Constructivism in Practice

This week’ learning steered us in the direction of the “constructivist/constructionist theories.  These two are viewed as the same theory by some while others say that they are totally different.  I have come to understand that Constructionism is an extension of constructivism.  We primarily hear about Seymour Papert’s influence coming mainly from Jean Piaget’s work, however, his work was also influenced by John Dewey and Maria Montessori (Thurmond, 1999).  I found this to be enlightening because I am fond of Maria Montessori and her work.

With regards to both theories, they support the idea that in-taking knowledge is more than a passive activity wherein the learner simply receives knowledge as a result of simply hearing it.  These theories argue that knowledge is attentively built in the mind of the learner.  Even further, this construction is based in the understanding that the mind must experience a sense of disequilibration - encountering something we don’t know (Laureate, 2010).  According to Dr. Orey’s explanation of Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory, when this experience occurs the mind will strive to regain balance or “equilibration” using a process of assimilation or accommodation.  Dr. Orey discussed how Seymour Papert extended this theory to explain that while a learner is experiencing one or both of these processes during learning they use the construction of artifacts to complete the learning process by reestablishing equilibration (Laureate, 2010).  In essence, learner proves that they have internalized the knowledge, i.e. “learned it” by constructing a product.  This product or artifact is more than merely an articulation of what was learned but requires learners to use a combination of complex learning skills, collaboration with others to create a visual product, and preceding a presentation of the artifact they reflect of their learning experience. 

Project based learning (PBL), learning by design (LBD), and generating and testing hypotheses were three of the instructional strategies presented in this week’s resources.  These three strategies exemplify the are the essence of constructionist/constructivist learning where students will create an artifact as part of the learning outcome based on an authentic and real life experience (Orey, 2001).  In line with constructionist thinking, they all focus on the learner and the active learning that they are responsible for obtaining.  Likewise, collaboration is also a common component of the three however in LBD it is an optional.  Unlike LBD, PBL and generating and testing hypotheses are not audience driven.  In all strategies, the teacher must engage in careful planning and preparing for the learning and they all must have a clearly established objective and learning outcome at the onset.  Lastly, these instructional strategies encompass presentation of the learning using the artifact and reflective discussion that may lead to revision and further development of the learner’s ideas (Orey, 2001). 

In conclusion, constructionist/constructivist learning is worth an educator gaining a comprehensive understanding.  Students are often more engaged and motivated during these meaningful type learning experiences and participates in active learning.  More ever, the teacher is able to take on a facilitative role and can appreciate observing growth and development in the “joy of learning” for his or her students.

Work cited:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Program Seven. Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page.

Thurmond, M. (1999). Constructivism and constructionism.  Retrieved from http://online.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/annmariethurmond/home.html