Constructivism and Digital Technology

A seminal convergence of constructivist learning approaches and digital technology can be found in the work of Papert, exploring the potential for meaningful concrete experience adapted from abstract learning materials (see 3.1). This involves virtual immersive playground environments which the user navigates through a process of experimentation, discovery and assimilation (1980, pp.120-136; 1987). Papert’s

research incorporated the LOGO programming

language (Figure 2.3), the first programming

environment to follow a pedagogical design, with the graphical avatar of a user-controlled turtle aimed at situating the learner in the virtual environment, and facilitating exploratory emergent behaviours:

My interest is in the process of invention of ‘objects-to-think-with’, objects in which there is an intersection of cultural presence, embedded knowledge, and the possibility for personal identification.

(1980, p.11)

Papert’s theory of learning, constructionism, emphasises the need for meaningful creative and

social learning outcomes:

Constructionism… shares constructivism's connotation of learning as "building knowledge structures" irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe

(Papert & Harel 1991, p.1)

These opportunities arise from micro worlds (Papert 1980), software environments which

make objects-to-think-with – building blocks – out of challenging or abstract ideas.

Figure 2.3 – Describing a square in

20 Constructionism is arrived at by reconciling constructivist theory with emerging

technological possibilities, a consistent theme in 21st century interpretations of learning

theories, as demonstrated by the ‘digitisation’ of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Churches 2008; 2009)

and strategies for web-based learning (Churchill 2009; Duffy 2008; Greenhow et al. 2009).

Siemens (2006; 2014) and Downes (2008; 2012) present an interpretation of constructivism

‘for a digital age’ in the theory and principles of connectivism:

 Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

 Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

 Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

 Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.

 Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

 Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

 Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning

activities.

 Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning

of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.

 While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the

information climate affecting the decision.

(Siemens 2014, p.5)

This theory recognises the learning environment as being in constant flux due to the changing nature of culture ideas and information exchanges in a digital world. The ability to see

connections and make decisions is defined as learning, because the knowledge itself is subject to change. Siemens (2014, p.3) argues that this pursuit of ‘fuzzy’ learning situates constructivist principles in the modern world:

Constructivism assumes that learners are not empty vessels to be filled with

knowledge. Instead, learners are actively attempting to create meaning. Learners often select and pursue their own learning. Constructivist principles acknowledge that real- life learning is messy and complex. Classrooms which emulate the “fuzziness” of this learning will be more effective in preparing learners for life-long learning.

21 However, this interpretation is less likely to resonate with the critics who attribute evidence for constructivist approaches as factual relativism (see Boghossian 2007). Phillips (1995, p.5)

argues that constructivism has ‘become something akin to a secular religion’among its

followers. Some educationalists have expressed the view that constructivist researchers can be so blinkered by an ontological stance as to distort empirical evidence (Phillips 1995; Fox 2001). Arguing from a constructivist position, Jonassen (2006) warns against a dichotomy of competing paradigms, where constructivists seek to replace perceived behaviourist methods on principle alone.

In taking on the concerns of critics, it is important that constructivist ideas are situated not just in emerging technological possibilities, but also in measurable outcomes of

classroom practice. Drawing from an extensive meta-analysis of classroom practice, Hattie

(2009; 2012) emphasises the importance of making learning visible so as to demonstrate clear

impact. This relates not just to the measurable visibility of what has been learned, but in the capacity of educators to see this from the perspective of their students and thus help them to become motivated evaluators of their own learning. Hattie defines learning as ‘the process of developing sufficient surface knowledge to then move to deep or conceptual understanding’ (Hattie & Yates 2013b, p.26), where students become self-directed and self-aware knowledge constructors. In measuring impact, then, we must question the extent to which students can demonstrably appropriate new knowledge to different contexts and outcomes. This is often

referred to as deep learning, defined by Fullan and Langworthy as instances of learning

which ‘[develop] the learning, creating and ‘doing’ dispositions that young people need to thrive now and in their futures’ (2014, p.i). Constructivist ideas may help us to decide how digital technology might be used to support specific learning outcomes, but it is then vital that we provide sufficient supporting evidence of the impact of this approach (for example, the ability of learners to apply their knowledge to new areas). For educational theorists

principally concerned with best practice, the researcher who attributes their findings as evidence for their wider ontological stance may be guilty of factual relativism in the pursuit of a theoretical agenda; certainly, this takes the discussion outside of the classroom, and renders it unlikely to contribute to the forum between teaching practice and educational

22

2.2 Constructivism and Music Education