The explanation of
thinking in levels helped me better understand the relationship between
Piaget's constructivism and Papert's constructionism. The emergent view of levels focuses on levels
that arise from interactions of objects at lower levels - like the traffic jam
that emerged from the interactions among the cars (Wilensky, 1999, p. 5). Papert's theory of learning and teaching
emerged from his interactions with Piaget’s theory of knowledge development.
Kafai (2006) clarified the two theories by pointing out, “where
constructivism places a primacy on the development of individual and isolated
knowledge structures, constructionism focuses on the connected nature of
knowledge with its personal and social dimensions” (p. 36). Maybe we could consider these two theories
as levels in our dynamic understanding education.
When thinking about
designing around powerful ideas, we can consider how cognitive tenets of
constructionism and the physical tenets of constructivism interact. Papert’s believes ideas are empowered if they
have three components: 1) leverage intuitive ideas 2) are personally meaningful
and 3) connect to others (2000, pg. 727).
I agree with Wilensky that this can be done through fostering
computational literacy in science classrooms.
Using agent based modeling tools like ToonTalk and StarlLogo are a way
of using scientific enquiry to engage students in difficult concepts without
allowing algebraic expression to overshadow and disempower ideas. Students are able to investigate concepts as
a professional scientist does. This
brings to mind contextual literacy. To
aid comprehension and analysis we consider the context and read literature written
for different purposes very differently.
In classes, teachers cue students to read a letter written by a soldier
during WWII “like a historian” or a lab results “like a scientist”. Computational literacy and agent based models
allow students to “act like a scientist” in science classrooms. I completely agree with Papert’s general thesis
that what is good for professionals is good for children (1980, p.30). I think learning that is authentic to it’s
field is more meaningful and might circumvent future transfer of knowledge
issues.
Wilensky and Resnick (1999) and Simpson (2005)
support my conclusion that computational literacy can re-empower ideas using
Papert’s three components of powerful ideas:
1) Leverage intuitive ideas: Students think about individual
creatures. This is more intuitive because students can imagine themselves as individual
turtles and think about what they might do. (17)
2) Connect to others: “students share and discuss not only their
current thoughts, difficulties, and conjectures, but working models that
instantiate their ideas.” (Simpson, pg. 144)
3) Ideas are personally meaningful: “StarLogo makes
systems-related ideas much more accessible to younger students by providing
them with a stronger personal connection to the underlying models” and (16).
I think students could explore process of how the earth is shaped
using computational modeling tools. It
might be helpful to have layers of processes (human, erosion, plate tectonics)
to see the levels of interactions.
Students could also use the computer to understand rapid and slow
changes. To make it personal students
could create a model for a location of meaning to them. For some students this might be a southern
coastal town with erosion and hurricanes to consider and for another student it
might be western city with earthquakes to consider. I think this could lead to a more robust
understanding of processes that shape the earth. How would exploring the processes of how the
earth is shaped on a computer be different than a physical model?
I had the same reaction while reading Wilensky's article on "Thinking in Levels" and immediately considered our discussions in class, especially in our smaller groups. During our last class I was struggling with how to develop or implement an activity through Scratch that truly empowered and engaged, without "spoon-feeding" them instructions or concepts, so to speak, but perhaps a big part of that was because I may not have understood the relationship you discuss.
ReplyDeleteI like your project idea as well! In Middle School in the Caribbean, we learn about how our island was formed (coral vs volcano vs barrier and so on). I think students would have a lot of fun learning about it in the way you describe. A bonus in your idea is that the computer model can simulate time in a more convenient way - 1 second = 1000 years (or something like that - maybe a student would have to figure that out based on previous readings they had).
A question I had - that I also had with my idea - was how much guidance would you give in advance? Or perhaps, do you think it is worthwhile to create a few examples that students can see to begin with and then send them on their way?