The Mondiso evaluation report states something that I found mildly irritating, (but I am trying to be large about it). It first points out the lack of a stated pedagogical view on teaching maths in the app. It then describes the underlying pedagogical assumption of the app to be instructivist in nature (p 161). According to the evaluator this is evident when you look at the structure of a mission (in the app a cluster of learning objects are called a mission). A mission is presented as a list of activities sorted by level of pupil control. First we have the types of learning objects (which we call fundamental): explanatory activities where pupils listens to a story usually presenting some problem and it’s solution. Those are placed at the top of the list, followed by more explorative activities where the pupil is engaged in some kind of input delivery – click, drag, write, followed by consolidating activities, where the pupil repeats some action in order to memorize it. We start with an explanation of how something works or is, then we let the pupil experience that by playing a game, solving a puzzle, taking a quiz. There are no learning objects that is designed to let pupils experiment, simulate or create. Therefor the app takes an instructivist view on how learning Maths happens.
How is that? Sounds a bit simplistic to be honest. Any learning process that includes one-way communication like demonstrating or explaining something is “instructivst” ? I suspect that label is a result of a shallow understanding of constructivism, without which the instructivist term would not exist. I am not at all pleased with Mondiso being labeled as either of the categories instructivist nor constructivist. It’s lame and banal.
Constructivism is a cognitive theory by Jean Piaget, that simply suggests that knowledge is a mental construct of the learner. His theory completely supports lecturing – all kinds of construction processes could be going on in the pupil’s head while listening passively: presumably the pupil interprets, relates, accommodates, assimilates, and adjusts his understanding even though he is ‘only’ listening. His student Seymor Papert however with his term constructionism thinks that learning happens best when the learner is actively engaged in constructing some artifact. Does Mondiso give pupils a platform for such activities? No. Why not? Because such activities depends on the teachers involvement and the environment where learning occurs, and thus is quite out of our control. The constructionist approach is for the kind of experimental learning that happens during play. It would be nice if our schools believed more in play. But they don’t. They believe in work and are organized in line with that belief. Even with the best intentions, it’s almost impossible to steer around that fact.
When creating Mondiso we did not consciously choose sides in the instructionism vs. constructionism battle. The two camps do seem to have gone into some kind of selfmaintaining argument that takes us nowhere. Both ‘isms’ are over-theorized constructs, that make little sense when creating the instructional design of a product that is to be used within the institution of primary school, and has to adhere to a specific set of measurable learning objectives.
We did have a view on how learning occurs: Learning occurs when a person becomes aware of a phenomenon in a different way. (variation theory). Thats why we have multiple learning objects covering each math subject. Does it work? In theory it makes sense, but in the real world its a different story. But the app was build with this view of learning in mind. Us having a constructivist view of the cognitive processes of learning goes without saying. Who would claim that learning happens as ideas are transfered from the teacher to the learner, intact, without additions or modification? No one in their right mind I hope.
