“Constructionism brings creativity, tinkering, exploring, building, and presentation to the forefront of the learning process” (Donaldson, 2014). It is apparent lately we recycle the terminology from Piaget days as Donaldson highlights it’s the rebirth of constructionism. Constructionism was a coined idea before the internet where consumers were just that consumers, rather than producers of information. In a day where anyone can produce material so easily it highlights a concern of mine which relates to a concern of Donaldson (2014). Are we just finding and using technology for the sake of using technology?
Welcome to the maker movement is the notion from Martinez and Stager (2014). It is now affordable to create or construct almost anything, people are no longer just producers of written material, they can create physical artefacts, metal, plastic or even an alternate reality. It sounds quite appealing, now that humans can produce anything. As fast as they produce and create new artefacts, the faster the technology becomes obsolete. Brown (2011) highlights that the dial up modem, windows 95, CD’s and DVD’s are all obsolete, yet they were so valuable and created a magnificent pathway of technology and development.
With this it’s a bitter sweet notion. The syllabus says we need to incorporate technology, and as a preservice teacher it feels like it is mostly for the sake of using technology. Sustainability is also needing to be a strong focus, yet it feels the importance of technology and its use in the classroom, far outweighs the sustainability interest. On one aspect we have readily available resources, which are becoming available cheaply, and we can create almost anything we like. A strong contrast; we have a lot of waste, and the practice is an environmental disaster. The ‘War on Waste’ saw the rise of the ‘keep-cup’ (I am surprised we haven’t got the option to print our own just yet) and plastics bags and straws vanish. “Oh yeah plastic, is everywhere” but what about the other worldwide problem – E-waste. Leblanc (2018) explain only 15-20% is recycled but 100% of e-waste should be recyclable. Leblanc (2018) states the EPA and BBC Panorama statistics indicate that 416,000 mobile phones are disposed of each day and in a year 20 – 50 million tonnes of e-waste are produced worldwide.
When considering the obsolete mindset, the technology we used in class, whilst it felt was initially engaging and could easily be joined by clicking circuit items together, felt obsolete. Why just create a circuit, and make small objects like a bag alarm, when you can easily build a robot, send it on a pathway to rescue an object and build those ‘21st century skills’? The initial excitement in class lasted 15 minutes. Meanwhile the more we produce, the more items that become obsolete and the more waste that builds up behind it.
Reference
Donaldson, J. (2014). The Maker Movement and the rebirth of Constructionism. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Leblanc, R. (2018) E-Waste Recycling Facts and Figures. Online Article retrieved 2rd June 2019 from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/e-waste-recycling-facts-and-figures-2878189
Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. International Society for Technology in Education
Fostering Digital Creativity in the Classroom 
Aidan,
Having had a look at your blog, I have to commend you on the truly critical approach you have taken to your posts in the past. I appreciate that rather than blindly accepting some of these concepts, you take the time to weigh up the ‘pros and cons’ and decide upon your opinion yourself!
As you mentioned in this post, I have to say that I share your concern that sometimes it feels that some educators are implementing technology into their classes tokenistically, or, using your words, “using technology for the sake of using technology.” I found your point regarding ‘e-waste’ very interesting, and believe this has been an oversight in much of the research regarding the ‘maker movement.’ Yes, it is great that anyone can make anything nowadays, but for what purpose? On the other hand, I do see the value of constructionism and ‘the maker movement,’ however I find that as educators we should be finding a ‘happy medium.’ We need to find a way to encourage creativity and productivity in our students without turning a blind eye to the fact that some of the things they make will only end up in landfill minutes, hours, days or years after it is made. I believe that the solution to this may lie in more long-term ‘maker’ projects, where students develop their ‘creation’ for a long period of time, aiming to make something truly meaningful and useful, rather than a series of short lessons where students create a collection of items that they are amused by for a short period of time before throwing them out. Perhaps the answer also lies in online creation such as stop motion film, game creation etc.? What do you think about this? How do you think we can best find this ‘happy medium’ of fostering creativity without encouraging waste.
A very insightful blog post!
Zali
LikeLike