{"id":435,"date":"2019-10-13T16:52:58","date_gmt":"2019-10-13T20:52:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/?p=435"},"modified":"2020-02-16T20:52:01","modified_gmt":"2020-02-17T01:52:01","slug":"one-of-many-legacies-of-seymour-papert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/one-of-many-legacies-of-seymour-papert\/","title":{"rendered":"One of Many Legacies of Seymour Papert: Educational Technology Supercharges the Power of Constructionism and Discovery Learning"},"content":{"rendered":"

Out of South Africa, and into classrooms and minds around the world, Seymour Papert was a pioneer in developing and advocating for educational technology –even 1:1 devices in elementary schools, as early as the 1980s (Islam & Gr\u00f6nlund, 2016). Papert was a political activist, mathematician, computer theorist, and pioneer of Artificial Intelligence (AI). He also worked with Piaget as he developed the constructivist learning theory, which Papert later developed into his constructionist<\/em> learning theory. From the perspective of an educator, Papert\u2019s legacy was that of a monumental leader in demonstrating how computers can supercharge learning and are an essential element in the future of education. He spent years demonstrating this by sharing: how learning is augmented by technology; constructionism and “discovery learning” are compelling theories of learning; computers do not change education, but rather how we use them does; and that there are many obstacles to change in education that we need to overcome locally and globally. Through his work with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and students in the United States, Papert demonstrated that technology amplified learning in unprecedented ways.<\/p>\n

Learning is Augmented by Technology<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the 1960s, Papert posited that learning is enhanced \u2013 even supercharged \u2013 by technology, and he advocated for 1:1 student to device access in the United States. He argued that the focus needed to be on how learning is affected or changed by technology in the classroom, not the technology itself. Papert stated that the fundamental differences or “cleavage between theories of education [is]: empowerment of the individual versus instruction and being taught\u201d (Papert, 1990, para. 16). He argued that issues that face different societies about how to use computers in education reflect deeper issues of educational theory and philosophy (Papert, 1990). He sought ways to make students creators versus consumers, something that many cultures are still not prepared for, even though technology provides tools and methods to more readily do so than ever before.<\/p>\n

Students learning to program computers in the 1960s was revolutionary. Papert was an instrumental part of creating and implementing Logo programming language for children, as well as a partnership with Lego and Logo on a robotics initiative. O’Shea (1997) argued that there were developmental limits to the learnability of particular Logo programming constructs, expressing skepticism about the transfer of knowledge created in the MIT setting, versus that of the reality of many school settings (p. 403). O\u2019Shea argued against the practicality of the “educational possibilities” espoused by Papert in Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas<\/em> (1980) and The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer <\/em>(1993), in terms of helping the whole class learn particular dialects and skills promoted by Logo. Some writers and educators argued that Logo had a more successful public image than practical impact, and attributed this to Papert’s widely read, clearly articulated and inspiring ideas (O\u2019Shea, 1997, p.406).<\/p>\n

Constructionism and Discovery Learning<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two of Papert\u2019s most inspiring ideas were his learning theory of constructionism and “discovery learning,” influential theories of education and learning that were highlighted through technology-based projects such as Logo for Lego. He argued for what so many educators could not argue against: that students will engage in much more profound and committed levels with projects that they \u201clove.\u201d Some critics argued that Papert was idealistic in the advice he espoused to parents based on his constructivist and constructionist learning theories in books such as The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap <\/em>(1996). Hulbert (1997) argued that the reality of classrooms and homelife for students of different ages is different than what Papert had imagined. Hulbert (1997) argued that Papert was not in touch with the time-constraints of “overburdened” (p. 40) teachers and parents. She argued that much of the “trial and error” that was the basis of Papert’s \u201cdiscovery-based learning\u201d was not suited to the patience and time-constraints of most students, parents, and teachers (Hulbert, 1997). Many parents and educators viewed arguments for constructionist, authentic “discovery learning” as well-intentioned but unrealistic due to mounting curricular demands and teaching time. Papert (2000) argued that discovery learning had been disempowered when attempted in the classroom because “discovery” is orchestrated to happen on the pre-set agenda of the curriculum. Teachers, 50 years later, are still held accountable for assessment and reporting based on time-sensitive curricular demands, which is currently non-negotiable in many North American school settings. The question of when schools across North America will be ready to start to make monumental changes to technology’s place in the curriculum, as well as more skills versus content-based curricula that would make discovery learning more tenable, remains unanswered.<\/p>\n

