EDTECH 504 | Summer 2014 | Erica Fuhry

The Constructionist Learning Theory

Overview
Constructionism is a student-centered learning theory that highlights the importance of
active manipulation and problem-solving in a creative, open-ended arena. It is learning-by-
making (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). It values the creation of tangible or digital objects as part of a
meaningful and authentic task. These objects-to-think-with (Ackermann, 2001, p.4) are tied to
their thought process and, in turn, the learning process. Experience leads to understanding. This
theory is rooted in constructivist epistemology, which asserts that individuals construct knowledge
about the world through mental models shaped by assumptions and prior experience. Like
constructivism, it promotes discovery-based learning whereby we refine our understanding by
exploring choices and testing hypotheses in an iterative process.
Contributors
Although many researchers have shaped and promoted constructionism over the past
several decades, the primary contributor is Seymour Papert. Originally a mathematician, he worked
under Jean Piaget and was influenced by his views on childrens learning. Combining
developmental psychology, AI, and technology, Papert recommends the design of resource-rich
toolkits and generative environments to promote activity-based learning. Mitchel Resnick extended
Paperts work to underscore collaboration, calling this distributed constructionism. With many
people working jointly on a design and construction activity, knowledge is extended and distributed
through shared ideas, theories, and experimental results (Resnick, 1996).
Major Principles
Much of the contributors research focuses on digital technologies. They view computer
networks as a new medium for construction instead of a mechanism of information distribution
(Zaphiris et al., 2005). Through cybernetics activities, certain concepts and ways of thinking
presently regarded as far beyond children's ken [will] enter into what they know spontaneously
(Papert & Harel, 1991, p.7). This natural, self-directed discovery increases motivation because
students can see the usefulness of a skill or concept. Learners invent for themselves the tools and
mediations that best support the exploration of what they most care about (Ackermann, 2001, p.4).
Since the learner must build his/her own cognitive tools, the role of the teacher is to guide
rather than impart knowledge. Learning is a personal, progressive quest, not comprised of hard,
objective facts. Papert values the dynamics of change and the fragility, contextuality, and
flexibility of knowledge under construction (Ackermann, 2001, p.8). Knowledge is also
meaningful when shared. Papert values public, external construction, encouraging artifacts to be
exhibited, discussed, examined, proved, or admired. This might be a sand castle, a Lego city, or a
computer program. Embedding construction activities within a community helps create knowledge
convergence (Papert & Harel, 1991).
Application
In his book Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1980), Papert believed
math skills could be learned more naturally through the use of the programming language Logo.
Working in this math playground, students use technology tools as cognitive tools to build and
debug graphic programs with immediate visual feedback. Logo is an example of a microworld,
which is a dynamic, interactive, real-world environment which features programmable objects for
students to manipulate, study, and test. Microworlds, which also include Lego Mindstorms,
Crickets, and MITs Scratch, are effective in that they encourage natural, qualitative understanding
of complex systems and they deliberately reduce the distinction between learning science and
doing science (Rieber, 2005). They are appropriate for young learners because they are easy to
navigate, have interesting and valuable tasks, and include ready-to-explore features.
EDTECH 504 | Summer 2014 | Erica Fuhry

References

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piagets constructivism, Paperts constructionism: Whats the difference.
Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438. Retrieved from
http://wbi.lcu.edu.cn/ec2006/C383/xueyujiao/tzzl/Constructivism_Constructionism.pdf

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11. Retrieved from
http://namodemello.com.br/pdf/tendencias/situatingconstrutivism.pdf

Resnick, M. (1996, July). Distributed constructionism. In Proceedings of the 1996 international
conference on learning sciences (pp. 280-284). International Society of the Learning
Sciences. Retrieved from http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/Distrib-Construc.html

Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning, 549-567. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819.034

Zaphiris, P., Laghos, A., & Zacharia, G. (2005). Distributed Construction through Participatory
Design. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology
(pp. 902-906). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-
553-5.ch158