In response to Brett and Kristie‘s blog’s on the theories of Constructivism and Constructionism I find the two ideas to be similar and similarly confusing. From Ackermann’s article (as cited by Brett) it appears that Constructivism is based on the idea that learning is best achieved through experience on the learner’s behalf (ie discovery based learning, experiential learning). Constructionism seems to be a development upon this in that learning is best achieved through the construction of some tangible product (ie a web page).
Am I correct in my thoughts? Brett talks about Constructionism as being a progresion on the Constructivist idea of understanding cognitive development. I agree that it is a development of Constructivism but not with the definition of Constructivism itself. Kristie points out that designing a web page is a Constructionist approach to assessment and learning, but this is also a discovery type activity that could be classified under a Constructivist approach. Is anyone else confused? Why did they chose names that are so similar, for theories that are similar. You don’t see McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s with similar names, but they effectively serve the same food.
And that’s what grinds my gears…
Entries (RSS)
[...] « Constructiv(on)ism… 04 11 2008 [...]
[...] one person’s experience can be shared across the world. Within schools, tha adoption of Papert’s Construtionist approach would encourage the creation of such thing’s as movies, music, sites, blogs and [...]
[...] be recognised for doing so) ideas based on the theories of Student-centred/Constuctivist learning (Cammo; Brett)? Ask students to demonstrate their digital abilities (low or high) to illustrate their [...]