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, 2017). Papert suggests this is especially true for the way math and science are
taught, and that obstacles in teaching math and science are cultural, creating a fear of learning or
the view that science and math are not things that belong to or are accessible to learners in a
meaningful, personally relevant way (Papert, 1980). Papert suggests these cultural obstacles can
be overcome through learning programming, and by learning to think computationally. By
making computing accessible for personal learning, learners are better able to relate to the
subject matter and activity they are engaging in, because it becomes an experience personal to
them. LOGO achieves this object orientation with “the turtle.” The graphical interface of LOGO
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 8
features an image of a turtle as the visual locus of the programming activity, like a game piece on
a board. The turtle is an “object” of learning, allowing learners to connect what they are learning
to a more tangible concept (Abelson & DiSessa, 1981). This simple interface design choice
allows abstractions to be made concrete, so that a learner can more fully comprehend the
concepts. In the context of styles of learning, the LOGO programming language is intrinsically
playful, flexible, and allows a great degree of choice for the learner interacting with it in
computational space (Abelson & DiSessa, 1981). This highly differential approach is similar to
that used in calculus, but in LOGO is embodied, object-oriented, and concrete rather than
abstract and formal. Papert believes that this object-linked aspect is what allows the more
difficult or abstract skills, such as computer programming, to be successfully introduced and
assimilated by much younger learners (Papert, 1980).
Papert also acknowledged the negative concerns (of the time) about the use of computers
in the classroom, such as the potential use of computers to brainwash kids, or that kids will
isolate themselves by becoming overly engrossed with the computer worlds they interact with.
Papert addressed the concern by suggesting that computing is a primarily constructive, creative
activity that is not fundamentally different form how children naturally approach learning. In this
way, Papert viewed computing as an inherently positive extension of a learner’s innate cognitive
abilities (Papert, 1980).
In tandem with the introduction of LOGO in the classroom, Papert introduced another
crucial theoretical concept in the application of constructionism: Microworlds. Microworlds are
the Papertian term for a constrained system that includes interfaces for interaction and learning.
Papert proposed that the act of constructing and interacting with a microworld is analogous to the
internal cognitive processes of theorizing or constructing mental models. Papert illustrated this
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 9
further with his use of the metaphor of immersive language learning, stating that learners should
be able to learn math in a microworld, for example Mathland, in the same way a learner might
travel to Paris and immerse themselves in the culture and language of France to learn French
(Papert, 1980). Papert further argued that learning can also result from the building of “incorrect”
theories or microworlds, and that these transient versions are often crucial to the development of
newer, better theories. LOGO allows for this type of highly flexible, iterative and adaptive
experimentation, while simultaneously encouraging learners to think more flexibly about
theories as stepping stones, rather than right or wrong (Papert, 1980).
Since the introduction of LOGO in the 1970’s, many researchers and educators have
continued to develop Papert’s dream of making the computer accessible to children by building
on the foundation created with LOGO. Newer programming languages like Scratch (Resnick,
Maloney, Monroy-Henandez, Rusk, Eastmond, Brennan, Silverman, 2009) and NetLogo
(Wilensky, 1999), have achieved widespread popularity in schools, and exposed millions of
students to coding as a creative and approachable classroom activity (Blikstein, 2013). The
integration of robotics construction kits in the early 1990’s allowed for LOGO to be experienced
in the physical world as well as on the computer screen, as students used the programming
language to program the movements and behaviors of their self-designed robots. These
pioneering constructionist robotics programs resulted in a commercial partnership with the Lego
toy company, culminating in the development of their Mindstorms robotics kits, so named in
deference to Papert’s seminal book (Martin, 1994).
