May 19, 2017

EDET 677 Mech App Week One Blog

EDET 677 Mechanical Applications
Week 1 Blog

Essential Question: Do you believe Constructionism brings any new ideas to the table as a theory of education? Why or Why not? 

            As described by Papert, constructionism is using manipulatives in learning but extending this as a meaningful product for the student (Martinez & Stager, 2013). The maker movement is a way to use constructionism learning in the educational world. Halverson and Sheridan define the maker movement as a specific trend in the last five years where people “are engaged in the creative production of artifacts in their daily lives and who find physical and digital forums to share their processes and products with others.” (2014) Constructionism is exactly what the maker movement embodies by creating everyday materials, tools, etc. that can be used to solve a problem in the creator’s life.
            Constructionism does not seem to be a new theory of education but rather a practice that has been given a name and officially adopted into the education community. Martinez and Stager give plenty examples how people in history have learned through what was not called constructionism but rather the concept behind it. Johann Pestalozzi was a man who thought that children learn better through action, from nature, play, and observations of the world not through words. He put his theory to test by working with abandoned orphans and found that they learned through these actions. Many other influential teachers (not necessarily in a traditional setting) such as Friedrich Froebel, Llyod Wright, Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget, and John Dewey led their lives with thought that learning is best done through meaningful creation or action. (2013)
            Constructionism might be new in a way that educators en masse are seeking out to provide the opportunities for students to have meaningful learning in terms of creating an object or a solution to a problem that they have. I find that constructivism (hands on learning) is used in many science classes because of the nature of science experiments and discovery. The moment that students get to come up with an experiment that solves one of their daily problems and gets to execute this experiment is the moment that learning becomes a constructionism approach.


Resources:

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504,563,565. Retrieved from http://egandb.uas.alaska.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1642662200?accountid=44766


Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G (2013). Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom. Torrence, CA: Construction Modern Knowledge Press.

3 comments:

  1. I agree that constructivism is easier in science classes because of labs and other hands on activities that are done. I feel lucky that I teach science because there are more opportunities to provide students with a constructivist, and hopefully constructionist learning environment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Constructivism is a learning theory that does fit science, but it can fit anything we learn. I would like to see more doing and creating in all subject areas. Why not integrate maker spaces and all subjects? Maybe integrate the subjects into maker spaces? What do you think? Good blog entry by the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we should try to fit constructivism and constructionism in all subject areas. I think a maker space is difficult for small districts who can't give as much support that is needed for it to be created and working effectively. For me the question is how can I bring the constructivism and constructionism learning theories into the everyday classroom.

      Delete