Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Seth Woodworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori > Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC > Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few > other topics. Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's > Future of Learning Group: This discussion seems mainly about bikeshedding, but my XS build is... well building while I watch... so I may as well throw this in which comes from a project actively and successfully used by teachers in real life classrooms and remotely taught courses http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy Constructionism is not the only tool, and anyone advocating any single tool as the only tool is... well, lost. Frankly I'm not keen on theorising too much about this. I would go as far as suggesting "be a volunteer teacher in the weekends" as a cure (I coach kids sailing in the summer). *We have to provide a set of quality tools that can be used by teachers with various backgrounds, teaching strategies and styles.* That's the mission, the rest is posturing. You'll observe that while moodle's architect is a firm believer in constructionism, moodle is incredibly flexible and can do a ton of things that are not in line with constructionism. So I'm more interested in our own theory of "how do we make this useful for teaching?" -- yes, there will be things that we're more eager to do. Things that will be easier to do - networked computers do lend themselves more to constructivist approaches. We're here to help -- not to dictate. m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
Edward Cherlin writes: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Albert Cahalan > wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin >> wrote: >>> What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for >> >> I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides. >> http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html > > Oh, that nonsense. Carol Lerche dissected your post quite well. > "Burning straw men", she said. Not. One of the 3 links did indeed mention the whole-language crap. (not that it doesn't seem to match up perfectly with these ideas) Carol's reference to "the article" suggests that she read only one. The study is indeed a bit old, and it does focus on the younger crowd. I don't believe either issue is significant. Humans are humans. There is an unjustified, and even proven wrong, suspicion that there could be some problem with self esteem. First of all, that isn't the point of a math program. Second of all, it has been shown that real acheivement in a real math program is better for self esteem. That is even mentioned in the links I provided, proving that they were not read. There is an unjustified, and even proven wrong, suspicion that higher-order thinking may be lacking. Project Follow Through covered this. In numerous complaints against the crummy math programs, mathemeticians have pointed out that higher-order thinking will not come easily to students who can not quickly manipulate numbers. That said, I doubt that it is reasonable to solidly prove anything about something as ill-defined as higher-order thinking; I think I'll trust the many mathemeticians who have commented on the matter. > Project Follow Through did not investigate _Constructionism_, and the > report does not lead to the conclusion you draw. The actual conclusion > was that woolly-minded "systems" based on Dewey and on Piaget's > _Constructivism_, with no tested lesson plans, failed abysmally, and > that the one "system" that did include tested lesson plans was usable, > and thus the winner of _that competition_. To conclude from this study > that no other method is viable is one of the most woolly-minded > notions possible. Until you find a few $billion to redo the study with your favorite methods, we can conclude that no other method is proven to be viable. Meanwhile, it is only right to use the best proven method. > Now we in the Sugar community propose to think through and test a set > of lesson plans on both discovery and mastery (which would include > those basic skills you are pressing for). No woolly-mindedness > allowed. No wonder the terms are such a mess. When shown dismal failure, you redefine them. Trying to get a grip on this stuff is like trying to get a good solid grip on Jello. >> That sounds like a Math Appreciation course. > > I suppose they _all_ sound like Math Appreciation, to *you*. It is > actually quite difficult to get college students who have been taught > how to calculate using numerical representations of vectors to grasp > that a vector is not any of its numerical representations. It exists > prior to the choice of an orthonormal basis for calculating > components. We call those students Art History majors. We could teach them Math Appreciation, but that won't turn them into engineers. >> It's a lot >> like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you >> don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music. >> Superficial understanding is not of great value. > > Among the greatest virtues of both Math and Music is that they deal > with mastery and performance, which cannot be faked. Unlike, say, > Literature or History. Or Music Criticism, or the Philosophy of Math. Right. Without the numerical fluency, you're not teaching Math. >> So you are OK with this: >> http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm >> >> More: >> http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm > > Of course not. It's woolly-minded rubbish. It has no connection with > Constructionism, either. It claims to be. It seems you wish to dispute that claim, at least as soon as the horrible results are obvious. While words do not have inherent meaning, they certainly do have generally agreed upon meaning. You may well claim that somebody stole your favorite word... oh well. >>> You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links >>> or it never happened. >> >> Maybe it's still in your inbox. > > Yes, now that I know what terms to look for I can find it. But let's > try this once more. Project Follow Through says nothing about > Constructionism. Do you have any refutations of Constructionism? > Links, or it didn't happen. I gave you links, and it did happen. I don't care to shout at a rude person who wants to cover his ears. It's 100% obvious that you haven't actually read the links that I provided. You probably never had any intent to read them; it looks like you just say "Links, or it didn't happen." to shout me down, hoping that I will be too busy/lazy to do the Go
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. > In study after study, including the largest educational study > ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. >>> >>> I did, at least twice. >> >> Not in a form I recognized as such. Make a page on one of the Wikis >> for your evidence. >> >>> Search the mailing list archives if >>> you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org) >> >> What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for > > I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides. > http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html Oh, that nonsense. Carol Lerche dissected your post quite well. "Burning straw men", she said. Project Follow Through did not investigate _Constructionism_, and the report does not lead to the conclusion you draw. The actual conclusion was that woolly-minded "systems" based on Dewey and on Piaget's _Constructivism_, with no tested lesson plans, failed abysmally, and that the one "system" that did include tested lesson plans was usable, and thus the winner of _that competition_. To conclude from this study that no other method is viable is one of the most woolly-minded notions possible. Now we in the Sugar community propose to think through and test a set of lesson plans on both discovery and mastery (which would include those basic skills you are pressing for). No woolly-mindedness allowed. > I gave you **three** links. Please read them all. > > Note that it is directly a follow-up to you. I'm 99% sure > that you got your own copy. Oh, that nonsense. Carol Lerche dissected it quite well, I thought. "Burning straw men." >> "Can I get you to agree that all children >> must memorize traditional arithmetic methods long before getting >> any exposure to vector calculus? Can I get you to agree that >> constructionism does not work for teaching math? > ... >> The answers to your questions are >> >> * No, children can grasp the concepts of vectors, calculus, and vector >> calculus visually without any arithmetic. (You are confusing geometric >> vectors with their numeric representations.) > > That sounds like a Math Appreciation course. I suppose they _all_ sound like Math Appreciation, to *you*. It is actually quite difficult to get college students who have been taught how to calculate using numerical representations of vectors to grasp that a vector is not any of its numerical representations. It exists prior to the choice of an orthonormal basis for calculating components. > It's a lot > like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you > don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music. > Superficial understanding is not of great value. Among the greatest virtues of both Math and Music is that they deal with mastery and performance, which cannot be faked. Unlike, say, Literature or History. Or Music Criticism, or the Philosophy of Math. On the other hand, all understanding of Math is quite severely superficial. Knowledge is necessarily finite, and ignorance infinite. Nevertheless, that superficial understanding has been quite seriously valuable for thousands of years that we have records of. >> * No, none of us agrees that Constructionism does not work for teaching math. > > So you are OK with this: > http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm > > More: > http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm Of course not. It's woolly-minded rubbish. It has no connection with Constructionism, either. >> You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links >> or it never happened. > > Maybe it's still in your inbox. Yes, now that I know what terms to look for I can find it. But let's try this once more. Project Follow Through says nothing about Constructionism. Do you have any refutations of Constructionism? Links, or it didn't happen. -- Silent Thunder [ 默雷 / शब्दगर्ज ] is my name, And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, And Truth my destination. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. In study after study, including the largest educational study ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. >>> >>> Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over >>> what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. >> >> I did, at least twice. > > Not in a form I recognized as such. Make a page on one of the Wikis > for your evidence. > >> Search the mailing list archives if >> you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org) > > What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides. http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html I gave you **three** links. Please read them all. Note that it is directly a follow-up to you. I'm 99% sure that you got your own copy. > "Can I get you to agree that all children > must memorize traditional arithmetic methods long before getting > any exposure to vector calculus? Can I get you to agree that > constructionism does not work for teaching math? ... > The answers to your questions are > > * No, children can grasp the concepts of vectors, calculus, and vector > calculus visually without any arithmetic. (You are confusing geometric > vectors with their numeric representations.) That sounds like a Math Appreciation course. It's a lot like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music. Superficial understanding is not of great value. > * No, none of us agrees that Constructionism does not work for teaching math. So you are OK with this: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm More: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm > You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links > or it never happened. Maybe it's still in your inbox. