(Written on February, 2019 )
Education theories of 3Cs: Constructionism, Constructivism, and Critical Pedagogy.
Piaget's Constructivism, Papert's constructionism, and Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy have shifted our attention from teacher-centered ways of delivering pedagogy to student-centered learning. All of them shared commonalities. At the same time, each of them also holds ideas that are distinct from the others.
Papert and Piaget both agree that learning is a developmental process rather than a fixed one. However, Piaget was in favor of the developmental stage in learning due to "biological maturation". His theory only focused on the learner. On the other hand, Papert’s view was more focused not only on the learners but also on the contexts, interactions, and tools of the whole learning process. “Papert is interested in how learners engage in a conversation with[their own or other people’s] artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed learning and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge. He stresses the importance of tools, media, and the context in human development”(Ackermann, 2001, p.1).
Piaget and Papert both supported the view of “Equilibration,” which is “adaptation” and “assimilation”. However, when examined in-depth, the differences become evident. According to Ackerman (2001, p.8), “ the difference is that Piaget's interest was mainly in the construction of internal stability (la conservation et la reorganization des acquis), whereas Papert is more interested in the dynamics of change (la decouverte de nouveaute). ”
When analyzing the different types of knowledge and how each saw their contribution, Piaget thought the ability of learning could be determined on a scale of development that is determined by biological factors. He focused on learning in the early stages as being a combination of biological factors. In the early stage of a person, he/she needs to have solid knowledge about an object. They have to see it touch it, use it, and be told what it is. They are then able to commit that information in their brain for later knowledge. Later in a person’s life, learning is defined differently as a person grows their knowledge transfers from concrete to formal. It is due to the person's biologically maturing. The person can draw upon previous knowledge they gained from seeing, touching, and learning about the object. During the formal learning, the object does not need to be present because they can use the memory of discovery earlier on in life. Ackerman (2001, p.8) summarized that “Piaget's theory relates how children become progressively detached from the world of concrete objects and local contingencies, gradually becoming able to manipulate symbolic objects within a realm of imaginary worlds mentally. He studied children's increasing ability to extract rules from empirical regularities and to build cognitive invariants. ” Whereas at this point, Papert had thought a little bit further, and he argues the “revaluation of the concrete” (Ackerman, 2001, p.6). It means that Papert believes concrete and formal knowledge are not in a development sequence, whereas they are just different ways of how people perceive knowledge. Both of them are worthy of being valued.
Like Papert and Piaget, Paulo Freire also reevaluated the relationship between teacher and student and valued the importance of the learner’s initiative. Freire (2005, p.72) wrote, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.” Moreover, he brought up a point of view that Papert and Piaget didn’t consider that students were being oppressed and alienated by teachers, and “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.” (2005, p72).
It is worth noting that both Papert’s Constructionism and Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy emphasized the importance of influences coming from the environment. As Ackermann (2001. p.8) summarized that Papert emphasized that “intelligence should be defined and studied in-situ; alas, that being intelligent means being situated, connected, and sensitive to variations in the environment. ” Freire also wrote in his book “Pedagogy of the oppressed” (2005, p.32) that “This world to which he relates is not a static and closed order, a given reality which man must accept and to which he must adjust; rather, it is a problem to be worked on and solved. ”
However, there is a difference that lies between Freire, Piaget, and Papert. As aforementioned, Piaget and Papert believe the construction of knowledge is a developmental process, and only through this process, people can see the world critically. However, Freire’s view steps a little further, and he believes that the ability to be critical has nothing to do with the developmental process of learning. Instead, it is all about experiences. As stated in the book (2005, p.32), Freire has convicted:
“Every human being, no matter how “ignorant” or submerged in the “culture of silence” he or she may be, is capable of looking critically at the world in a dialogical encounter with others. Provided with the proper tools for such encounter, the individual can gradually perceive personal and social reality as well as the contradictions in it, become conscious of his or her own perception of that reality, and deal critically with it.”
From my point of view, although Paulo Freire’s tried to argue that the ability of how to look at the world is not that related to the education that a person received, having experiences or conversations with others are still ways of learning knowledge in incremental manners, but just in an informal situation. The expertise of knowledge is not only measured by whether the person is literate or not. It is also worthy of looking at other types of knowledge, especially gained from experiences and dialogical communications. Hence, based on this, it is not a surprise to read when Paulo Freire brought up the example (2005, p.32) that “A peasant can facilitate this process for a neighbor more effectively than a “teacher” brought in from outside.”
There is another point of view from Paulo Freire in which I can't entirely agree. Paulo believed that the development of technology is inhibiting us from learning and from gaining the full environmental impact needed to look at the world critically. Richard Shaull expressed this opinion through the summarization in the Foreword of Paulo’s book (2005, p.33), “Our advanced technological society is rapidly making objects of most of us and subtly programming us into conformity to the logic of its system. To the degree that this happens, we are also becoming submerged in a new “culture of silence.” However, in my opinion, although the development of technology might increase the possibility of reducing the chances for people getting experiences with the real world, technology increases the opportunities for people to have dialogic communications with others. In other words, technologies promote possibilities for people to educate each other; this can be seen in technologies such as instant messaging applications, vlogs on video platforms, and so forth.
One thing I agree with Paulo Freire is that he describes, under the banking education, students are oppressed by the teachers. There is an importance of emancipating students from the marginalized situation and reconciling the relationship between students and teachers. When I was a student in China, I felt the same oppression as described by Freire. It was when I came here that I realized that thinking beyond some preconceived ideas and using my critical thinking skills for something other than doing homework is not wrong behavior. I still remember the moment when I was at the Maker Faire when a little boy so proudly said to me, “ These are all made by myself!” His mom was standing behind him so supportively and proud. I will also never forget the moment when performers on the stage said: “Let’s enjoy this spectacular mess! ”
Piaget, Papert, and Freire shed light on the learning process and emphasized learners as the center of Education. All three of these theories had some points in common. It is essential to understand the theorists and to see how each complimented the other.
References:
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed/Paulo Freire. New York.–London: Continuum.
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.