[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team

[Bill Kerr]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bastien <bastienguerry at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hi Seth and all,
>
> "Seth Woodworth" <seth at laptop.org> writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> I don't have any problem with this definition, it captures the spirit of
> (what I understand from) constructionism.
>
> My only concern -- and this is a general concern with the usual rhetoric
> behind constructionism, not with this definition in particular -- is the
> way we too often refer to this image: "information poured into heads".
>
> While I think it might be useful to use such simplistic images, I also
> think it might give a false feeling of novelty: as if constructionism
> was the long awaited solution to save people from this stupid practice
> in education, the one of "pouring information into heads"...
>
> At least Plato argues that knowledge is not about pouring information
> into heads.  Even Aristotle, who is more of an empiricist, wouldn't deny
> that _acquiring_ knowledge is about building new "forms" on the top of
> the ones we have, questioning the world with our own questions.
>
> Whether the knowledge is about grasping forms (or "patterns") that
> _really_ exist outside of the human mind, or building forms that only
> exist as mere abstractions, learning is seen as an interactive process
> and as an interactive process of construction.  You could hardly find
> any philosopher who would defend something like "pouring information
> into heads", and I challenge anyone to point at teachers who do only
> that.


Well said, Bastien

> people learn by actively constructing new knowledge,
> rather than having information "poured" into their heads

I would add that the other end of the statement is also a simplistic
caricature,  pure discovery learning on the one  hand,  versus, pure
instructionism at the other end.

Neither is going to work and no teacher does either once they encounter real
world children

(snip)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20080817/d8d6d6bb/attachment.htm