Reflections on Using Computers as “Mindtools”

Jonassen, et. al cited Papert’s use of the term “constructivism” to “describe the process of knowledge construction” as an inspiration for the rest of their work (Jonassen, Carr & Yueh, 1998). However, they neglected to include the exact citation for this reference, leaving one to suppose it was taken from Papert’s “Mindstorms” book, considered a seminal work in this field. However, I had the impression from a more recent book by Papert (last week’s reading), that he was not a huge proponent of constructivism, since this newer book states that “The metaphor of learning by constructing one’s own knowledge has great rhetorical power against the image of knowledge transmitted through a pipeline from teacher to student. But it is only a metaphor, and….other images are just as useful for understanding learning, and are more useful as sources of practical mathetic guidance….Indeed, the description “connectionism” fits my story better than “constructivism” (Papert, 1993, p. 104).

While constructivist theory sounds exciting, I find myself wondering how anyone could really use the multiplication tables if they constantly had to stop and construct them, rather than simply having them imbedded in their long-term memories through memorization so that they could automatically use this information in constructing new ideas. It seems that a combination of traditional approaches and constructivist opportunities would yield the best overall results in learning and so I set out to find what educators who were critical of constructivism had to say.

One recent article criticizing this approach was co-written by Richard Clark, a major player in the media vs. methods debate. These researchers suggest that inquiry-based instruction by novice learners is “doomed to failure” because of the huge strain on limited working memory capacity which would prevent the formation of vital connections within long-term memory (i.e. learning). They cite much research suggesting that constructivism can be counterproductive, especially with novice learners, who appear to need considerable guidance from teachers (with scaffolding, etc.) to keep from getting overwhelmed or to prevent the formation of misperceptions (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006).

Papert himself seems to leave room for compromise with this quote “to say that intellectual structures are built by the learner, rather than being taught by a teacher, does not mean that they are built from nothing” (Papert, 1980. p. 19). The best education may be a balance between both methods so that students broaden their knowledge base and get excited by its immediate applications as they construct solutions to problems that are meaningful to them.


[References]

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. and Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, TechTrends, 43, 2 (pp. 24-32).

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41, 2. (pp. 75-86).

Papert, S.A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1993). A Word for Learning. The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer, (pp. 82-105). New York, NY: Basic Books.