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. >>> In study after study, including the largest educational study >>> ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. >> >> Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over >> what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. > > I did, at least twice. Not in a form I recognized as such. Make a page on one of the Wikis for your evidence. > Search the mailing list archives if > you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org) What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for Albert-cahalan constructionism failure produces nothing better than this, from you to Alan Kay. http://n2.nabble.com/reconstructed-maths-td474893.html "Can I get you to agree that all children must memorize traditional arithmetic methods long before getting any exposure to vector calculus? Can I get you to agree that constructionism does not work for teaching math? "In case not, please note that you're up against an independently reviewed study that would cost about 3.3 billion in 2008 dollars. In this real-world test, all 5 constructionist programs failed. Personal experience, even 35 years of it, does not compare." The answers to your questions are * No, children can grasp the concepts of vectors, calculus, and vector calculus visually without any arithmetic. (You are confusing geometric vectors with their numeric representations.) * No, none of us agrees that Constructionism does not work for teaching math. You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links or it never happened. -- Silent Thunder [ 默雷 / शब्दगर्ज ] is my name, And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, And Truth my destination. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. >> In study after study, including the largest educational study >> ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. > > Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over > what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. I did, at least twice. Search the mailing list archives if you need to. (on laptop.org I believe, not sugarlabs.org) ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seth Woodworth writes: >> [Future of Learning Group] > >>> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and >>> education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of >>> "construction." It is grounded in the idea that people learn by >>> actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information >>> "poured" into their heads. Moreover, constructionism asserts that >>> people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged >>> in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer >>> programs, animations, or robots). >> >> I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. >> I would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, >> just to give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have >> a problem with this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement? > > Yes. > > That definition sounds lovely, like a politician's speech. > It's all feel-good stuff that matches up perfectly with how > we **desire** education to work. > > Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. > In study after study, including the largest educational study > ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. Links or it never happened, Albert. I have asked you over and over what your evidence is, and you have never yet replied. > Better: > > Constructionism is a failed educational theory which promoted > the feel-good idea that people would reinvent human knowledge > though personally meaningful exploration. Constructionism is > commonly used to hide both teacher and student deficiency in a > sea of confusion, allowing the avoidance of necessary learning. > Through the use of vague open-ended projects without instruction, > the brighter students are brought down to the level of the dimmest > students. The resulting lack of education is hidden by avoiding > reproducable tests. > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Silent Thunder [ 默雷 / शब्दगर्ज ] is my name, And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, And Truth my destination. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Seth Woodworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori > Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC > Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few > other topics. Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's > Future of Learning Group: > Constructionism > > We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education. > Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is > grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new > knowledge, rather than having information "poured" into their heads. > Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular > effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful > artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, or robots). > > http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html > > > I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. I > would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, just to > give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have a problem with > this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement? > > > -Seth > hi Seth, It could be a mistake to try to summarise a complex idea as a thumbnail. Cynthia does not do that in her book (*Computer Environments for Children*) where she compares 4 different approaches to learning. Her description there of constructivism is far more nuanced with example of logo learning and historical and philosophical background. Some of the concepts included in that chapter are - - a definition of mathematics - people possess different theories about the world - children build their own intellectual structures - why would they change their theories? - intuition - natural learning development - the role of computers - the role of relationship - different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive compared with rule driven and formal) - discussion of turtle geometry - other mathematicians who hold similar views - Poincare, Brouwer, Godel) - value of an anthropomorphic approach - etc. (there is much more) It's tempting to try to develop a thumbnail definition, it appeals to our sense of tidiness and closure, but with this complex idea it doesn't seem to work. While I was writing this Albert's response appeared which adds another dimension to the discussion - oversimplification does make an easier target for critics. Since your definition does not distinguish Papert's constructionism from open ended discovery learning then it is easy to criticise in this way. The 4 models in Cynthia's book are: Suppes: Drill and Practice and Rote Learning Davis: Socratic Interactions and Discovery Learning Dwyer: Eclecticism and Heuristic Learning Papert: Constructivism and Piagetian Learning This illustrates the point that distinctions ought to be made between the latter three, rather than lumping them all into some exploratory basket. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
