[Its.an.education.project] untangling constructionism

[Bernie Innocenti]

Bill Kerr wrote:

> It can be important to know what words really mean and to use them 
> correctly. I think the word "constructionism" is being thrown around 
> carelessly at the moment. These trends should be avoided IMO:
> 
>     * that constructionism is the best or only good learning theory

Although I don't want to impose my own view of what is relevant to this
list, I think discussing the validity of constructionism is not on-topic.

If we are here, it's because we want to continue our educational effort
and Sugar in the way it was conceived.  And it was conceived by people
with strong belief in constructionism theories.


>     * that constructionism is just learning by doing and making

I think most people on this list recognize that "learn by doing" or
"learning learning" are gross oversimplifications to give a quick
definition to the press.

>     * that constructionism means much the same as freedom

It may not mean the same, but it can easily seen how each one is a
prerequisite of the other, and critical thought glues them together.

/Please/, let's not re-discuss constructionism and freedom in this list.
Sugar is an educational environment built around constructionism and it
also happens to be free software.  Let's take this assertion as a matter
of fact and discuss how it can be improved.

-- 
   \___/
  _| o |  Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \|_X_|  "It's an education project, not a laptop project!"