Constructionist Design

An Immersive Workshop on the Design
of Learning Tools and Environments

Hosted by Learning Lab Denmark
May 26-30, 2003

Bakhtiar Mikhak mikhak@media.mit.edu MIT MEDIA LAB

Carol Strohecker stro@mle.media.mit.edu MEDIA LAB EUROPE

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE

Day 1: GETTING SITUATED

• READINGS:
  

1. The course description, reading list, and requirements for the Nature of Constructionist Learning course at the Media Lab.

2. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Papert & Harel, Eds., Constructionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

3. Papert, S. (1999) What is Logo? and Who Needs It? Introduction to a collection of essays on LOGO experiences in a number of different countries by LCSI.

4. Papert, S. (2000). What's the big idea? Steps toward a pedagogy of Idea Power. IBM Systems Journal, vol. 39, no. 3-4.

5. Duckworth, E. (1972). The Having of Wonderful Ideas. Harvard Educational Review Vol. 42 No. 2 May 1972, 217-231. [I have included this paper because I would like to ask people to read it along with paper 4.]

• DUE: [By May 12, 2003]
  

STATEMENT OF INTEREST: Write a short paper (a couple of pages long) on why you would like to participate in this seminar and how you imagine it would fit in with your research, academic, or general interests.

SHORT PAPER: What does Constructionism mean to you? If you are already familiar with the work of Epistemology & Learning groups (Future of Learning Group, the Lifelong Kindergarten Group, and the Grassroots invention Group) at the Media Lab, discuss how your prior understanding of Constructionism has changed or evolved by the first days readings.

Please send your papers constructionist-design@media.mit.edu.

DAY 2: FOUNDATIONS: MINDSTORMS

• READINGS:

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. [required text: available at amazon.com]

NOTE: Mindstorms is a foundational work for constructionist learning researchers. Many of our discussions will be based on Mindstorms. I would therefore recommend a close reading of this book prior to this course.

• HANDS-ON:
  

  MICROWORLDS: Create an animated story with MicroWorlds Logo from LCSI. (The LCSI website has some sample projects made by youth you may want to browse)

Day 3: DIVERSITY IN LEARNING

• READINGS:

  1. Papert, S. (1986). Beyond the Cognitive: The Other Face of Mathematics. Proceedings of the nineteenth international Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Plenary Lectures.

  2. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological Pluralism. Signs, vol. 16, no. 1.

  3. Wilensky, U. (1990). Abstract Meditations on the Concrete and Concrete Implications for Mathematics Education. Constructionism. Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.). Norwood, MA: Ablex Publishing.

  4. Papert, S. (1999). Diversity in Learning: A Vision for the New Millennium.
  Videotaped speech for Vice President Al Gore's Diversity Task Force.
  

  5. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the difference? An extended version of this paper appears in French.

  6. Ackermann, E. (1990). From Decontextualized to Situated Knowledge: Revisiting Piaget's Water-Level Experiment. E&L Memo No. 5.

• DUE:

SHORT PAPER: The short foreward to Mindstorms, called The Gears of My Childhood, has been very influential in the work of constructionist learning and education researchers. Write a short first reaction to this piece. I am only looking to see what emotions it evokes in you and how your thoughts and feelings about the central points of this piece evolve as you read the rest of Mindstorms.

SHORT PAPER: Write a book review for Mindstorms. Note that this book was written in 1980. To whom would you recommend this book? Are the central messages of Mindstorms still relevant today? Discuss the impact, if any, this book has had on you personally.

Please send your papers constructionist-design@media.mit.edu.

• HANDS-ON:
  

  SILENT GAME: This is a game in which 3 people are involved in designing, constructing, observing, and commenting on a construction. The game helps to make explicit the design ideas.

  • A makes up some rules and keeps them private
  • A builds a construction following the rules
  • B and C observe
  • C takes notes
  • B continues the construction, trying to continue the pattern/rules in A's exemplar
  • C continues taking notes
  • C speaks, describing observations
  • B speaks, then A, then all
    

Day 4: A NEW KIND OF RESEARCH

• READINGS:

  1. Papert, S. (1993). Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking. Educational Researcher, January-February.

  2. Papert, S. (1996). An Exploration in the Space of Mathematics Educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, Vol. 1, No. 1.

  3. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for Lifelong Kindergarten.
  Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 46, no. 4.
  
  4. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1.

  5. Martin, F., Mikhak, B., and Silverman, B. (2000). MetaCricket: A designer's kit for making computational devices. IBM Systems Journal, volume 39 No. 3-4.

  6. Project Zero and Reggio Children (2002). Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.

• HANDS-ON:
  

  KINETIC SCULPTURES: Create a kinetic sculpture with a cricket. You will need to download LogoBlocks software for programming the cricket. Here are documents for getting started with crickets and LogoBlocks. Here are some links with projects made by and for kids:

  (a) the PIE network, especially their 20 ideas page.
  (b) Learning Technologies at the MIT Museum
  (c) The Build-It-Yourself Workshop, especially their Hall of Fame

  KNOT TYING: We will explore concepts of topology by tying some basic knots and explaining them to others. This engagement with the material of string helps to think about appropriateness of various media as supports for thinking about particular ideas.

DAY 5: MATERIAL, HUMAN, AND INTELLECTUAL CONTEXTS

• READINGS:

1. Resnick, M., Rusk, N., and Cooke, S. (1998). The Computer Clubhouse: Technological Fluency in the Inner City. In Schon, D., Sanyal, B., and Mitchell, W. (eds.), High Technology and Low-Income Communities, pp. 266-286. Cambridge: MIT Press.

2. Papert, S. & Cavallo, D. (2000) The Learning Hub: Entry Point to Twenty First Century Learning.

3. Bruckman, A. (2002). Co-Evolution of Technological Design and Pedagogy in an Online Learning Community To appear in Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Editors: Sasha Barab, Rob, and James Gray. Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming 2002.


4. Bruckman, A., and Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community. Convergence, vol. 1, no. 1.

5. Bers, M. (2001) Identity Construction Environments: Developing Personal And Moral Values Through The Design Of A Virtual City. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 10, no. 4. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

6. Borovoy, R., Silverman, B., Gorton, T., Klann, J, Notowidigdo, M., Knep, B., and Resnick, M (2001). Folk Computing: Revisiting Oral Tradition as a Scaffold for Co-Present Communities. Proceedings of the CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems in March 2001. New York: ACM.

• DUE:

SHORT PAPER: React to Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking.

SHORT PAPER: Compare and contrast the research methodologies in the constructionist studies we read about last week and the work presented in Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners. Send your papers to ncl03-papers@media.mit.edu.

Please send your papers constructionist-design@media.mit.edu.