<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> Bill I agree that its risky to simplify down; and thumbnail definitions do oversimplify  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But I also think it must be possible/necessary, at some level, to do so<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Always having to say ‘no, its more subtle or sophisticated than that’ can risk appearing as if there is no definite content or position <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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 <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> ‘we can’t give a simple version’ seems a bit elusive to me<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> rob<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: iaep-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org [mailto:iaep-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org] On Behalf Of Bill Kerr Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2008 4:09 PM To: seth@laptop.org Cc: Education; Educators and OLPC; Grassroots OLPC Subject: Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the LearningTeam<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Seth Woodworth <<a href="mailto:seth@laptop.org">seth@laptop.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> <div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt; margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'> <div> <h3>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:<o:p></o:p></h3> <o:p> </o:p> <h3>Constructionism<o:p></o:p></h3> 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).<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html" target="_blank">http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -Seth<o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> <div> 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 -<o:p></o:p> <ul type=disc> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>a definition of mathematics<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>people possess different theories about the world<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>children build their own intellectual structures<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>why would they change their theories?<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>intuition<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>natural learning development<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>the role of computers<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>the role of relationship<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive compared with rule driven and formal)<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>discussion of turtle geometry<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>other mathematicians who hold similar views - Poincare, Brouwer, Godel)<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>value of an anthropomorphic approach<o:p></o:p></li> <li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>etc. (there is much more)<o:p></o:p></li> </ul> 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 <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Davis</st1:place></st1:City>: 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.  <o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> 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. </body> </html>