<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bastien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bastienguerry@googlemail.com">bastienguerry@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Seth and all,<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
"Seth Woodworth" <<a href="mailto:seth@laptop.org">seth@laptop.org</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> Constructionism<br>
><br>
> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education.<br>
> Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is<br>
> grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge,<br>
> rather than having information "poured" into their heads. Moreover,<br>
> constructionism asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when<br>
> they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as<br>
> computer programs, animations, or robots).<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html" target="_blank">http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html</a><br>
><br>
> I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. I would<br>
> love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, just to give them<br>
> a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have a problem with this<br>
> deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement?<br>
<br>
</div>I don't have any problem with this definition, it captures the spirit of<br>
(what I understand from) constructionism.<br>
<br>
My only concern -- and this is a general concern with the usual rhetoric<br>
behind constructionism, not with this definition in particular -- is the<br>
way we too often refer to this image: "information poured into heads".<br>
<br>
While I think it might be useful to use such simplistic images, I also<br>
think it might give a false feeling of novelty: as if constructionism<br>
was the long awaited solution to save people from this stupid practice<br>
in education, the one of "pouring information into heads"...<br>
<br>
At least Plato argues that knowledge is not about pouring information<br>
into heads. Even Aristotle, who is more of an empiricist, wouldn't deny<br>
that _acquiring_ knowledge is about building new "forms" on the top of<br>
the ones we have, questioning the world with our own questions.<br>
<br>
Whether the knowledge is about grasping forms (or "patterns") that<br>
_really_ exist outside of the human mind, or building forms that only<br>
exist as mere abstractions, learning is seen as an interactive process<br>
and as an interactive process of construction. You could hardly find<br>
any philosopher who would defend something like "pouring information<br>
into heads", and I challenge anyone to point at teachers who do only<br>
that.</blockquote><div><br>Well said, Bastien<br><br>> people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, <br>> rather than having information "poured" into their heads<br><br>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.<br>
<br>Neither is going to work and no teacher does either once they encounter real world children<br><br>(snip)<br></div></div><br></div>