Puttering, Tinkering, Building, and Making

Abstract

<jats:p>Instructional simulation games are models of the real world that allow students to interact with events and objects that are normally inaccessible within a classroom setting. Yet, simply using an instructional simulation ignores powerful learning opportunities. Papert advocates going beyond simply using models. He promotes a fundamental change in how children learn through his theory of constructionism. Instead of constructivism with a “v,” Papert advocates a theory of learning called constructionism with an “n.” Constructionism aligns with constructivist theory with learners actively constructing knowledge from their experiences. But constructionism adds that new ideas are more likely to emerge when learners are actively engaged in designing or building an artifact or physical model that can be reflected upon and shared with others. Papert’s theoretical approach to learning is relevant to teacher education and should be applied to instruction via interactive, multimedia, and computer-aided simulations.</jats:p>

Beyond the “Babel Problem”: Defining Simulations for the Social Studies

“…In the case of simulations, the specified domain is centered around understanding dynamic systems or human phenomena in as realistic a way as is pedagogically useful in order to ensurethrough the use of carefully crafted debriefing exercisesthat the learning is focused rather than haphazard (Crookall, 2010;DeLeon, 2008;Gillespie, 1973;Smith & Boyer, 1996). The presence of a teacher with a clear vision of learning has the ability to redirect students in ways that enable them to draw important lessons from the simulation that they may not arrive at if left to their own devices (see Feinberg et al (2013) and Wright-Maley ( 2014)). As such pedagogical mediation ensures that the other defining features of simulationsverisimilitude, dynamism, and participationcohere.…”

“…Such spaces have an “internal grammar” (i.e., the rules, design, and structure of the simulation), as well as an “external grammar” (i.e., the interactions, thinking, and sense making of students engaged in the simulation) (p. 221). Because the designers of simulations have control over only the internal grammar of the simulation, this limitation necessitates the mediating role of the teacher to ensure that the real-world lessons embedded in the simulation are revealed by students’ dynamic participation in it (see also Feinberg, Schewe, Moore, and Wood (2013)). Thus, even educationally-intended games undoubtedly suffer from the kinds of mismatches in focus that Nunan describes, because they lack for pedagogical mediation.…”