Constructionism 2012 - Panel debates
In the first Constructionism conference in Paris we found the climate to be relatively reflective and introvert. In this conference Wally Feurzeig, Richard Noss, the previous chairs, Jim Clayson, Ivan Kalas and I felt that it would be important to discuss ways in which Constructionism can avoid becoming a victim of fragmentation, self-referencing and loss of relevance to what's going on in research and education worldwide. We would therefore like to give a push to re-addressing Constructionism in a pluralistic world, to go beyond its reference to mathematics and computer science education, to make identifications, ask questions and forge connections with trends, theories, technologies and mindsets in society and educational systems. We feel strongly that constructionist epistemology and associated technologies and learning and design theories have a lot to give yet and need a lot more work on how they can be reified into practices. The 2012 Conference will thus include the following four panel debates, each with a 'burning theme' for the Constructionist community.
Chronis Kynigos
Panel / debate 1: Changing the subject
Leader: Michelle Wilkerson-Jerde
Contributors (to be announced)
Constructionism is often thought of as essentially a theory of instruction. There is truth to this, especially in its relation to traditional instructional strategies. But in fact, as Papert pointed out, it is much more than this. It is a theory of epistemology. It recognises that the computer presence can fundamentally alter the relationships between knowledge elements, how a subject domain is constructed, not only how it is conceived. Here is where the idea of 'restructuration' originates – how might a domain of knowledge be re-visioned to enhance its learnability – to make unlearnable ideas learnable by radically transforming how they are expressed. Hard ideas are sometimes hard because of the way we represent them: changing the representational infrastructure changes not only how 'easy' it is to learn an idea, but the idea itself. Key questions for this panel include:
- How can resistance to changes in current knowledge domains and curricula be challenged?
- What kinds of representations and what kinds of actions on them may catalyze the generation of meanings?
- How do we assess conceptual development in constructionist scenarios?
- What kinds of subjects are learnable given suitably-designed technologies and cultures?
- What kinds of subjects are learnable given suitably-designed technologies and cultures?
The time for providing impressive examples is passing. We now need structure, comprehensive propositions and longitudinal data from learners. How can we intervene to make such changes happen?
[ Back to top ]
Panel / debate 2: Segregation for ever?
Leader: Paulo Blikstein
Contributors (to be announced)
Is constructionism in danger of becoming a victim of fragmentation, self-referencing and loss of relevance to what's going on in research and education wordlwide? Do we feel it is worth trying to position constructionism in a pluralistic world, to go beyond its reference to mathematics and computer science education, to make identifications, ask questions and forge connections with trends, theories, technologies and mindsets in society and educational systems? Do we need to forge a niche for constructionist epistemology and associated learning and design theories in amongst a pluralism of theoretical frameworks and constructs? There are more than one communities in Europe and world-wide searching for ways to integrate approaches and theories in design, learning and teaching, so that each one is more identifiable and at the same time plays a part in the extent and the ways in which our growing knowledge can be put to use in educational practices around the world. Do we feel the constructionist community should be in on this effort? How can we contribute? What are the connections and differences between constructionism and e.g. inquiry learning, collaborative learning, learning in collectives and classroom contexts? This panel will begin a debate on the value of creating such connections and the ways in which such a venture could progress.
[ Back to top ]
Panel/debate 3: How do we know it when we see it?
Leader: Paul Goldenberg
Contributors (to be announced)
Those of you who attended Constructionism 2010 in Paris did hear, on many occasions in the plenary sessions, someone shout out "but that's NOT constructionism". This would be followed, with equal passion, by the opposite view. But we never developed those shouts into a conversation. It's not enough simply to say that we are 'anti-instructionists'. In the world we live in, we need to re-address how we can describe and demonstrate constructionism amongst our community and to others. We need to develop words and methods to convince others of its value, its nature and its sustainability in life-long learning. Most teachers, parents, students, decision makers don't have any idea of what constructionism is and confuse it with all manner of approaches. We have never really opened up conversations with our potential colleagues especially outside math and science. No wonder we are often portrayed as a peripheral group. This panel will be an exercise in describing experiences of 'the real thing', the real essence of constructionism from some concrete example. The descriptions will address both the constructionist community and external stakeholders. The panel leader will encourage others to comment and state their agreement or disagreement. The session will be recorded so comments can be distributed to others for their comments.
[ Back to top ]
Panel 4: Constructionism and Policy
Leader: Jose Valente
Contributors (to be announced)
At the present time when there are universal moves for cost-cutting in education along with more accountability in schools for student performance as measured against performance in standardised tasks often in automated-digitized forms. In this context is constructionism in danger of fragmentation and marginalisation, and if so what are the moves that be undertaken to combat these tendencies?
While there is no identifiable specific articulated agenda against constructionism (or any pedagogical stance, theory or method) the value of pedagogy being put into practice is questioned as a whole. What are the evidence-based arguments that can and should be articulated in favour of a constructionist approach to teaching and learning that is aligned to a richer view of the meaning of education for all?
How can the constructionist community best produce such evidence, not only in small scale design experiments but at scale and what might be the means by which this evidence is disseminated?
[ Back to top ]
