{"id":420,"date":"2018-10-16T11:10:14","date_gmt":"2018-10-16T18:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/?p=420"},"modified":"2018-10-16T11:10:14","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T18:10:14","slug":"assignment-2-part-2-seymour-papert-construct-create-connect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/assignment-2-part-2-seymour-papert-construct-create-connect\/","title":{"rendered":"Assignment #2, Part 2 – Seymour Papert: Construct, Create, Connect"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Could Constructionism serve to help reconceptualize education and support teachers to become change agents themselves? Photo Credit to Pixabay user Design_Miss_C (CC0)<\/p><\/div>\n

My synthesis of five articles surrounding Constructionism is complete, but my inquiry into this theory has just begun.<\/p>\n

As a follow-up to my previous posting<\/a>, please find my synthesis below. Comments, as always, are welcome.<\/p>\n

Construct, Create, Connect: Rethinking Seymour\u00a0Papert’s\u00a0Vision for Use in a New Digital Era\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The articles in this paper suggest that examining Piaget\u2019s Constructivism and\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0adjunct 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.<\/p>\n

Piaget<\/b>,<\/b>\u00a0<\/b>Papert<\/b>, and\u00a0<\/b>Progress<\/b><\/p>\n

A Tale o<\/b>f<\/b>\u00a0Two Theories<\/b><\/p>\n

Ackermann described Piaget\u2019s 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).\u00a0Ackermann 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\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0Constructionism, Ackermann described a child\u2019s external interactions with their environment and the creation of objects to think with as being vital to the process of learning (2001). The author\u00a0offered\u00a0that 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).<\/p>\n

Ackermann\u2019s\u00a0article, 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\u2019s article would have benefitted from some real-world examples of how both theorists\u2019 views could be utilized as supportive pedagogies for education strategies. Ackermann\u2019s theoretical considerations resonate through the articles of Willis and Tucker (2001), Halverson and Smith (2009) and\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0(2013) as they collectively call for modern\u00a0education\u00a0methods\u00a0to support learner development.<\/p>\n

From the inside, out<\/b><\/p>\n

Ackermann postulated that integrating both theorists\u2019 perspectives\u00a0in education would promote higher-order thinking, empowering deeper reflection and learner understanding. Willis and Tucker (2001) and\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0(2013) agreed\u00a0that 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\u00a0Tsybulsky\u00a0describe as an increasingly digital human culture (2017). It is interesting to note the 16-year gap between these articles,\u00a0likely\u00a0reflecting sluggish progress in education design compared to rapid culture change.<\/p>\n

Liberating<\/b>\u00a0Learners<\/b><\/p>\n

Ackermann argued that a movement from Piaget\u2019s Constructivism to\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0Constructionism helps to re-think education, imagine new environments,\u00a0and 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 \u2018Instructionism\u2019, where technology is simply a method of transporting passive knowledge for absorption by the learners (2009). Halverson and Smith\u00a0claim\u00a0that technology use has flourished in the field of education contrary to\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0intentions, 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\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0vision 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

Educators unite<\/b><\/p>\n

Foundational digital literacy<\/b><\/p>\n

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\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0(2013) in a push for educators to embrace technology and subsequently empower learners.\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0cited 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 \u201c…signal the mainstream acceptance of\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0once controversial vision\u201d (2013, p. 3).<\/p>\n

Reality Bytes<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Levin and\u00a0Tsybulsky\u00a0(2017) argued that the human worldview in our new digital era includes a shift in self-perception and democracy with Halverson and Smith (2009)\u00a0offering that\u00a0this\u00a0shift\u00a0could\u00a0change\u00a0relationships between students and teachers. These thoughts echo\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0vision of the personal computer being able to change human consciousness. Levin and\u00a0Tsybulsky\u2019s\u00a0article assumed that\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0approach underlies our current worldview and the article presents as very theoretical and almost dystopian (2017).\u00a0Levin and\u00a0Tsybulsky\u00a0(2017) stated that most \u201c…educators definitely recognize the Constructionist ideas as a fundamental component of education in contemporary society\u201d (p. 2465) but then fail to cite references to support the statement.\u00a0The authors offer that the effects of Constructionism on children\u2019s worldview have not been studied, and their article attempted to fill this gap (2017).<\/p>\n

Constructionist\u00a0<\/b>Theory + Design = Making<\/b><\/p>\n

Willis and Tucker\u00a0argued that the benefit of\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0theory 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).\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0highlights the progress made in the simplification of programming, offering that perhaps the next movement was in fabrication or making (2013).\u00a0Blikstein\u00a0presented a solid case for shifting engineering\u2013type 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.\u00a0According to Resnick, the creation of personally meaningful projects helps to encourage creative, design thinking and making which, in turn, facilitates deeper learning\u00a0(as cited in Willis & Tucker, 2001).\u00a0Although\u00a0Blikstein\u2019s\u00a0article supports fabrication specifically, he reminds us that\u00a0Papert\u00a0would highlight the ability of technology to allow personal expression, interaction and make powerful ideas accessible to children (2013).<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0Papert\u2019s\u00a0Constructionism 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.\u00a0Constructionism 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 \u2018objects\u2019 and help children establish and reflect on self-concept.<\/p>\n

\n

References<\/p>\n

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget\u2019s constructivism, Papert\u2019s\u00a0Constructionism: What\u2019s the difference.\u00a0Future of learning group publication<\/i>,\u00a05<\/i>(3), 438.<\/p>\n

Blikstein, P. (2013).\u00a0Digital fabrication and \u2018making\u2019 in education: The democratization of invention.\u00a0In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. B\u00fcching, (Eds.)\u00a0\u00a0FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors<\/i>.\u00a0<\/i>Bielefeld: DE. Transcript Publishers. pp.\u00a01-21.<\/p>\n

Halverson, R.,\u00a0&\u00a0Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools.\u00a0Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 26<\/i>(2), 49-54.<\/p>\n

Levin, I.,\u00a0&\u00a0Tsybulsky, D. (2017). The Constructionist\u00a0learning\u00a0approach in the\u00a0digital\u00a0age.\u00a0Creative Education<\/i>. 8, 2463-2475.<\/p>\n

Willis, E., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using Constructionism to\u00a0teach Constructivism.\u00a0Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 17<\/i>(2), 4-7.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u00a0Papert’s\u00a0Vision for Use in a New Digital Era\u00a0 The articles in this paper suggest that examining […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":111,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,1],"tags":[60,62,61,38,63,56],"class_list":["post-420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lrnt523","category-uncategorized","tag-constructionism","tag-fablabs","tag-jean-piaget","tag-learning-and-technology","tag-makerspace","tag-seymour-papert"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/111"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=420"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":425,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions\/425"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0066\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}