Seth Woodworth writes: > [Future of Learning Group] >> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and >> education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of >> "construction." It is grounded in the idea that people learn by >> actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information >> "poured" into their heads. Moreover, constructionism asserts that >> people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged >> in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer >> programs, animations, or robots). > > I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. > I would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, > just to give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have > a problem with this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement? Yes. That definition sounds lovely, like a politician's speech. It's all feel-good stuff that matches up perfectly with how we **desire** education to work. Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas. In study after study, including the largest educational study ever done, the ideas have been proven to fail. Better: Constructionism is a failed educational theory which promoted the feel-good idea that people would reinvent human knowledge though personally meaningful exploration. Constructionism is commonly used to hide both teacher and student deficiency in a sea of confusion, allowing the avoidance of necessary learning. Through the use of vague open-ended projects without instruction, the brighter students are brought down to the level of the dimmest students. The resulting lack of education is hidden by avoiding reproducable tests. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
Yes I think simple thumbnail definitions like this help The first half: "people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information "poured" into their heads" is what a lot of educators would understand by 'constructivism' Contructionism seems to be Papert's refinement - and a less well known term -suggesting this happens most readily when engaged in 'constructing personally meaningful artifacts' (eg Logo projects) Even bared down like this though, these terms sound a bit theoretical - I'd suggest having another level of more emotive terms /slogans (in the style of "doing with images makes symbols" ) eg a. We all make our own knowledge b. We learn best by doing c. We need mentoring in supportive environments I added (c) since the first two are powerful statements, but only one side of learning, as critics will be quick to point out(most aren't going to sit down and productively learn by doing without some source of example and instruction) I used 'environments', rather than peers/teachers etc, as i think mentoring can come via books and tutorials, activities and scaffolds as well as more direct human instruction Cheers rob From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Woodworth Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2008 4:15 AM To: Education; Educators and OLPC; Grassroots OLPC Subject: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few other topics. Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's Future of Learning Group: Constructionism We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information "poured" into their heads. Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, or robots). http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. I would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, just to give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have a problem with this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement? -Seth Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Seth Woodworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori > Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC > Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few > other topics. Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's > Future of Learning Group: Constructionism > > We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education. > Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is > grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new > knowledge, rather than having information "poured" into their heads. > Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular > effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful > artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, or robots). > > http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html > > I thought that this explanation was concise and really interesting. I > would love to explain this to people who want to design activities, just to > give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have a problem with > this definition? Does anyone have an improvement? > Me likey! I'm not in the classroom, nor well-versed in academic jargon, but that captures the spirit of what I gleaned from my first encounter with the word here on these lists. It also syncs well with how I think I came to love working with computers in educational settings. That, and as you've mentioned: concise. -- ". ! 1 |" -- Rene Magritte's computer ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team
Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few other topics. Eventually she showed me this snippit from the Media Lab's Future of Learning Group: Constructionism We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is grounded in the idea that people learn by actively constructing new knowledge, rather than having information "poured" into their heads. Moreover, constructionism asserts that people learn with particular effectiveness when they are engaged in constructing personally meaningful artifacts (such as computer programs, animations, or robots). http://learning.media.mit.edu/projects.html I thought that this explination was concise and really interesting. I would love to explain this to people who want to desige activities, just to give them a little snapshot of the concept. Does anyone have a problem with this deffinition? Does anyone have an improvement? -Seth ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
