Could Constructionism serve to help reconceptualize education and support teachers to become change agents themselves? Photo Credit to Pixabay user Design_Miss_C (CC0)
My synthesis of five articles surrounding Constructionism is complete, but my inquiry into this theory has just begun.
As a follow-up to my previous posting, please find my synthesis below. Comments, as always, are welcome.
Construct, Create, Connect: Rethinking Seymour Papert’s Vision for Use in a New Digital Era
The articles in this paper suggest that examining Piaget’s Constructivism and Papert’s adjunct Constructionism may be beneficial in determining whether the two theories can support a reconceptualization of modern education in a new digital era (Ackermann, 2001). The authors cited believe that educators can utilize Constructionist theory to better support their learners and become educational change agents themselves (Willis & Tucker, 2001; Halverson & Smith, 2009). Five articles that consider these ideas will be analyzed with speculation on how they believe Constructionist theory can support young learners to survive and thrive in a new digital era.
Piaget, Papert, and Progress
A Tale of Two Theories
Ackermann described Piaget’s Constructivist theory as the creation of internalized mental concepts that children develop at different ages and stages of their development; subsequently interpreting those concepts according to their previous experiences (2001). Ackermann argued that Piaget believed communication channels or media were important as children interact with the world and explore how new knowledge contrasts with their current views (2001). Through Papert’s Constructionism, Ackermann described a child’s external interactions with their environment and the creation of objects to think with as being vital to the process of learning (2001). The author offered that learners thrive with self-direction and share their constructed ideas with the world to solidify their learning, project inner emotions and create discourse (Ackermann, 2001).
Ackermann’s article, although written in an expository style, includes some interpretation of the theorists’ views with minimal references to support her thoughts; however, there is value in the logic of her perspective. Ackermann’s article would have benefitted from some real-world examples of how both theorists’ views could be utilized as supportive pedagogies for education strategies. Ackermann’s theoretical considerations resonate through the articles of Willis and Tucker (2001), Halverson and Smith (2009) and Blikstein (2013) as they collectively call for modern education methods to support learner development.
From the inside, out
Ackermann postulated that integrating both theorists’ perspectives in education would promote higher-order thinking, empowering deeper reflection and learner understanding. Willis and Tucker (2001) and Blikstein (2013) agreed that these are necessary skills to support children to be more critical when they interact with the world around them (2001). Ackermann (2001) and Willis and Tucker (2001) described adaptive intelligence as a necessary pedagogical consideration in a world that exposes children to rapid technological changes in what Levin and Tsybulsky describe as an increasingly digital human culture (2017). It is interesting to note the 16-year gap between these articles, likely reflecting sluggish progress in education design compared to rapid culture change.
Liberating Learners
Ackermann argued that a movement from Piaget’s Constructivism to Papert’s Constructionism helps to re-think education, imagine new environments, and place new tools in the hands of children to support their learning and understanding of the world around them. According to Halverson and Smith, Constructionism contrasts the resilient institutional views of ‘Instructionism’, where technology is simply a method of transporting passive knowledge for absorption by the learners (2009). Halverson and Smith claim that technology use has flourished in the field of education contrary to Papert’s intentions, with data analytics driving standardized testing and increasing teachers’ accountability in the U.S. school system (2009). Halverson and Smith posit consequences of increasingly structured, goal-driven and inflexible classroom environments, which are in direct opposition to Papert’s vision for a liberated curriculum (2009). Both Ackermann (2001) and Halverson and Smith (2009) agreed that new methods of education require an empowered, self-directed learner. Unfortunately, Halverson and Smith did not offer any suggestions for moving ahead to increase learner-driven classroom techniques in school systems, nor do they offer any theoretical frameworks other than Constructionism to be used in the development of future classroom pedagogies in consideration of an educational culture weighted in data-driven policy.
Educators unite
Foundational digital literacy
In order to support digital literacy competencies in the future, educators will need to model the use of technology for their learners; however, Willis and Tucker argued that this would require educators to embrace technology first (2001). Willis and Tucker stated that although schools typically reflect current culture, technological changes in the educational systems have not kept pace (2001). 17 years ago, Willis and Tucker described the educational system as self-replicating, with old ways of teaching propagating through generations. The authors are joined by Halverson and Smith (2009) and Blikstein (2013) in a push for educators to embrace technology and subsequently empower learners. Blikstein cited reports from the National Research Council in both 1999 and 2002 that support a movement toward society becoming more digitally literate or fluent, and he stated that these reports “…signal the mainstream acceptance of Papert’s once controversial vision” (2013, p. 3).
Reality Bytes
Levin and Tsybulsky (2017) argued that the human worldview in our new digital era includes a shift in self-perception and democracy with Halverson and Smith (2009) offering that this shift could change relationships between students and teachers. These thoughts echo Papert’s vision of the personal computer being able to change human consciousness. Levin and Tsybulsky’s article assumed that Papert’s approach underlies our current worldview and the article presents as very theoretical and almost dystopian (2017). Levin and Tsybulsky (2017) stated that most “…educators definitely recognize the Constructionist ideas as a fundamental component of education in contemporary society” (p. 2465) but then fail to cite references to support the statement. The authors offer that the effects of Constructionism on children’s worldview have not been studied, and their article attempted to fill this gap (2017).
Constructionist Theory + Design = Making
Willis and Tucker argued that the benefit of Papert’s theory lies in the concern for both the educational process as well as the end-product; maintaining that object construction is as meaningful as the process used to create it (2001). Blikstein highlights the progress made in the simplification of programming, offering that perhaps the next movement was in fabrication or making (2013). Blikstein presented a solid case for shifting engineering–type spaces back into K-12 schools within the U.S. school system to provide spaces to build and share creations under the Constructionist lens; however, he presented only four scenarios from his own experience without offering other evidence of fabrication program use in schools. According to Resnick, the creation of personally meaningful projects helps to encourage creative, design thinking and making which, in turn, facilitates deeper learning (as cited in Willis & Tucker, 2001). Although Blikstein’s article supports fabrication specifically, he reminds us that Papert would highlight the ability of technology to allow personal expression, interaction and make powerful ideas accessible to children (2013).
Conclusion
Papert’s Constructionism is given some weight by these authors to support its effectiveness as a critical pedagogy for the maker movement and to propel innovative, design thinking. Constructionism could support an educational culture of increased digital literacy and innovation in a new digital era; however, the theory should undergo further consideration in this light and would require adoption by both new and existing educators. There is some agreement between the authors of all five articles discussed that supportive pedagogies for a new digital era must support critical thinking skills, the creation of learning ‘objects’ and help children establish and reflect on self-concept.
References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching, (Eds.) FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: DE. Transcript Publishers. pp. 1-21.
Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 26(2), 49-54.
Levin, I., & Tsybulsky, D. (2017). The Constructionist learning approach in the digital age. Creative Education. 8, 2463-2475.
Willis, E., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using Constructionism to teach Constructivism. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 17(2), 4-7.