510

One of the central theories that underpins contemporary models of education, and related curriculum designs, is “constructivism,” which, to oversimplify, typically refers to the notion that knowledge is not a given, that is “out there”, but represented in the mind, and it is created actively by the knower. Jonassen (1991) talks about constructivism as follows:

Constructivism, founded on Kantian beliefs, claims that reality is constructed by the knower based upon mental activity. Humans are perceivers and interpreters who construct their own reality through engaging in those mental activities…thinking is grounded in perception of physical and social experiences, which can only be comprehended by the mind. What the mind produces are mental models that explain to the knower what he or she has perceived…. We all conceive of the external reality somewhat differently, based on our unique set of experiences with the world and our beliefs about them. (p. 10)

Constructivism is a very important, and multi-faceted set of theories concerning how new knowledge is created, and the status of any understanding of a rationally determined, objective world of knowledge. Constructivism is probably the most prevalent philosophical orientation amongst Western, 21C educators, even if frequently our teaching practices and learning environments are more closely based on behaviorist learning principles, than constructivist ones.

The knowledge building construct is different from the current way we teach and assess in schools because it focuses on the advancement of knowledge built by the collective, not regurgitation of information by the individual. It is different from knowledge construction because the teacher acts as a participant, not an expert who guides or scaffolds the learning for the student. Knowledge building values “a desire to advance understanding rather than to display individual brilliance” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 8).
A design challenge for knowledge building would be to adapt the process for all ages and groups with high needs. Any program like Knowledge Forum would need to be accessible to these diverse groups but still seen as acceptable for everyone else. In terms of using knowledge building in the classroom, I think curriculum would need to be redesigned because the benefits of knowledge building wouldn’t be as effective if students only got to experience it in one classroom. Assessment would also have to change in order to adequately reflect the unique type of learning that knowledge building allows.

Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say that the challenge for educational technology is to use it in a way that it remains student focused. In order to overcome this challenge, they suggest educators need to “ensure that contacts with outside sources grow out of the local knowledge-building discourse and that the obtained information is brought back into that discourse in ways consistent with the goals and plans of the local group.” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994, p. 9) However, I think another challenge would be guiding students to these outside sources who may or may not be available. I would also be concerned that this is a public forum and not all users may post respectful comments.

Another design challenge was that Knowledge Forum started fresh every year so the learners were reinventing knowledge instead of advancing it. However, the “BMC class of 2003 expressed the need to access to the 2002 database to build on previous ideas, to rise above what had been done before with the explicit goal of creating new ways of visually communicating complex medical information” (Lax et al., 2004, p. 6). The class of 2003 used various media to present their findings in innovative formats.

I’ve participated in Bible studies where the members build knowledge share multiple perspectives about a faith based topic. However, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say “In knowledge-building contexts, the focus is on problems rather than on categories of knowledge or on topics.” In the groups I mentioned, we didn’t usually focus on problems but themes. The projects I’ve participated in for the MET program build knowledge, distributed across a diverse group of learners, and is problem based. These projects also include expert feedback (from professors, in this case) which Lax et al. (2004) describe as being a component of Knowledge Forum.

In my educational setting discourse is teacher directed much like the “three-step unit” observed by Scardamalia & Bereiter (1994, p. 7). In order to shift to knowledge building discourse, students would have to be trained not to seek answers me. Parents would have to be briefed on why I wasn’t answering their children’s questions so that they understand I am in fact, doing my job. Students would need access to classroom conversations to allow them to mindfully reflect, participate after school, and give feedback to others. This would allow those who are more timid to share in a non threatening environment. Subject matter would need to be carefully selected in order to motivate students to participate. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) say “What students find to be significant discourse – the kind they will get truly involved in, struggling for a turn to speak, actually listening to and responding to what others say – will often deal with issues closer to their personal lives than the issues arising from scholarly inquiry” (p. 7).

Specific affordances necessary to support knowledge building would be a central discussion board or forum where students can easily read and post about a certain topic without having to comment on multiple web pages. Participants would need to access a variety of resources to support their knowledge and a database to keep the information. The problem objective would need to be well defined so that everyone was clear on the collective goal.

Environments that ressemble knowledge building which I’ve personally participated in are online help forums, wikis, and google docs.

Lax, L., Taylor, I., Wilson-Pauwels, L., & Scardamalia, M. (2004). Dynamic curriculum design in Biomedical Communications: Integrating a knowledge building approach and a Knowledge Forum learning environment in a medical legal visualization course. The Journal of Biocommunication, 30(1), 1-10.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

1. You’ve challenged my thinking process. Initially I associated, “learning without curriculum” to be problem based learning using open teaching methods like constructivism. Now, I see that there is a need for curriculum but it should be revamped in such a way to allow for more flexibility or teacher autonomy.

2. I like your example. It takes away the intimidation of creating a multi-layer project involving various disciplines. Your math example is simple but still allows students to think critically and problem solve. In this case, the manipulatives could serve as part of scaffolding. The ability to choose how to solve the problem would give students ownership over the task. I feel better about my teaching now!

Educators’ time, teaching methods, creativity, etc. is limited because we have to cover so many learning outcomes. I often hear the curriculum being referred to as a mile wide and an inch deep. To learn without curriculum would mean restructuring the whole education system.

When planning a lesson, I start with the outcomes I am helping my students meet. Constructivist teaching methods or problem based learning takes time to plan and assess. Teachers have to spend time getting to know each student’s strengths and limitations in order to provide material within their zone of proximal development (Perkins, 1991 as cited in Driscoll, 2005). This limitation of constructivist teaching could be extended to assessment because it takes time to evaluate student progress.

To me, Papert’s (1980, p.31) comment that school can “infantilize the child” suggests that because the curriculum is so disjointed that we aren’t providing authentic learning contexts in school that our students will encounter in the real world. Not only would these contexts better prepare students for the future but they may serve as a motivation for learning. “Some children’s difficulties in learning formal subjects such as grammar or mathematics derive from their inability to see the point of such a style” (Papert, 1980, p. 27). Authentic or open learning allows students to pursue their talents and encourage multiple intelligences.

On the other hand, some teachers may benefit from having a curriculum because they need guidance on what students need to learn. For example, beginning teachers. A curriculum establishes trust between parents and educators because parents know that every child in grade three is learning the same outcomes.

The New London Group (1996, p.66) says,“as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life.” We need to prepare students for the changing workforce as companies take new approaches. For example, Google has a twenty percent time program. This means they can take 20% of their work week for special projects they want to pursue individually. Google says that they develop many of the ideas that come out of these projects. Could our students adapt to such a concept in their workplace? Does our curriculum take away our students’ abilities to think for themselves?

I agree with Papert when he says that there is a “conservative bias being built into the use of computers in education.” He goes on to say, “the idea of the computer as an instrument for drill and practice that appeals to teachers because it resembles traditional teaching methods also appeals to the engineers who design computer systems: Drill and practice applications are predictable, simple to describe, efficient in use of the machine’s resources” (p. 36). Therefore, designers and teachers need to think about how to create educational learning environments that are student centred.

Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 384-407; Ch. 11 – Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.  Harvard Educational Review. 66 (1), 60-92

Papert, S. (1980). Chapter 1: Computers and computer culture. In Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

I don’t think multiple choice questions reflect constructivist values. However, the response that WISE provided gave you explicit feedback that would aid the learner’s understanding. This is more constructivist than a check mark.

In constructivist learning environments, students become more self-aware through reflection and goal setting. “Helping learners to become more aware of their thinking processes is thought by many, including Gagné, to be essential in the development of mindful, strategic behaviour or cognitive strategies.” (Driscoll, 2005). The notes you mentioned provide opportunities for reflection throughout the process which I prefer over writing one reflection at the end. Of course, the fact that you were able to brainstorm with a partner allows you to test your understanding against theirs which is a constructivist value. I think the program or teacher could add goal setting to the lesson.

