“This chameleonesque adaptivity [of machines], which is embedded in technology, permits the acknowledgement and embracing of different learning styles and epistemologies, engendering aconvivial environment in which students can concretize their ideas and projects with intense personal engagement.”

The idea of constructivist learning– one in which students take ownership of their own projects and learning tracts– has always fascinated me. On one hand, the idea of empowering students to be “makers” and “follow their passions” from a young age has tremendous potential. However, I do believe that a common core is crucial today.

My question this week surrounds the discussion on constructivist learning. Is it possible to provide students with a practical foundation of knowledge by still implementing project based innovative strategies (including digital fabrication)?

What are other limitations of constructivism?

I am also very interested in learning more on how students form identities around certain subjects. For example, I am curious to what extent a student who develops a strong “STEM identity” in K-12 is more likely to perform well in STEM classes and perhaps choose a STEM major in college. Steinkuehler and Duncan mention that “intellectual activities that constitute successful gameplay are nontrivial” and include the “construction of new identities” in simulated worlds (Steinkuehler and Duncan 531). Like other forms of childhood play, MMOs seem to be offering a fantastic opportunity for children to assume different roles and learn through role play. It is also established that socially constructed knowledge within MMOs transfer over to the real world. Is this also true / can this be done for something like fostering a sense of STEM identity?

While video games were considered “torpid” by researchers of the past, Steinkuehler and Duncan find that WoW can actually be a place of learning, specifically in informal science literacy. By giving these players a platform for collective knowledge gathering, they learn from each other about how to play the game. The knowledge does not come from above, but can be the result of one player’s shared experience which is then debated and built upon by other players. This kind of community collaboration could definitely be used for “bridging third places” — Steinkuehler’s name for the space between school and home that allows for student learning.

Zimmerman and Land discuss the design guidelines that can be used in these “third places,” specifically in place-based learning at the Arboretum. These researchers find some really compelling applications of place-based informal learning. However, I still struggle with this approach: how much is the app a distraction from the nature at hand? Is it important that the kids learn outside? In different life stages, would they learn as much in an informal discussion with mom and dad or as a player in a video game with an active scientifically minded-community?

I can see why the place-based framework works. I think that tapping on individuals’ previous knowledge gives them confidence to continue to expand their knowledge in that particular area.

How do we balance between leaving it completely open for students to explore in inquiry-based learning, and having a plan about what we think as important for them to learn? Or does there have to be a balance? If not, if all we want students to learn is the process of inquiry, how do we assess that, and how does it fit into school’s agenda?

In general, I think the authors’ connection of all these habits to “scientific thinking,” insofar as they related it to the sort of science taught in science class, is a little too specific. This sort of reasoning is important to hard sciences, but it’s also important to all sorts of academic fields and everyday activities, such as politics, economics, and simple decision-making. What they observed is important to far more than just science.

What I think Steinkuehler and Duncan saw, rather than “scientific” thinking, is simply what people do when they care about a topic or earnestly want to solve a problem. I firmly believe that one of the best ways to make someone learn something, or do something, is to incentivize that something such that they really want to do it or need the target skills. Video games like WoW are mostly played for leisure. Hardly anyone playing is disinterested in the game, I expect, or they’d quit. Anyone interested enough in WoW to post on the forums is probably deeply engaged with the game and wants to improve at it. The reasoning and discovery in the forums is based in this motivation.

I’ve thought about this before in relation to video games, and active leisure activities in general. I’ve played plenty of games and at one point asked myself why I enjoyed them when, essentially, they’re quite similar to work. They’re mostly on screen, they present me with problems, they entail resource management, etc. Why put effort into them when effort in other, more important tasks, tires me out? The answer, I think, is interest. I think people are generally capable of evidenced-based thinking and rational problem solving, and that they’ll gladly do those things when motivated by interest or incentive. This is why kids who hate math class can become obsessed with sports statistics.

When Steinkuehler and Duncan report that many students don’t have requisite scientific inquiry skills (p. 530), I wonder if that study was done only in the context of science class, or if the students were only asked abstract philosophical questions. My hunch is that the students would demonstrate decent reasoning skills if the researchers had observed them doing things that matter to their real lives (there is analogous issue in math reasoning, about the difference in ability that students show between everyday “street math” and academic “school math”).

I agree with the authors that video games (or any other active leisure activity) can be a great setting to view reasoning in action. People will reason about causes and topics they earnestly care about, when they have a “reason to reason.” I would urge caution about their claim that MMOs and other games can boost informal scientific literacy (540). As a video gamer, my hunch is that these games are demonstrating extant reasoning skills by leveraging genuine interest, not by teaching new reasoning skills. These skills may not translate to topics where the interest is not genuine.