-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion is based on the following reading:
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. "Situating Constructionism."
Paulo Blikstein. "Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education:The Democratization of Invention."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The onset of technology being used in education coincides with the development of constructionism, the proposition for the learner to be "consciously engaged in constructing a public entity," in which emphasis on working with tangible materials is favored over abstract ideas (Papert and Harel). Papert and Harel contextualize this idea of constructionism with several examples of in-class studies demonstrating learning using technology. This idea of technology being used in the classroom is threaded throughout Blikstein's paper on the implications and considerations of digital fabrication.
Out of Papert and Harel's book chapter, I found the parallelism of "Epistemological Pluralism" between feminism and computer literacy to be particularly intriguing. Certainly technology, particularly the Internet, has democratized information and this has shifted the power balance of information in the traditional school model. Like many technologies, there is always a double-edge sword. In a trivial example, while the Internet has made knowledge widely-available, it also makes learning (and in some cases, information recall) less about intuition- often times, it is quite easy to find the answer by googling it. In Papert and Harel's example, it has been interpreted to both support "abstract and impersonal detached kinds of knowing" and shifting the balance of transfer and production of knowledge to students.
In an ideal world, we would have an optimal teacher-to-student ratio, different styles of learning would be appropriately accommodated, and learning would be thorough and like self-discovery. I think there is great merit and an even greater need for a constructionist-based learning model. Indeed, for myself, I had not appreciated much of the mathematics I learned in high school until later in graduate school when it was applied in my research. Many of the examples in Blikstein's paper illustrated well various ways in which technology can be incorporated effectively into the classroom. For instance, the roller coaster example demonstrated how constant engineering challenges can motivate students to apply physics to solve a problem. Another particularly compelling example is the robotic flute, in which the project did not meet the original objective but nevertheless provided valuable insight into the nature of music and artificial intelligence that extends well beyond the project.
The robotic flute [Blikstein, 2013]
Yet, there must be a conscientious balance to be taken. The model of instructionism is not without advantages. The volume of information and past knowledge that each generation of students must absorb grows with ever increasing rapidity. An education model based purely on constructionism would be impractical- there is not enough resources or time to fit all that a student needs to learn. Additionally, I think it is important to keep in mind that while technology is well-suited for hands-on learning, it is not uniquely so. Nevertheless, the examples from Blikstein give compelling evidence to the educational benefit of technology in the classroom.
In a sense, I am inclined to think that the ultimate goal of constructionism is to achieve what graduate school is. As graduate students, we learn by doing. Part of it is based on what is in literature and part of it is trial-and-error. We also experience the same despair (and joy), interdisciplinary nature, and contextualized learning that Blikstein mentions in his paper. The work that is produced is also publicly critiqued through many avenues, such as peer-reviewed journals and conferences. A curious feature I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment