The first part of this paper examines the differences between Piaget’s constructivism, what Papert refers to as“constructionism,” and the socio-constructivist approach as portrayed by Vygotsky. All these views are developmental, and they share the notion that people actively contribute to the construction of their knowledge, by transforming their world. Yet the views also differ, each highlighting on some aspects of how children learn and grow, while leaving other questions unanswered. Attempts at integrating these views [learning through experience, through media, and through others] helps shed light on how people of different ages and venues come to make sense of their experience, and find their place – and voice – in the world. Tools, media, and cutural artifacts are the tangible forms, or mediational means, through which we make sense of our world and negociate meaning with others. In the second part of this paper, I speak to the articulations between make-believe activities and creative symbol-use as a guiding connection to rethink the aims of representations. Simulacrum and simulation, I show, play a key role besides language in helping children ground and mediate their experience in new ways. From computer-based microworlds for constructive learning (Papert’s turtle geometry, TERC’s body-syntonic graphing), to social virtual environments (MUDing). In each case, I discuss the roles of symbolic recreation, and imaginary projection (people’s abilities to build and dwell in their creations) as two powerful heuristic to keep in touch with situations, to bring what’s unknown to mind’s reach, and to explore risky ideas on safe grounds. I draw implications for education.

This paper examines the shared roots and crossed paths between Jean Piaget’s constructivism, what Seymour Paper refers to as “constructionism,” and socio-cultural theories as epitomized by Lev Vygotsky. We do so in the light of more situated, pragmatic, and ecological approaches to human cognition. All these views are developmental (stressing the genesis children’s interests and abilities over time), experiential (in the sense that knowledge is rooted in sensori-motor activity) and interactionist (people are seen as constructing their knowledge by transforming the world). Yet, the views also differ, each highlighting some aspects of how children grow and learn, while leaving other questions unanswered. Piaget’s main contribution was to flesh out what is common in children’s ways of thinking at different stages of their cognitive development and, more important, how consistent, robust, and generally “adapted” their views are. The theory stresses the progressive de-contextualization of knowledge (from here-and-now to then-and-there) and identifies some of the hidden mechanisms (internal reorganizations) that drive human cognitive development. Papert, in contrast, stresses how individuals learn in context and how they use their own – and other people’s – externalizations as objects to think with, especially as their convictions break down. His approach is more situated. Papert is particularly interested the role of new media in human learning. Both Papert and Vygotsky shed light on the articulations between direct and mediated experience (from action and tool-use to enactments, language, and symbol-use). Yet Vygotsky and the Russian school have paid much closer attention to the role of caring adults and peers in a child’s initiation to her culture. They remind us that it takes a whole village to raise a child. Integrating the views helps rethink how children come to make sense of their experiences, and how they find their own places – and voices – in the world. At once world-makers, world-readers, and dwellers in the world, human infants are granted from birth with the abilities to optimize exchanges with people and things by moving in and out of contexts, by shifting perspectives, and by switching roles or standpoint. They are extraordinary learners, and much can be learned from them. Lastly, while mostly inner-driven and curious, children need caring adults, secure grounds, and engaging peers and props to thrive and grow. Tools, media, and cultural artifacts are the tangible forms through which they explore their surrounds, express their thoughts, and share the fun with others – and the traces left by those who came before (cultural heritage) become a terrain for newcomers to create their paths.

Key words: Constructivism, Piaget, Papert, Vygotsky, situated learning, embodied cognition, ecology of mind

This paper aims at shedding light on what students can “construct” when they learn science and how this construction process may be supported. Constructivism is a pluralist theory of science education. As a consequence, I support, there are several points of view concerning this construction process. Firstly, I stress that constructivism is rooted in two fields, psychology of cognitive development and epistemology, which leads to two ways of describing the construction process: either as a process of enrichment and/or reorganization of the cognitive structures at the mental level, or as a process of building or development of models or theories at the symbolic level. Secondly, I argue that the usual distinction between “personal constructivism” (PC) and “social constructivism” (SC) originates in a difference of model of reference: the one of PC is Piaget’s description of “spontaneous” concepts, assumed to be constructed by students on their own when interacting with their material environment, the one of SC is Vygotsky’s description of scientific concepts, assumed to be introduced by the teacher by means of verbal communication. Thirdly, I support the idea that, within SC, there are in fact two trends: one, in line with Piaget’s work, demonstrates how cooperation among students affects the development of each individual’s cognitive structures; the other, in line with Vygotsky’s work, claims that students can understand and master new models only if they are introduced to the scientific culture by their teacher. Fourthly, I draw attention to the process of “problem construction” identified by some French authors. Finally, I advocate for an integrated approach in science education, taking into account all the facets of science learning and teaching mentioned above and emphasizing their differences as well as their interrelations. Some suggestions intended to improve the efficiency of science teaching are made.

Key words: science learning science teaching, personal constructivism, social constructivism, cooperation, enculturation, problem construction.

Constructivism is an approach to knowledge and learning that focuses on the active role of knowers. Sanchez and Loredo propose a classification of constructivist thinkers and address what they perceive to be internal problems of present-day constructivism. The remedy they propose is a return to the genetic constructivism of James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. In this article we first raise the question of whether thinkers like Baldwin, Vygotsky, Maturana and Varela are adequately depicted as constructivists, and subsequently argue that constructivism is caught in an overly epistemic version of the subject/object dichotomy. We then introduce a genetic logic that is not based on the Hegelian dialectics of negation and mediation, but rather on the idea of the recursive consensual coordination of actions that give rise to stylized cultural practices. We argue that a genuinely genetic and generative psychology should be concerned with the multifarious and ever-changing nature of human “life” and not merely with the construction of knowledge about life. Relevance: The article deals with perceived “internal” problems of constructivist approaches and proposes a genetic and generative psychology that is centrally concerned with human life-as-lived and not merely with life-as-known. The article furthermore raises the question whether key thinkers like Vygotsky, Maturana and Varela and are adequately depicted as constructivists.

Key words: Constructivism, genetic logic, generativity, expressivism, enactivism.

Wie wir über das Lernen und Lehren denken, ist vor allem in den Naturwissenschaften seit zwei Jahrzehnten vom Konstruktivismus beeinflußt worden, einer Bewegung, die Piaget viel zu verdanken hat. In jüngerer Zeit haben auch die Arbeiten von Vygotsky, mit ihrer stärkeren Fokussierung auf den Lehrer, die Aufmerksamkeit der Didaktiker auf sich gelenkt. Es ist eine verbreitete Ansicht, der jedoch widersprochen werden muß, Vygotsky habe Piaget als den maßgeblichen Theoretiker verdrängt. Beide sind für ein Verständnis des Lehrens und Lernens notwendig, ihre Ideen stehen nicht im Konflikt miteinander, sondern ergänzen sich. Die Autorin wird sich auf den naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht in der Schule konzentrieren, da es trotz der enormen Anstrengungen auf diesem Gebiet während der letzten 40 Jahre Kinder immer noch schwierig finden, die Naturwissenschaften zu erlernen.

Part 1 of a three-part article analyzing radical constructivism (as one interpretation of Piaget) and the socio-cultural perspective (as one interpretation of Vygotsky), including major principles, primary contributions to mathematics education, and potential limitations. Introduces an integration of the two theories through a feminist perspective.

As this is the Centenary year of Piaget and Vygotsky I shall endeavour to develop this paper around their work, thereby maximising the overall conference theme. I shall examine the proposition namely that children construct their own knowledge.

This book is an update of the workshop that introduced the work of Jean Piaget to the science teaching community in the U.S. The result of Robert Karplus’ introduction of Piaget’s theory and observations to the Physics community have resulted in the formation of a whole new sub-discipline named physics education research (PER). The theoretical underpinnings of Piaget’s theory of cognitive equilibration are described and contrasted with the work of Vygotsky. Piaget’s ideas spawned a number of Piagetian-based course programs in institutions of higher education in the U.S. which are described in the book. Examples of work in disciplines beyond the sciences from such programs are given.

Constructivism, a multifaceted philosophical position on the nature of knowledge and educational practice, has recently emerged both in the literature on learning and in school reform efforts, despite no strong supporting research base. At present, four major perspectives on constructivism in classrooms may be identified. They are the perspectives of Piaget and Vygotsky as well as social and holistic constructivism. Because school psychologists may be asked to work in a constructivist framework, one purpose of this article is to describe the essential characteristics and difficult issues associated with implementing this approach for classroom practice. Included are goals, assumptions about learners, essential teacher skills, and research concerns. A second purpose is a discussion of the implications for school psychologists, highlighting currently recommended school psychology practices that may address important concerns within a constructivist approach. Recommendations for consultation and intervention, needs of students with learning difficulties, and assessment issues are addressed.

Open peer commentary on the article “Maker Education: Where Is the Knowledge Construction?” by José Armando Valente & Paulo Blikstein. Abstract: Valente and Blikstein raise what I believe is an important criticism of the under-specification of learning in makerspaces and in the maker movement in general. Based on a synthesis of Piaget, Vygotsky and Papert, they suggest that an important part of the answer is to emphasize the role of teachers in the learning process. I fundamentally agree with their propositions, but raise three questions about the resulting challenges to teacher training and professional development.