[IAEP] constructionist challenge

[Bill Kerr]

Papert:

"It is easy enough to formulate simple catchy versions of the idea of
constructionism; for example, thinking of it as "learning-by-making." One
purpose of this introductory chapter is to orient the reader toward using
the diversity in the volume to elaborate--to construct--a sense of
constructionism much richer and more multifaceted, and very much deeper in
its implications, than could be conveyed by any such formula.

My little play on the words construct and constructionism already hints at
two of these multiple facets--one seemingly "serious" and one seemingly
"playful." The serious facet will be familiar to psychologists as a tenet of
the kindred, but less specific, family of psychological theories that call
themselves contructivist. Constructionism--the N word as opposed to the V
word--shares constructivism's connotation of learning as "building knowledge
structures" irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds
the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the
learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's
a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe. And this in turn
implies a ramified research program which is the real subject of this
introduction and of the volume itself. But in saying all this I must be
careful not to transgress the basic tenet shared by the V and the N forms:
If one eschews pipeline models of transmitting knowledge in talking among
ourselves as well as in theorizing about classrooms, then one must expect
that I will not be able to tell you my idea of constructionism. Doing so is
bound to trivialize it. Instead, I must confine myself to engage you in
experiences (including verbal ones) liable to encourage your own personal
construction of something in some sense like it. Only in this way will there
be something rich enough in your mind to be worth talking about. But if I am
being really serious about this, I have to ask (and this will quickly lead
us into really deep psychological and epistemological waters) what reasons I
have to suppose that you will be willing to do this and that if you did
construct your own constructionism that it would have any resemblance to
mine?
I find an interesting toe-hold for the problem in which I called the playful
facet--the element of tease inherent in the idea that it would be
particularly oxymoronic to convey the idea of constructionism through a
definition since, after all, constructionism boils down to demanding that
everything be understood by being constructed. The joke is relevant to the
problem, for the more we share the less improbable it is that our
self-constructed constructions should converge ..."
- Situating Constructionism
http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can see different ways of approaching the problem of coming to grips with
> constructionism:
>
> a) try to define it in words -> this is tricky because if we learn by
> making and doing (part of the definition but not sufficient) then is
> thinking and writing words down a sufficiently insightful means of making
> and doing (it might be part of the solution but some more strategic making
> might also be required, eg. making using etoys in a partly guided project
> about exploring falling objects is different from making by reading,
> thinking and writing - not necessarily better but different)
>
> I can see the argument that *defining* constructionism is not sufficient -
> that making is different from defining
>
> b) talk about projects and learning without using the actual C_ word (alan
> kay, Yoshiki Ohshima)
>
> c) acknowledge that C__ is useful but there are other useful ways of
> learning as well (eg. spoonfeeding, some parts of training dogs)
>
> I've been reading Marvin Minsky's *The Emotion Machine*. It's available on
> line at his mit site.
> http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ <http://web.media.mit.edu/%7Eminsky/>
>
> He says that many words used in learning are suitcase words - that they are
> not very useful because they have multiple meanings eg. he argues that
> "consciousness" is a suitcase word (Ch 4)
>
> I'm thinking that constructionism has become a suitcase word - nevertheless
> I don't really believe that we can do without such words or at least talking
> about the place of such words
>
> I think all of the above approaches have value (a, b and c)
>
> btw I can't see the word "constructionism" in the index of Minsky's book
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Bill Kerr <billkerr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Edward Cherlin's challenge:
>>
>> "I defy anybody to write down a definition of Constructionism or
>> Constructivism that the others here will agree with"
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/attachments/20080523/83603706/attachment.htm>