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 10
Constructionism: The Next Chapter
Digital Fabrication Labs, or Fablabs, extend the constructionist approach from computers
and mathematics to the disciplines of design and engineering. In the early 2000’s, the cost of
prototyping tools such as laser cutters, computer numerical controlled machines, 3D printers, and
other networked manufacturing tools and software programs rapidly dropped, sparking a
renewed interest in the studio model in educational contexts. Similar to the way LOGO made
mathematics and programming accessible to young learners in the 1980’s, FabLabs are now
being utilized in university design and engineering programs to give students direct experience
with advanced technologies through the rapid creation of artifacts and prototypes (Blikstein,
2013).
While digital FabLabs have been predominantly used in institutions of higher education,
the Maker Movement has extended the FabLab approach to constructionist learning
environments to the k-12 classroom and to informal community learning centers. The rapid
dissemination of constructionist principles into these community spaces and non-academic
environments has generated renewed interest in the research and development of the
constructionist model in primary education (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Halverson and
Sheridan (2014) broadly define the Maker Movement as a growing culture of people who engage
in the creation of artifacts, and then share those artifacts with others by participating in physical
and digital forums and other online and offline interactions. Additionally, the Maker Movement
also includes the community resource centers, or “Makerspaces,” that have opened in various
locations the world over in response to the growing interest in making as a community practice.
Like FabLabs, these makerspaces are community centers of learning that include tools and
materials for the construction of electronics, robotics, audio/visual installations, do-it-yourself
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 11
computers, 3D printers, and a variety of more traditional disciplines such as ceramics, metalwork
and welding, woodworking and textile arts. The culture includes anyone who identifies with the
ethos of making, with less emphasis given to the actual tools, or specific artifacts being made.
The Maker Movement is characterized by the democratization of technology and resources, with
access to inexpensive hardware, availability of digital fabrication tools such as 3-D printers,
shared software programs, blueprints, and design files (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014).
While the Maker Movement is often framed as novel, Papert began pioneering
constructionist learning in the 1970’s. The Maker movement can be viewed as the latest
incarnation of constructionist theory as it becomes more popular in informal, nonacademic,
environments, and in turn influences k-12 learning. Halverson and Sheridan consider Seymour
Papert to be the “father of the Maker Movement” with constructionism being the learning theory
that most closely aligns with the ethos and practices of the movement, sharing its focus on
project and problem-based learning, embodied, object-linked activities, and the shareable
artifacts that are produced in the process (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014).
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 12
Conclusion Constructionism has experienced both rejection and acclaim throughout its development
and application since it was first introduced as an educational concept in the 1960’s (Blikstein,
2013). The theory’s impact and continued value for our increasingly technological classrooms is
discussed and cited with greater frequency in academic literature, which suggests that
constructionism as a learning theory is poised for a renaissance in both research and practice.
The increasing presence and influence of FabLabs in higher education, and the burgeoning
application of Maker Movement philosophy in k-12 schools are evidence of Papert’s continuing
legacy.
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 13
References
Abelson, H., & DiSessa, A. (1981). Turtle Geometry: The Computer as a Medium for Exploring
Mathematics (MIT Press Series in Artificial Intelligence). Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the
Difference? In Constructivism: Uses and Perspectives in Education, (vol 1 & 2).
Conference Proceedings, Geneva: Research Center in Education / Cahier 8 / September
01. PP 29.
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 (pp 2-21). Bielfeld: Transcript Publishers.
Goldberg, M. (1991). Portrait of Seymour Papert. Educational Leadership, Vol.48(7), p.68-70.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in education. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.
Higginson, W. (2017). From Children Programming to Kids Coding: Reflections on the Legacy
of Seymour Papert and Half a Century of Digital Mathematics Education. Digital
Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 71-76.
Martin, F., & Ackermann, Edith. (1994). Circuits to Control: Learning Engineering by
Designing Lego Robots, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New
York: Basic Books.
PAPERT’S CONSTRUCTIONISM 14
Papert, Seymour. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism
(pp. 4-18). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., . . .
Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11),
60-67.
Stager, G. (2016). Seymour Papert (1928-2016). Nature, Vol.537(7620), p.308.
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-
Based Modeling. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo Retrieved from
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo