Running Head: PAPERT's CONSTRUCTIONISM 1 Papert's

Running Head: PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 1 Papert’s Constructionism Adrian S. MacDonald October 6, 2018 Purdue University EDCI-513 PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 2 Abstract As a learning theory, constructionism has often been confused with the more widely known constructivism. Though it is more obscure, the learning theory of constructionism, originally developed by Seymour Papert, is an idea over fifty years in the making. As an introduction to Papert’s constructionism, this paper aims to provide a curated, brief review of the academic literature on the subject. The selected articles and publications reviewed include those seminal works by Papert and his contemporaries, and best provide a fundamental understanding of constructionism in a more complete and accurate way than the cursory “learning by making” definition. The review concludes by highlighting publications that best illustrate the continued value and success of the constructionist approach as it evolves in tandem with new and more accessible technologies. Keywords: Papert, constructionism, maker movement, fablab, constructivism PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 3 An Introduction to Papert’s Constructionism Seymour Papert (1928-2016) was an American educator, computer scientist, and mathematician who spent the majority of his career researching and lecturing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the Artificial Intelligence Lab (1960’s-1980’s) and the Media Lab (1985-2000) (Stager, 2016). He is a widely celebrated pioneer of artificial intelligence, as well as a champion of the cause of using computers and coding in the K-12 classroom. Papert was a long-time student and collaborator of renowned learning theorist Jean Piaget, and Papert was profoundly influenced by Piaget’s work in the learning theory of constructivism (Goldberg, 1991). Papert’s theory of constructionism can be understood as an expansion of and building upon the foundations of constructivism (Stager, 2016). Defining Constructionism Constructionism is often most succinctly defined, by academics and educators alike, as simply “learning by making.” Though a review of Papert’s writing, and of the literature by those influenced by his work on the theory reveals constructionism to be a far more complex and nuanced approach than the simple “learning by making” formulary suggests (Ackermann, 2001). The following literature review aims to provide those who are new to constructionism with an overview of the history and development of the theory and its influence, as well as an in-depth explanation of the nuanced aspects of constructionism which set it apart from constructivism. PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 4 Papert (1991) describes the meaning and depth of constructionist theory as: My little play on the words construct and constructionism already hints at two of these multiple facets--one seemingly "serious" and one seemingly "playful." The serious facet will be familiar to psychologists as a tenet of the kindred, but less specific, family of psychological theories that call themselves constructivist. Constructionism--the N word as opposed to the V word--shares constructivism's connotation of learning as "building knowledge structures" irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe (p 1-2). In Papert’s attempt to define his theory, he also acknowledges the irony inherent in attempting to define constructionism. Because the premise of constructionist theory is that learners “construct” their own understandings and knowledge based on their experiences, it follows that constructionism stipulates that anything understood, must be constructed, not simply defined (Papert, 1991). Like any other “knowledge construct,” the constructionist theory is not static, and continues to evolve in concert with socio-cultural and technological influences. Constructionism vs. Instructionism Papert (1991) also contends that it is less useful to examine learning theories for their “correctness,” or to suggest that the constructionist approach is superior to other learning theories, but instead that a discussion of the theory is most useful when examined as an alternative to instruction: PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 5 Now one can make two kinds of scientific claim for constructionism. The weak claim is that it suits some people better than other modes of learning currently being used. The strong claim is that it is better for everyone than the prevalent "instructionist" modes practiced in schools. A variant of the strong claim is that this is the only framework that has been proposed that allows the full range of intellectual styles and preferences to each find a point of equilibrium (p 2). Papert’s constructionist approach is antithetical to the pervasive instructionist notion that the route to better learning is better instruction. While constructionism doesn’t totally dismiss the value of instruction, the goal of constructionist philosophy is highly pragmatic: produce the most learning with the least teaching (Papert, 1993). These goals are achieved not simply by reducing the amount of instruction without changing any other dynamic of the learning experience, but by also shifting the role of the intstructor from the dissemination of information to the provider of moral, emotional, material, and intellectual supporter of the student (Papert, 1993). Finally, Papert asserts that while the difference in educational approaches of constructionism vs. instructionism may be superficially viewed as a strategic one, it is more useful to recognize the difference as an epistemological one. Papert situates constructionism among those philosophical ideas which touch on the nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing rather than the transmission of information (Papert, 1991). Papert (1993) makes use of the time-worn African proverb to illustrate his argument: If a man is hungry you can give him a fish, but it is better to give him a line and teach him to catch fish himself. Traditional education codifies what it thinks citizens need to know and sets out to feed children this "fish." Constructionism is built on the assumption that children will do best by finding ("fishing") for themselves the specific PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 6 knowledge they need; organized or informal education can help most by making sure they are supported morally, psychologically, materially, and intellectually in their efforts. The kind of knowledge children most need is the knowledge that will help them get more knowledge (p. 139). Constructionism vs. Constructivism Ackermann (2001) provides readers with an elegant framework for comparing and contrasting Papert’s constructionism with Jean Piaget’s preceding theory of constructivism in a way that allows for an integrated understanding of both theories. Ackerman points out that both Piaget and Papert were constructivists, in that each believed learners to be the creators of their own knowledge, cognitive tools, and external realities. Additionally, Ackermann notes that both Piaget and Papert were also developmentalists, who believed knowledge construction was an incremental, developmental process. For Ackermann, the crucial difference between Piaget and Papert is in the approach, with Piaget mainly interested in a learner’s construction of internal stability, and Papert interested in the dynamics of change in the learner (Ackermann, 2001). Ackermann (2001) highlights the differences in the ways the two theorists define and describe the learner or child doing the constructing. Each theorist’s child/learner is his own idealized version, in congruence with his own personal styles and research objectives. Piaget’s learner is one that is solitary and driven by a need to impose order over an ever-changing external environment. The goals and objectives of Piaget’s learner are to gain stability by distancing oneself, in order to construct maps, models and tools that will allow him or her to better control their experiences and their environment. This is in contrast with Papert’s idealized learner/child, who instead seeks to commune with the people, places and things of their world in PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 7 order to integrate and relate to it, preferring engagement and immersion in their experiences rather than distance or domain over them (Ackermann, 2001). Constructionism in Practice One of the most enduring and widely known examples of the application of constructionist theory in practice is Papert’s pioneering work with children and computers in the k-12 classroom. This legacy began in the 1970’s at MIT, when Papert recognized a lack of research with children at the institution. The coinciding introduction of the first personal computers to the public catalyzed Papert’s lifelong dedication to the goal of making computers accessible to children (Goldberg, 1991). The fundamental premise of Papert’s legacy is that computers can help learners change how they think about and process information in their world, by being used as a tool to facilitate understanding. The vehicle for computational learning that Papert introduces in this endeavor is the LOGO programming language. By teaching even very young students this rudimentary computational language, computing becomes accessible, helping learners to remove cultural biases and attitudes towards education that have become obstacles to learning and understanding (Higginson,

Load more