Chapter+07+-+Instructionism+vs+Constructionism

Papert finds that concrete learning is a vital part of learning for everyone. School says if learning is less than perfect, teachers need to ‘teach better’ by improving instruction (p. 139). But “the constructionalist attitude is…to produce the most learning for the least teaching” (p. 139). Rather than give children fact bricks what School should do is to help children obtain “the knowledge that will help them get more knowledge” (p. 139). I think he is encouraging us to allow our students to seek out their own knowledge. That is the most powerful lesson I have ever learned. I know that if I need an answer I must never give up searching as many avenues as I can to access it. He says it best when he says mathetics principle is that “you can learn without being taught and often learn best when taught least” (p. 141). I know that things I have discovered on my own stick with me longer than those skills forced upon me in school. School also errs in moving too quickly where the “most important work is done” (p. 143). We all should be allowed to learn by tinkering—giving ourselves time to think about the problem and the tools we have on hand and how those tools might be used in familiar or unfamiliar ways to solve a problem. It is so frustrating that time holds us back. I hear teachers in my school talk about how they have to move ahead whether or not the students are ready. I have heard it likened to leaving holes in a foundation. Or having holes in a dam and not bothering to fix it as we continue to expand it. I feel we are looking to the finish line and not paying attention to the form or technique of the runner. “Use what you’ve got, improvise, make do” (p. 144). This is one way I see that I could use to define creativity. He calls this // bricolage. // School uses text (printed and written) rather than // bricolage // and concrete thinking but children are greater learners and routinely use both venues to learn. I do see that in art a way of teaching that may allow for a greater tinkering is to pose an artistic problem and let the students explore avenues and solve the issue in their own way. -T.D.

This was a very interesting chapter. It reminded me of the Sugata Mitra TED talk we watched of the "Hole in the Wall Project". The children in the TED talk video were very resourceful because they had to be in order to figure out how the computer worked. And they were interested, which made the difference. I think it mentioned in this chapter about "teaching someone to fish" rather than "feeding him fish". I used to teach first grade and I'd constantly remind my students, "Don't give him the fish" when someone was trying to figure something out. Currently with my K-8 computer students, I share with them that the best learning is done by doing. We learn by doing. Therefore, if they are helping each other, I don't allow them to touch the other person's keyboard or mouse -- they can explain it, show it, point to it, but the learner must DO in order to LEARN.

I had an interesting experience recently having to do with what Trista mentions above, "you can learn without being tuaght and often learn best when taught least." In another online class I'm taking, we are required to collaborate online with our learning group. One of the modes of collaboration was via an Adobe Connect Pro webinar, which we had to record. We were not given ample instructions, and in fact, the software was configured incorrectly in order to carry out the webinar. Though greatly frustrated at the process, I learned so much about trouble shooting this software, and between our group members, through trial and error, we were able to pinpoint the problem, report it to the professor and get it corrected. We were also able to complete the webinar on time. Did I learn a lot? Absolutely. Again, I was frustracted, but I learned more than I would have if it all had worked correctly.

Another personal experience with regard to Papert's bricolage thinking has to do with kitchen math. He talks about learning math by using measurements in the kitchen with ingredients. As a child, I baked a lot and many times would double or triple recipes -- especially desserts! Due to this "kitchen math" experience of mine, I feel I had a firm understanding of fractions, probably long before they were taught in a classroom setting. Fraction seems so concrete to me -- nothing to do with paper, or graphs -- all having to do with measurements -- and it all seems very concrete to me. But again, I'm not sure how a teacher would carry out the bricolage form of learning in our schools today. I think Papert's ideas would require all out school reform with a lot of professional development for teachers in order to grasp his concepts and be able to carry them out successfully.

-Carol

"Instructionism" is the improvement of instruction to improve learning versus "constructionism" where the learner adds what is important to her/him to her/his own existing knowledge. I would be in the "constructionistic" camp on this one.

Papert writes about using "microprojects" to help students learn about math concepts with which they are not familiar. This approach affords students the opportunity to head in a direction which interests them, and then learn about the subject as they experiment. On page 142, Papert writes that construction in the head takes place when it the student is involved "with construction of a more public sort". I think this is a better way to teach, but if we are going to do this, then we need to make the school year longer to give students the luxury of exploring these subjects with more time. I think part of the reason for the wealth of "instruction" is to make it through the "content" that the state has deemed important to know. This is a debate in the history department where I teach. I have a department head that would love to see more survey courses and less post-hole teaching. I think that middle school students learn more from the post-hole approach because it is more (physically) active and there is more student choice in most of the assignments.

This chapter also has more "abstract" versus "concrete" discussion, which left me totally confused. When I think of "concrete" thinking I think of someone who has trouble unpacking ideas like "I fell into the space between us, and that's a long way to fall" (Mary Gauthier - from song "Long Way To Fall").

"Androcentric". Centered around men. Word of the week for me. In later chapters I believe Papert hopes that computer culture can be modified so that when we think of computer classes, we don't see a room three-quarters filled with boys. Computer culture ought to be gender neutral.