Computers Do Not Change Education<\/strong><\/p>\n

Papert seemed paradoxical at times. His experiments demonstrated how his technology-based projects amplified learning for students. However, Papert also definitively examined the challenges with technocentrism in schools and highlighted the need to “rethink what learning is all about, to rethink education” (Papert, 1990). He examined what he saw as the inherent problems with focusing on the form of technology used in classrooms, versus the learning goals. He argued that issues that face different societies about how to use computers in education reflect deeper issues of educational theory and philosophy (Papert, 1990). In Papert\u2019s book The Children’s Machine (1994),<\/em> he wrote:<\/p>\n

“The context for human development is always a culture, never an isolated technology. In the presence of computers, cultures may change and with them people’s ways of learning and thinking. But if you want to understand (or influence) the change, you have to center your attention on the culture — not on the computer. (p. 23)” (in Koschmann, 1997)<\/p>\n

Learning from Papert\u2019s work, writers such as Koschmann (1997) explored the need to study cultures when trying to understand human development, learning and thinking<\/em>, instead of focusing on the current technology available. It was clear that computers do not change education. Nevertheless, it was also increasingly clear that education needed to change, computers needed to be a part of that change, and that there were many obstacles to change in education in North America.<\/p>\n

Obstacles to Change in Education<\/strong><\/p>\n

The myriad of obstacles that education systems in Canada and the United States have needed to overcome is constantly changing — it is the nature of education — to meet the needs of an ever-changing society. Never have obstacles to change in education and <\/em>the rate of change in expected skills and competencies, been as pressing and rapid, as during the last 50 years of the computer age. Papert (2000) examined the tendency for School to “deform ideas,” changing ideas and initiatives to use educational technology in ways to make them fit into a pre-existing pedagogical framework established long before the digital era. He examined what he referred to as the “disempowerment of ideas” and strategies to re-empower ideas that could improve education. Papert was ahead of his time. Many of his arguments, theories, and initiatives are currently at the forefront of transformational discussions and efforts to modernize educational systems around the world.<\/p>\n

Papert and many other people deeply invested in matters surrounding modernizing education in the 21st<\/sup> century have robust theories, findings, ideas, and criticisms to share. Most of Papert\u2019s supporters or critics do not provide concrete recommendations on how<\/em> to restructure education to meet students’ learning needs \u2013 to develop meaningful relationships between technology, creative spaces, and a social and cultural-practice approach to the use of educational technology. Papert worked with students in prison through his Maine Youth Centre Project from 1999-2002,<\/strong> yet many of his critics do not speak to the equity issues that have dominated education since its formal beginnings. The educational needs of marginalized communities, at home and abroad, often continue to be overlooked.<\/p>\n

Papert\u2019s legacy was that of a monumental leader in demonstrating how computers can supercharge learning and are an essential element in the future of education, especially for marginalized communities. We are here<\/em>, in the future that Papert was talking about, and as societies and as educators, are grappling with more than ever, how to fundamentally meet the learning needs of students in the 21st<\/sup> century. Papert spent years demonstrating how to meet these needs by sharing: how learning is augmented by technology; constructionism and \u201cdiscovery learning\u201d are powerful theories of education; computers do not change education, but rather how we use them does; and some of the many obstacles to change in education that we need to overcome. Now we need government and educational leaders to be willing to reimagine<\/em> and transform<\/em> education to make some of the foundational changes in this digital age of 2019 that Papert envisioned in constructive ways over the last 50 years.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Hulbert, A. (1997, November). Family values.com. The New Republic<\/em>, 217<\/em>(38).<\/p>\n

Islam, M.S., & Gr\u00f6nlund, A. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change,<\/em> 17<\/em>, 191-222. doi: 10.1007\/s10833-\u00a0 016-9271-y<\/p>\n

Koschmann , T. (1997) Logo-as-Latin redux. The Journal of the Learning Sciences<\/em>, 6<\/em>(4), 409- 415. doi: 10.1207\/s15327809jls0604_4<\/p>\n

Latzke, B. (2018). How would you transform your school? In Expanding learning frontiers: education needs to be different, not better. <\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.bradlatzke.com\/how-would-you-transform-school\/<\/a><\/p>\n

O’Shea, T. (1997). Mindstorms 2. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6<\/em>(4), 401-408. doi: 10.1207\/s15327809jls0604_4<\/p>\n

Papert, S. (1990). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the School of the future. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.papert.org\/articles\/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, <\/em>39<\/em>(3), 720-729.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Attribution<\/p>\n

Photo by\u00a0Kevin Jarrett<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Out of South Africa, and into classrooms and minds around the world, Seymour Papert was a pioneer in developing and advocating for educational technology –even 1:1 devices in elementary schools, as early as the 1980s (Islam & Gr\u00f6nlund, 2016). Papert… Continue Reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lrnt523"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/435","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=435"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/435\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":593,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/435\/revisions\/593"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0125\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}