constructionism and programming

This is changing a little bit from my theme of blogs, roleplaying games, fanfic and craft communties, but ties into some broader research from the group.

The word "constructionism" came from Seymour Papert who was refining Piaget's idea of "constructivism." Broken down, Piaget said that people learn by constructing knowledge. People don't just take information and internalize it, make it an inextricable part of themselves. They make connections to their past experiences and fit new knowledge into an existing context, an existing understanding of the world and how it works. Papert added that this process of construction can be mediated, so for example, someone can make an object and use it for reflection. He believed that the computer could be a powerful medium for this type of expression and reflection and focused on this as research.

Now because Papert was a mathematician and popularized the idea of constructionism with his example of Logo and learning geometry through programming the turtle, many of the examples of constructionism have become synonymous with math and science. This is the avenue that many followed. This should be broadened.

Of course it was only right for Papert to speak from his experience. His ideas were powerful because they stemmed from his rich experiences as a mathematician.

But because Seymour coined the term "constructionism" and talked about it in a particular context, it has stuck and become almost trivialized. Programming in and of itself isn't a constructionist activity. There needs to be a meaningul purpose or project around it. Some code is just annoying and shouldn't be that annoying to write. A problem set from database systems is about as constructive as a set of story problems in math class-- ie, not very. Some programming is extremely constructive-- in writing the program, a person is working through a real problem in a formal language and system. The act of programming clarifies the idea and thought process. Similarly, Legos are construction toys, but if you're just copying a design out of a book and aren't thinking, just acting mechanically, well, that activity isn't so constructive any more.

When art is involved, things get more complicated. At what level is programming useful and at what point is it a hindrance to expression? Creating art takes a certain level of fluency in both the medium and mode of expression. If I want to make a song, I need to have some understanding of an instrument as well as how to make music. If I want to make an interactive poem, I need to understand poetry as well as how to make an animation either through code or in a piece of software. When do you want to use software with predefined tools and when do you want to make your own?

There's a continuum. Making the poem is a constructive activity. Hopefully there's creation and reflection. Programming adds another level of complexity. There's the creation and reflection of the program as well as of the piece. Do we need fluency in one before attempting it in the other?

And is interactive poetry viewed as more "constructionist" because there's a computer involved than poetry written in a journal? What is an in-person poetry workshop with no online collaborative space and no interactive pieces? Is it something that has been done for decades and is therefore uninteresting? What about the many different ways that people conduct workshops? Some give assignments, others ask people to come with work and take it from there. Are blog-based RPGs interesting for being an online collaboration, for exemplifying the appropriation of a tool, for representing a new way of telling a story or because kids are writing for themselves and creating communities around writing?

Why is constructionism interesting and what can we add to it and to society by studying it when according to both Piaget and Papert, people learn constructively-- whether they're in an instructionist situation or constructive one. Is it to make learning more efficient? More enjoyable? Both?

These are just questions I'm throwing out, and I think everyone will respond differently.

My answers are that in studying constructionism, I hope to become a better teacher and learner. I want to understand what makes for a compelling and interesting learning situation beyond having a special teacher-- or rather, understand what makes a teacher special. I'm not sure about overthrowing the system of education, but I do believe in setting examples and letting people learn constructively from them.

And as for what is constructionist-- anyone who practices is constructionist-- anyone who creates theories or objects and reflects upon their meaning and crafting. Scientists, engineers, mathematicians, artists and writers are all practicing constructionists, whether they know it or not. They're people who try to understand instead of working mechanically, and in trying to understand, create artifacts of words, equations, maps, models and yes, computer programs.