Constructionism: student learning and development.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess learning and development of students taught under a constructionist approach. Participants were six teachers and 12 students from a small experimental school in Thailand. Evaluation of student portfolios at three different points in time indicated significant improvement (p

Introduction

For many years, behavioral psychology was a dominant influence on schools (Druin & Solomon, 1996; Tullavantana, 2002). In the behaviorist viewpoint, teachers are the disseminators of information and students are passive receptacles of the knowledge that teachers impart (Hay & Barab, 2001; Tullavantana, 2002). Drill-and-practice is one of the instructional styles that support behaviorist learning (Suppes, 1980 as cited in Druin & Solomon, 1996).

During the 1970s, behavioral psychology declined in prominence and gave way to the rapid increment of cognitive psychology (Gosling & Craik, 1999). Cognitivism emphasizes learning process in the minds of students. Constructivism, one of the cognitive learning theories proposed by Jean Piaget, argues that knowledge is not transmitted from teachers to students, but constructed by students themselves when they interact with the environment (Bjorklund, 1995; Guzdial, 1997; Stager, 2001). This view of knowledge acquisition is similar to Dewey's (1933) idea of learning by doing and discovery learning as a result of interaction with the environment.

Constructionism, another one of the cognitive learning theories, was developed by Seymour Papert, professor of learning research at the Media Laboratory of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Guzdial, 1997). Constructionism, which goes a step further than constructivism (Druin & Solomon, 1996; Petcharuksa, 2001; Tullavantana, 2002), asserts that students are particularly likely to make new ideas and construct knowledge when they are engaged in building objects or making products by themselves (Guzdial, 1997; Hay & Barab, 2001; Papert, 1980, 1984, 1993, 1999; Stager, 2001). Therefore, while constructivism defines learning as the building of knowledge inside of one's head, constructionism suggests that the best way to ensure that such intellectual structures form is through the active construction of something outside of one's head-something tangible that others can see, critique, and, perhaps, use (Guzdial, 1997; Stager, 2001). Another benefit of learning through constructionism is social skill development. Papert (1993) indicated that a constructionist learning environment also allows students to show, discuss, examine, and collaboratively reflect on the cognitive artifacts or product that they create. In this way, their content area knowledge, habits of mind, and social skills will be developed (Hay & Barab, 2001; Stager, 2001).

To assess students' learning under constructionism, traditional testing (e.g., true-false, multiple-choice, fill-in, short-answer, and essay) may not be the most appropriate. Traditional tests fail to allow students to demonstrate the multidimensional aspects of what they have learned (Cole, Ryan, Kick & Mathies, 2000). Portfolio is potentially an authentic assessment tool for assessing student learning applied in a complex, real-world situation (Benson & Barnett, 1999). Portfolio reflects many types of student performances i.e. individual abilities and characteristics, as well as growth and progress as seen through their created products or artifacts (Aschbacher, 1990; Birenbaum, 1996; Moonkum, 2000; Poowipadawat, 2001). Although it could be argued that (a) traditional testing can be authentic (e.g., students do make multiple choices in everyday life) and portfolios can be contrived (e.g., designed to show only best, not typical, products), and that (b) both traditional testing and portfolios capture only a small part of student achievement and development, portfolios in general are more comprehensive and authentic (see Pressley & McCormick, 1995, p. 571-572). Since constructionism is a relatively new educational concept, its possible effects on students should be more comprehensively assessed. Learning under constructionism, at least at the present time, should be assessed through portfolios.