EDTECH 504 | Summer 2014 | Erica Fuhry

The Constructionist Learning Theory

OverviewConstructionism is a student-centered learning theory that highlights the importance of

active manipulation and problem-solving in a creative, open-ended arena. It is “learning-by-making” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). It values the creation of tangible or digital objects as part of a meaningful and authentic task. These “objects-to-think-with” (Ackermann, 2001, p.4) are tied to their thought process and, in turn, the learning process. Experience leads to understanding. This theory is rooted in constructivist epistemology, which asserts that individuals construct knowledge about the world through mental models shaped by assumptions and prior experience. Like constructivism, it promotes discovery-based learning whereby we refine our understanding by exploring choices and testing hypotheses in an iterative process. Contributors

Although many researchers have shaped and promoted constructionism over the past several decades, the primary contributor is Seymour Papert. Originally a mathematician, he worked under Jean Piaget and was influenced by his views on children’s learning. Combining developmental psychology, AI, and technology, Papert recommends the design of resource-rich toolkits and generative environments to promote activity-based learning. Mitchel Resnick extended Papert’s work to underscore collaboration, calling this “distributed constructionism”. With many people working jointly on a design and construction activity, knowledge is extended and distributed through shared ideas, theories, and experimental results (Resnick, 1996).Major Principles

Much of the contributors’ research focuses on digital technologies. They view computer networks as a new medium for construction instead of a mechanism of information distribution (Zaphiris et al., 2005). Through cybernetics activities, “certain concepts and ways of thinking presently regarded as far beyond children's ken [will] enter into what they know ‘spontaneously’” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.7). This natural, self-directed discovery increases motivation because students can see the usefulness of a skill or concept. “Learners invent for themselves the tools and mediations that best support the exploration of what they most care about” (Ackermann, 2001, p.4).

Since the learner must build his/her own cognitive tools, the role of the teacher is to guide rather than impart knowledge. Learning is a personal, progressive quest, not comprised of hard, objective facts. Papert values the dynamics of change and the “fragility, contextuality, and flexibility of knowledge under construction” (Ackermann, 2001, p.8). Knowledge is also meaningful when shared. Papert values public, external construction, encouraging artifacts to be exhibited, discussed, examined, proved, or admired. This might be a sand castle, a Lego city, or a computer program. Embedding construction activities within a community helps create knowledge convergence (Papert & Harel, 1991).Application

In his book Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1980), Papert believed math skills could be learned more naturally through the use of the programming language Logo. Working in this “math playground”, students use technology tools as cognitive tools to build and debug graphic programs with immediate visual feedback. Logo is an example of a microworld, which is a dynamic, interactive, real-world environment which features programmable objects for students to manipulate, study, and test. Microworlds, which also include Lego Mindstorms, Crickets, and MIT’s Scratch, are effective in that they encourage natural, qualitative understanding of complex systems and they deliberately reduce the distinction between learning science and doing science (Rieber, 2005). They are appropriate for young learners because they are easy to navigate, have interesting and valuable tasks, and include ready-to-explore features.

EDTECH 504 | Summer 2014 | Erica Fuhry

References

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438. Retrieved from http://wbi.lcu.edu.cn/ec2006/C383/xueyujiao/tzzl/Constructivism_Constructionism.pdf

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11. Retrieved from http://namodemello.com.br/pdf/tendencias/situatingconstrutivism.pdf

Resnick, M. (1996, July). Distributed constructionism. In Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on learning sciences (pp. 280-284). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/Distrib-Construc.html

Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 549-567. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819.034

Zaphiris, P., Laghos, A., & Zacharia, G. (2005). Distributed Construction through Participatory Design. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (pp. 902-906). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch158