Abstract: Maker education is a new instantiation of the decades-old project of project-based, constructionist, inquiry-driven learning. However, unlike other past implementations, it offers many unique characteristics, makes possible novel educational outcomes, and challenges policy makers and teachers with new infrastructural needs. In this response, using examples from school and district-wide implementation, we address three categories of questions raised in the commentaries around maker education: the uniqueness of makerspaces and the artifacts produced within them (and how they differ from projects and artifacts produced in other educational environments), teacher professional development for this novel type of school environment, and new approaches to assessment. Our conclusions point to recommendations that could be useful for policy makers, teachers and educators working on the implementation of maker programs.

Excerpt: Currently, many educators suggest that learning can be enhanced if the learning environment includes moreinteractive, student-centered, and engaging activities where learners construct their understanding rather than moretraditional methods of teacher-centered, direct instruction. Inherent is a paradigm shift from more historicalteaching methods to an environment where teachers relinquish control and learners accept responsibility forlearning. Many agree that this promotes more ownership and stimulates more meaningful learning. However,engaging in such a learning environment presents challenges for both the teacher, who designs, develops, andfacilitates this complex environment, and learners who must interact and take responsibility for constructing theirunderstanding. This paper describes a study conducted by Northern Arizona University’s Educational Technology facultyregarding training teachers for the integration of technology and the promotion of learner-centered instruction. Participants included traditional pre-service students enrolled in a required “Technology in the Classroom” courseand veteran teachers engaged in professional development designed to provide instruction into the integration oftechnology into the classroom. Instruction modeled the integration of technology from a constructionist perspective,and provided participants the opportunity to engage in activities that utilized the integration of technology. Thelearning environment was designed to provide introduction to skills and practice exercises utilizing computerapplications that could be later used within their teaching practice.

Context: In 2015, we are surrounded by tools and technologies for creating and making, thinking and learning. But classroom “learning” is often focused on learning about the tool/technology itself, rather than learning with or through the technology. Problem: A constructionist theory of learning offers useful ways for thinking about how technology can be included in the service of learning in K-12 classrooms. To support constructionism in the classroom, we need to focus on supporting teachers, who necessarily serve as the agents of classroom-level innovations. This article explores a central question: How can we support teachers to engage with constructionism as a way to think beyond a technocentric view in the classroom? Method: I approach this work from the perspective of a designer, using the process of supporting teachers working with the Scratch programming language in K-12 classrooms as a central example. I draw on reflections from six years of the ScratchEd project, which includes interviews with 30 teachers, and observations from teacher professional development events and an online community of educators. Results: I describe five sets of tensions that I encountered while designing the ScratchEd model of professional development: tensions between (1) tool and learning, (2) direction and discovery, (3) individual and group, (4) expert and novice, and (5) actual and aspirational. I describe how these tensions are negotiated within the elements of the PD model (an online community, participatory meetups, and an online workshop). Implications: The tensions I describe are not specific to Scratch, and can serve as a more general model for PD designers to scrutinize and critique. Constructivist content: This work contributes to ongoing conversations and questions about how to support constructivist/constructionist approaches in classrooms.

Key words: Constructionism, technocentrism, teachers, professional development, ScratchEd

The Cycle of Inquiry (COI) is a tool for emergent curriculum planning and for professional development of early childhood teachers and teacher education students. The COI guides teachers to document their observations of children’s learning, their interpretations of and questions about the developing knowledge they have observed, and their curricular designs for engaging children in the next steps in learning that are linked to the learning previously observed. Focusing curricular planning on observation and interpretation of children’s construction of knowledge allows teachers to plan for long-term learning experiences that are conceptually linked to children’s developing theories of the world. The documentation of teachers’ thinking in each phase of the COI process also supports teacher development by providing a format for teachers to reference their own thinking and construct new understanding about their teaching practice.

This paper focusses on how researching is done through reflections about, or at a meta-level to, the practice over time of an enactivist mathematics education researcher. How are the key concepts of enactivist theory (ZDM Mathematics Education, doi: 10. 1007/s11858–014–0634–7, 2015) applied? This paper begins by giving an autobiographical account of the author’s engagement with enactivist ideas and the development of enactivist research projects. The rest of the paper then discusses principles of the design of enactivist followed by four themes of learning, observing, interviewing and find-ing(s). The spelling, find-ing(s), draws attention to the findings of enactivist research being processes not objects. In the case of the collaborative research group used as an exemplar throughout the paper, for instance, the find-ing(s) shed light onto the journeys of professional development travelled by the members of the group as they develop their teaching.

Key words: mathematics, teacher prospective, teacher collaborative group, structural coupling, mathematics lesson

Our initial documentation of the effects of the CAPITAL Program has implications for our own research agenda and for research on teacher education graduates in general. Interviews are a beneficial opportunity for teachers to identify and clarify their perceptions of successes, challenges, and needs in their practices. An hour of focused attention on their own performance facilitates teachers’ reflection and analysis. Thus our data collection will continue to include interviewing; however, we are aware of the need to collect additional types of data requiring different methods such as portfolio analysis, classroom observations, close reading of journals kept by students through- out the program, and interviews with mentor teachers and principals. We are currently exploring all of these and believe each additional data source will provide valuable insights useful for refining our program and supporting the continuing develop- ment of our graduates. Teacher preparation and professional development are never complete. University faculty and school colleagues must share responsibility for induction into and success in the profession. As these groups continue to collaborate, interact, and grow in unique understandings of what it means to develop as a teacher, a constructivist frame will be appropriate for all.

Excerpt: Most contemporary neurobiologists and cognitive scientists agree: knowledge is actively constructed. The implications of constructivism for education, however, remain controversial. In the last ten years schools have been engaged in a flurry of reform initiatives encompassing new curricula, new forms of assessment, new standards, and professional development. But various interpretations of constructivism abound, often equating it with “hands-on“ learning, discovery, and a host of pedagogical strategies. Resulting confusion and misinterpretation has resulted in public attacks by the media, by parents, and even at times various groups in the academic community. Thus it seems appropriate in this speech, to reflect on the biological and cognitive science evidence and to provide further implications for an application of the theory to education.

Context: The paper is a selective survey of radical constructivist (RC) research that relates to education. Problem: Over the past 40 years there have been developments in the research reviewed. Earlier work was often concerned with conceptual clarification and showing different ways children and teachers think, whereas recent work is more systemic and applied. Method: Research with educational implications done by the author and colleagues is surveyed. This survey shows how RC influenced research in a variety of psychological domains including attitudes to different others, science education, and teacher professional development. Results: While initial work by the author in this area focussed on conceptual clarification, the more recent work is classroom-based, with implications for educational practice in schools. The final part of the paper on research by colleagues emphasises how teachers might work together in schools and the broader school system. Implications: RC plays a significant role in national curricula as a theoretical approach to facilitating diversity in schools and empowering children in their education. There is an urgent need to focus on student learning. The work on educational applications cited provides important insights into the resolvable problems of enabling genuine learning communities. Constructivist Content: The paper addresses theoretical clarification, variations in children’s concepts about different others, inclusion, and implementation of educational programmes that use RC frameworks.

Key words: Dewey, Piaget, process, certainty, education, facilitating learning.

Open peer commentary on the article “Beyond Technocentrism: Supporting Constructionism in the Classroom” by Karen Brennan. Upshot: If we are to move beyond technocentricism, we need not only to equip teachers with pedagogical approaches but to support a change in their beliefs, values and assumptions. While factors such as assessment practices and institutional norms can limit the impact of professional development by considering the ways in which teachers form their teacher-identity and the factors that can motivate change, we can begin to develop approaches to professional development that can have lasting impact on teachers and their learners.

In this response to three articles in the immediately previous issue of For the Learning of Mathematics, the author addresses the theme of holding together what is seemingly disparate or even conflicting. First, the author asks whether we can hold together “mathematics” and “care for another” by viewing mathematics as always being someone’s mathematics, and by using the idea of first-order and second-order models of knowing. Second, the author suggests the need to hold together care for students with care for ourselves as teachers and teacher-educators. Third, the author presents a perspective on what is liberating about a radical constructivist perspective on knowing. Relevance: This publication is partly in response to Paul Ernest’s critique of radical constructivism in an article published in the immediately previous issue of For the Learning of Mathematics. In addition, this publication uses a radical constructivist perspective on knowing, and specifically Les Steffe’s first-order and second-order models, to suggest different ways to view tensions in the conduct of research and professional development, in response to an article by McCloskey.