Constructionism Learning Theory and Technology....If they build it, they will learn

For all of this week’s resources, I found Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works to be the most insightful for my purposes of understanding how technology could relate to constructionism in the classroom.

In chapter 11, the authors describe various situations in which a hypothesis could be proposed and tested in order to facilitate learning through construction.  In the beginning of the chapter, the authors make two key suggestions to help facilitate the learning process when using this model

1.    Make sure students are able to explain hypotheses and conclusions

2.    Use structured tasks to guide student learning

The authors go on to provide several examples of how various tools and techniques can be utilized in the classroom to promote constructionism learning.  While those methods were really great, the more I read, the more I came to a single conclusion.  Constructionism isn’t really about what you create.  It’s how you create it.

Let’s take a look at constructionism through a teacher’s eyes for a moment.  According to Dr. Orey, the constructionism model is one in which the learner must actively create something, specifically an artifact, that serves to facilitate learning through forced assimilation as well as demonstrate gained knowledge through the final product.  The obvious example is a PowerPoint.  For our purposes here, let’s say that the students are being asked to create a PowerPoint that details information on the life and political career of a certain president.  The teacher may choose to provide very strict guidance, requiring that the student include specific information (significant dates, political views, major accomplishments, family life) and have a corresponding slide for each.  This is probably a great technique for younger students who are new to PowerPoint.  The goal for these students is going to be to learn important facts about a president, learn how to do some research, and get a taste for how to organize information.

Now let’s take a look at the same project done in an AP US History classroom.  Students are given an assignment that says, “Choose a president, tell us what is important, and present the information in a way you see fit.”  By providing the student with fewer requirements of how the presentation is to be made, the student is forced to think about what information to focus on, what it should be organized like, and how to most effectively present it all in a timely and engaging manner. 

These two examples show the versatility of constructionism learning.  By changing just a few details of the assignment, we can adjust it from a 4^th grade level to a 12^th grade level relatively easily.  As with anything else in education, there is a caveat.  When asking students to create something you have to consider one question.  What will the student have learned when this is completed?  Occasionally, in my education support classes, I give assignments with the intention of having them get information from each other.   I’m not terribly concerned with whether they Googled it or found it on their neighbors paper.  The point is that they figured out a way to find the information.   In the same way, learning by construction really needs to be designed by first looking at what you intend to have learned.  If you make your instructional decisions based on that question, you really can’t go wrong.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Program Seven. Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page