It’s great that the program allowed you to go back and make revisions because after further learning, you may reject your original thoughts and want to reconstruct your assumptions.

That is strange that the program allowed you to move on without having completed a section. Perhaps, that aligns with the constructivist value that says learners have the final responsibility for their learning (Matthews, 1994). However, I’m sure a grade five student would be happy to finish the lesson without having to write out what he/she learned.

In terms of what Steve is saying, I think students need to be coached and have their learning scaffolded because ultimately, they need to meet the provincial learning outcomes. If they’re given a problem and allowed to take it any which way, they may not cover the material needed to meet those outcomes. I understand Steve is saying that as educators, we might be acting as too much of a crutch. When I think about the MET program, I appreciate that we are given assigned readings at the beginning of every week and specific questions to answer. If we were given a more open-ended problem without guidance, I would get lost in the sea of information. I also think the coaching helps students connect new information with prior learning which is necessary when beginning a new task.

Assessment of constructivist learning environments still confuse me, though. Luckily, I teach grade 2/3 so I have a large area to write comments on my students report cards where I can describe their progress and specific tasks they need to work on. They’re not given marks but have a bar which says, not yet meeting, approaching, meeting or exceeding expectations. This type of evaluation makes it easier to report on constructivist learning assignments. From grade 4 on, students receive marks which would be harder to give for problem based learning. The only thing I can think of to do would be to make some sort of rubric.

It’s unfortunate that many teachers who believe in constructivism are still forced to give exams or standardized tests to their students. That would be very frustrating for both teachers and students. Imagine being told you can collaborate and work on authentic problems in class but have to write long and boring multiple choice tests individually.

Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 384-407; Ch. 11 – Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Rutledge Publisher.

Many online locations could be profitably utilized as a significant element in a constructivist learning environment. Our job, as educators, is to think about the affordances in any given artifact. Take another look at the questions listed above that pertain to affordances, and learning environments. Take a look at one (or more) of these sites, and think about the construct of affordances.

What does Flickr enable?

Flickr enables visual snapshots into the world of others. Users can represent their understanding of an idea by tagging it appropriately. Users can search any vocabulary word to view variations of that object/place/person. For artists, photographers, graphic designers etc., Flickr is a place where they can share their thoughts by displaying their creations.

Viewers can engage in discussion or provide feedback about the images. Being married to a painter, I know Flickr can serve as a place of inspiration for creative work. Some Flickr users are motivated to create and upload one picture/painting etc. per day or week because they know that it’ll be seen instantly by their contacts and others. Users can add or invite certain images to groups they create thereby building bigger concepts with individual ideas.

What is educationally significant about how Flickr is designed?

Flickr has privacy settings which benefit teachers who plan to share student work or pictures of students. Flickr warns you that you are leaving their site when clicking on a link. This keeps students away from unwanted content. Flickr’s site is easy to navigate.

Think about how you could use this to support learners. How would you structure a project-based learning activity that would include this site as a major resource?

Students could follow a webquest about pioneers. One section could ask students to search pictures on Flickr and upload them to groups categorized by work, entertainment, food, etc. Students would have to add a comment to describe what is happening in the picture. I would ask them to comment on each other’s photos, perhaps including a modern alternative to what they saw depicted in the picture.

What kind of problem manipulation space could be created that includes this site?

Other problem manipulation sites could be Moodle or a blog. I could ask students to use pictures from Flickr to create a story using digital story telling tools like on CogDogRoo.

