“Instructionism vs. constructionism looks like a split about strategies for education: two ways of thinking about the transmission of knowledge. But behind this there is a split that goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge to touch on the nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing. There is a huge difference in status between these two splits. The first is, in itself, a technical matter that belongs in an educational school course on “methods.” The second is what ought properly to be called “epistemological.” It is close to fundamental issues that philosophers think of as their own. It raises issues that are relevant to the nature of science and to the deepest debates in psychology. It is tangled with central issues of radical thinking in feminism, in Africanism, and in other areas where people fight for the right not only to think what they please, but to think it in their own ways.” Seymour Papert
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Ablex Publishing Company. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
For 604, I have to write an educator’s autobiography and describe my ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology. Papert’s distinction between instruction (teaching) and construction (learning) make sense to me. Why can’t we teach math the way we teach soap sculpture? Or at least value soap sculpture as much as math? And the current emphasis on Marzano’s work in instructional strategies just furthers the emphasis on instruction. The author of Flow suggests that constructing things is one way to achieve flow, a state of happiness. How often do students get close to achieveing flow? Does it happen more often in math class or soap sculpture class? I can still remember the abstract painting I made in high school and what a relief art class was–even though I’m no artist–because the teacher gave me a few leads and let me paint. My other classes were structured and teacher-directed. I did fine in them but was often bored because I lacked any real challenge.
I loved doing projects. Again, those are what I remember about school: the advertising skit for Excalibur wine, the scale model of the train in The Great Train Robbery, and my high school science project on types of cleaners. I could pour my heart and soul into them and create something that was meaningful to me. I still like making things. I’m hooked on Sudoku right now so I’m going to try to make my own.
So, this gets at my epistemology, I think: how do we know? When we can do something with our knowledge, when it can be connected to our experiences and frames of reference, when we can make things (ideas, poems, artifacts) with the information and when through that making, we continue to learn about the subject. How often in school is the project that last thing we do: we demonstrate what we know. Why can’t the project be the way we learn? Instead of memorizing all that stuff about the Civil War and then promptly forgetting it, I can work on my model of the battle of the ironclads and use that to ask questions about the Civil War.
