Traditionally, education in America is focused on digesting knowledge, devoid of context, regardless of who the student is or what they think. This approach to learning, through the lens of constructivism and constructionism, is antithetical to children’s natural inclination to learn. In his TED Talk, Richard Culatta (2013) demonstrates the disconnection between what happens in most classrooms and what pedagogies like these suggest. In breaking down the word problems in his students’ textbook, stripping away the ways it boxes in their thinking, he creates space for his students to buy into their learning. They answer the same questions, but they’ve asked them themselves.
The original idea behind constructivism is that learning must be done through consideration of what learners already know. Learning happens best when students bring with them their previous understanding. When lessons are taught in a vacuum, students are less engaged and fail to build on their collective understanding of the world. Teachers need to consider their stage of development and allow the students to guide themselves to understand how what they are learning fits or conflicts with their worldview. Ultimately, “learners construct knowledge out of their own experiences.” (Rob & Rob, 2018)
This theory was expanded and adjusted to create constructionism. Constructionism tells us that learning by creating (or constructing) allows students to contextualize what happens in the world and direct their own learning. Not only does their existing understanding come into play, with the social context and the physical environment must also come into play (pun intended). This theory expects that students learn by doing better than they learn by being told how things are. (Ackermann, 2001). They need to create artifacts that can play a role or serve a function in their world.
What appeals to me about these theories is that they encourage failure. When I was immersed in the world of entrepreneurship study during university, folks often spoke about the value of failing, failing fast, failing up, and all other means of failure. Time and again, some of the most successful companies and products manage to achieve success because of intentional iteration that saw failure as part of the process of making something great.
Such an approach takes patience! When you bring a constructivist approach into the classroom by rooting the problem into the context of the student’s lives, then layer constructionism by asking that they create something of value within that context, they have greater motivation to do and learn. They can overcome the fear of failure and impatience with results because the work is meaningful. The reflections of the students at Quest to Learn are a clear example of how they learn to solve problems and find meaning when they are challenged to create something that has meaning to them; in this case, something fun.
AI models offer an exciting exercise in failure for all of us. ChatGPT has put an exorbitant amount of possibility into the device in our pockets. However, distilling that down to be useful and accurate requires an iterative approach. I often consult ChatGPT in the kitchen. We have been in a long conversation now about the perfect brownie recipe as I try time and again to bake the brownie of my dreams. We have not quite (but I think we are very close).
For this blog post, I struggled to get NightCafe (a free AI art app) to create the image I had in my head that encapsulated constructionism. I had additional constraints, given that I’m working with a free application and did not have the best internet connection, that tested my ability to provide a succinct yet poignant prompt for the image I wanted. Eventually, I got to the image below:
Educators ought to bring more opportunities for students to create meaningful things in the classroom. Students ought to be able to take their creations where their curiosity and creativity lead. They should be encouraged to try, and then try again, and continue until they get somewhere meaningful. Technology, especially AI, offers amazing tools for creation. ChatGPT can be a powerful thought partner. AI Art models offer a challenge in verbalizing mental images. I want to bring these lessons into my classroom.
References:
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the Difference?. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1-11, doi:10.1.1.132.4253
Edutopia. (2013, November 12). Reframing failure as iteration allows students to thrive [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJyNxx82vGQ
OpenAI. (2021). GPT-3 Language Model [Computer software]. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from https://openai.com/api/
NightCafe. (2023). SDXL 1.0 [Computer software]. Retrieved November 11, 2023, from https://creator.nightcafe.studio/
Rob, M., & Rob, F. (2018). Dilemma between constructivism and constructionism: Leading to the development of a teaching-learning framework for student engagement and learning. Journal of International Education in Business, 11.
TEDxTalk. (2013, January 10). Reimagining learning: Richard Culatta at TEDx Beacon Street [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0uAuonMXrg&feature=emb_logo