Go take a look at this particular design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Spend some time critically reading about how this learning technology is represented on the MIT OLPC website, and on the Wikipedia OLPC page (listed below). Think about (a) the affordances construct, (b) the discussion of the role of values in determining what is prioritized in any educational design, and (c) about the relationship between theories concerning how people learn and the kinds of affordances that are built into specific learning technologies. What is significant, educationally, about this design? What does this design tell us about the values that matter to its designers? How have the designers taken into account the cultural setting where this educational technology will be used? Is constructivism a learning theory that can span across cultural borders without risk? What critical questions might educators ask about this design and/or this initiative.

What is significant, educationally, about this design?

I was initially struck by the way the screen turns to easily enable small group or partner work. The laptop has speakers, cameras, and a mike. This would allow for hands-on or interactive learning. The laptop is small so it can be transported by small hands back and forth between school and home. Therefore, family members can use the laptop for their own learning.

What does this design tell us about the values that matter to its designers?

The designers wanted to make a low-power laptop considering that the schools wouldn’t have many resources to charge the computers on a regular basis. The laptop needed to be durable because it is intended for small children who will have the laptop in a variety of weather conditions. Cost seemed to be the biggest concern since the laptop is for schools that can’t usually afford computers. Wikipedia mentioned the laptop’s GUI is an open source program, “called Sugar that is intended to help young children collaborate.”

How have the designers taken into account the cultural setting where this educational technology will be used?

The following is taken from Wikipedia:

-the keyboard is customized according to the language spoken in each country.

-the GUI Sugar uses icons instead of text which is more user-friendly for students who can’t read.

-the designers expect the users to add/remove software according to their needs and local laws.

Is constructionism a learning theory that can span across cultural borders without risk?

I think it would be harder to teach using constructivist methods in developing countries. I think teachers need to be competent in their subject areas in order to scaffold learning properly. Sometimes teachers in developing countries are not educated or even literate. They may not have the resources to provide “just right” material at the appropriate time or manipulatives with which students can explore problems. Using constructivist techniques requires students to work collaboratively as the teacher goes from group to group. I’m not sure these children possess the necessary skills to work independently. Some of my students can’t even do that.

What critical questions might educators ask about this design and/or this initiative?

The first question would be, “Can we afford this laptop?” According to N. Jesterponte, (actually Kentaro Toyama) Indian public schools spend $70-200 per student each year so a $188 laptop is unaffordable (as cited by Vota, 2011). I think some of these countries would be better off spending $188 on regular breakfasts than laptops.

The second question would be, “How are we going to use this laptop?” It is sometimes vexing for me, an MET student with a passion for technology, to determine how I would use a laptop with my students. I think it is an arduous task to ask teachers, who may have zero computer knowledge, to use these laptops with their students. How much training do they get?

Vota (2010) says that in Afghanistan, 25% of the teachers are illiterate. I think the OLPC program should have assessed teachers’ needs first before dropping laptops in their hands. Yujuico and Gelb (2011) said that, “The product and OLPC’s marketing did not match purchasing priorities of governments in developing nations” ( as cited by guest writer on the OLPC//News Blog, 2011).

I was shocked when I watched the youtube video, “Nicholas Negroponte on the latest success of One Laptop per Child”. In it, N. Negroponte, the founder of OLPC says that students are using the laptops to teach their parents to read and write when the students can’t read and write.

Davidspark (2010). Nicholas Negroponte on the latest success of One Laptop per Child. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9JoyyTSQQ8&feature=player_embedded.

n.a. (2011, January 6). Cautions from OLPC’s experience in marketing technological innovation to LDCs. [Web log comment] Retrieved from: http://www.olpcnews.com/

n.a. (2011). OLPC XO-1. Retrieved from the Wikipedia Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_laptop

Vota, W. (2011, January 7). Laptops work but is that education? [Web log comment] Retrieved from: http://www.olpcnews.com/

Vota, W. (2010, December, 22). New negropontism: You can give kids XO laptops and just walk away.[Web log comment] Retreived from: http://www.olpcnews.com/

n.a. (2011). OLPC XO-1. Retrieved from the Wikipedia Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_laptop