[IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the LearningTeam

[Bill Kerr]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Costello, Rob R <
Costello.Rob.R at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:

>  Bill I agree that its risky to simplify down; and thumbnail definitions
> do oversimplify
>
>
>
> But I also think it must be possible/necessary, at some level, to do so
>
>
>
> Always having to say 'no, its more subtle or sophisticated than that' can
> risk appearing as if there is no definite content or position
>
>
>
> A simple version of any philosophy can be useful for several reasons, - eg
> an 'advance organiser' that gives a grid for the general thinking involved
>
>
>
> 'we can't give a simple version' seems a bit elusive to me
>

hi rob,

I've been thinking about a thumbnail definition but when I write it down it
keeps growing.

It's a very interesting word. One issue I think is that the constructivism
word flirts with idealism in breaking with behaviourism and in this respect
the issue is unfinished - because we don't actually know how the mind works
and the issue of representation remains controversial, although it is part
of constructivism

But here is my effort, but  more its more like 4 or more fingernails than a
thumbnail:

internal, meta, interactive, scaffolding, mentored bit - mental modelling,
self and others: Constructionist students and teachers create mental models
of their own and others knowledge state

external, social and personal bit - Learning by socially and personally
meaningful doing or construction

technology, education environment bit - Some tools are better than others
for learning (more appropriable, evocative and integrated)

philosophical, dangerous bit - Since we don't know how the mind works with
any certainty then constructionists will inevitably flirt with idealism, the
idea that all knowledge is subjective and idiosyncratic, that there is no
such thing as objectivity - the need to stay grounded and to keep doing a
theory to practice spiral

another point not included is that we need to be concrete and give examples
of real learning when talking about it - which I haven't done here

I wouldn't like to take out the philosophical, dangerous bit because that
would create the risk of too much blindfolded walking or something like that
- I think it's better if the word is associated with some risk rather than
blandness and the thumbnail definitions tend to gravitate towards blandness
through simplification, imply that this is a known known. That has been my
main general point on this list, that the definitions I have seen are
incomplete and too bland and potentially mundane, eg. learning by doing

I can't operate as a constructionist without all these bits

Some more background information about this:

the constructivist word is not prominent in either Mindstorms (Paperts
original, not mentioned) or Margaret Boden's biography of Piaget (only
mentioned twice)

I think what Piaget did was treat young children as self directed learners
through play etc. not as empty vessels to be filled by adults

the term "genetic epistemology" is more associated with Piaget - the
evolution of knowledge structures in the young learner - it seems to mean
the same thing for Piaget as constructivism

so the term did not originate with him probably but he might have been the
first to investigate it as a concept in children learning seriously and
consistently

other theorist saw the learning ability as innate but needed time to unfold
- some still argue this, I think Chomsky (and Pinker) argues that for
language development that we are preprogrammed genetically in "mentalese", a
universal grammar

also the idea of mental representation (cog stuctures) is attacked by the
connectionists who think it can all be done with patterns - Downes also
argues this

So Piaget, Papert, Minsky's position that humans gradually develop learning
structures or representations over some years in childhood is still
controversial - constructivism

this concept has been altered by social constructivists but also by others -
constructivist idealists (radical constructivists) like Ernst von
Glasersfeld <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Glasersfeld>

post modernists who deny objective truth sometimes identify with
constructivism

Boden makes the point that all constructivists flirt with idealism but they
don't have to capitulate to it (pp. 79-80)

(ie to move on from Skinner you have to speculate about things that can't be
proven at least a little)

wikipedia identifies Giambattista Vico or Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744)
as the first constructivist ("truth itself is constructed") - also Kant and
Dewey preceded Piaget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28learning_theory%29>


cheers


>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> rob
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org [mailto:
> iaep-bounces at lists.sugarlabs.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill Kerr
> *Sent:* Saturday, 16 August 2008 4:09 PM
> *To:* seth at laptop.org
> *Cc:* Education; Educators and OLPC; Grassroots OLPC
> *Subject:* Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the
> LearningTeam
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Seth Woodworth <seth at laptop.org> wrote:
>
>  *Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori
> Kindergarden teachers.  I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC
> Learning team.  We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few
> other topics.  Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's
> Future of Learning Group:*
>
>
> *Constructionism*
>
> 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).
>
> http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> -Seth
>
>
> hi Seth,
>
> It could be a mistake to try to summarise a complex idea as a thumbnail.
> Cynthia does not do that in her book (*Computer Environments for Children*)
> where she compares 4 different approaches to learning. Her description there
> of constructivism is far more nuanced with example of logo learning and
> historical and philosophical background. Some of the concepts included in
> that chapter are -
>
>    - a definition of mathematics
>    - people possess different theories about the world
>    - children build their own intellectual structures
>    - why would they change their theories?
>    - intuition
>    - natural learning development
>    - the role of computers
>    - the role of relationship
>    - different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive
>    compared with rule driven and formal)
>    - discussion of turtle geometry
>    - other mathematicians who hold similar views - Poincare, Brouwer,
>    Godel)
>    - value of an anthropomorphic approach
>    - etc. (there is much more)
>
>
> It's tempting to try to develop a thumbnail definition, it appeals to our
> sense of tidiness and closure, but with this complex idea it doesn't seem to
> work.
>
> While I was writing this Albert's response appeared which adds another
> dimension to the discussion -  oversimplification does make an easier target
> for critics. Since your definition does not distinguish Papert's
> constructionism from open ended discovery learning then it is easy to
> criticise in this way.
>
> The 4 models in Cynthia's book are:
> Suppes: Drill and Practice and Rote Learning
> Davis: Socratic Interactions and Discovery Learning
> Dwyer: Eclecticism and Heuristic Learning
> Papert: Constructivism and Piagetian Learning
>
> This illustrates the point that distinctions ought to be made between the
> latter three, rather than lumping them all into some exploratory basket.
>
>
>
>
> *Important - *This email and any attachments may be confidential. If
> received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening
> or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any
> loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender
> or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files
> our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
> and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood
> Development.
>



-- 
Bill Kerr
http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20080816/0cd1bfa0/attachment-0001.htm