Typing this from an OLPC XO. Been trying the famed "100$ laptop" out (a loan from a friend) and got to think about a number of things. Including Papert's dream and Moodle's approach.
Now, like most Moodlers, I'm quite open to social constructivism (or constructionism). Yet I wouldn't want to impose constructivist views on other learners and teachers.
So, I got to wonder about people's experiences in bringing constructivist approaches to diverse contexts. One aspect of the Moodle community which makes it rather unique is that we all take part in very different learning contexts. Primary school to "higher education." Public schools to private enterprises. Spanish-speaking European institutions to "English as a second language" East Asian institutions. Haven't yet met anyone using Moodle in Africa but I keep thinking about how well Moodle could be integrated into learning and teaching strategies in African contexts.
Simply put, this could be the best context for me to learn more about the spread of constructivist thinking in diverse parts of the world.
Do you think (social) constructivism is well-adapted for the context in which you act? How have constructivist ideas been received by colleagues, friends, students...? Do you see Moodle as helping the spread of constructivism? Do you think constructivism should be imposed on everyone?
I'd really appreciate some insight.
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli
Re: Worldwide Construct (Constructivism/Constructionism)
by Frances Bell -
I am not sure that I have any insights Alexandre but I do look at this map from time to time to remind me of how little Africa is represented in Moodle.org. I have noticed that there is now a South African Moodle partner so perhaps that will help. Perhaps as a group we should be helping make sure that Moodle is present at conferences such as this where commercial software vendors are well-represented.
Martin Langhoff may be well placed to keep us in touch with the impact of OLPC in the spread of learning technology in Africa.
Regarding social constructivism, perhaps the question is in how education itself is socially constructed within different societies, rather than whether it is used as a method. Throwing bandwidth at underserved communities see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7063682.stm may not be the best approach. Whilst the right to education is basic, it is perhaps not as basic as food and essential healthcare, and ICT infrastructure projects must seem a bit irrelevant in the midst of war.
If I could reframe your questions, what relevance do Moodle and social constructivism have in different parts of Africa? and how can we as a community help meet any needs that arise from that relevance?
Martin Langhoff may be well placed to keep us in touch with the impact of OLPC in the spread of learning technology in Africa.
Regarding social constructivism, perhaps the question is in how education itself is socially constructed within different societies, rather than whether it is used as a method. Throwing bandwidth at underserved communities see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7063682.stm may not be the best approach. Whilst the right to education is basic, it is perhaps not as basic as food and essential healthcare, and ICT infrastructure projects must seem a bit irrelevant in the midst of war.
If I could reframe your questions, what relevance do Moodle and social constructivism have in different parts of Africa? and how can we as a community help meet any needs that arise from that relevance?
In reply to Frances Bell
Re: Worldwide Construct (Constructivism/Constructionism)
by Alexandre Enkerli -
This reframed question isn't exactly what I had in mind but that's fine by me.
Especially if we can have African learners and teachers participate in the conversation.
What the community can do to help meet needs arising from the possible relevance of Moodle's social constructivism? IMHO, a number of simple things centered on having a thoughtful conversation with different people involved.
It might be easier to do with people from parts of Africa where English is the primary language of instruction. With instruction in French, there are diverse issues (historical, political, social) which may make it hard to work out. Although, there might be a Claroline forum out there where pedagogical dimensions of LMS in constructivist approaches are discussed.
I'll report back if I find something like this.
Especially if we can have African learners and teachers participate in the conversation.
What the community can do to help meet needs arising from the possible relevance of Moodle's social constructivism? IMHO, a number of simple things centered on having a thoughtful conversation with different people involved.
It might be easier to do with people from parts of Africa where English is the primary language of instruction. With instruction in French, there are diverse issues (historical, political, social) which may make it hard to work out. Although, there might be a Claroline forum out there where pedagogical dimensions of LMS in constructivist approaches are discussed.
I'll report back if I find something like this.
I realize this thread died pretty quickly and I do understand why. I don't want to insist. But I wish to use it to vent on a specific issue. I could use a blog but I prefer putting it here.
Sorry if it's a bit like a rant. I'm getting out of a ranty mood.
