusegun 2015.
This process is further recognized as the intellectual adaptation. In conclusion, it is the
concept that involves fitness in the knowledge bearer’s current understandings, views,
knowing system in the world where wide spectrum of new interpretations are encouraged
through variant perceptions and experience (Bouledroua 2019). As per the human
psychology, the motivation is the main factor towards being the knowledge gainer and social
influencer in the course of learning and development (Bouledroua 2019). Following it, the
process is engaged into the reflective activity. The constructivist theory is related with the
practice of smart community(Bada, and Olusegun 2015). The learning of skills and the
development of understandings lead to increase in knowledge of an individual and

2CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
participation of such active members towards the innovative implications in the community is
considered to be the smart community (Bouledroua 2019). It helps in developing the identity
as a member of a community provided with richer set of perspectives and immense amount of
motivational context in the environment. Smart community is primarily identified by the
community of learners that includes the teachers as well as the students(Bouledroua 2019). In
the perspective of lifelong learning, the learning of environment and the society expands
through the ranges of school to a wider spectrum of the entire community (Bada, and
Olusegun 2015). Family, school, museum, community and workplace can be recognized as
typical learning environment. In the course of construction of smart cities, smart leaning is
advocated that plays a leading role in the cultural aspects for stimulating the importance for
urban innovation. It requires a scientific backup or support for livable experience of the
citizen (Bouledroua 2019).
Andragogy theory is considered as the theory of adult learning that guides the adult in the
process of learning differently than the ways children are guided. The term andragogy is
synonymous to the term adult education. Malcolm Shepherd Knowles, a well known
American educator states that andragogy is the form of art that involves the processes and
ways of adult learning. According to Knowles, the characteristics of andragogy is recognized
initially through five assumptions. They are self concept, readiness to learn, adult learner
experience, orientation to learning, motivation to learn. These characteristics further
converges into four principles (Cox 2015). Firstly, in the process of learning, adults are
required to involve in the process of planning and evaluation (Ozuah 2016). Secondly,
experiences provided with mistakes and rectification are taken as the part and parcel of
learning activities. Thirdly, the learning activities that contain immediate relevance and
consequences to their professional or personal life are identified to be the most interesting
factor by the adults (Cox 2015). Fourthly, the process of adult learning is predominantly

3CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
problem centered rather than matter centric (Ozuah 2016). Following it, it is to mention that
as because the adults yearns and expects to know why are they learning something, teachers
provide explanation provided with their good teaching skills. And also because adults learn
by practicing effective instruction and focuses on the tasks that adults can do rather than
memorizing the content like children (Ozuah 2016). It follows the fact that adults being
capable enough to solve problems and learn the best way possible, effective instruction
contains the learner in the solving out the real life critical and convoluted problems (Cox
2015). Andragogy, as per Brookfield’s view, is the theory of “culture blind”, stating that the
idea of the self guided and directed learning and the idea of the student’s discovering a non
threatening relationship with the teachers as the individuals who are the facilitator of learning
might skip or ignore the races and cultures that value the teacher as the initial or primary
source of knowledge and its direction. (Ozuah 2016). As per the perspectives of scholars and
researchers, for instance, Newman states that to appeal or project a morally cognitively to
adult inmates is recognized under the context of the membership of human community (Cox
2015). In order to construct a smart community, one needs to process out the theory of
andragogy in order to retain the intellectuality that would benefit in the sustenance of the
community after he advance implications in the environment, society and the economy as
well (Cox 2015). It brings the orientation in the systems of the societal environment (Ozuah
2016). Smart community is associated with intellectualism and the fact that optimal pacing is
challenging people that happens to be beyond their capabilities, thereby certain course of
necessary learnings is required (Cox 2015). It includes enthusiasm through motivation,
curiosity through unexplored realization, excelling through practicing solving the critical
tasks (Cox 2015). With the advancement of technology and scientific reasoning, it is
expected to enhance the course of adult learning so that one is able to pick up or boost up the

4CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
habitual changes towards a new decorum or system of the task given in order to excel or
upgrade the community into a smart community.
Collaborative leadership is identified as the management practices that targets or aims to
concentrate managers, the executives and many other pivotal figures with one single motive
and aim in order to work together (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). In the collaborative work
places, co-working spaces are also encouraged so that the information is shared among the
leaders and collaborative partners organically. Through such system, every individual can
hold on to their responsibility along with maintaining their ethical factors (Jäppinen and
Ciussi 2016). The term ‘collaborative leadership’. First appeared in the mid 1990s. the term
emerged out in response to the twin trends of growth under the accordance of strategic
alliances between corporations and private along with the creation of long term partnership
between the public and the private contracts in order to reconstruct or reframe the public
infrastructure (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). The characteristics of collaborative leadership id
identified through various aspects, that is, firstly, a desire to make public value irrespective to
where they stay and what they do or work (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). It results from the
magnification of the motivation to wield influence and have social consequences and
generate wealth as well (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). Thereby, balanced motivation is
important. The second characteristic is transferable skills, that depicts the set of certain skills
that is valued across every domain such as strategic planning, decision making, quantitative
management and stakeholder management (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). Thirdly, contextual
intelligence that delivers a deep empathy among the various sectors especially those of
traditions, language, culture (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). The fourth characteristic
is the integrated network through which a set of relationships across variant domains or
sectors are drawn towards the advancement of their careers, or convening decision makers on
certain problems (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). The fifth trait is identified in the presence of

5CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
mind or the preparedness of the mind. Prepared mind means to be independent enough to
have faith on certain decisions, for instance, it is mostly seen when a person steps forward
towards pursuing an unconventional career provided with the fact that one has to cross
several hurdles and loops across sectors (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). And lastly, it is the
intellectual thread that surfaces through every subject matter expertise on a particular issue
regarding internal sectors by screening and understanding the thread from the perspective of
every sector (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). The concept of collaborative leadership
is being recognized and needed in majority of the areas such as public private partnerships,
Civic collaboration that is required to sort out the complex issues regarding communities
(Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). The need of collaborative leadership is also needed in the areas
of global supply chains as well as the political collaboration where it would be easier to
handle the global problems such as climate change, terrorism and credit crunch (Jäppinen and
Ciussi 2016). In such cases collaborative leadership is required to preserve the safety of the
global environment as well as the economy. The other major domains are the governments
(Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). This is because, in the dynamics of the governments
the roles of local officials are always associated with the collaborativeness in their leadership
in order to maintain a standard decision (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). In the wide spectrum of
education, the collaborative leadership boosts up the sustenance of the organizational
commitment and increases flexibility among the employees that further results in better
efficiency in the work performance.
Collaborative leadership is associated with the process of engaging collective intelligence
to deliver results across boundaries of organizational sectors when mechanisms of ordinary
control are absent. It is believed that every individual together can be smarter, more
competent, and more creative, especially when it comes to acknowledging the kinds of novel,
complex, and multi-faceted issues that organizations experience today (Gialamas, Pelonis and

6CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
Medeiros 2014). It is on leaders to utilize the power of influence rather than positional
authority to align and engage people towards focusing their teams, sustain momentum and
efficiency in the performance (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). Success is the factor that depends
on creating an environment of trust, mutual respect, and shared aspiration in the sphere of
whiche very contributors can achieve collective goals. Leaders must therefore focus on the
relationships as well as the results, and the medium through which they control the standard
conversation (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). The leaders who have established a
track record of success by exerting unqualified and unfair command over the people and
resources under their control, will not prove their existence to be sustainable in the long run.
Few leaders have been trained to lead collaboratively, especially at the hierarchal level, and
in most of the cases the culture and reward systems in organizations do not encourage
collaboration (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014).. Developing leaders with the capability
to collaborate and creating aligned cultures therefore go hand in hand. It is an intensive
challenging work, but increasingly vital for business success. Successful competence requires
leading collaboratively. In addition, in the sphere of capabilities, the leaders are supposed to
have the knowledge and potential to be able to build trust, share power, align diverse interests
and sustain high-quality lateral cooperation with their colleagues or subordinates while facing
the course of intense pressure in the field of performance (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros
2014). The collaborative leaders are supposed to be powerful shapers of collaborative
cultures and should be able to harness the collective intelligence and leverage the distinctive
competencies of employees throughout their organizations to adapt and innovate with agility
and speed. In larger industry or social contexts, they are generally aware regarding how to
forge generative alliances with business partners or community leaders who have self
strategic agendas, decision-making processes, organisational cultures, and egos. Many
companies are just recognizing this requirement. It is to mention that knowing oneself and

7CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
leading oneself is the establishement for leading others, even when the process of leading is
assessed collaboratively (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). Leadership with
authenticity always flows from the inside out (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). In order to lead
collaboratively, one needs the same transparency as well as clarity of purpose, vision and
values, that every leaders requires – they are the personal touchstone of the leaders for being
an open, active and authentic participation. One need the presence of the leaders and their
confidence to choose wisely in the moment or during the decision making, even when under
pressure (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). In traditional organizational hierarchies,
leaders could sometimes be unethical and utilize the authoritative power wrongly (Jäppinen
and Ciussi 2016). In the networked organizations of today’s generation, as Tex Gunning
noted, relationships are central and the fundamental element and the quality of relationship is
directly proportional to a capacity for getting things done efficiently (Jäppinen and Ciussi
2016). Leaders therefore need to be more socially as well as emotionally intelligent, with a
heightened standard ability to assess the functions in the work skillfully provided with the
emotions, desires, motivations and intentions of those they lead (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016).
While accessing into one’s total intelligence, collaborative leadership is encouraged and
further upgrades the system particularly for the development of relational intelligence
(Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). Collaborative leaders invest in strong personal relationships at all
positions while focusing on outcomes simultaneously, recognizing that the two reinforce one
another (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). They are actively interested in people who are identified
as independent individuals and take time to learn what others care about, how they see
problems and opportunities, and what would let their wholehearted engagement into process
(Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). The third crucial competency for collaborative
leaders is a practical grip of group dynamics and the ability to provide complex relationships
among idividuals with diverse personalities, different learning styles and strong egos

8CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
(Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros 2014). The ultimate skill set figures centrally for
collaborative leaders, that is, knowing how to improve and utilize networks (Jäppinen and
Ciussi 2016). Many people tend to be natural coalition builders and connectors anyway; they
easily reach out to and develop relationships with those in other parts of the organization,
other companies, or the wider spectrum of community (Gialamas, Pelonis and Medeiros
2014). They facilitate those connections in service of their work and response back when
others need their support.
The educational functions of professional educational networks in the sphere of school
leadership is identified through certain qualities, that is, firstly, identifying and articulating a
vision, creating shared meanings, creating high performance, fostering the acceptance of
group goals, monitoring organizational performance, communicating. School leaders
involves in the development of organization as well (Jäppinen and Ciussi 2016). It involves
strengthening school culture, modifying organizational structure, building collaborative
processes and managing the environment as well. Such efforts that aims to improve the
educational leadership must be recognized through well documented knowledge and records.

9CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
Reference:
Bada, S.O. and Olusegun, S., 2015. Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching
and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), pp.66-70.
Badie, F., 2017, June. Knowledge building conceptualisation within smart constructivist
learning systems. In International Conference on Smart Education and Smart E-
Learning (pp. 385-419). Springer, Cham.
Barhoum, S., 2017. Community college developmental writing programs most promising
practices: What the research tells educators. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 41(12), pp.791-808.
Bouledroua, A., 2019. CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING IN CoP.
Cox, E., 2015. Coaching and adult learning: Theory and practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 2015(148), pp.27-38.
Darden, D.C., 2014. Relevance of the Knowles theory in distance education. Creative
Education, 2014.
Gialamas, S., Pelonis, P. and Medeiros, S., 2014. Metamorphosis: A collaborative leadership
model to promote educational change. International Journal of Progressive
Education, 10(1), pp.73-83.
Hurley, T.J., 2011. Collaborative leadership.
Jäppinen, A.K. and Ciussi, M., 2016. Indicators of improved learning contexts: a
collaborative perspective on educational leadership. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 19(4), pp.482-504.

10CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
Kiraly, D., 2014. A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment
from theory to practice. Routledge.
Malek, J.A., 2018. The Impact of Heutagogy Education Through Telecentre In Smart Village
(SV). e-Bangi, 14(2).
Niaros, V., Kostakis, V. and Drechsler, W., 2017. Making (in) the smart city: The emergence
of makerspaces. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), pp.1143-1152.
Ozuah, P.O., 2016. First, there was pedagogy and then came andragogy. Einstein journal of
Biology and Medicine, 21(2), pp.83-87.
Schrader, D.E., 2015. Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing
minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2015(144), pp.23-35.
Taylor, E.W. and Laros, A., 2014. Researching the practice of fostering transformative
learning: Lessons learned from the study of andragogy. Journal of Transformative
Education, 12(2), pp.134-147.