Talk:Constructionism (learning theory)

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.

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]