In several discussions of constructivism and/or constructionism, differences between the two are discussed. And while I do understand the stated differences, I fail to understand why such a distinction should be so important.
So, for the record... I perceive constructionism to be an application/version/branch/elaboration/type of constructivism in learning practice and theory. An approach based on a subset of constructivist ideas giving emphasis to some principles to be applied in learning practice. Constructivism has been a rather broad set of ideas, covering different disciplines in relatively continuous ways. Constructionism has developed as an approach to learning with direct practical dimensions.
I might be wrong, misled ("you misle me!"), thick. But it seems rather clear to me that there is continuity rather than opposition between (Piaget's teachings on) constructivism and (Papert's efforts to push) constructionism. I tend to be more on the Piaget/constructivism side but I don't try to push "the -v- word" down constructionists' throats.
Why do I react so much? Well, I've read some really dismissive comments from someone who accused someone else to be clueless because she had confused the two words. As, like me, this person had learned a lot about constructivism through the French language, isn't it possible that usage of these words may differ across languages? I didn't look very specifically but my guess that French «constructivisme» covers both "constructivism" and "constructionism."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this other person was wrong too. But if many people confuse the two concepts, isn't it possible that the differences aren't that critical in normal conversation?
Ah, well...
Sorry if it's a bit like a rant. I'm getting out of a ranty mood.
In several discussions of constructivism and/or constructionism, differences between the two are discussed. And while I do understand the stated differences, I fail to understand why such a distinction should be so important.
So, for the record... I perceive constructionism to be an application/version/branch/elaboration/type of constructivism in learning practice and theory. An approach based on a subset of constructivist ideas giving emphasis to some principles to be applied in learning practice. Constructivism has been a rather broad set of ideas, covering different disciplines in relatively continuous ways. Constructionism has developed as an approach to learning with direct practical dimensions.
I might be wrong, misled ("you misle me!"), thick. But it seems rather clear to me that there is continuity rather than opposition between (Piaget's teachings on) constructivism and (Papert's efforts to push) constructionism. I tend to be more on the Piaget/constructivism side but I don't try to push "the -v- word" down constructionists' throats.
Why do I react so much? Well, I've read some really dismissive comments from someone who accused someone else to be clueless because she had confused the two words. As, like me, this person had learned a lot about constructivism through the French language, isn't it possible that usage of these words may differ across languages? I didn't look very specifically but my guess that French «constructivisme» covers both "constructivism" and "constructionism."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this other person was wrong too. But if many people confuse the two concepts, isn't it possible that the differences aren't that critical in normal conversation?
Ah, well...
“`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.
`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that’s all.’
” Alice Through the Looking Glass
Alexandre,
I was wondering what difference, if any, such a fine philosophical distinction might make to students. Little, I suspect, as you say. However, students might agree with Humpty Dumpty, and even if s/he is a social constructivist they know who is master.
I use "social constructionism", which "includes" the epistemology of constructivism:
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy
In my view all of these should be viewed as referents for practice, rather than an approach to practice.
This means they just describe a world view that helps you make decisions about what you will do, rather than prescribe any particular methods.
I don't think you can "impose" constructivism or constructionism on anyone. But you can give them tools that perhaps encourage them to start making and sharing stuff and thus create conditions for better learning.
http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy
In my view all of these should be viewed as referents for practice, rather than an approach to practice.
This means they just describe a world view that helps you make decisions about what you will do, rather than prescribe any particular methods.
I don't think you can "impose" constructivism or constructionism on anyone. But you can give them tools that perhaps encourage them to start making and sharing stuff and thus create conditions for better learning.
This, Martin, I can recognize. From the way Moodle works. And from the way teachers I relate to have been working.
Problem is, though, some people do interpret constructionism as a program. As in "get on with the program." Saw this in school reforms and in humanitarian intervention. That's where people turn against constructionism and constructivism. Because imposing this worldview (excellent way to put it, BTW) is not what this is all about.
Problem is, though, some people do interpret constructionism as a program. As in "get on with the program." Saw this in school reforms and in humanitarian intervention. That's where people turn against constructionism and constructivism. Because imposing this worldview (excellent way to put it, BTW) is not what this is all about.