Butler D. & Gash H. (2003) Creative learning and spiritual moments. In: Lasker G. E. (ed.) Advances in sociocybernetics and human development. Volume XI. https://cepa.info/2179
In a previous paper, an interpretation of spirituality along constructivist lines was proposed (Gash and Shine Thompson, 2002). One of the lines of exploration discussed personal transformation as a possible consequence of an experience of an epiphany – a moment of grace. Epiphanies are first, grounded in constructivist psychology as moments when a person shifts levels to reach new understandings (Gregory Bateson, 1987). Epiphanies are also moments of insight that allow the possibility of personal transformation, and hence potentially desirable experiences of spiritual growth. In the present paper we outline a series of experiences of epiphanies in children’s learning in the context of a project on constructionist learning led by one of us – Deirdre Butler. The purpose of the paper is to make a case for the importance of such moments as providing opportunities for personal growth, encapsulated in the title of the project EmpoweringMinds. Relevance: The value of wonder in education; using digital technology in classrooms
Dettori G. (2015) Narrative Learning for Meaning-Making, Collaboration and Creativity. Constructivist Foundations 10(3): 399–400. https://cepa.info/2163
Open peer commentary on the article “Learning about Urban Sustainability with Digital Stories: Promoting Collaborative Creativity from a Constructionist Perspective” by Maria Daskolia, Chronis Kynigos & Katerina Makri. Upshot: The target article by Daskolia, Kynigos and Makri shows the great potential of narrative learning to foster general learning skills, such as meaning-making, collaboration and creativity, while facilitating the construction of disciplinary content knowledge. This learning approach has much to recommend it, especially from a constructivist perspective, because it supports the implementation of collaborative and creative learning processes apt to promote reflective dialogue as a basis for knowledge construction, capitalizing on students’ previous knowledge and experience.
Papademetri-Kachrimani C. (2015) Learning about Learning with Teachers and (from) Young Children. Constructivist Foundations 10(3): 370–381. https://cepa.info/2156
Context: Convictions arising from different, separate and distinct domains and paradigms (modeling-based learning (MbL), Papert’s constructionism, literature on play from the domain of early childhood education, complexity theory) agree in favor of a need for a shift in education that will allow (young) children to access what Papert refers to as “hard learning” that consequently leads to “hard fun.” Problem: Nevertheless, such an achievement demands supporting learning in a manner that seems difficult for teachers to comprehend and handle. Method: In this article, we provide three learning stories. These constitute parts of an effort to develop a joint mathematics and science curriculum for early childhood education parallel to supporting teachers so that they deliver and, at the same time, are able to value and assess the learning involved. The first story concerns teachers’ learning whereas the second and third story concern 5-year-olds’ learning. Results: In all three stories, we see how the researcher (author), teachers and children learn (about creative learning) together. By the end of this article, the three stories will allow us to describe and redefine MbL and at the same time highlight the constructivism foundations of MbL and the common ground between MbL and the constructionism paradigm. Implications: Furthermore, the stories as a whole will allow us to argue that all it takes to move away from traditional practices is a shift in how learning is conceptualized. Constructivist content: The article is built on the constructionism approach, which focuses on the value of learners acquiring access to powerful ideas through meaningful constructivist learning processes.
Although most constructivist classrooms feature active, social, and creative learning, different kinds of knowledge (inert, ritual, conceptually difficult, and foreign) invite varied constructivist responses, not one standard approach. Constructivism is pragmatic and should be viewed as a toolbox for problems of learning; teachers should use whatever works.