[IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team

[Albert Cahalan]

Seth Woodworth writes:
> [Future of Learning Group]

>> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and
>> education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of
>> "construction." It is grounded in the idea that people learn by
>> actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information
>> "poured" into their heads. Moreover, constructionism asserts that
>> people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged
>> in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer
>> programs, animations, or robots).
>
> I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting.
> I would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities,
> just to give them a little snapshot of the concept.  Does anyone have
> a problem with this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement?

Yes.

That definition sounds lovely, like a politician's speech.
It's all feel-good stuff that matches up perfectly with how
we **desire** education to work.

Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas.
In study after study, including the largest educational study
ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail.

Better:

Constructionism is a failed educational theory which promoted
the feel-good idea that people would reinvent human knowledge
though personally meaningful exploration. Constructionism is
commonly used to hide both teacher and student deficiency in a
sea of confusion, allowing the avoidance of necessary learning.
Through the use of vague open-ended projects without instruction,
the brighter students are brought down to the level of the dimmest
students. The resulting lack of education is hidden by avoiding
reproducable tests.