Talk:Constructionism (learning theory)

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

David Gauntlet / Artlab -> WHY?

David, you've done the community a service by getting this entry going at the beginning.

But in an article this short, I just don't understand why your work should get such prominent billing. Your work does look very interesting, but it does not seem like it should be on the short-short list of pointers to work in constructionist learning.

Can you clarify? If not, I suggest removing the paragraph on media studies, SLA, etc as well as the external link.

Thank you. Fgmartin 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two new categories

I've added two categories - Learning and Educational psychology, there may be better/other categories..? Politepunk 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lego / Logo

I've seen one mistaken edit that takes in account Logo being envolved with Mindstorms project. Actually, the name of the project itself "Lego Mindstorms" enlights this issue. Shogun Luis 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion may arise from Seymour Papert's LOGO computer programming language, which applied constructionist principles to children's use of computers. — OtherDave 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double ?

we got constructivism (learning theory) isn't it the same thing ?

ok yes it is (they both talk about Jean Piaget as a father) and so we got terminology issue

82.67.41.36 18:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, constructivism and constructionism are not at all the same thing. See the cited Papert article for a discussion. Asbruckman 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nism and vism are completely different things. As recommended above, read the Papert article. 130.207.118.145 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the two comments above. While related, they are NOT the same thing.

Not the same thing. It's a common mistake to confuse them. Tajoman 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a simple level, ConstructiVism denote a tendency to...construct. ConstructioNism denote much more the cognitive and concrete action of the organic construction... of something. A body of knowledge and / or it's representation. The terms (and the concepts) are objectively close related since, as Papert states, they come from the same family of educational theories. But, as a simple sample, if ContructiVism focus the learning activity into soemthing like "learning by doing..." (which still include the instructions leading to this or that doing); ConstructioNism complete the idea asking for giving the student less instructions and more open oportunities, situations, bodies of phisical and cognitive 'materials' to learn by constructing personal entities significative to the student HIMSELF that can be also publicly recognized and acknowledged, so that he (the student) can explain the entity (or the body/ies of knowledge related)to himself and make it understandable and even significant to others. I do believe that there is "enough" space in the wikipedia to consider each term / concept as separated blocks of information/knowledge kipping the relations and links to the other theories of modern education. Also there is a need to state that Papert is much more than a 'technologist' in educational matters... he is a philosopher, an epistemologist, a mathematician... please do not reduct the person nor his 'constructionist' theory as it was only related to technology in education, to computers (which he like a lot) The theory walk to a more ample and multidimensional space in the complex trans and multidisciplinary fields of the science education and human and social development. 200.25.185.218 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)(George A. Jachewatzky-Hashaviah)[reply]

Concerning the pienetwork link that I added the other day, if you read its about page, or follow on a bit more inside it, you'll see that it has philosophical and pratical ties to Constructionism theorie, as well as to the MIT Media Labs, and more specifically Mitchel Resnick. So I'm dropping here then.

P.S. - I am not nor have ever been part of the MIT media labs.

It's not a double. Constructionism deserves its own space.

This article seems to confuse constructionism with constructivism. In my opinion, this article should have a sentence linking to the article on Constructivism and distinguishing Papert's Constructionism from Constructivism in all its various forms "Constructionism is an outgrowth of, but should be distinguished from, Constructivism" Then, the numerous references to Constructivism should be removed from this article, to help the reader not confuse the two terms. Other forms of Constructivism that are different from each other and from Constructionism include Piaget/Bruner (Cognitive Constructivism), Vygotsky (Social Constructivism), Ernst Von Glaserfeld (Radical Constructivism). 2605:A601:743:E701:6578:9EDC:3823:E4D2 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to learning by doing?

The John Dewey page references a learning by doing stub. Is learning by doing similar to constructivist learning theory? If so should the stub be merged into this page? Srippon 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindstorms as Constructionism

Perhaps it should be noted that the word "constructionism" is never used in Mindstorms. While the book does articulate Papert's theory, it does so under the name of constructivism. It is not until later that he coins the term constructionism to describe the theory of instruction which builds on Piaget's constructivism, a theory of learning. I once chided someone for talking about Mindstorms as constructivism. Later, I went back and found that the person was right. Mindstorms does not use the word constructionism, even if it is about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.250 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be merged with Constructivism (philosophy of education)?

They seem to be the same topic. 96.246.66.199 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be merged with Constructivism (philosophy of education)

This is a different topic from Constructivism, but the article does not make that clear. This article seems to confuse constructionism with constructivism. In my opinion, this article should have a sentence linking to the article on Constructivism and distinguishing Papert's Constructionism from Constructivism in all its various forms "Constructionism is an outgrowth of, but should be distinguished from, Constructivism" Then, the numerous references to Constructivism should be removed from this article, to help the reader not confuse the two terms. Other forms of Constructivism that are different from each other and from Constructionism include Piaget/Bruner (Cognitive Constructivism), Vygotsky (Social Constructivism), Ernst Von Glaserfeld (Radical Constructivism). 2605:A601:743:E701:6578:9EDC:3823:E4D2 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]